This article originally appeared in the current issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 40, no. 4 (Summer 2011):
In his speech to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on 24 May 2011, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared:
It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say: “I will accept a Jewish state.” Those six words will change history. They will make clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end; that they are not building a state to continue the conflict with Israel, but to end it. They will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace.
Palestinian recognition of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people has become a central Israeli demand that is being portrayed as an existential concomitant of Israel’s perceived security needs. Despite Israeli claims to the contrary, this is in fact a relatively recent demand, as Raef Zreik argued in the last issue of this journal. It was not raised in previous rounds of negotiations either with the Palestinians or with any other Arab party before 2008.
Be that as it may, not only has it been adopted by the current Israeli government, but it has secured growing support abroad from both Western governments and pro-Israeli and Jewish circles in the diaspora. In a major policy address on 19 May, President Barack Obama formally endorsed the definition of “Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people”—the first time a U.S. president has done so.
Meanwhile, the official PA/PLO position is that how Israel defines itself is not a Palestinian concern, and that the Palestinians cannot accede to this demand on two basic grounds: first, because defining Israel as a Jewish state prejudices the political and civic rights of Israel’s Arab citizens, who comprise 20 percent of the population and whose second-class status would be consolidated by dint of recognizing the “Jewishness” of the state, and second, because to acknowledge Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people would compromise the Palestinian refugees’ right of return, as there would be no moral or political grounds for them to return to a universally recognized Jewish state.
Negating One’s Own History
But even the PLO riposte, while perhaps valid as far as it goes, is to my mind neither complete nor totally convincing. The Palestinians cannot be indifferent to how Israel defines itself or how others are ready to define it. In the context of the struggle over the shape and future of the Holy Land, one side’s appropriation of a certain definition affects not only the rights of those who reside in the territory, but their very history and identity, their relationship to the land, and by extension their rights, future, and fate as well. There are, in fact, several deeper layers to this issue that warrant further examination and debate.
First, and perhaps most importantly, if Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, then the lands that it occupies today (and perhaps more, for there are as yet no borders to this “homeland”) belong to this people by way of right. And if these lands rightfully comprise the Jewish homeland, then the Arab presence there becomes historically aberrant and contingent; the Palestinians effectively become historic interlopers and trespassers—a transient presence on someone else’s national soil.
This is not a moot or exaggerated point. It touches on the very core of the conflict and its genesis. Indeed, it is the heart of the Zionist claim to Palestine: Palestine belongs to the Jews and their right to the land is antecedent and superior to that of the Arabs. This is what Zionism is all about, and what justifies both the Jewish return to the land and the dispossession of its Arab inhabitants.
Clearly, this is not the Palestinian Arab narrative, nor can it be. Palestinians do not believe that the historical Jewish presence in and connection to the land entail a superior claim to it. Palestine as our homeland was established in the course of over fifteen hundred years of continuous Arab-Muslim presence; it was only by superior force and colonial machination that we were eventually dispossessed of it. For us to adopt the Zionist narrative would mean that the homes that our forefathers built, the land that they tilled for centuries, and the sanctuaries they built and prayed at were not really ours at all, and that our defense of them was morally flawed and wrongful: we had no right to any of these to begin with.
The demand for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people has yet another dimension. It places the moral burden of the conflict on the Palestinians, and consequently, not only exonerates Israel from the dubious moral circumstances of its birth but makes the Palestinians the historical transgressors. Indeed, by refusing to accept the Jewish claim to the land, we are to blame for what has befallen us: had we accepted Israel’s claim during the Mandate years, the entire conflict could have been averted; we should simply have handed the land “back” to its rightful owners from the time that they began to articulate, at the dawn of the twentieth century, their interest in it as an actual—rather than spiritual—homeland. From this perspective, it is Arab rejection that caused the conflict and not the Zionist transgression against Arab land and rights. This is of course precisely why this Israeli government and its most ardent Zionist supporters want to wrest this recognition from the Palestinians, as it would absolve Israel of its “original sin” and delegitimize the Palestinians’ version of their own history.
Taking this reasoning to its logical (if extreme) conclusion, recognition would give Israel the right to demand a measure of retributive justice. If the Palestinians caused the conflict, they should pay for their “sins”: the Palestinian refugees should not be compensated for their dispossession, and the Palestinian people as a whole should lose any claim to equality or equivalence in any political settlement premised on supposedly painful or generous Israeli concessions. Certainly, the putative Palestinian state should not be allowed what Israel allows itself, whether this is the right to self-defense or the right to be free from foreign (i.e., Israeli) military or civilian presence on its soil. (Note the striking passage in President Obama’s address in which the flat statement that “every state has the right to defend itself” is followed immediately—and without a trace of irony—by the demand that the putative state of Palestine be “nonmilitarized.”) From this perspective, the Palestinians must remain on semipermanent probation as past culprits and potential future miscreants.
Recognizing the “Jewishness” of the State as it Stands Today
But, the argument goes, all this has to do with the past. Why cannot the PLO/PA extend recognition to Israel as the Jewish homeland as it stands today? In other words, why can’t recognition be seen not as an extension of a historic conflict, but simply as a reflection of today’s realities and as a means of resolving the conflict?
There are a number of answers to this. We understand that there is a Jewish majority in Israel today and that the character of the state reflects this. But we cannot sever the thread that connects the past to the present and, necessarily, to the future. A “homeland” cannot merely be a construct of today, with no implications for tomorrow.
And there is more. Israel’s Arab population is of the same provenance and root as the rest of the Palestinian Arabs—their right to be where they are is no less than that of the residents of the West Bank or Gaza, no less than the right of Palestinians anywhere to claim the land of Palestine/Israel as their patrimony. By accepting the definition of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people (indeed, “in any way it wishes,” according to the official PLO position), the “outside” Palestinians (in the occupied territories and the diaspora) would effectively be undermining the Israeli Arabs’ claim to belong to this same homeland. The land of Palestine/Israel would thus no longer be their home, and their right to be there would no longer have any historical or moral validity: Israel’s self-definition accepted, on what basis would they continue to reside in someone else’s homeland, and what grounds would they have to demand equal political and civic rights there to begin with?
By thus signaling our indifference to Israel’s self-definition, we would be dissociating ourselves from our kinship with the “insiders” and acknowledging that our common identity or fate has little meaning for us. In other words, the message to Israel would be: “Do with the Palestinian citizens what you will, because you can define yourself as you want regardless of what this implies.” The upshot would not only be prejudicial to the Israeli Arabs’ political and civil rights, but a dissolution of the ties that have shaped a common Palestinian identity across the boundaries of a nominal and entirely arbitrary line drawn on a map in 1949. In this context, and in defense of the rights of the Arab minority in Israel, the PLO (and the international community) could as well demand as a precondition for peace that Israel define itself as a state for all its citizens—a demand that is certainly more consistent with the Western liberal tradition that Israel purports to represent than its claim to ethno-religious exclusivity.
The language of homelands is deeply problematic, especially when it involves diametrically opposed and deep-seated narratives. The formulation “Israel as the state of the Jewish people” leads us back to the same political and ideological impasse as “Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people,” as it is based on the same premise. “Two states for two peoples” begs the question of who these two peoples are: Is Israel the state of all its peoples, or just a Jewish state? How Israel defines itself is of profound import to the Palestinians and the nature of any potential settlement. To call on the Palestinians to recognize the Israeli state as the homeland of the Jewish people is to take a decisive stand against the Palestinians’ history, narrative, and political rights. The international community must understand and recognize this as it moves toward accepting Israel’s demands. The Israelis and the Jewish communities across the world must reconcile themselves to a peace that is based on other foundations than this.
The Palestinians (as represented by the PLO) have already formally recognized both the reality of the State of Israel and “its right to live in peace and security,” per the 9 September 1993 letter from PLO chairman Yasir Arafat to Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin. The recognition was doubly reinforced by the two subsequent amendments of the PLO charter, in 1996 and in 1999 (the latter at the demand of then prime minister Netanyahu himself). In any future peace treaty, the Palestinians may reasonably be further asked to accept the agreed borders as final and inviolable, to commit to a resolution of all outstanding problems by peaceful means, not to allow their territory to be used for hostile acts against Israel, to respect the holy sites of all faiths, and to undertake that a comprehensive settlement of all the core issues will represent a final end to the conflict.
