A week or so back Jerome Slater published a piece on the right of return, to which Weiss responded last Friday. Slater's response:
My blog on the right of return was a response to Michael Walzer's comment on the Dissent weblog that the “no Palestinian has even hinted at a willingness to give up the right of return.” My own blog--first published on the Dissent weblog--was primarily an effort to set the factual record straight: as I showed, many leading Palestinians have essentially accepted that the right of return can never be fully implemented, or even close to it. Those are the facts, and they are important facts--their factual basis does not rest on whether or not you believe that the Palestinian leaders I cite were right or wrong in making clear that the ror is negotiable, nor whether one is in favor of a literal right of return or not.
That said, it is also true that I think the Palestinian leaders who have made it quite clear that they will not insist on a full ror are right to do so, since there is no possibility that the Israelis will accept it, and they obviously have the power to use that as a reason--or pretext--to block a two state settlement.
Now, it may be retorted that there is no chance for a two-state settlement in any case, so why not stand on principle? My position is that while it is certainly true that the prospects for a 2ss are bleak, and getting worse day by day, there still is no other choice but to pursue it, since the other options are either undesirable or unworkable. It is worthwhile keeping the 2ss idea alive, in the hope that circumstances can change.
As for the merits of an unlimited right of return--independent of whether it is practicable--Phil and I simply disagree. He has stated his position last Friday--and before--and I have also addressed the issue in many of my writings, including at this site. What I wrote before didn't convince Phil nor 95% of Mondoweissers, and my position won't convince them now--so I think I'll let it stand at that.
First thing that comes to mind is the use of the word “Israelis”. It is important to understand that only Jews fit the qualification of “Israelis” just as it is used in context here. We are back to a Jewish state with guest workers that we call citizens when we wish to pull the wool over the eyes of outsiders.
In this context a Palestinian right of return is undoable, while a Jewish right of return is required.
A two state solution, in this context is: we didn’t get it right the first time, so let’s do it again and get it right this time.
There are multiple issues at stake here. If we solve one and leave the others then we have left our work unfinished. The acceptance of human rights violations leaves the door open to further human rights violations. Sure the Slaters of the world will squawk when it happens, but afterwords they will come in on side, just as Slater is coming in onside from 1947 under the banner of realism and practicality.
One of the “side” issues that is not being dealt with is the rights of the Palestinians inside Israel to equality, let alone not having to live in fear of the army coming in and driving them from their homes because of their ethnicity. This is one of the issues of right of return of refugees. It helps to safeguard ethnic minorities within Israel, and for that matter, throughout the world.
Great comment, edwin.
So let me make sure I have this right, Prof. Slater: Since the power of the Zionists and their allies was such that the Palestinians could be so completely dispossessed that even the hope of restitution was made impossible, we can now, as Jews, devote ourselves to seeing they get as little as possible? Maybe we could pick a day once a year to celebrate this, and make it a Jewish holiday!
Maybe we could pick a day once a year to celebrate this, and make it a Jewish holiday!
Maybe we could call it “Hanakbah”, or “Chanakbah”? Or the preferred spelling, “Ha! nakba”.
“What I wrote before didn’t convince Phil nor 95% of Mondoweissers, and my position won’t convince them now–”
Are you sure you don’t want to put “Mondoweissers” in quotes?
Ah, I shouldn’t be sarcastic. There’s nothing, nothing which gives a certain kind guy a ziocaine rush like declaiming “Might makes right!”
“My position is that while it is certainly true that the prospects for a 2ss are bleak, and getting worse day by day, there still is no other choice but to pursue it, since the other options are either undesirable or unworkable”
Yeah, those stupid Palestinians have just got to collapse and disappear sooner or later! And everybody (who counts) will be so thankful once they’re gone!
Good summary.
I would go further to state the that the two-state solution will be relevant and desirable until one of two conditions occur:
1. That the minority population in either jurisdiction is greater than 30-35% at which point the rule even of a majority becomes suppressive to a large number.
2. That a significant minority in each community vote for non-nationalist parties in elections, at which point the single state becomes a plausible form of self-governance.
In both cases, the social change is driven by election, not by external dissent.
“not by external dissent.”
Only Israel is allowed to have any allies or supporters.
>> I would go further to state the that the two-state solution will be relevant and desirable until one of two conditions occur:
>> 1. That the minority population in either jurisdiction is greater than 30-35% at which point the rule even of a majority becomes suppressive to a large number.
Ah, so this is why you advocate the bureaucratic ethnic cleansing of non-Jewish Israelis from their own country:
I personally don’t see a conflict with intentionally adjusting boundaries if the demographics change considerably to create a smaller Israel that is Jewish majority.
Very “humanist” of you.
Since the 20% of the Israeli population that is Palestinian is never allowed to have its parties join any coalition, they are frozen out of any meaningful political representation.
That’s not democracy.
And I doubt if that will change even when the Palestinians’ share of the population reaches 30-35%. (See Northern Ireland. For decades, the 1/3 of the population that was Catholic was frozen out of power. That didn’t change until external forces intervened.)
The only social change taking place in Israel is that it is becomming more extreme and right wing.
“What I wrote before didn’t convince Phil nor 95% of Mondoweissers, and my position won’t convince them now–so I think I’ll let it stand at that.”
Damned outside Northern agitators, don’t understand the South.
Oh, but then blacks were less than 30% of the population of the South.
The resolution of the issue of the Right of Return cannot be dumped on the Israelis alone. The UN General Assembly, which approved the partition of Palestine which spurred Israel’s expulsion of the Palestinians, will need to participate in the resolution and give its approval. That resolution will require both money and the granting of citizenship in Israel or elsewhere to every last Palestinian who remains a refugee.
The UN General Assembly gave its answer long ago.
UN General Assembly Resolution 194, of Dec. 11, 1948, called for the return of refugees to their homes.
The UN said nothing as the resolution is non-binding so not worth the paper it was written on.
Yea, the UN is used by Zionists when convenient. It was instrumental in their creation.
They use it tactically, but we know they hold it in contempt.
Nothing is binding on Israel, in your view, eee, is it?
Seriously — would you have Israel submit to any international adjudicating body?
No, Israel is rather a rule unto itself, the only right being might. -N49.
The same goes for the recognition of Israel.
What has Israel ever signed that was worth the paper it was written on?
At least the UN signings were more than one.
The UN resolution creating Israel was non binding also. The only reason Israel exists is that it declared itself a state and was able to defend itself against the Arabs in the 47-48 war. If Israel would have lost that war, it would not exist. It is a simple as that. The UN resolution was worthless because no country sent troops to Israel to help it fight its war. If you cannot back what you say, why say it at all?
No eee,
The only reason Israel exists is becasue it was recognized as a state by the UN. If the UN recognition was not paramount to Israel’s existence, then the Israeli leadership would not have made a bunch of empty promises (that it subsequently violated) in order to gain recognition.
If declaring itself a state was all it took, then Palestine would have a state today.
Why would any country send troops to help Isrlae seize land outside it’s borders and expell Palestinians?
>> The UN resolution creating Israel was non binding also. The only reason Israel exists is that it declared itself a state and was able to defend itself against the Arabs in the 47-48 war. If Israel would have lost that war, it would not exist. It is a simple as that. <<
I take it by this then that the only authority you recognize, eee, is that of force. Yes/no?
Phil, you copy? -N49.
eee
UNGA resolution 194, like so many non-binding resolutions, cites binding law.
Fact: 194 is non binding
Fact: If Israel would have lost the 1947-48 war it would not exist
What other conclusion can any reasonable reason reach except those I outline above?
Where there is rule of law, might does not make right. In international relations where there is no rule of law, might does make right. Why would anybody deny such an obvious reality? I of course prefer environments where there is rule of law and consent of the governed.
“eee” is an “expert in international law”.
Jerome Slater talks a lot of sense.
The so-called “right of return” is a fantasy that will never come true.
Stubbornly pushing this fantasy doesn’t help the Palestinians at all, it harms them. It only strengthens the religious and nationalist extremists among the Palestinians, and stifles those who want to start building a democratic society in which their children can finally live their lives in peace and prosperity.
It’s only natural that pointing out this fact would anger those who don’t give a damn about helping the Palestinians but are only interested in acting out their personal hatred for Israel and/or Jews (as some of the above comments vividly demonstrate).