What they cannot be expected to do is to renege on their past, deny their identity, take on the moral burden of transgressor, and give up on what they believe is their history. In other words, they cannot be expected to become Zionists.
Ahmad Samih Khalidi, a former Palestinian negotiator, is editor of Majallat al-Dirasat al-Filastiniyya, the Arabic-language sister publication to the Journal of Palestine Studies. A version of this essay was posted on Foreign Policy’s Middle East Channel web site under the title “The Palestinians Cannot Be Zionists” on 15 June 2011 and this article appears in the current issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 40, no. 4 (Summer 2011).
“Those six words will change history ” and Israel, standing over her as she lies prostrate on the floor , her jaw broken again says ” honey , just say you love me ” .
>> … and Israel, standing over her as she lies prostrate on the floor , her jaw broken again says ” honey , just say you love me ” .
The rapist, as he continues to violently rape his victim and ward off her feeble blows, growls at her, “Tell me I’m a nice man!”
And the “humanist” Zio-supremacist nods in approval and proceeds to lecture the victim: “Yes, you must ‘humanize’ the rapist. Not only was he abused as a child, but even now he suffers from your ‘aggression’. Is his suffering less important than yours? Of course not. So I urge you to ignore the ‘dissenters who support your struggle and who call for the rapist – at the very least – to halt his rape. They are simply being ‘maximalist’ and ‘destabilizing’. So, go ahead, make the ‘better wheel’. Live #AND# let live! After all, this is about peace, not ‘justice’.”
Yes, it reminds me of this:
link to youtube.com
Exactly seafoid.
The analogy that comes to my mind is this:
Expecting the Palestinians to swear off revenge against the Zionists is like the husband of the rape victim being forced to accept that the cops know who the rapist is, but that the rapist is too politicially connected to prosecute.
Expecting the Palestinians to agree to a two-state solution with the Zios, and give up 78% of Palestine to the invaders, is like asking the husband of the rape victim to agree that his wife was a whore who “had it coming.”
Expecting the Palestinians to agree to “Israel as a Jewish State” is like requiring the rape victim, herself, to belief that the rapist had every right to brutally rape her.
And expecting 6 words to change the behaviour of a predatory and extremely violent and volatile psychopath is naive.
Right. The words of the peace treaty are what matters, and no words should be given in advance. Not as to territory (tho there seems to be a PLO agreement to the 78% / 22% division), not as to the words in the national anthems (you know, “We sing the song of the Jewish state tra-la-la”).
As to a “Jewish state”, both sides in the peace treaty should refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of the other.
Of course, Palestinians might not make peace UNTIL Israel agrees in the treaty to guarantee certain rights to Israeli-Palestinians and perhaps also to return for all refugees, but that might delay “peace” by another century unless the world surprises us by turning on Israel.
You need to take history into account when doing your arithmetic. Of the original Palestinian mandate Syria and Jordan were the beneficiaries of almost 80% thanks to the British. The reasons were related to political developments that had taken place in the region between 1920 and 1922. The result was that Abdullah, an Arab from the Hejaz (now Saudi Arabia), was abruptly installed as the Emir of Transjordan by the British. In a British memorandum presented to the League of Nations on 16 September 1922, it was declared that the provisions of the Mandate document calling for the establishment of a Jewish national home were not applicable to the territory known as Transjordan (today called Jordan),thereby severing almost 80% of the Mandate land from any possible Jewish Homeland. Almost the whole population of mondoweiss has been plunged into historical amnesia about this to their convenience. In the end we are arguing about letting Israel have barely 13-14% of the original Palestinian mandate.
You need to take history into account
It’s pretty obvious that you didn’t. Transjordan was added to the Palestine Mandate after the Cairo Conference. The memo that you mention makes it perfectly clear that Transjordan wasn’t severed from the Mandate at all. In addition, the status of the mandate was not altered by the subsequent treaty agreements between the United Kingdom and the Emirate of Transjordan. See League of Nations, Official Journal, 1928, p. 1574, and Marjorie M. Whiteman (ed), Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 631.
Of the original Palestinian mandate Syria and Jordan were the beneficiaries of almost 80% thanks to the British.
The Ottoman Empire included multiple administrative districts under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Army of Arabistan – the Arab homeland. The Arabs had been promised that their British and French Allies would respect their independence. Declassified documents available from the UK National Archives prove beyond any doubt that those assurances dated back to the McMahon-Hussein letters of 1915 and the subsequent direct negotiations between the Sharif of Mecca, Hussein, and Mr Sykes, and Mr. Picot in 1916.
The result was that Abdullah, an Arab from the Hejaz (now Saudi Arabia), was abruptly installed as the Emir of Transjordan by the British.
The districts of Aqaba and Ma’an were annexed to Transjordan from Hedjaz in 1925. So, Hedjaz is actually part of both Transjordan and Saudi Arabia today. Abdullah acquired Transjordanian citizenship in exactly the same way that the other bedouin living in their homeland did – by operation of the 1928 Citizenship Law. Anyone habitually residing in the territory acquired from the former Ottoman Empire under the terms of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne were considered citizens retroactively (as of the date the Mandate entered into force):
the Mandate document calling for the establishment of a Jewish national home were not applicable to the territory known as Transjordan (today called Jordan),thereby severing almost 80% of the Mandate land from any possible Jewish Homeland.
The Mandate did not effect the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews to establish homelands in any other country. It didn’t define the term “national home” or mention the term ‘homeland”. Jews who immigrated to Palestine became citizens of the State of Palestine. The New York Times Company’s “Current History, Volume 13, 1921 reported:
In the end we are arguing about letting Israel have barely 13-14% of the original Palestinian mandate.
The Jews and their Colonial Trusts never purchased more than 7 percent of Palestine. The Jewish Agency for Palestine and the National Council of the Jews of Palestine (Vaad Leumi) simply granted themselves all legislative, executive and judiciary powers over the 750,000 Arab inhabitants of the territory they seized without benefit of any elections or grant from any competent authority. link to unispal.un.org
You never explained how a guy from Poland, who started out extorting money from wealthy Jews at gunpoint ended-up transferring title for stolen Arab property to a Jewish colonial trust. See With all due respect for the ‘blue box’
In the end, we are arguing about the right of the owners to return to their own country of origin; to recover their property; or to be paid compensation.
Very cogently written.
This makes a lot of sense to me. Israel can be a state and should be recognized as such–but it should be a state for all the people living in it.
Thanks for the insight!
>> It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say: “I will accept a Jewish state.”
Israel must be accepted as the nation-state of all Israelis, nothing more.
It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say: “I will accept a Jewish state.”
Netanyahu and Obama both parroted that demand, despite the fact that the Palestine Papers had revealed the Palestinian Negotiations Support Unit (NSU) considers it to be an example of racial incitement:
See “Meeting Minutes: Saeb Erekat with (PLO) Negotiations Support Unit on US Meetings” link to transparency.aljazeera.net June 2, 2009
The Palestinians will simply tie any such requirement to the definition of the “Jewish state”, including UN guaranteed minority rights, contained in UN GA resolution 181(II). During his recent visit to Turkey, Abbas noted that the declaration to be given to the UN General Assembly and the Security Council will include explicit references to General Assembly Resolution 181 and that the resolution declared the establishment of a Jewish state. The suggestion will include a quotation from the Palestinian Declaration of Independence of December 1988, which was based on Resolution 181 and noted specifically that the resolution “divided Palestine into two countries, one Arab and the other Jewish.”
link to haaretz.com
link to english.wafa.ps
If the US vetoes that language, it will be burying any possibility of PA or UN recognition of a “Jewish state” and paving the way to a one state solution. That’s something the US and Israel are trying to head off, but a showdown is long overdue.
Excellent piece.
Everyone can see that Netenyahu’s demand to be recognized as a Jewish satte is purely cynical and oportunistic, not to mention, a cynical trap.
The story of Israel is a story of broken treaties. Colonial states are all the same. The shafting never ends.
I was under the impression that Israel was declared “A homeland” and not “The Homeland”
that’s a pretty important distinction.
Also, i love this:
They will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace.
THE CONFIDENCE FAIRY!!!!! Who thought it was just reserved for right wing “economists”
“The Homeland”
It is Israel’s aim to force all Jews to live there, under the dictatorship of the Zionists.