“but are only interested in acting out their personal hatred for Israel and/or Jews”
How gosh-darned true that is, Fredblogs. As a Jew, I think we should ad an honorific to our name, in remembrance of our great historical accomplishment. We shall be known henceforth as “The Jews, Reducers of the Palestinians!” It will redound to our credit down through the ages!
Mooser,
As an American, why would you have a problem with that? After all, won’t the Americans be known forever as the “reducers” of the Native Americans? So what? And the Brits as imperialists? Who really cares what people will think of Jews in 200 years?
eee America once had slavery, the English used to burn (alternately) Catholics, Lutherans & Anglicans at the stake as well, would you be blasé about Israel instituting these fine policies? Although I shudder to think of your actual feelings on this, most of the world has decided certain practices from the past are too barbaric to countenance in the 21st century, apartheid is one of them.
So are going to pass your version of the Snyder Act like we did in 1924 to make up for past sins?
This is how you avoid such an “honorific” that Mooser has given you.
eee,
Pls quit repeating Goering’s defense of himself and Germany at Nuremberg. A lot of people died in WW2 so that we (the human race, not just the Jews, although it’s in their interest) could progress beyond your philosophy.
Richb,
Let’s see, 1924 minus 1621 (I giving you a break because the pilgrims landed in December of 1620) makes 303 years. The Biluim came initially in 1882. 1882 plus 303 makes 2185. So you should expect Israel to enact such a law a little before 2185.
Since people here seldom get a joke, I have to spell out that Israel has granted full citizenship rights to all the Palestinians living in its borders right after it was founded. Yes, there was martial law for about 20 years but in principle Israel did immediately what the US waited centuries to do.
Not true at all. First it ethnically cleansed about 400,000 more (in addition to the 400,000 ethnically cleansed before mid-May 1948), and then whatever Palestinians were let over Israel granted citizenship to. Oh yeah, don’t forget all that land Israel stole, and the mass looting of Palestinian property all the Israelis engaged in. How generous!
Sumud,
Did the Snyder Act return the Great Plains States to the Sioux , South Florida to the Seminoles and New Jersey to the Lenapees? Yeah, right.
Huh? I haven’t posted in this thread before. If you think I am posting under multiple names, you are mistaken. Even if that is allowed here (which I doubt), I wouldn’t bother.
BTW, love the further demonstration that the phrase “as a Jew” is 99.9% of the time followed or preceded by bashing Jews or Israel. It’s like they want to establish their bona fides before the attack to make it that much more damaging to their people (whom they reject).
Mooser is being sarcastic, and when he says ‘as a Jew’ he is not making a criticism of Israel but lampooning Sandy’s comment.
“BTW, love the further demonstration that the phrase “as a Jew” is 99.9% of the time followed or preceded by bashing Jews or Israel.”
So do I pal, so do I! We will get you nuts off our backs sooner or later.
Too many pronouns, not enough nouns in that post. Who is “we”, who are “you nuts”?
There is no need to insult the RoR, Sandy. It is not known as the ‘so-called’ RoR, it IS the RoR.
Palestinian Arabs were the majority in both population and land ownership, next to the Jewish population.
The only way a Jewish majority arose, was through the destruction of Palestinian society, and uprooting of nearly 800,000 Palestinians.
You can’t create a Jewish State such as it is, in a region that is predominantly non-Jewish without ethnic cleansing. That’s what happened. And racist, radical nationalist, imbeciles like you (and the new guy, Fred) can’t undermine that historical legacy. It’s not a myth, as much as you’d like to deny it just as you deny the existence, humanity and of course rights, of the Palestinian people themselves.
What you mean to say is that so long as Israel has the bigger guns and US support, it won’t, but sadly for you Sandy, maintianing the status quo is like the boy with the finger in the dyke. It is unsustainable.
The only thing I can agree with Slater on is that two states is the better option.
But knowing that his preference comes from his desire to have Israel retain a Jewish majority with Jewish ‘rule’ I can’t give him much moral credit for his choice.
It’s my belief that One State would be full blown apartheid, the Israelis would never extend to Palestines full rights and benefits of citizens ……that’s not the nature of zionism and the Jewish State.
Jack Ross quoted Tony Judt in a prior post today saying…
“The very idea of a “Jewish state”—a state in which Jews and the Jewish religion have exclusive privileges from which non-Jewish citizens are forever excluded—is rooted in another time and place. Israel, in short, is an anachronism.”
Which is true, and a more polite way of pointing out the whole enterprise was spawned and has been kept up by the zio cultish, primitive mentality.
That mentality is not going to change with a one state arrangement.
In a one state solution, Palestinians get the vote.
And that’s the end of the problem: game set match, because the Palestinians are never going to freely elect their oppressors. They will either allow the Jews to remain as minority citizens or expel them, which I personally wouldn’t have any problem with. To be honest, expulsion without criminal prosecution, would be a far better deal than the Israelis are justly entitled to, given their horrific behavior.
I fear the Israelis would pull out their usual bag of trick….I can see them now– passing a bill that gives their legislators 10 or 20 years terms or even life time terms to make sure Jews have all the control and fixing elections…we all know about fixing elections.
Calling zios……one of you explain to me why you think you have the right to return to Palestine after 3000 years and Palestines don’t have the right to return after 60.
Got any explaination except Jews are more special than anyone else?
It is quite simple. Mexico owned Texas, California etc. before the US. Why do Mexicans now need visas to go there? Are you for allowing Mexicans to return to these states or are Americans more special than anyone else?
“eee”, what’s your problem with US? Everybody knows they suck. Nobody here disclaims that. This website never wrote against that. Now what? What’s next? You’re only pulling a #3 here. The #4 then.
eee:
1. I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware of the refugee camps of Mexicans who were forced out of the Texas and California. Can you provide locations for those and a ballpark number of how many refugees are in each? Also, do they hold citizenship to any state?
2. The fact that the USA committed some crime today or 200 years ago is not an excuse, a justification, a moral precedent or a legal precedent for Israel to do something similar. Why is this difficult for Zionists to understand? You are the only ideological group that I’m aware of that tries to identify the lowest common denominator from other societies and set those horrific policies and acts as your baseline for legal and moral conduct. You should be ashamed.
3. Mexican citizens of the United States have full rights under the law, unlike Palestinian citizens of Israel. [And let's not even go into the suffering and legal status of the Palestinians in Occupied Palestine--or as you Zionists call it now, "Israel."] Which areas of Mexico is the US currently occupying? How many Mexicans are under US occupation? How much water is the US stealing from Mexican sources? How many settlements is the US building per month on occupied Mexican land and how many American citizens is it transplanting into those settlements? Can you name the leading Mexican or international human/civil rights group that have released reports on the US conduct and policies in the occupied Mexican lands?
4. I just added this number 4 to tell you I find you repellent and an evil, vile, despicable and dishonest internet persona. Unfortunately you have hinted at acts you have committed in your real life that make these adjectives apply to you as a human being as well. Your posts make me physically ill–not only because of the casual evil expressed and complete lack of empathy exhibited, but also to a large degree due to your lack of ability to look at Israeli actions in a logical rather than an immoral ethnocentric emotional way.
Also, you personify the list that Mooser likes to publicize, about the tactics of Zionist apologists (you suck, everything sucks, etc.). It is actually quite humorous much of the time. Face it, you are a joke.
Haytham,
1) There are 11 million illegal immigrants in the US, most of them Mexicans. Do they have equal rights? Of course not.
2) Each country has the right to set its own immigration policies. Why should Israel be different.
3) The US is occupying California, Nevada and Utah as well as most of Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado. What is your view about Texas?
link to en.wikipedia.org
Yes, the Mexicans under the threat of the gun “gave” these territories to the US. So if Israel does this to the Palestinians, will you be happy?
4) If you get physically ill from reading posts, I strongly suggest you don’t visit sites where Palestinian suicide bombers have worked their magic.
eee:
You’re making this too easy and exhibiting your ignorance and inability to reason.
1. Are Mexican illegal immigrants denied the rights that occupied Palestinians are? I don’t remember the last massacre or home demolition of Mexican illegals in the US. Do you? Do Mexican illegals have travel restrictions within the US that are enforced by the military? Again, until Mexico is under some type of occupation by the US, your comparisons will always be silly and inappropriate.
2. Israel has a right to set its policies on immigration. Unfortunately they have to be in line with international law and treaty obligations. Israel is in breach of many of these and this has been well documented. You may have missed this but as we have seen, you are not intellectually curious and facts do not permeate your brain.
3. Again, see numbers 1 and 3 of my original post. You did not address any of those points, which completely refute your ideas. Try harder, eee.
4. That is just stupid. How many Palestinian children, women and men have been killed by Israeli military or settlers? How many Israelis have been killed by Palestinians? You are a clown if you are comparing these two figures. link to old.btselem.org
I’ll save you the trouble of having to *read* the website I posted. From 2000 to 2011 roughly 6400 Palestinian civilians were killed by Israelis. In the same period, roughly 250 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians. You have exposed the fact that you are morally bankrupt by dwelling on the Israelis killed while negating the Palestinians who have been killed. Also, note that this does not include *injuries*, which the Palestinians have suffered in the thousands.
Haytham,
1) Of course the analogy is not perfect. Do illegal Mexican immigrants attempt to blow up buses in the US? No. Let’s see what happens if they try. I bet you that their movements will be limited.
2) Is Israel in any breach of international obligation in allowing Jews to come in and Palestinians not to? No. So what is your point?
3) The US took from Mexico most of the Western states. That the Mexicans don’t call it “occupation” just shows how afraid they are of US power and how in North America might makes right. Your argument is really that with enough time and intimidation Israel will also be able to convince Palestinians they are not occupied and that their land belongs to Israel.
4) I don’t know where you get your wrong statistics from but about 1000 Israelis were killed by suicide bombers in the second intifada. Nevertheless, the relative numbers do not matter one bit. The US always kills many more in its wars than it suffers casualties. So? It happens that Israel is the stronger side so naturally the Palestinians have more casualties. What is surprising about that?
1. Irrelevant. Israeli-Palestinians are not “attempting to blow up buses” and they are discriminated against as well. Even if some Occupied Palestinians are “attempting to blow up buses,” collective punishment is immoral and illegal. Also, Occupied Palestinians have none of the protections that are required for occupied persons under international law.
2. Yes, they are in breach of UN resolutions. If you have time feel free to begin your research here, as you obviously have no knowledge of your country’s history. link to en.wikipedia.org
3. No. That is YOUR argument. And unfortunately for you, the world changed significantly since the US stole all of its land from the indigenous population. Israel doesn’t get to “go back in time” and be governed by those obsolete rules. Sorry about your luck.
4. You don’t know where I got my statistics. Not surprising for anyone who has engaged in “debate” with you. [And by this I mean someone who has put forth good faith arguments and received responses from you containing unsupported lies.] This only proves that you don’t do very well in reading comprehension. There are these useful things called “citations” and “links”. I provided one to you to B’Tselem, the Israeli Human Rights group, that detailed civilian casualties. Knowing that you are fairly stupid (lacking in intelligence) and that you would be unable or unwilling to understand the figures if you had to look at them on your own, I also included them in my post. You are welcome to do what we call “research” and provide an alternate citation/link instead of just pulling numbers out of your ass like the lazy liar that everyone here knows you to be.
1) Don’t change the argument. Arab Israelis have full rights in Israel and certainly their movement is not limited. Since when is what you call “collective punishment” illegal? Everybody that flies in the US has to undergo security checks. Is that “collective punishment”? Calling Israeli security measures “collective punishment” is disingenuous.
2) No, Israel is not in breach of any binding UN resolution when it allows Jews to immigrate to it and does not allow Palestinians. You made the claim Israel is in violation, so either provide the evidence or concede the point.
3) Your argument is that the US does not “occupy” any Mexican territory. I have shown that the US took by force a huge part of the Western US from Mexico. You failed to explain why this is not occupation. I thought your argument was that this is not occupation because the Mexicans “agreed” to it. Obviously they were forced to accept it so that does not fly. So can you explain why the US is not occupying Mexican land? Or do you think that just by asserting that it doesn’t you can win an argument?
4) You are obviously looking at a wrong table because around 1000 Israelis were killed in the second intifada by suicide bombers.
link to en.wikipedia.org
1. Everything that you have stated in this section is a lie. This site has evidence of discrimination almost every day. It also has evidence of violence by Israeli military and settlers, sometimes indiscriminately, against Occupied Palestinians, multiple times a day. Lying gets you nowhere when the public record is so vast.
2. Lies. Hostage, myself and others have provided ample evidence. You are not some legal authority that I have to please. You go on pretending that Israel is not in violation of international law. The problem for you is, you seem to want to convince people here of that, and as I have stated before, your lies go nowhere.
3. I have explained this to you 3 times now. You have appropriately not disputed my assertions (made on at least two occasions) that you are stupid.
4. You may be right. Please go to the B’Tselem website I linked at look at that if you wish. If you feel it is wrong, as opposed to me having read it wrong, you can attempt to have them correct it.
As you can see, I am getting annoyed with your persistent lies and that that you do not address what I post and rather keep asking the same question without any reference to your disagreement with my arguments. I have no interest in continuing this dishonest debate with you. If you ever decide to argue in good faith–you know, by actually addressing my entire posts, rather than only one sentence or two–let me know.
I will not call you out on your lies. Others can do this. I am not patient enough to engage you.
Haytham,
You attempt to argue by making assertions that are blatantly false.
For example, you now claim that the movement of Arab Israelis (Arabs that are citizens of Israel) is limited. Of course you have no patience, because you are losing the argument badly.
eee:
More lies? You really have to stop. Where did I suggest Palestinian citizens of Israel (like me) are limited in movement?
you are losing the argument badly.
this is a favorite line of volleyboy and team shalom members over @ dkos. he loves claiming he’s winning arguments with…no evidence other than the rec’s of some of his team mates. you can scream palestinian israeli citizens have equal rights under israel’s laws til your blue in the face. you can even call it a fact, won’t ever make you right. y’know why? because we can cite examples of it as per adalah’s links.
do you expect to be taken seriously just because you claim others are loosing the argument? pleeease, go join volley and get team shalom to rec these crazy comments of yours. they’ll do it too.
Annie,
And you can point to Adalah’s links till the cows come home.
In what way is the movement of Arab Israelis limited? It is not. Show me one link that says that is so.
a) Arab Israelis have full rights in Israel and certainly their movement is not limited.
False.
1. 93% of the land is held in trust by the Jewish National Fund for the use of Jews wherever they may be in the world. That means the Palestinians (20% of the population) are only entitled to use 3% of the land. No provision to accommodate natural growth.
2. Palestinians are forced tro carry ID papers coded to differentiate them from Jews.
3. palestinians are subjected to Intense airport security, where all items are removed from the cases of Arabs
4. Palestinians are subjected to demolition of Arab homes
5. Palestinians are subjected to refusal of permits to rebuild them
6. Palestinians are subjected to prohibitions on land purchases, resulting in the overcrowding in Arab towns
7. Palestinians are subjected to architecting roads and bridges so that only Jews can travel on them
8. Palestinians are subjected to gross neglect of infrastructure and services such a water, electricity, clinics and schools, especially in the Negev.
9. Palestinians are subjected to th exclusion of Arab workers from wealth generating sectors of the economy
10. Palestinians are subjected to being fired for speaking Arabic rather than Hebrew
11. Palestinians are subjected to civersion or manipulation of water supplies
12. Palestinians are subjected to the erasure of Arab presence and history by building parks and forests over Arab villages
13. Palestinians are subjected to the desecrating a Palestinian cemetery to build a Museum of tolerance
14. Palestinians are subjected to removing former Arab place names from maps and roads.
15. Palestinians are subjected to Arab school curriculums being rewritten to remove Arab history and replace it with the Zionist history.
eee, have you checked out the demographics of calif and texas lately? almost 40% of the population is hispanic in both states. i’m not complaining. i like the diversity. there’s no comparison, none. we didn’t run out the majority the mexicans. thank god. they are american now and we are better for it. if a mexican wants to become a citizen of calif or texas they have as much opportunity as anybody else. more actually because they’ve lived here longer. our economy would be up shit creek without them, and where would we be culturally? hellllllo. wake up.
Are you for allowing Mexicans to return to these states
i can’t believe you are saying this. most of the mexicans who were here stayed. they are american. we don’t have or use the same concept of ‘return’ here as you do in israel wrt your law of return, which is rather unique. we didn’t ethnically cleansed the mexican nationals from the US when states like calif , texas, new mexico and arizona became part of the union. big dif. hispanics are a huge huge part of our culture. it almost makes me cry thinking of our country without them. it’s so infuriating hearing you make these comparisons. there is no comparison to israel, none. yes we have our racists. we’re not perfect. but it would be impossible to ethnically cleanse hispanics from out country. impossible and unconscionable, devastating.