Bingo. I wonder if Jews will figure out that real Zionists are not Jews in our lifetimes. The truth hides in plain sight if you ever go looking for it. The evidence of Nazis and Zionists working together has been around for decades and is even more accessible now then ever before. It is far more powerful than the Grand Mufti thing Israel has exaggerated. Eventually they’ll wake up and see the true face of Zionism…. I hope
Side note, the name “Homeland Security” has long bothered me since that’s not a common word in the USA. It’s been used for the USSR and Israel. Michael Chertoff has a lot to do with creating it and Chertoff is a dual Israeli-American whose mom was in Mossad. Chertoff’s company is also responsible for the x-’rayted’ cluster tumor-causing airport scanners.
Chertoff’s company is also responsible for the x-’rayted’ cluster tumor-causing airport scanners.
do you have any links about this? i found it very weird all it took was one underpants bomber or his ilk to ignite this billion dollar profit making enterprise. i’m one of those people who refuse to stand in it and have to wait to get patted down. if everyone refused they’d have to scrap them.
wow, i’ve never seen more lies in one post. congrats. where do you even come up w/ this stuff? OMG…
Ah, yes, DBG, the classic “u suck!!1″ maneuver. A staple among both Zionists, and teenaged e-peen waving testosterone drenched Call of Duty gamers.
Perhaps they should ask where their borders are, as it is pretty difficult to recognise a state which doesn’t even know where its own borders are supposed to be. Second if they must ‘recognise’ it, an exercise in rhetoric alone, then of course Israel is the state for Israeli people (which is to say all people under their control, regardless of their religion). Simple, the same as everywhere else. Unless Israel wants to be singled out for special treatment.
Once Israel has done both of these, which is asking for no more than every other state, then they can also be required to do the same of Palestine – recognise its borders and its sovereignty over all the people inside its own borders (which may include Jewish settlers of course). The same requirements should be made of both states, and should be equal. Surely Israel isn’t expecting special treatment? Or doesn’t it believe in equal rights for all citizens, just for a preferred class of people?
From A Psychohistory of Zionism by Jay Y. Gonen, Mason/Charter, New York 1975, p. 193-4.
Very interesting, Galen. So ‘recognition’ of Israel must precede any agreement of where it actually is, in order that once ‘recognised’ it can continue expanding, claiming that the Palestinians have agreed to its ‘existence’. Or in other words, recognising Israel means agreeing to their own lack of recognition, or their own existence, except in whatever ghettos and barricaded enclaves Israel decides they are allowed to have. Not much of a bargain there, then.
In other words, recognize that it all beloongs to us so we can then decide what parts of our land we are prepared to give you.
Ray McGovern says that was the reason Israel wouldn’t accept LBJ’s offer of an alliance with the U.S., that it would have required Israel to define its boundaries.
Netanyahu’s demand serves the dual purpose of sounding superficially reasonable while creating a precondition that the Palestinians could never accept, thereby making them appear to be obstructionist. The “right to exist” is as fundamental as it gets, and denial of that right is portrayed as genocidal. If the Palestinians can’t even bring themselves to recognize Israel’s right to exist, it’s all their fault. Khalidi explains how this demand is a non-starter. How can the Palestinians accept permanent second-class status for non-Jewish citizens, who would have fewer rights than not only Israeli Jews but Diaspora Jews as well. How can they accept my right to move to their place of birth and assert superior rights and status, when I and many other Diaspora Jews reject that unwanted privilege?
Should Palestinian negotiators adopt the same tactic, though far more honestly? What if they demand that Israel accept that any solution be based on the principle of full equality between Jews and Palestinians? Israel would have to reject this demand, as it not only insists on being a Jewish State that necessarily creates second-class citizenship for its Palestinians, but also insists that any Palestinian state be severely limited in its sovereignty, with no military and no control over its borders, etc.
As to Israel’s demand for recognition of the right to exist, Palestinians could respond that they recognize the right of Israeli Jews to live in freedom, peace and security, as long as Israeli Jews acknowledge that they must live as equals rather than rulers, and that Palestinians have the same right to freedom, peace and security.
>> Should Palestinian negotiators adopt the same tactic, though far more honestly? What if they demand that Israel accept that any solution be based on the principle of full equality between Jews and Palestinians?
Palestinian negotiators should very simply and very clearly state, among other things:
- that they accept the existence of the democratic State of Israel, the nation-state of all Israelis;
- that they accept the 1967 borders as the legitimate borders between Israel and the new Palestinian state;
- that they embrace the vision of these two democratic states living side-by-side in peaceful and collaborative co-existence.
They should then ask, among other things:
- that Israel accept the existence of a new, democratic Palestinian state, the nation state of all Palestinians;
- that Israel accept the 1967 borders as the legitimate borders between itself and the new Palestinian state;
- that Israel also embrace the vision of these two democratic states living side-by-side in peaceful and collaborative co-existence.
No condemnations, no negativity, no ‘dissent’ – just mutual humanization. How could peace-loving Zio-supremacists refuse such a fine offer! :-)
Palestinian negotiators should very simply and very clearly state, among other things:
- that they accept the existence of the democratic State of Israel, the nation-state of all Israelis;
- that they accept the 1967 borders as the legitimate borders between Israel and the new Palestinian state;
- that they embrace the vision of these two democratic states living side-by-side in peaceful and collaborative co-existence.
Even that’s a tough pill to swallow. If I were Palestinian, I’d find it nearly impossible to use the term “legitimate” in regard to anything Israeli, not least of which, its borders.
>> If I were Palestinian, I’d find it nearly impossible to use the term “legitimate” in regard to anything Israeli, not least of which, its borders.
I agree that, say, de facto would be a more palatable term to Palestinians, but I used “legitimate” with the idea of making the Palestinian acceptance difficult for Israel to reject or, perhaps more importantly, difficult for Israel to justify rejecting.
Following the actual unification of the Palestinian factions, not the current deferred, your proposal is THE answer.
Thanks for that.
“Palestinian negotiators should very simply and very clearly state, among other things:
- that they accept the existence of the democratic State of Israel, the nation-state of all Israelis;
- that they accept the 1967 borders as the legitimate borders between Israel and the new Palestinian state;
- that they embrace the vision of these two democratic states living side-by-side in peaceful and collaborative co-existence.
They should then ask, among other things:
- that Israel accept the existence of a new, democratic Palestinian state, the nation state of all Palestinians;
- that Israel accept the 1967 borders as the legitimate borders between itself and the new Palestinian state;
- that Israel also embrace the vision of these two democratic states living side-by-side in peaceful and collaborative co-existence.
No condemnations, no negativity, no ‘dissent’ – just mutual humanization. How could peace-loving Zio-supremacists refuse such a fine offer! :-)”
Richard Witty said, ‘Here I am lying, deceitfully trying to present myself as a liberal Zionist who favors the 2-state solution. In fact, I believe that the 550,000 Israeli colonists in the West Bank should have the right to hold on to the land they stole — in some cases, as recently as last week.
‘Deep down, I know that the number of Palestinians who would ever agree to the theft of their nation is close to zero. That doesn’t bother me. I can just blame them for intransigence, and piously continue to babble on about “humanizing the other.”‘
I notice you left out 5 million Palestinian refugee’s.
their is a problem the 1967 borders aren’t legit. hell no border recognizing Israel can be legit as none of it was legally gained. countries of the UN that have recognized Israel recognizition can’t be considered valid as in doing so they violated the very principles they swore to uphold.
pjdude August 24, 2011 at 11:34 am
More than 2/3rds of the International Community of Nations recognized Israel as it asked to be recognized, May 15th 1948 “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”
None have recognized any territory beyond the initial recognition, i.e., There’s been no recognition of any territory acquired by war, illegal annexation or illegal settlement.
None have recognized Israel as “the Jewish state”. Recognition has only been as Israel is officially named “the State of Israel”. It’s just another Israeli brick in the wall.
I’m not denying that. I am saying that such recognizitions are void as they are violations of previous agreements. um talknic. all Israeli territory was gained through warfare. I know you like to try and doll it up in the failed partian bs but the fact remains the reason Israel has any territory at all is because it took it through warfare. by pretending it didn’t your making excuses for Israeli crimes. they didn’t have any right to anything outside of the failed partitian lines but neither did they have any right to anything inside of them either. your agrueing that simply because they declared it some territory theirs and most other countries wink wink nudge nudge went along with it it was theirs legally it wasn’t. it was a blatent violation of agreements made that previous colonial possessions would remain with borders intact. You demanding the same thing all Israel supporters demand to be treated according to a different set of rules and give a pass to the violations of rules it did do. either the rules apply to everyone or nobody talk YOU DO NOT GET TO PICK AND CHOOSE. which is exactly what you are doing.
or if you honestly believe your bs take please explain how the zionists were going to gain control of that part of palestine from the legal owners without warfare?