With maxNarr back on the scene – “San Remo high-school football rules!” (w/ apologies to Bill & Ted) – and Fredblogs contributing to the Zio-supremacist cause, eee is clearly feeling invigorated! Sure, he’s just re-hashing the same old tired, immoral and hateful Zio-supremacist shit, but he’s doing it with vigour!
I tell ya, you just can’t keep a good Zio-supremacist thug down!
Annie,
Every sovereign country has the right to decide who can immigrate to it and who can’t. The US forced Mexico to give up huge tracts of land in the treaty of Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
Under this treaty:
“Mexico ceded to the United States Upper California and New Mexico. This was known as the Mexican Cession and included all of present-day California, Nevada and Utah as well as most of Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado (see Article V of the treaty). Mexico relinquished all claims to Texas and recognized the Rio Grande as the southern boundary of the United States ”
link to en.wikipedia.org
Don’t you think that Mexican farmers would be much richer if they could have freely expanded into the territory taken by the US? But the US decided that they couldn’t and the land was taken mostly by non-Mexicans, a huge transfer of wealth. So pray tell me, why is a Mexican moving to one of these states “illegal”? Yes, it is not exactly the same. The US took by force an area about 1000 times the size of Israel (I didn’t compute this exactly) from Mexico and then denied access to this land to Mexicans. Why? Because that is the right of sovereign nations. Israel has the right to decide who can immigrate to Israel, just as any other country has the right who can immigrate to it.
Of course, you would deny Israel this right that every other country has and then claim that Jews are special. But since this is what every country does, why is the Jewish nation special in this sense?
So I take it you would have no problem with the Palestinians declaring the Jordan to the sea to be one Palestinians state and throwing out anyone they chose.
After all, they would have the right to decide who can immigrate to it and who can’t right eee?
Shingo,
The Palestinians can declare whatever they want and they can attempt to do whatever they want. After all, that is what they did try to do in 1947-48. So what is new?
eee,
No it’s not what they tried to do in 1947-48. In 1947-48, Israel drove them from their land and stole it, or detroyed it.
Then they planted trees over what they destroyed to over up the crime.
eee,
Haven’t you heard of the Nuremberg Trials? And the Geneva conventions following? Why not just go back to the battle between the prehuman apes to justify Israel? Is that your lightbringer?
Citizen,
What does any of that have to do with the right of every state to determine its own immigration policies?
eee
The US LEGALLY annexed by a referendum of MEXICAN CITIZENS of the territories to be annexed. Your argument is sh*te.
What are you talking about? The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was not conditioned on any referendum.
Furthermore:
“The Treaty also ensured safety of existing property rights of Mexican citizens living in the transferred territories. Despite assurances to the contrary, the property rights of Mexican citizens were often not honored by the U.S. in accordance with modifications to and interpretations of the Treaty.[6][7][8] ”
The US DID NOT HONOR the property rights of Mexicans after the treaty. Of course the Mexicans in the US were for it…
do you have any evidence they evacuated the people?
Don’t you think that Mexican farmers would be much richer if they could have freely expanded into the territory taken by the US?
you are missing the point eee. were talking about citizenship. mexico relinquished land claims but the individuals did not. they were folded into the american landscape and became US citizens. those citizens have as much rights and opportunity to own land in the US today. there is no comparison. the US never kicked them out therefore there was never an issue of allowing or preventing a ‘return’.
Annie,
Come on. The US maybe did not kick out Mexicans but it did two very similar things.
1) It did not honor their property rights, so what good were the citizenship rights?
2) It did not let future generations of Mexicans in. It denied Mexico of the huge wealth represented by the Western US.
don’t give me this ‘come on’ stuff eee, there’s nothing analogous in our immigration policies and you know it.
It did not let future generations of Mexicans in.
coulda fooled me. as i pointed out the demographics for both texas and calif are approaching 40%, calif being the most populated state in the US. that’s not slowing down.
US maybe did not kick out Mexicans but it did two very similar things
ethnic cleansing is not the same (or ‘similar’) as not honoring property rights. one is a crime against humanity the other isn’t. our immigration laws do not resemble israels and we are not an ethnic nationalist state.
Not honoring property rights means kicking people of the land. What else does it mean? It is ethnic cleansing lite.
The demographics in Cali would be approaching 100% if Mexicans would have been given the right to legally go there. Why shouldn’t there be 100% Mexicans there as it was part of Mexico before the US took it by force? The fact it is only 40% proves my point.
I went to your blog. The Abu Iyad quote is very encouraging. However, when I searched for phrases from the quote (to see what was hidden beneath the dot-dot-dot aka ellipsis), the only copies of those phrases on the net are from your article.
Please post on your blog a scan of the page in which the article appeared, so we can see it in context.
I consider your contention that (from your blog):
“Instead of recognizing such a “right,” the Accord stated that the refugee issue would be solved in accordance with a number of UN resolutions, the language of which is complicated, but which was understood by both the Israelis and the Palestinians to make any Palestinian return to Israel conditional upon Israeli consent.”
…to be specious. I’m sure that’s how it was understood by the Israelis. However, it is clear from reading the statements of Palestinian officials, and for that matter the posts of their supporters, that the Palestinian side considers the U.N. resolutions to demand an immediate, full, unconditional right of return, regardless of Israel’s permission or the consequence to Israel of that return. That’s the only way to get an accord. Say something that the Palestinians think gives them the ROR and that the Israelis think doesn’t give them the ROR. Works really well, until implemenation time comes and both sides feel betrayed.
As for the wikileaks documents. Even if they were accurate descriptions of the negotiations, the Palestinian leaders didn’t agree to anything. A transient term of a deal that was never made isn’t an agreement, it’s a negotiating point. They could easily have had that idea in the working file because Israel put it in and they were going to insist on removing it before the end of negotiations.
Tell you what. Here’s what it would take to convince me. A (1) Palestinian leader (not his deputy), (2) up for election (3) announces to the Palestinian people, (4) publicly, (5) in Arabic that (6) he plans to negotiate a peace deal that will give up the right of return. The leader is then (7) elected and (8) not assassinated.
Anything less than that is too muddied by the pile of self-contradicting, self-serving lies like the ones you yourself described in your blog (from Arafat and others). They say “we’ll give it up” to the West in English while saying “we’ll never give it up” in Arabic to their people. Which is the lie? Unfortunately, they have said it so often to the people that the people internalized it. If they were lying to their own people, that lie has become the truth. They won’t give it up.
Wrong as usual Fred. The Palestinian side considers ROR to be a human right, regardless of any U.N. Resolutions, and thus a right that no leader can forgo on behalf of an entire population.
As for Israel’s permission or the consequence to Israel, Israel came into existence by expelling these refugees, so who cares what they think?
They didn’t agree to anything because, contrary to the mainstream hasbara, Israel rejected their offer.
Here’s what you pompous ass. No one gives a shit what would convince you, because it’s not about you. No Palestinian leader has the moral or legal authority to give up the right of return, get it?
aka elllipsis
I lol’d. Could you be even more condescending?
Kapok, condescension is one of the primary ingredients needed to produce Ziocaine.
Not everyone on here is a native speaker of English. Even those who are may not know what “ellipsis” are. This is particularly clear after Chaos4700 hilarious “gotcha” in which he called me out for misspelling “inept” when I had been correctly spelling “inapt”. Then he didn’t even have the good manners to apologize, just provided a personal insult.
I must admit, I could have left it at “dot-dot-dot” which everyone would understand, but I didn’t want you to think that I didn’t know what “ellipsis” meant.
No condescension meant, in that post.
I notice that there has been no substantive reply. So, since Mr. Slater isn’t providing the original article, does anyone else here have a scan or a link so I can determine whether the quote is accurate and what is hiding under the ellipsis?
The so-called “right of return” is a fantasy that will never come true
Yet strangely I imagine you view the right of ‘return’ for Jewish people to be a perfectly reasonable thing.
Yes, especially given that it is based on mythology about all Jews comming from a state most have never even visited.
Given that the Israelis have steadfastly refused any terms for peace whatsoever, I find Slater’s common argument—that right of return ought to be abrogated because the Isrelis won’t agree to it—unpersuasive.
We make a big deal about the rule of law, so why should we in this case do what the Israelis always do–cherry-pick what we want and ignore the rest?
ALL Palestinians have inalienable right of return under the law. Full stop.
What is to be done with the Jews who stole their lands and homes? That is not a problem for the Palestinians. Or the Americans. Or the UN. It is a problem for the illegal usurpers. It is their problem alone where to go when the rightful owners of the land are granted their rights. There’s a great big Sinai Desert out there and I suggest the Israelis make use of it. They are on stolen land and they need to get off it.
This is why Israel is so maniacal about Hamas. It has zero to do with terrorism and everything to do with the fact that Hamas is the only Palestinian political group with any clout that is NOT willing to sell the Palestinian refugees down the river and deny their right of return.
I think Slater is a version of the liberal Zionist gatekeeper, similar to the role Noam Chomsky plays for progressives.
They set the outer limits for immoral positions that must become articles of faith and therefore are “legitimately” allowed to be held by their respective groups.
As for Slater’s contributions to this, as you discussed above, a major one would be his beliefs that (a) Palestinian right of return is not practical and therefore illegitimate; and (b) Jewish law of return is practical and necessary and therefore legitimate.
As you pointed out, both (a) and (b) are completely subjective and cannot be called “facts.” Slater’s role is to explain these ideas, in the process referring to them in the same way that most people would discuss “facts,” and thereby legitimizing these ideas. Sadly, at this point in his career, he must be aware of this.
This makes him about the same as Richard Witty.
That’s the curse of Liberal Zionism.
Haytham, I agree with your assessment of Slater’s POV. Let’s see if Slater responds to you.
I wouldn’t be so confident that the right of return extends over three generations.
The law was written for current return, immediately following a war, not for three generations hence.
The right of return multiple generations hence, institutionalizes the national memories of historical injustices that led to the Balkan struggles.
The Geneva conventions did not intend to institutionalize a perennial 1000 year claim.
As the UN recently received an advisory legal opinion that the Gaza siege is legal, in spite of tens of thousands of presumptive declarations by dissenters that the siege was illegal and “everyone knew it”, that assumption did not turn out to be the case, or at least is substantively contested.
I do believe that demonstrable individual title claims do not have an expiration or dissolution date. Contested title claims remain contested until a color-blind court reconciles the contending claims.
Richard Witty said, ‘Give me credit for writing my comment above with a straight face. I deny the right of return (to Palestinians) after 3 generations have passed. But I nonetheless claim MY Right of Return to Israel after 2000 years– even though I have spent a grand total of 2 months there in my entire life!’
And what is the problem with that James? If Israel would have been founded in Uganda, wouldn’t the Jews have had the right to immigrate there? So what is the difference? The Jews in Israel have a right to determine the immigration policies of their nation state, wherever that state is. And we have decided that Witty can become a citizen if he wants to and Palestinians can’t because we do not think they are part of our nation. Witty has nothing to be ashamed of.
The Jews in Israel have a right to determine the immigration policies of their nation state, wherever that state is.
Notice eee mentioned only “The Jews” in Israel have that right. Given eee’s ideological justification for ethnic cleansing, then there was likewise nothing wrong about the “Aryan” Nazi Germans removing all the Jews from Greater Germany, and/or imprisoning those who were still there. After all, according to eee, they had that “right”. That’s what you are advocating as acceptable policy, eee, and its repulsive. And what is the worst is that you are too hopped up on ziocaine to realize it.
Tree,
How do you jump from the right of each country to set its own immigration policies to Nazi policies? Is what each and every sovereign state does a Nazi policy?
Setting an immigration policy is fine, evicting citizens is not. What is so difficult to understand?
tree’s larger point was that you have conceded that Israel is not a state of all its citizens, but only of Jews. This concedes that it is not a democracy, so it’s a major point.
Congratulations. You have admitted that your country is not a democracy.
Keep proving my two allegations against you: (1) You’re stupid; and (2) You’re a liar.
Haytham,
Well, for someone who claims to use “logic” you do jump frequently to unsubstantiated conclusions. The immigration policy of Israel was determined by the Jews in Israel who were and are the majority. If that would change, then possibly the immigration policy would also.
Israel is a vibrant democracy. I challenge any Western democracy to do as well as we do in the lengthy state of war we are in. It is so easy to compare Israel to Sweden and to find Israel lacking. Let’s see how well Sweden does under constant militant threat and terrorism. That does not mean that Israel is perfect or that we do not have to improve. We do. But it does certainly mean your standards are terribly biased.
Setting an immigration policy is fine, evicting citizens is not. What is so difficult to understand?
Nothing. So you are agreeing that the ethnic cleansing Israel did in 1948 and continues to do today is wrong? Finally. (And I take it that also means that you agree that the theft of land from few Palestinian that Israel gave citizenship to was also wrong.) You’re making progress.
And don’t give me this “Palestinians weren’t citizens of Israel” bullshit. The UN Partition Plan guaranteed their citizenship in the new country in which they resided. If it was OK for Israel to create a new country and deny citizenship to resident Palestinians, then it must have been OK for Nazi Germany to declare itself a new country and declare Jews no longer citizens, right? That’s what you are positing.
And BTW, preventing Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes is not “immigration policy”. Its ethnic cleansing.
>> I challenge any Western democracy to do as well as we do in the lengthy state of war we are in. It is so easy to compare Israel to Sweden and to find Israel lacking. Let’s see how well Sweden does under constant militant threat and terrorism.
Man, you are as dumb as you are hateful.
Your state of war was started by theft, colonization and ethnic cleansing, and it continues because of your country’s ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder. You’re not the victim you think you are.
“It’s easy to compare the rapist to the law-abiding citizen and find the rapist lacking!” exclaims the rapist indignantly.
eee:
That’s not how it works, genius. First of all democracies are not simply “majority rules.” You’re thinking of direct democracy. Democracy, as it is practiced in the West, entails other more complex rules, such as laws providing protection for the civil rights of minorities. Minorities. Hmmm.
Secondly, immigration policy was not determined by “the Jews in the majority,” at least, not if you’re claiming Israel is a democracy. See, in democracies, the government makes laws. The government is elected by all citizens, through voting. If only one segment of the population votes, what would you call that?
See, eee, in your simple little world, if the majority voted to silence the minority’s right to free speech, for example, based on the content of the speech (e.g., advocating for a boycott of products from settlements) that could be called tyranny. I know it’s counter-intuitive to authoritarians such as yourself, but that is not a functioning liberal democracy.
I know, I know, Israel doesn’t have a constitution. That’s not great.
If the United States had a referendum on whether Jews could practice their religion or not, and the majority decided that Jews will no longer be allowed to do so, you would be ok with that? Democracy!
Seriously, I can’t talk to you anymore. Buzz off.
Tree,
I’m glad you yourself found the flaw in your argument. The Palestinians were indeed not citizens of Israel. They were fighting to destroy Israel. Why should Israel grant citizenship to people that want to undermine it?
What I am positing is that if the Jews attacked Germany and declared that it should not exist, then it would have been ok if they had forfeited their citizenship. Why should they have been allowed to be citizens in a state they want to destroy?
Eljay,
Yes, yes, we have heard that one before. I am second generation born in Israel. What you say is meaningless. I am not a victim and do not plan to be. But I am certainly not a colonialist or whatever.
Haytham,
Again you are jumping to conclusions. Where did I say that a democracy is a majority rule? From very early on, Arab Israelis participated in the voting process in Israel. So what is your point? The government elected by Israel’s citizens, both Jews and Arabs decided on this law.
And I am very much for freedom of speech and minority rights and I think the recent boycott law went over the line and I am quite confident it will be struck down by the Israeli supreme court.
And of course I would not be ok if the majority in Israel would vote to not let Muslims practice their religion.
You have such a preconceived notion of the issues and me that you do not even try to understand what I write.
>> Yes, yes, we have heard that one before.
It’s great that you’ve heard that one before, but as long as your country continues to be the oppressor and colonizer, spare us your laughable victimhood statements and your immoral indignation.
I’m glad you yourself found the flaw in your argument. The Palestinians were indeed not citizens of Israel. They were fighting to destroy Israel.
And Jews were not considered citizens in Nazi Germany.(Some) Jews did attack Nazi Germany. Kristallnacht was the reaction to an attack by a Jew on Germany. What, you say it wasn’t all Jews? Well, it wasn’t all Palestinians that “attacked” Israel. Mostly it was Israel that attacked Palestinians, the majority of whom were non-combatants. You want to condone collective punishment for the actions of a few Palestinians, but refuse to apply the same logic to Nazi Germany. It is your logic which can’t see its gaping hole.