“I am saying that such recognizitions are void as they are violations of previous agreements.”
There was a new agreement amongst the majority of the UN Members in the hope that it would bring peace. That being UNGA 181. Which afforded either party an opportunity to declare, specifically, an Independent Sovereign State within the recommended boundaries if they so wished, once the region was free of control by the British. Neither party was obliged to accept the terms. (no entity can be forced to declare independence).
Israel did and by default two entities came into being one Israel the other, the remainder of the Provisional State of Palestine, a non-self governing territory automatically protected under the UN charter Chapt XI and; over some of which the new State of Israel held military control (according to the Israeli Govt Statement to the UNSC 22nd May 1948, in the Israeli Government proclaiming territories occupied and in a statement in the Knesset). Not being independent of all other control it became and still is, impossible for the Palestinians to declare effective independence.
“all Israeli territory was gained through warfare”
Israel’s actual territory was declared per UNGA 181 with no registered reservations. Beyond the actual legal extent of Israel’s recognized Sovereignty, I agree. I also agree that pre- ’47 Jewish militias/terrorist violence played a huge part in UNGA eventually offering a two state solution. I also agree that the Palestinians, Jewish and non-Jewish were not consulted per the LoN Covenant and later the UN Charter and; from reading the official correspondence and argument put forward by the Arab States since 1920, they have meticulously followed the letter of the law.
“I know you like to try and doll it up in the failed partian bs “
Rather, a different approach. Seen through all the UNSC resolutions and official Israeli Government statements post Israeli declaration. The legal status on which the UNSC passes resolutions and which Israel is obliged to. Incrimination by Israel’s own words and deeds.
Partition didn’t fail. Only one party had to declare in order to make partition effective by default. Whatever lay outside of their declaration was not theirs and as independence is not, nor can it be an obligation to any outside influence or entity, it immediately fell under the UN Charter Chpt XI. The aftermath of partition has been a failure of the UNSC to enforce the law.
Israeli crimes in 1948 – 1950 are threefold; 1) Those contrary to Customary International Law (formed by custom of the majority), International Law (voted into existence), International Conventions existing before Israel was declared. All of which Israel was obliged to without exception before becoming a UN Member. 2) Those expressed by UNSC resolutions against Israel after becoming a Member. 3) Crimes against humanity by expelling it’s own potential citizens from within Israel before being afforded the choice to become Israeli citizens or not.
Beyond 1950, Israeli crimes seem endless, protected only by the US veto vote in the UNSC
“You demanding the same thing all Israel supporters demand to be treated according to a different set of rules”
Far from it. They’re the rules Israel chose to accept by A) declaring Independent Sovereign Statehood B) becoming a UN Member. In the latter, adherence to the UN Charter in it’s entirety incl Chapt XI
“please explain how the zionists were going to gain control of that part of palestine from the legal owners without warfare?”
I’m quite aware of their intentions pre the passing of UNGA 181 1947, up until and post declaration. Alarmingly after becoming a UN Member Israel stated their intention and clearly indicated they would NOT respect and acknowledge the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force if they were not given all of post 1946 Palestine. They have in fact carried out this threat and are still in breach in Lebanon and Syria.
Why do you think Israel fears Palestinian statehood? The reasons they voice and the conditions they demand just do not add up either legally or logically. Israel has ignored almost every and any obligation towards Palestine, a la Deuteronomy 20:15, per the Declaration of Statehood “THE STATE OF ISRAEL…; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; (BTW nowhere does it mention democracy and as of yet Israel has not written a constitution and no Israeli Government has been legally elected under a constitution)
Israel has made itself into a militant supremacist theocracy/ethnocracy with ICBM nukes; a very real and rapidly increasing threat to itself and to the whole world. A pariah among nations. Somehow, the Jewish State has to be redirected. United States must stand aside. UN and EU can then impose resolution just as involuntary, disruptive and humiliating to Israel as Israel has wreaked upon occupied Palestine for generations. The beginning must include Israel’s recognition of Palestine with UN enforced autonomy, eviction of all settlers, true contiguity encompassing Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem plus punitive reparations.
As Shlomo Sand points out, the Jewish people is a relatively recent construct and Palestine has never been its homeland.
There were Judean kingdoms in the Greco-Roman period, but by the Herodian period (and probably much earlier) most of the world’s Judaic population was descended from converts with connection to the Judean population that was more or less native to Palestine.
Use of the term “Jewish” to apply to anyone before the crystallization of Rabbinic Judaism (and Karaite Judaism) at the time of Saadyah Gaon (1oth century) is anachronistic.
I meant:
Well why aren’t we lobbying for the right of return for all Assyrians, Canaanites, Hittites and all the other myriad tribes of the Ancient Middle East? I guess they all have land rights there too. On the basis that if you have lived there at some point in history you have ‘rights’ we should include the Egyptians, the Romans, the Greeks and the Persians too? And the test for awarding yourself squatting rights is merely to declare that you are descended, without proof, from these people, and that you have a mystical folktale granting you rights in perpetuity.
We pro-Palestinians are lobbying for the return and national rights of an existing people whose fight against exile and oppression has been on-going for 63 or more years.
The ancient Assyrians may have lost their chance to protest for return by laying down the sword for too many years. (Of course, good point!, the Jews seem to make a straight-face claim for return to an ancient homeland without having made any notable “fight” to secure “return” for 2000 years. so maybe I;’m wrong about the ancient Assyrians.)
Samaria for the Samaritans, Etruria for the Etruscans, and Singhasari for the Singhasarians!
You’re treading dangerously close to Koestler territory. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Both Koestler and Sands have been debunked regarding this nonsense:
The Khazar Myth Debunked – 13th Tribe – Arthur Koestler Refuted
link to youtube.com
The Khazar thing is mostly used to be cruel, I tend to stay away from it.
Most discussion involving Khazars and Khazaria focuses on their conversion to Judaism and people fail to look past that. I think people should look at the Khazars and ignore the Jewish aspect or any of that 13th tribe and Ashkenazi stuff. Why? Because it’s almost like something is hiding behind it, something quite interesting.
Russians conquered Khazars, most then went Westward and assimilated among the people around Germany. Anybody who is German, Austrian, Polish, etc. likely has some Khazarian ancestry (and not just Jews). Khazars are often considered a Turkic tribe yet most ME sources say they were not Turkish and didn’t speak a Turkish language. They are described as pale white, bulkier and taller than normal, and often with mostly red or reddish hair and blue eyes. Some were blondes and some had black hair. The black haired had darker skin and was considered a separate and smaller tribe, but still Khazars.
The Amorites of the ME were described the same way as were the Aryans of Persian and India. The Amorite kingdom Ammuru once extended from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates and took up most of modern Israel/Palestine before they were conquered and became wanderers. Perhaps they wandered up to Khazaria. Or perhaps the Khazarians wandered down to the ME or even had come across Europe (Norse people were described with similar features).
What I’m saying is that if the Khazar/Ashkenazi theory was true, technically it is quite possible that Israel is their ancestral ‘homeland’ but again they’ve been so far removed from it (as have Jews) that they have no right to call it this. Ancestral homes don’t entitle you to land.
No they haven’t. Citing one historian does not prove that the other is wrong.
Post Israeli declaration, the historical context is interesting but quite irrelevant to the Law. On declaring, the Jewish People’s Council drew a line in the sand.
Nothing beyond that line is Israeli.
Israel has never legally annexed ANY territory to it’s declared, recognized, confirmed (by the Israeli Govt) sovereign extent.
Dozens of these “kingdoms” could fit within Luxembourg with their dozens of kings and tribes.