What I am positing is that if the Jews attacked Germany and declared that it should not exist, then it would have been ok if they had forfeited their citizenship. Why should they have been allowed to be citizens in a state they want to destroy?
And some Jews did that. You’ve just managed to justify the ethnic cleansing of the Jews of Europe. Congratulations on your perverted logic. You must be such a proud Zionist!
Tree,
You are scraping the bottom of the barrel. One Jew, working on his own and unaffiliated with any Jewsih organization, shot a German diplomat in the German embassy in Paris. That was the German excuse for Kristallnacht. Compare that to the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab countries completely rejecting the concept of a Jewish state. Jews never rejected the mere existence of Germany as the Palestinians did. Show me ONE Palestinian leader in 1947-48 that accepted a Jewish state or preached for a peaceful solution. So maybe not all the Palestinians were against the mere existence of the state of Israel, but a huge majority was. This of course cannot be said about Jews and Germany. Jews never fought to abolish Germany, they fought to change the regime there. Palestinians did not care which regime there was in the Jewish state, they were against it.
Plus, after the war, the Palestinian refugees CONTINUED to reject the existence of Israel and the Arabs refused to contemplate any peace with it.
If Israle were a true democracy, then the immigration policy of Israel was determined by all it’s citizens, be they Jew or Arab.
Israel is vibrant, but not a demoracy.
I challenge you to name any Western democracy that is occupying stolen land, stealing more land, ethncially cleansing the indigenous population and imposing apartheid.
last time I looked, Sweden was doing none of that.
First of all, Israel ios the ione doing all the destroyign and has been since 1948. They eben had to create forrests from imoprted European trees to cover up the crimes.
Secondly, you don’t get to expell people from their land and them deny them return on thegrounds they are not citizens. Israel agreed to allow them to return in order to obtain membership at the UN, then went back on it’s word.
And what about those it expelled after it declared independence? Are those refugees not citizens?
No eee,
It is you that is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
That is exactly what Menachem Begin did in 1982 to justify the invasion of Lebanon. The Israeli ambassador to Britin was sho tin London by a member fo Abu Nidal (not the PLO) and begin decalred it a break of the ceasefire by the PLO.
But they most certainly ejected the mere existence of a Palestinian state.
There were no palestinian leaders in 947-48 you idiot. The British expelled the Palestinain leadership in 1937. The Palestinian were leaderless from that point forth.
False again. The majority were oposed to the any conflict against Israel.
They CONTINUED to reject the existence of Israel beyind Israel’s borders.
Of course, Israel has ALWAYS reject the existence of a Palestinain state, in spite fo apparently accepting the UN partition that create one.
Not being able to get along with your neighbours is part of why your country sucks so much.
Richard Witty
The Palestinians claim for RoR is based on UNGA res 194, which was written BEFORE UNWRA existed. UNRWA’s mandate does not extend to RoR ( on the web under their Q&A section for anyone to read, even ziocaine addicts )
The UNRWA figure is cited by supporters of Israeli expansionism, NOT the Palestinians themselves.
UNGA Res 194 was written on the basis of the pre-existing Refugee Convention definition, a person must have lived in the region or return. No lineal descendants.
The life expectancy TODAY for a Palestine refugee of 1948 is 74. In 1948 it was much lower. The notion there was a demographic threat from a minority in 1948 is idiotic and mathematically impossible.
Today there is even less likelihood of any demographic threat. Palestine refugees from 1948 are all at least 63 yrs of age MINIMUM. There are NONE younger. Palestine refugees are are not superhuman, they die through old age, there cannot possibly be more today than there were yesterday or in 1948.
Logic and simple maths tell us the Israeli narrative surrounding Palestine refugees and RoR being a demographic threat is complete BULLSH*T!. It also tells us that supporters for Israrel’s expansionist policies are either incapable of logical thought,(stupid) or they’re willing perpetrators of illogical Israeli propaganda.
—
I agree Israel’s siege of Gaza is legal. The UN did not however, say Israel’s method of enforcement was legal in the case of the Marvi Marmara. Nor did they say activists attempting to break the blockade acted illegally.
The law was written for current return, immediately following a war, not for three generations hence.
Yes, and if Israel had been just, they would have granted that right immediately, but they didn’t. Richard, the right of return extends until it is actually offered and accepted (or refused) by the party with the right, or his or her heirs, if the party did not get the chance to make the choice during his lifetime. That’s why your wife has been given the right to become a Hungarian citizen if she so chooses.
Anything other than that allows the offending party to “run out the clock” and hope for a quick death of the denied. That not justice.
The Geneva conventions did not intend to institutionalize a perennial 1000 year claim.
For an accountant you have a poor sense of numbers. 1948 is only 63 years ago, not 1000. But its good to know where you stand on the Jewish law of “return”, based as it is on a 2000 year old claim, especially since those that actually left during that time, already had the choice to return if they so desired, and chose not to, multiple generations ago.
Talknic,
I suggest that the right of return for those individuals that were displaced in 1948 be allowed to return to Israel.
Its the expansion of that to anyone that claims any descendence from any Palestinian to anywhere in prospective Palestine, that I dispute, and that proponents assert.
It is a critical ambiguity in the BDS demands for example.
In iterating the “2000 year claim”, as “right of return” you are not addressing my views stated here at all, but some strawman, a cute slogan to ennergize your anger.
Witty, since you would limit the Palestinian ROR to the senior citizens still living from those displaced in 1948, would you also limit Israel’s ROR to those Jews still living who were displaced by ancient Egypt? If not, please explain your discrimination. Thanks.
It is a critical ambiguity in the BDS demands for example.
You really don’t know what the word “ambiguity” means, do you?
Of course BDS recognises the right of descendants of those ethnically cleansed from Palestine to return and compensation (as do virtually all Palestinians – at least on a theoretical level, even if they believe the right of return cannot be fully realised; see Slater above, or Rashid Khalidi’s well-known distinction between theoretical right and implementation).
If for some strange reason you had any doubts, that damn first paragraph of the BDS Call makes it quite clear, stating that “a majority of Palestinians are refugees”. Obviously, “a majority of Palestinians” are not over 63 years old. Thus, when it calls upon Israel to “respect, protect and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194″ it is patently clear that it refers to the ethnically cleansed, their families and descendants. There is absolutely no ambiguity here – except of the manufactured kind that seeks merely to cast aspersions.
You disagree with the BDS position. You have a definition you like better, that makes you feel more comfortable, that would not upset the “demographic balance” in Israel (surely not the concern of Palestinians). Fine. That does not mean that those you disagree with are “ambiguous”.
If your actual interest in information on Palestinians’ lives matched your rhetorical “craving” for such knowledge, you might realise that it is only Israelis and their supporters who seek to restrict the number of Palestinians entitled to return according to Resolution 194.
For someone who never stops preaching compassion and listening and understanding and narratives and various and sundry “I shall nots”, you are awfully (and incredibly selectively) deaf to Palestinian voices.
Shmuel,
If by that you mean that anyone that claims to be a descendant of any Palestinian born anywhere that anyone anytime called Palestine (in the present or retroactively) can return to anywhere in Israel specifically (not West Bank, Gaza, or even east bank Jordan), there there is NO MERIT to the assertion that it is an affirmation of law in the slightest.
I thought the right of return had more direct connection to law than that vague expansionistic definition.
The ambiguity is in the usage. People slip in and out of their definitions that they apply and publicize.
“All of Israel is occupied” or “West Bank is occupied”
And you accuse me of wishful thinking.
Take a look around at what people say.
You are obfuscating Richard. There are UNHCR definitions of who constitutes a refugee (and UNRWA definitions of who is entitled to benefits as a refugee – not the same definition). The “maximalist” definition you attribute to BDS and to Palestinians (if only as “ambiguity”) exists nowhere but in your own mind.
Speaking of “what people say”, try listening to what Palestinians actually say rather than to what you imagine them to be saying.
>> Its the expansion of that to anyone that claims any descendence from any Palestinian to anywhere in prospective Palestine, that I dispute …
But why would you dispute it? Live #AND# let live, yes? Since RoR doesn’t interfere with your right to live in your country, and since there’s no valid reason to believe it will interfere with the right of existing Israelis to continue living in their country, your opposition to it is hypocritical.