The term Jewish referred to the people of Judah. When people say “Jesus was a Jew” or “Jews killed Jesus” they usually mean it in an ‘antisemitic’ way. Jesus was not Jewish in the modern understanding of the term. He was from Judah. The NT takes the racist chosen people stuff and extends the ‘tribe of Judah’ to ‘gentiles’
I’m not religious and it takes non-religious people to point out the obvious. There was a time when the line between Jews and Christians were blurred and Christians were Jews. The “Synagogue of Satan” thing probably refers to ‘non-believers’ of the Christ philosophy. What we call Judasim today was mostly invented post-Christianity in Diaspora based on the old religion of Judah which was based on Sumerian/Mesopotamian beliefs (there are WAY too many similar stories for it to be coincidence). Not trying to offend anybody, people are allowed to believe whatever they want. But when it looks like a duck…. All religions (except Scientology) have so many ‘coincidences’ and parallels, even in remote isolated Polynesian islands, that it is kind of amazing.
wow, you have no idea about the history of Judaism. I love it when people who don’t have a clue what they are talking about try to explain something which they hate. It makes for a laughable experience.
are you addicted to accusing people of hate. is this like a bottle all the hasbaric zionists suckle? we cannot get thru one day around here without team zio accusing their adversaries of being hateful. meanwhile zios are plummeting gazans as i type, stealing land, oppressing them, etc etc and you can’t stop accusing others of hatred. it gets a little tiring, to say the least. it is like a broken record.
why don’t you do some of us a favor (say those of us who are not as familiar with the history of judaism as you claim to be) and simply explain why you think charon is wrong. or is communicating sand incitement not part of your bag of tricks.
To be entirely accurate, Jesus was a Galilean and a subject of the Kingdom of Judea. He practiced one of the common forms of Judaic religion.
BTW, it was not uncommon in the 19th century for ethnic Ashkenazi specialists in Jewish history (e.g. Israel Abrahams) to question the full Jewishness (Yiddishkeit) of non-Ashkenazi Jews.
“to question the full Jewishness (Yiddishkeit) of non-Ashkenazi Jews.”
Exactly. Thank you for saying this.
Mooser
I came across a video on youtube of Sephardi racist Betar Jerusalem fans in Poland taunting the local Warsaw fans about the Nazis and thought that Israel is just beyond parody.
I understand your difficulty, but I think Fayyad’s declaration, of “whatever they want to call themselves, that’s their business” is the most relevant.
I think treaty documents that speak of Israel as “the Jewish state of Israel” can be understood as a name merely, as Iran is the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The name does not prohibit relation.
“I think treaty documents that speak of Israel as ‘the Jewish state of Israel’ can be understood as a name merely, as Iran is the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Of course, the difference is that Iran embraces a political theory (a theocratic dominance) that Israel supposedly rejects. So anyone examining the situation would know that such labeling by Israel is not benign.
The Israelis can’t, with a straight face, propose that it is a meaningless affectation. If it wasn’t harmful to the Palestinians and their political position and rights, the Israeli would have no reason to propose it. Thus, the fact that they do is reason enough to reject it.
IMO, even nations that have a form of Christianity as their official state religion (and a state church) are theocracies and hiding it. At least the Islamic theocracies come out and say it (not that I’m a fan of the concept).
Islam has elements of Arabian nationalism except it isn’t a race or nationality. Contrary to what many Israelis believe, all Muslims are not Arabs (only 20% are). What constitutes as being Jewish is more complicated and that’s another reason why a “Jewish State” even on paper is an issue.
Ironically, Zionism was created by an atheist. A lot of Zionists are atheists. You can be a “Jewish atheist” but there is no such thing as a Muslim atheist. Jewish atheism is kind of an oxymoron because they tend to cling to many religious customs and Talmudic beliefs (making them agnostics).
Anyways, the nationality thing often implies race meaning that “Jewish State” might as well be White State. Don’t trust what Israel says about their Arab minority population either if it were to be officially a Jewish state. Lastly, Israel sits on the Holy Land of antiquity important to all Abrahamic religions. I was surprised that 40% of Palestine was Christian in 1947. Nobody talks about this, that nearly all were expelled as if targeted deliberately.
The Levantine Palestinians, mostly Muslims but also Christians and Jews, have ancestral ties that date back 1,400+ years. Calling it a Jewish State when the majority population of atheist Zionist Europeans have only lived there for 63 years just aint right.
“all Muslims are not Arabs”
That means “no Muslims are Arabs”, but since you say “only 20% are” I assume what you really want to say is
“not all Muslims are Arabs”.
In English, the rule is that the negator (“not”, in this case) immediately precedes that which is negated (“all”, in this case).
I understand your difficulty…
No, no, I don’t think you do.
Noah Feldman seems to approve of Islamic states because their existence could provide a sort of ex post facto legitimation of the Jewish state.
Yet a Jewish state based in ethnic fundamentalist or ethnic monist principles, which define “good” in terms of benefit to a specific ethnic group, seems inherently more obnoxious a religious fundamentalist state, which defines “good” in terms of some modern religion’s basic moral principles.
Of course if the state religion defined “good” in terms of eating non-adherents, an ethnic fundamentalist or ethnic monist state would be less obnoxious than such a religious fundamentalist state. I am just not aware of any religion that talks about “good for the adherents” in the way that Zionists worry about “good for the Jews.” Usually religious believers try to do what is good in accord with the wishes of God.
The name does not prohibit relation.
Of course not. Fayyad doesn’t care what Israel chooses to call itself, so long as it ends the occupation that began in 1967, respects the Palestinian right of return in accordance with UN GA resolution 194(III), & etc.
See the JCPA article “Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s Position On The Right Of Return: A Commitment To Arafat’s Legacy”
link to jcpa.org
Hostage August 24, 2011 at 12:56 pm
JCPA = another Hasbara outlet.
The article is replete with fallacies and nonsense. It holds, but doesn’t state, the false premise that territories acquired by war by Israel by 1949 -1950 and never annexed to Israel are Israeli. I.e the odd notion that Armistice Demarcation Lines somehow change borders. (Therein lies the true fear of Palestinian RoR)
By paragraph;
1) The Palestinian claim to RoR is based on UNGA res 194. It was written BEFORE UNWRA came into being. (The UNRWA mandate does not cover final status. It’s numbers only ascertain who qualifies for relief and works whilst they are still refugees)
UNGA res 194 has it’s basis in the Convention preceding 1948 under which there is no RoR for lineal descendants. A person must have lived in the region of return.
2) RoR is an individual right. As such any country of return must vet them on an individual basis, whereby they have the last say in who may or may not be accepted. As they must agree to live in peace IN THE COUNTRY OF RETURN, if they are accepted, they’d become ISRAELI citizens. It is pointless for the Arab States or the PLO/PA to negotiate for anything other than the right be recognized for all individuals.
3) It does not give any “justification” to continue the armed struggle if Palestine becomes a state because Palestine cannot become a state unless it agrees to the adhere to the Laws of War, Customary International Law and Customary Conventions. (all of which Israel disregards with alarming regularity)
4) By rejecting “patriation” it does not limit refugee to return to Israel itself. Many are not from Israel, but from territories Israel occupies and to which Israel forbids them RoR (to their own territory) The Arab initiative leaves it up to the Palestinian state, should it ever eventuate, to repatriate according to it’s own determination. It’s called self determination, which the author fails completely to comprehend.
5) Is just BILGE. A Palestinian state would have no need for an agreement with ANY OTHER STATE to determine who it allows through its own borders. The guy is stupid or another fear mongering propagandist. The sentence about refugees and the Hague is just nonsense.
7) The demographic threat has always been a fallacy, relying on poor maths skills and dull minds. Only A PART of an already MINORITY fled or were forcibly dispossessed. The YOUNGEST refugee from Israel proper is from from 1948, 63 years ago. They are all over 63 yrs of age, less in number than in 1948 and all over the age of rampant procreation.
He then goes on to repeat the IDIOTIC notion of a peace agreement, failing to recognize that those who do successfully return will be come ISRAELI citizens, whose state, Israel, will have a peace agreement with an entity to which the returnees are not citizens.
Finally the notion that the host nations should absorb refugees. It is not their duty unless they are asked for asylum or an application is made to immigrate. The Palestinians do not want to live in some foreign Arab State and the Arab states have altered/drafted their legislation to accommodate the desire to return, by not offering citizenship so that refugees do not lose their status as refugees ( as Jewish refugees did by taking citizenship in a country other than that of return )
More at link to wp.me including an expose of the deceitful Professor Ruth Lapidoth article on the Israeli Govt website. Early statements by Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett and those in a Report to the Provisional Government by Prime Minister and Minister of Defence 17 Jun 1948
Like everything spewed out against the Palestinians by and on behalf of Israel, it’s twaddle
Hostage August 24, 2011 at 12:56 pm
JCPA = another Hasbara outlet.