Oh, that’s right – you’re a hypocrite.
>> The ambiguity is in the usage. People slip in and out of their definitions that they apply and publicize.
>> “All of Israel is occupied” or “West Bank is occupied”
>> And you accuse me of wishful thinking.
>> Take a look around at what people say.
True. One day, people define themselves as humanists, but the next day they state that they “cannot consistently say that ‘ethnic cleansing is never necessary’”. One day people say they believe in 1967 borders, but the next day they talk about the vague borders of “enough Israel”. One day they’re talking about democracy and respect for minorities, the next day they have no qualms with Israel bureaucratically cleansing minorities out of a supremacist “Jewish state”.
It really is hard to know what people really think when they “slip in and out of their definitions that they apply and publicize”.
Shmuel: A question. Is there any way that someone could simultaneously challenge the Palestinian right of return after 3 generations but endorse the Jewish right of return after 2000 years? Is there any way these two beliefs can be squared, short of invoking God’s will?
Shmuel,
“Of course BDS recognises the right of descendants of those ethnically cleansed from Palestine to return and compensation”
According to the UNHCR
Shmuel (and eljay),
Richard Witty owes you both an apology for lying to you about no-one responding to his question about BDS and 1949 armistice line.
Eljay did – and Richard actually replied to his comment, so don’t let him tell you any different. See here, from my third point (“3. I’ve read eljay on this thread…) down, all documented with copious quotes and links.
How is dialogue possible with a compulsive liar? It is not.
Richard,
You are obfuscating again. The UNHCR (based on the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees – ratified by many countries, including Israel), clearly defines who is considered a refugee (and it is not “any Palestinian born anywhere that anyone anytime called Palestine”). There are specific criteria, accepted by BDS, which demands adherence to international law and compliance with UN resolutions.
As for the descendants of refugees (note: refugees, not “any Palestinian born anywhere that anyone anytime called Palestine”), the position adopted by BDS (as evidenced by its statement that “most Palestinians are refugees”) is clearly the one accepted by most Palestinians, which includes both refugees and their descendants. This understanding is also reflected in the 1951 Convention, in its recognition of the “Principle of unity of the family”.
Or when one day they are opposed to justice (because pemdulums don’t swing to teh centre) and the next, they complain about injustice.
Witty, WHY are you so intent that Israel MUST have a Jewish majority and a Jewish majority alone? Tell us what it is about Palestine’s native Arab population that you think their human rights should be suspended.
Remember, YOUR WIFE has right of return to Hungary. Why the racial double standard?
Is there any way that someone could simultaneously challenge the Palestinian right of return after 3 generations but endorse the Jewish right of return after 2000 years? Is there any way these two beliefs can be squared, short of invoking God’s will?
Who needs the Almighty, when you can invoke things like self-governance, mutual pain, gentrification, New England highways, perfect title, Hungarian anti-Semitism, and that wondrous eleventh commandment (self-referential, of course): I shall not hate.
I think I’m wittyed-out for the week.
My previous post was cutoff. Somehow “edit” doesn’t always work.
Shmuel,
The ambiguity about the meaning of the BDS movement remains. The perception of Israelis and those that affirm the sovereignty of Israel do consider whether the meaning of “occupation” is 67 borders or all of the land.
Its clear in some documents, and much less clear in others, and utterly conflicts with the positions of prominent BDS supporters Omar Barghouti, Ali Abunimeh, many others. That creates ambiguity as to what is intended.
Is it the legal and moderate form of the demands, or is it the maximalist form.
You stating “noone has adopted the maximalist approach” is utterly innaccurate.
When it is clear that you publicly clarify among those that express the maximalist demands, that that is NOT what BDS stands for, then it will be less ambiguous. But, that might entail criticizing a Palestinian cadre, rather than deferring, even if they extend beyond the discipline of the concensus.
On the Jewish right of return, it is not inherently legal. It is only legal because a sovereign entity offers it, as sovereign Palestine in the West Bank can offer it.
I’m trying to communicate with you Shmuel, not “invoke”.
Do you know of any other case in which right of return is asserted over multiple generations, so that there is some basis of legal comparison?
Or, do you acknowledge that it is new territory relative to the intent of the law?
Hopefully, the intent of the law would end up with Palestinian former refugees on their feet.
I find it ironic that you “invoke” the principle of right of return (as a principle, consistently not translating that into objective proposal), but criticize my “invocation” of principles that I understand as relevant.
You don’t find the principle of self-governance to be a relevant political concept?
Richard Witty said, ‘Sometimes I amaze even myself. Look at this question of mine, that I innocently pose to Shmuel
‘Of course, Israel asserts MY right of return, as a Jew, over 2000 years later, which certainly qualifies as “multiple generations.”
‘Even for me, justifying this double standard will be hard.’
Richard, referring to the ambiguity in a ‘document’ you yourself appear to have manufactured is hardly going to convince Shmuel of your point. It’s a pretty desperate way to try and win an argument…
Of course you could clear all this up in an instant and provide the link to support your claim that the BDS Movement “revised” their 2005 BDS in the last year to include “militant warring language“.
Why don’t you do that? You despise BDS but seem to be boycotting (that’s the ‘B’ in BDS) the issue now. It does me no harm but your credibility rating has never been worse.
Frankly I don’t know why Shmuel is giving you the time of day after you lied to him.
James,
That’s just the rotting mammoth in the basement, to borrow a metaphor from Doron Rosenblum – link to haaretz.com
There are dead animals of various sizes, in various states of decomposition, scattered around the house – such as the right to citizenship extended by various countries to the descendants of Jews stripped of their citizenship during the Fascist/Nazi period, or later waves of anti-Semitism (Poland, in the late ’60s for example).
Witty has no trouble justifying his double standards, ever. He just repeats his “ambiguity” mantra (the conclusive proof of which is “look around at what people say”), claims that he is trying to “engage”, and blames everything on “dissent” and the failure of posters here to use his favourite pronoun.
Shmuel,
It would be of enormous help to simply say, “Yes, I see how different people’s interpretation of BDS can be confusing, and that can affect one’s impression of what BDS actually is”.
I am trying to engage.
I am trying to convey to you some of the objections that liberals consider when confronted with BDS as presented by proponents, with the hope that you will take that seriously enough to address in some sincere way.
There are two clarifications that I request.
1. What do you mean specifically when you support each objective of BDS?
2. What is the range of meanings that proponents of BDS convey or even imply?
As Sumud referred, so far only Eljay has clarified that he means 67 borders when he says “occupied”, assuming that that means that Sumud means something different.
What does Ali Abunimeh mean? What does Omar Barghouti mean?
Clear or confusing? I’m confused.
“You have a definition you like better, that makes you feel more comfortable, that would not upset the “demographic balance” in Israel (surely not the concern of Palestinians). ”
I actually have not referred to “demographic balance”. That is some other argument that you presume that I am making.
I refer to the ability to distinguish which individuals have a right to return and on what basis.
UNGA 194 was voted on in December, 1948.
“Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”
Three generations ago. Is it even a right?
Compensation is still owed.
Richard,
It would be an even greater help for you to say, “Yes, I see now that there is no ambiguity in the goals of the BDS movement, as they are presented in the Unified Call, although I continue to disagree with those goals. I regret having invented a recent change in the wording of the BDS goals, and having accused the leaders of the movement of dishonesty. I take back all of the vicious accusations I made against them, and regret the nasty names I called them.”
You don’t know how to engage.
Both Abunimah and Omar Barghouti have made their personal positions (and the positions of the BDS movement) crystal clear. They have been cited extensively on this blog, contribute to other sites and have written books on the subject.
You are confused because you choose to be, or choose to pretend to be.
Of course you referred to the demo imbalance Witty. Why else would you have stated that “ethnic cleansing is no longer necessary”?
Surely that implies that you felt it was necessary ( though you held your nose while others dud the dirty work), which means you clearly felt a demographic unbalance had to be rectified.
>> I actually have not referred to “demographic balance”. That is some other argument that you presume that I am making.
You appear to have become quite the compulsive liar:
RW: I personally don’t see a conflict with intentionally adjusting boundaries if the demographics change considerably to create a smaller Israel that is Jewish majority.
So, if a demographic change threatens the “Jewish majority” of Israel, you have no problem with bureaucratically cleansing non-Jewish Israelis from Israel in order to retain the “Jewish majority”.
Immoral (no surprise there), but not unexpected, given that you cannot consistently say that “ethnic cleansing is never necessary”.