I was hoping to clarify Witty’s claim that Fayyad didn’t care what the Israeli’s call their state. As you can see, the JCPA is demonizing Fayyad over his stated position on the refugee’s RoR.
P.S. The Armistice Agreements are not peace treaties. They do not prejudice the final territorial settlements. On the other hand, the provisional settlement established by the Armistice Agreements is unchallengeable until a new process of negotiation and agreement has been successfully consummated.
Re – the Armistice Agreements
Quite. I sometimes relish asking to see evidence of the alleged consummation some folk squawk about
As if by instinct, or robot. the fog of tired olde obfuscation wafts onto the scene.
So, the Hasbara merry go round grinds predictably on. Floating on a rancid sea of denial, far more expansive and turgid than the river’s wildest aspirations in full flood, but no bigger than a grease trap and as enticing as the flow of settler’s effluence
“I think treaty documents that speak of Israel as “the Jewish state of Israel”
There are none thus far. There is no international Law or convention requiring any such recognition. Nor has any such recognition ever been given by any state.
The state was OFFICIALLY named. “AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL“
Iran BTW is officially named “the Islamic Republic of Iran”
A few points. ( ‘scuse the length )
A) It is not a legal requirement to recognize other entities. An entity determines itself if it wishes to recognize another entity. The US policy for example says :” ..in the view of the United States, International Law does not require a state to recognize another state; it is a matter for the judgment of each state whether an entity merits recognition as a state. In reaching this judgment, the United States has traditionally looked for the establishment of certain facts. The United States has also taken into account whether the entity in question has attracted the recognition of the International community of states.”
B) Israel has never been recognized as the Jewish State by anyone. Israel is OFFICIALLY CALLED “the State of Israel”
C) IT’S AN UNBELIEVABLE ABSURDITY!!! devoid of all logic. It fits nicely with the other two Israeli absurdities. The demand for a Peace Treaty before Palestine can achieve Independent Statehood and RoR based on a Peace Treaty.
Let’s just follow it through to see just how shiny this Hasbara diamond really is:
OK Let’s say the entity that now exists recognizes Israel as a Jewish State and signs a Peace Treaty under which there will be limited RoR, then;
the entity Declares itself an Independent State and;
is recognized de jure with a Provisional Government which is recognized de facto by a majority of the International Community of States. Then:
the people elect a Government, which is then recognized de jure and;
IT IS NO LONGER the entity which recognized the Jewish State. Nor is it the same entity with whom Israel had a Peace Treaty and;
the folk who do achieve RoR by agreeing to live in peace in Israel, become ISRAELI citizens. No longer Palestinian citizens of the State of Palestine OR the entity with whom their State, Israel, once had a Peace Treaty.
It’s just another dry old dropping in the glorious Hasbara crown
—-
There is no actual Law or Convention or UN Charter Chapter (Palestine is not a member) under which the Palestinians are required to enter negotiations with Israel in order to declare Independent Sovereignty. Under the UN Charter Chapt XI non-self Governing territories are protected.
Under Customary International Law, Israel must first withdraw in order that the Palestinians declare effective Independence. Only the US veto vote in the UNSC has prevented the Law being enforced, thereby leaving the Palestinians between a rock and a hard place.
However, because of Israel’s actions before becoming a UN Member State, the notion that Palestine could become a State through anything but negotiations, brings into play all manner of legal implications which do not favor Israel’ expansionist ambitions Negotiations are an absolute necessary for Israel, the roots of which lay in 1948..1949 before Israel became a UN Member
The UN/UNSC cannot issue resolutions directly censuring non-members. “Israel” or “Israeli” does not appear in any UNSC resolutions until after it became a UN Member. Nor can the UNSC retrospectively condemn or call for action on acts committed by Member States before they became a members.
By the time Israel became a UN Member it had (already confirmed with the UNSC ) that it held about about 50% of the territories slated for the Arab State, “outside of Israel”, under military control. aka under occupation. At that time it was not a High Contracting Power. It was however a Regional Power and an Internationally recognized State, bound to Customary Laws of War under which the Occupying Power must protect the occupied, their property and their territory. Further to which what remained of Palestine after Israeli Independence, falls under the protection of the UN Charter Chapt XI
Israel did not attempt to annex these territories as required by Customary International Law since at least 1846, through a referendum of the actual citizens of the territory to be annexed. It has only attempted to annex territories it has had under Military Control after becoming a UN Member State. It was condemned. UNSC res 252 (+ 5 reminders and UNSC res 446). Same for the Golan UNSC res 497.
As a UN Member State, if Israel annexes any territory from the ’67 or the ’48 wars without an agreement, it would be condemned by the UNSC.
The only way out for Israel, is to negotiate with the Palestinians to accept less than their rightful due and declare their state under duress, which if recognized, will define the extent of Palestinian sovereignty.
There is a final step. As the International Community seems to have swept pre-67 under the carpet, no doubt the lid will stay on the smelly can of worms from 1948-1950. But let’s look inside anyway.
The territories Israel has acquired by war but never legally annexed nor yet recognized as Israeli and outside of the newly declared sovereign extent of the State of Palestine, would legally be a third entity, swollen with Israeli citizens. In order to finally legalize the extent of Israeli sovereignty over those territories it must gain International recognition of that sovereignty through legal annexation.
Israel will finally be forced to admit its lies after 63 years. None of those territories were ever in fact Israeli. By then I doubt anyone with be bothered with the whole stinking affair.
“First, and perhaps most importantly, if Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, then the lands that it occupies today (and perhaps more, for there are as yet no borders to this “homeland”) belong to this people by way of right. And if these lands rightfully comprise the Jewish homeland, then the Arab presence there becomes historically aberrant and contingent; the Palestinians effectively become historic interlopers and trespassers—a transient presence on someone else’s national soil.”
This is a superb article, but it’s also depressingly obvious. I say “depressingly obvious” because it is so obvious it shouldn’t even need to be stated. Anyone who has read even fairly mainstream books like Tom Segev’s “One Palestine Complete” would know what is wrong with the demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, even if we couldn’t be nearly as eloquent or detailed in our explanation as Ahmad Samih Khalidi. It’s a slap in the face to Palestinians, a humiliation, basically asking them to endorse their own ethnic cleansing. No one who endorses a two state solution should be asking this. So it is either meant as sabotage or else the people who insist on this are so ethnocentric they can’t think outside their own box. The fact that this needs to be explained tells you all you need to know about how incredibly one-sided the American conversation is regarding the conflict. Though if this idea also appeals to other Western governments then it shows the problem is bigger than I realized.
I liked David Samel’s counterproposal–any solution must treat both peoples as equals with equal rights.
any solution must treat both peoples as equals with equal rights.
The original UN plan did create a “Jewish” and an “Arab” state; contained UN-backed guarantees of constitutionally protected equal rights for minorities; and made no mention of the term homeland at all. The Palestinians have signaled that they will incorporate references to all of that in their upcoming declarations and undertakings to the UN. That’s as close as Netanyahu and Obama are going to get to any such recognition, and they will probably vote against the proposal.
“I liked David Samel’s counterproposal–any solution must treat both peoples as equals with equal rights.”
Yes, amazing that such an uncontroversial proposal is absolute anathema to Israel. It scares the pants off them.
WHY…is it necessary for Palestine to recongize Israel as a Jewish state?
What the hell is the point?
I can’t see it would change a damn thing.
It’s more like some bully demanding — Say Uncle! Say Uncle!
The Israeli bully wouldn’t get up off Palestine even if they did say ‘Jewish State, Jewish State!”
Looks like just another excuse and display of their sick little bully mentality to me.
It think it is to form a basis, in their minds, at least, to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian citizens of Israel, either by outright expulsion or by shifting borders. No other purpose seems to exist by which Israel gains an advantage (and if a state can’t gain, they don’t do it.)
“for there are as yet no borders to this “homeland””
Yes there are. The Israeli Government asked to be recognized by them AND WAS!
Israel’s borders were confirmed by the Israeli Government on the 22nd May 1948 in a statement to the UNSC;
Armistice Demarcation Lines do not change borders, they merely show where the armed forces of each party are at the end of hostilities and over which they agree not to cross. The 1950 Armistice Demarcation Lines were re-drawn in ’67 to reflect the position of forces after the “recent conflict” of ’67.
Israel has never legally annexed any territory. It’s legal borders are the same today as the day they were recognized. i.e., before it was accepted into the UN and before Israel’s first claim to territories (31 August 1949) which lay “outside the territory of the State of Israel”. It was refused.
Talk can you please explain what makes the land gained by conquest inside the partitian declared borders sacrosanct but outside gained in the same manner. Why do you feel 2 pieces of land( really only one) gained the exact same manner at the exact same time need to be treated so very differently.
pj I don’t think talknic is making that point at all. There are two issues:
1. Israel’s own declared and accepted borders, which they have tried to erase since 1949.
2. the actual ownership of land within/without those borders. Much of that land was stolen from refugees or by various dodgy pieces of legislation issued by the Knesset.
Arguing that Israel does have legitimate, declared and recognised borders doesn’t mean you’re arguing that the massive theft of Palestinian land within those borders should be accepted. I don’t see that talknic has ever argued that.
the land in side its declared borders were gained the same way as the land outside bullets, bombs, and other assorted missiles yet in his mind the conquest that result in those borders is ok. if the land gained out side is bad than inside is also.
pjdude August 24, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Sumud has it…
Territory belongs to the state and defines the sovereign extent of a state’s authority. The State of Israel was recognized de jure immediately the the USA as requested by the Provisional Israeli Govt May 15th 1948. (The Provisional Govt was recognized de facto and the elected Govt was afforded de jure recognition, albeit not elected under a declaration)
Had Israel been able to reconcile being a Jewish State with being a democracy and written a constitution, the system of laws it now has would likely not have evolved. Unfortunately no matter how devious, discriminatory or unjust the laws of a sovereign state are, they ain’t no body’s business but their own.
exactly my point the terriotry that Israel declared was its has already been recognized as that of a state created from the mandate of palestine. which was later agreed could not be divided. Israel took that land in war fare and than declared it as its own. Talk however much you want to slice it Israel had already started war before it declared it borders. you still have refused to answer the rather relevant question of whether or not those declared borders were gained through warfare or not. your coping out of defending the full rights of the palestinians and acknowledging the full crimes of the zionists in an effort to make a more plausible peace argument. but the fact changes which you refuse to accept is ALL OF ISRAEL WAS GAINED VIA WARFARE SO ALL OF IT IS ILLEGALLY GAINED. Israel cannot have legal borders. yes states recognized the nascent state but they did so in direct violation of international law and agreements already signed. I’m sorry but treaties are worth more than paper they written on and these previous agreement voids any recognizition of Israel as legiatmate.
Correction to “albeit not elected under a declaration )” …. it ought have been “..not elected under a constitution)
———
pjdude
You’ve got me way wrong….. I’ve long argued on behalf of the Palestinians (including pre-zionist Jewish Palestinians of the region). Although we can clearly see the injustices, there is no way back to 1948. It is however the starting point for understanding why the UNSC resolutions are as they are.
People need to be well informed and provided with solid evidence in order to clear the path of Zionist propaganda. The mantras attempting to justify Israel usurping the Palestinians need to be dismissed with well crafted, clean, logical and factual argument. Free of anything that could be seen as hatred, antisemitism or even favor.
No one is going to convince a fanatic, but by engaging with them other folk following the debate are afforded the chance to pick up on solid information and pass it on.
“Israel had already started war before it declared it borders”
To be precise, Israel didn’t exist before declaration. By not withdrawing Jewish forces on the 15th May 1948 from areas the Israeli Government confirmed were “outside the territory of the State of Israel”, the civil war escalated by Plan Dalet in the weeks preceding Israel’s Declaration, became a war waged by the State of Israel on the non-self governing territory of Palestine. As Regional Powers and UN Members, the Arab States had a right to attempt to expel foreign forces from the territory they represented at the time. The Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine was in keeping with the notification required by the UNSC Chapt VII. It was received by the UNSC without condemnation.
why do you refuse to acknowledge that ISrael’s declared borders were the product of violence and their for can not be considered valid. what amakes the not state violence and land grabbing of zionism ok to you but not the post state violence and land grabbing?
I’m not saying we should go back to 48( though if a reasonable chance devolps we should most defintely take a stab at at it) but to pretend in any way shape or form that the violence and crimes of the zionists was ok or legit like you are doing by claiming borders and land gained through war are are legit is doing everyone a grave injustice.
pjdude
I’m puzzled as to why you’re pushing this argument. Sumud put it quite correctly. Basically we agree.
“I’m not saying we should go back to 48( though if a reasonable chance devolps we should most defintely take a stab at at it) ”
You, I, the UN says Israel exists within those borders. The Israeli Government confirmed in 1948 that it did have borders with Palestine. It was recognized within those borders and accepted into the UN as such. What happened before, how it got to that point is of historical significance, but has no bearing on the legality of Israel’s recognized sovereign extent, within which it is a law unto itself, no matter how we might object to the ongoing treatment of non-Jews.
The day of declaration, when Israel came into existence is the starting point when arguing against the State of Israel. It’s the end of the thread, which when pulled, unravels the Hasbara. Completely.
With the knowledge that Israel does have borders, it’s easy to see why the UNSC resolutions exist and understand why the Palestinians have not accepted the sh*tty ‘concessions’ Israel claims to have offered.
Talk can you please explain what makes the land gained by conquest inside the partitian declared borders sacrosanct but outside gained in the same manner.
Briefly, the Jews and Arabs were all Palestinian nationals. International law distinguishes between international and non-international armed conflicts. The territorial integrity norm contained no prohibition against secession by the inhabitants of a portion of the territory of an existing state. In this case a transition period began when the General Assembly resolution was adopted on 29 November 1947 and the two nascent states were already in existence.
UN resolutions were binding on territories and people with an international status, but the resolution only retained a permanent international status in connection with the vicinity of Jerusalem. In any event, the implementation of the resolution was suspended on 14 May 1948 and the inhabitants were emancipated from the terms of the mandate. At that point, a General Assembly resolution was no longer binding on emancipated inhabitants of non-member states, except in the case where the parties concerned (e.g. Israel) were bound by the terms of their own acceptance – or when separate colonial administrative boundaries (e.g. Transjordan) were transformed into international ones under the customary doctrine of uti possidetis (which had long been associated with the decolonization process).
“When the Spanish colonies of Central and South America proclaimed their independence in the second decade of the nineteenth century, they adopted a principle of constitutional and international law to which they gave the name of uti possidetis juris of 1810. The principle laid down the rule that the boundaries of the newly established republics would be the frontiers of the Spanish provinces which they were succeeding, This general principle offered the advantage of establishing the general rule that in law no territory of old Spanish America was without an owner. . . . The principle also had the advantage, it was hoped, of doing away with boundary disputes between the new states.” — James Brown Scott, The Swiss Decision in the Boundary Dispute between Colombia and Venezuela. American Journal of International Law 16, 3 (July, 1922): 428-431.
In the Case concerning the frontier dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), the
International Court of Justice ruled:
“23. …The essence of the principle lies in its primary aim of securing respect for the territorial boundaries at the moment when independence is achieved. Such territorial boundaries might be no more than delimitations between different administrative divisions or colonies all subject to the same sovereign. In that case, the application of the principle of uti possidetis resulted in administrative boundaries being transformed into international frontiers in the full sense of the term…
24. The territorial boundaries which have to be respected may also derive from international frontiers which previously divided a colony of one State from a colony of another, or indeed a colonial territory from the territory of an independent State, or one which was under protectorate, but had retained its international personality. There is no doubt that the obligation to respect pre‐existing international frontiers in the event of a State succession derives from a general rule of international law, whether or not the rule is expressed in the formula uti possidetis.”
Transjordan had been a separate administrative area since 1922 and thus had no claim to the area west of Jordan river. Israel remained bound by its acceptance of the boundaries contained in the UN partition plan. The inhabitants of the Central districts of Arab Palestine opted to form a political union with Transjordan which preserved their right in any final settlement of the question of Palestine. The new joint legal entity was a self-governing territory and eventually became a full UN member state. But it didn’t consist of all of the territory of Arab Palestine (e.g. Gaza) or satisfy the national aspirations for self-determination of the whole people of Arab Palestine, i.e. the multitude of refugees in other states. Jordan (including Arab Palestine) signed an armistice agreement with Israel that established “permanent armistice lines of demarcation” which can only be altered by mutual consent. When the insurgent governments signed the armistice agreements, they recognized the exclusive legal competence of the other belligerent party to jointly establish the final borders. So, that was an act of belligerent recognition.