No it doesn’t Witty.
The only thing that remains is your refusal to be honest about the fact that you are opposed to BDS because it is directed at Israel.
You yourself admit that you cannot oppose the true motives of BDS, so rather than be honest,you’re pretending that the stated goals of BDS are something different. And rather than present evidence as to why this is so, you merely claim that your interpretation of it leaves doubt.
You even made claims that the goals of BDS were revised since 2005, but in spite of countless demands to substantiate this claim, you gave deflected and stonewalled.
The only thing that remains is your credibility in tatters.
Keep trying Witty. Keep practicising and come back to us when you decided to be hionest about it.
In the mean time, go away and give your blgo some much needed attention.
How many times have we caught Witty in an outright lie? I’ve lost count.
I was hoping that you would respond to me reasonably and humbly rather than dogmatically.
You expressed some sensitivity to the prospect of forced removal of 550,000 Jewish residents of the West Bank.
But, when confronted with a person with different perceptions, you responded with “your perceptions don’t exist. There is no truth in them at all”.
How ludicrous a statement that is.
I stated my observed incongruities. You didn’t want to clarify. You preferred to call names.
An odd life commitment.
LOL! As if insisting on truth was “dogmatic.” Witty you are a LIAR. That’s not name calling. It’s factual, verifiable, scientifically proven information at this point.
We’re sick and tired of you slandering us.
Why should anyone respond to you at all Witty, least of all humbly?
No one “your perceptions don’t exist. There is no truth in them at all”. In fact, that s just the latest in a long list of quotes you juist made up. So if you consider it ludicrous, you have no one to blame but yourself.
You’re such a disgusting caharacter Witty.
You didn’t observe any incongruities, you simply made them up. When asked to justify your observations, you ignored the countless requests to prove what they weer based on.
How on earth can you expect anyone to take you seriously?
This is exactly what I mean about not knowing how to engage, Richard.
I and others here have demonstrated your perception (not your POV) to be false. Someone in your place who really wished to engage would either demonstrate the opposite, or concede that his perception was incorrect.
Instead, you simply repeat your unfounded assertions, and lecture your interlocutors on reasonableness, humility, dogma, sensitivity and name-calling – ending your own comment with an incredibly condescending swipe.
I expressed sensitivity to the prospect of the forced removal of settlers, because it would entail real human suffering. You offend that suffering by comparing it to your “right” to repeatedly express demonstrably false perceptions.
It’s always the same Shmuel,
Witty doesn’t want to engange. He simply wants to suck the oxygen out of the discussion and derail it. He lays little traps and baits people into dead end arguments about incongruous semantics and abstractions.
I still haven’t figured out whether he’s a pathological nasrsicist who craves the attention or if he is motivated by a single minded determination to tarnish the BDS campaign (and every other Palestinian initiative) using any means at his disposal. He has the gall to patronize everyone on this forum while protesting against anyone who dismisses him.
His ability to turn reality on it’s head is very Likudnik; like Netenyahu accusing the UN of hypocrisy for suggesting that Israel sign the NPT while he demands Iran be sanctioned for not ceasing activities legal uner the NPT.
I think the guy is very well skilled in playing mind games with people. Unfortunately, he’s a one trick pony and his chops are easily recognizable.
Perception vs POV?
I don’t see the path. I don’t see the arguments stated clearly, and I do see them stated ambiguously and dangerously so.
Even the phrasing “occupied Arab lands” implies an Arab imperial definition, an Arab expansionism. The language used is NOT Palestinian self-determination or liberation, but Arab.
Its confusing. I’m saddened that you don’t have eyes to even consider that that might be possible, the ambiguity in the call itself, and in the manner and association of objectives of its proponents.
Backbone rather than thought. Determination rather than sensitivity.
I’m also saddened that you are name-calling, and participating in the misrepresentative description of my views, including ALL of the fear-invoked litmus tests that Sumud and others continue to twist rather than find common cause.
The failure to find common cause with someone that advocates self-governance and equal rights under the law, as the basis of political jurisdiction and process, leaves only other possibilities of motives, less than democratic motives.
You don’t have to adopt the same literal application of those principles, but to express no respect for their articulation, ends up rejecting the principles, not the application of them.
I can’t force Hamas and I can’t force Likud. The most I can do is work to make the moderate middle the prevailing reasoning, live and let live, rather than either ideological.
But, you are in the ideological. Phil is in the ideological. You are fundamentally humanists, so the recognition of ideological partisanship has to grate your sensitivities, like being in an unsuitable profession.
You see what you want to see Witty, because it’s easier for you to pretend that the problem isn’t with Israel. All your infantile rhetoric comes down to is that you reserve the right to believe what you want to believe and ignore facts and reality.
Cut all the bullshit Witty and stop the lying. You’re contadicting your own story.
First of all, you said that the 2005 definition was clear to you and that you ageed with it’s stated aims. Then you claimed that you’d come across a subsequent revision of the 2005 stated aims, and suibsequently claimed that the post 2005 revision is what was ambiguous.
The problem is that you have never produced the link to the post 2005 revision on which you are basing your allegation. All you could come up with was a Facebook link that explicitly cites the 1967 border.
So how can that possibly imply any Arab imperial definition, an Arab expansionism?
Like someone said, you can’t invent comething that doesn’t exist and then claim it’s ambiguous. You’re not confused Witty, you’re just desperate and running out of ideas, so all you can do in the mean time is contnue your cheap and sleazy tactics.
You exhibit the same disnfunctuional personality traits as Adrian Lamo, the sleaze ball that turned in Bradley Manning. Like you, he’s another narcist who lied and deceived and went to great lengths, including destroying the life of a man just to get the public’s attention’.
No one reads your blog, so you hand around Phil’s blogs like a parasite hoping to get noticed, or the roadie of a band who hopes to get laid by the women that the band members are not interested in.
Don’t talk about backbone Witty. You gave yours up long ago.
The hell you can’t “force” Likud. How much money do you personally donate to Israeli causes, Witty?
>> and participating in the misrepresentative description of my views …
There’s no misrepresentation. Your views – which are archived on this site (and easily accessible via the search functionality) – have been quoted back to you, verbatim, on numerous occasions. If your own views disgust you, perhaps you should disavow them or, at the very least, amend them, rather than pretend you didn’t say them.
For example, you did actually say the following:
RW: I cannot consistently say that “ethnic cleansing is never necessary”.
Your words, verbatim. So, do you still believe this?
- If ‘yes’, stop bitching and moaning that your views are being “misrepresented”.
- If ‘no’, feel free to change your position or clarify your statement. Examples:
i) I condemn ethnic cleansing everywhere and always.
ii) I condemn ethnic cleansing everywhere and always except when I think it is necessary for [list exception(s) here].
Please, do feel free to correct our “misrepresentations”.
Man, I wonder what Phil and his brother did to Witty, lo, those many summers ago, which gives him such a pathological hatred for the Weiss family?
haytham
It’s interesting that you mention Chomsky and at least in this case, his position is not too different from Slater’s. I don’t wish to guess Slater’s motivations. Chomsky is someone I’ve followed more closely and I do believe he is sincere in his belief that the plight of the Palestinians can only be worsened through a steadfast insistence on right of return. He makes a strong case that there is no plausible path from point A to point B but ignores the fact that even without right of return there is no plausible path for the Palestinians in the face of total Israeli intransigence backed by the US. He’ll fall back on the old stand-bys–that outside pressure by common folk will in time turn the tide, but I see no evidence of that. Most of the world has been nauseated by Israel for 20 years at least. That hasn’t changed the grim trajectory of this disaster one iota.
As to my friend richard witty, he has laid out the matter plainly, if I may be allowed to quote from his forthcoming dissertation: “Me ‘n Israel: Best Buds for Life (Although I’m Critical of a Couple Things.”
Let’s face conclusions and also what happens when. If anyone is feeling the effects of how do we help navigate these difficult Israel things, then don’t you think we can do better? Zionism only means a place for the Jewish people, where we can write notes to each other on Jewish stationary and not have to be scared out of our wits by scary people who don’t want to be Jewish! There is so much hate in the world! I have to have my knee looked at—I’ll get back to you.
As much as I respect much of what Slater has tosay about this topic, his suggesting that the ROR is the “Unbridgeable Obstacle to a Two-State Settlement” is delusional.
The unbridgeable obstacle to a two-state settlement is Israel.