Under customary international law “Once the decision has been taken to recognize an insurgent government as belligerent, the legal consequences of the decision are not limited to its concession of belligerent rights. So long as it maintains an independent existence, the insurgent government is considered to have all the normal rights and liabilities of a State. Its legal position is not merely that of a military occupant as defined by the Hague Convention No. IV, of 1907. — See Ti-chiang Chen, “The international law of recognition, with special reference to practice in Great Britain and the United States”, Nabu Press, 2010, page 307-308.
So, under the doctrine of uti possidetis, Israel has no title or claim to territory East of the Jordan river and it is bound by its own acceptance to the boundaries contained in the plan of partition. Under the mutually agreed upon terms of the military armistice agreements, it is permitted to perform the normal functions of a state inside the Green Line. The Palestinians are entitled to perform the normal functions of a state on their side of the Green Line. Both sides remain bound by the terms of their acceptance of the agreement pending a final settlement.
There is a good discussion of most of these points here: link to soas.ac.uk
The following article by Avi Shlaim truly encapsulates the realities of Israel. Over years later, it applies with as much lucidity and pertinence as ever. It explains, in my opinion, why no Palestinian should ever be comfortable with the Israeli state.
link to guardian.co.uk
I take issue only with this. Shlaim writes, “I write as someone who served loyally in the Israeli army in the mid-1960s and who has never questioned the legitimacy of the state of Israel within its pre-1967 borders.”
Yet, he also writes, “Establishing the state of Israel in May 1948 involved a monumental injustice to the Palestinians.”
I can never understand these dueling sentiments, all at once recognizing the injustice imposed upon Palestinians by Israeli independence and accepting the Israeli state’s legitimacy. You can’t have it both ways.
The Palestinians could recognize; the Jewish People’s Homeland State as it was proclaimed to the US on May 15th 1948 and as it was recognized by the majority of the International Community of Nations and confirmed by the Israeli Government on May the 22nd 1948, before it’s acceptance into the UN.
Or they could copy the British recognition
Then generously offer to forgive anything pre – ’67. After all, they have nothing of Israel’s to concede.
The Palestinians could recognize…
But, why should they?
Exiled At Home August 24, 2011 at 2:51 pm
That’s why I used the word ‘could’
It’s nice to fantasize every now and then… LOL
For years Israel has played the fake concessions card. When in fact Israel has only been offering Palestinian territory to the Palestinians so that Israel can keep Palestinian territory. A different tack could be incorporated into the Palestinian debate especially at the UN should it eventuate.
I presume the UN/UNGA approach will be published. It SHOULD (not very often I use the word) contain links to five important documents containing Israeli Government statements relating to Israel’s borders as they were declared AND recognized, before it became a UN member State.
This is one UNGA session the Palestinians cannot have Israel and the US cannot walk out on because of anything that might be seen as Antisemitic or hateful. The Israeli delegation will be waiting for the slightest excuse. Don’t give even the hint of one.
Delete everything pre-Israeli declaration in relationship to Israel because it is on May 15th that Israel drew its OWN LINE in the sand. (except perhaps the recognition of Palestine as a Provisional State by the LoN (22 Para 4) before the Mandate was written confirming Palestine’s status as a Provisional State. A status that has never been revoked and which was a recognition inherited by the UN adoption of the principles of the LoN Covenant)
Include passages from (1) (2) (3) (4) (5 – probably inadvertent) all showing that Israel did indeed have defined borders according to the Israeli Government itself and that it did indeed occupy before becoming a UN Member.
If the Israeli delegation does walk, out trembling with rage no doubt, it will likely be at the sound of their own words revealing 63 years of their blatant lies.
Then deliver Palestinian concessions to a gaping audience
The problem is those borders from 1947-48 are absurdly complex. They made no sense then. They make even less sense now. The land cannot be carved up like that to create even one, much less two, functioning states.
Exiled At Home August 24, 2011 at 8:38 pm
I agree the ’48 borders are not a solution now. They are however one the essentials one needs to know in order to see through the muddied waters and understand that the waters have been purposefully created by Israeli propaganda.
From “the nascent state of Israel was attacked by five Arab States” to “The UN is biased against Israel” and all the irrelevant nonsense in between. E.g., Whatever Twain wrote , is not only severely cherry picked, but it is entirely irrelevant to the legal extent of Sovereign territory. Or “there was no Palestinian Nation or State”. Both irrelevant and; wrong
When talking about Israel, the starting point ought be from where the Israeli line in the sand was drawn. Declaration. When it came into existence. How to put it into a few simple easily understood paragraphs is almost impossible.
1) Israel was declared independent of Palestine. It did not secede from Britain, it was not British territory and; British control ended so that either party could declare independence. What was formerly a part of Palestine, became Israel.
2) Israel is not ‘in Palestine’. It didn’t exist as a State or an Independent Sovereign State before Declaration and was independent of all other entities after Declaration. Israel accepted UNGA res 181 without any registered reservation, enshrining 181 in the Declaration; asked to be recognized accordingly; was recognized accordingly; was admitted to the UN as recognized BEFORE claiming any territory Israel had previously confirmed as “outside the territory of the State of Israel”
3) On declaration by one party, by default two entities then existed. The area declared was renamed “the State of Israel”. What remained of Palestine after Israeli Independence, did not undergo a name change, nor was corpus separatum ever instituted. Jerusalem remained a part of Palestine and; as a non-self Governing territory, it fell automatically under the protection of the UN Charter Chapt XI
4) No UNSC Resolution calls for peace ‘in Israel’, but “in Palestine”. The Arab States attempted to expel Jewish forces from territory they represented, outside of Israel, as was their right as Regional Powers. There is no UNSC resolution condemning their actions.
5) Israel has been acting outside of it’s Sovereignty for 63 years. Which is why there are UNSC resolutions ruling against Israel, many of which are reminders of previous UNSC resolutions. For example UNSC Res has FIVE reminders.
What Abbas should say is- Sure, we will recognize you as a Jewish state as soon as we are recognized as the Palestine State by the UN and you move your Jewish state back it’s original UN survey perimeters.
3,2,1 call him a Hasbarist
link to torontosun.com
Besides the obvious point of disgust -that the author is actually pining for more leaders like Netanyahu- he writes, “Outsiders have no way of knowing details of what happened. But the Israelis don’t make many mistakes in these sorts of situations. And one can’t believe a word that comes out of Gaza, where Hamas is dedicated to the annihilation of the State of Israel.”
And, this is journalism? So, moments after this attack, Israel claims to know exactly who is responsible and retaliates. And we should simply assume that Israel is correct because, you know, they’re good at this sort of thing. We don’t take the word of the group that is being blamed, a group that denies responsibility. We also ignore the growing preponderance of evidence that suggests that this was not a Gaza-based operations. Plus, just for shits and giggles, we’ll throw in the meme that Hamas can’t be trusted because they want to destroy Israel. Wow. Just wow. If only we journalists all had such moral clarity and intellectual honesty.
LOL. Wow, a North American conservative gushing over Netanyahoo over the latter’s random and casual slaughter of a number of innocent Palestinians (and one or two who might have been guilty of something, maybe being against the occupation…)
I’m amazed. That NEVER happens.
He’s a Hasbarrow pusher alright. True to the last full stop.
Citizens of Israel = demos
The Jewish people = ethnos
The demand that Israel be recognised as the homeland/state of the Jewish people is in effect a demand that Israel be accepted as an ethnocracy (and an admission that that is its current status and projected future).
Amazing that the reasons why Palestinians (or anybody else for that matter) should not be asked to afford such recognition need to be spelled out (see David Samel’s comment on the strategy of ostensible reasonability, above), but Khalidi does a great job of articulating the obvious.
The US , Israel’s closest and bestest friend. major military funder and holder of the precious UNSC veto vote, didn’t recognize Israel as the Jewish State.
considering the years of constant struggle
the martyrs
the displaced and ethnically cleansed longing to return
if abbas & his accomplices sell out
no deal, traitors!
the struggle will continue
count on it
“if abbas & his accomplices sell out”
On behalf of the Palestinians, Abbas already voiced agreement to accepted less than their lawful rights already.
He isn’t labelled as a traitor, still holds his position, ain’t dead. There is however an Israeli …sorry was… an Israeli leader, who is very dead.