Gershom Gorenberg has a new book out, The Unmaking of Israel. Below I offer (first, to be fair) his argument against the one-state resolution of the conflict favored by so many on this site and (second) my mini-review from leafing through the book.
1) Gorenberg's argument against the one-state answer begins with the assertion that progressives are fighting "the last battle," South Africa. But this answer won't work in "Israel." He continues:
In fact, a one-state arrangement would solve little and make many things worse. Imagine that tomorrow Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip are reconstituted as the Eastern Mediterranean Republic, and elections are held. With the current population, the parliament will be split almost evenly between Jews and Palestinians. One of the first issues that the parliament and judiciary will face is the settlements that Israel built on privately owned Palestinian property, whether it was requisitioned, stolen, or declared state land over Palestinian objections Palestinian claimants will demand return of their property. The problem of evacuating settlers won't vanish. Rather, it wil divide the new state on communal grounds.
Gorenberg says the same divide will occur over return of Palestinian refugees. Jews will oppose it. Palestinians will demand return of property "lost in 1948 and perhaps the rebuilding of destroyed villages. Except for the drawing of borders, virtually every question that bedevils Israel-Palestinian peace negotiations will become a domestic problem setting the new political entity aflame."
The Palestinian and Israeli communities are also very unequal economically, he says; and when the economies are combined, Jews will be required to pay higher taxes and "individuals and companies will leave, crippling the new shared economy."
There would be separate Palestinian and Israeli political parties, and no one would be able to bridge the ethnic divide. Writes Gorenberg, who calls this imagined new country "Israel":
"Israel would become a second Belgium, perpetually incapable of forming a stable government. In the more likely case, the political tensions owuld ignite as violence. The transition to a single state would mark a new stage in the conflict."
Israel might well become Lebanon, he says.
"It would be a nightmare: another of the places marked on the globe as a country in which two or more communities do battle while the most educated or well-connected members of each look for refuge elsewhere."
2, My response after skimming the book:
Many Israeli Jews are proudly ethnocentric. They would say that the Jews built a society here and we have our narrative and the Arabs have their narrative, but I can really only tell you ours, and Gershom Gorenberg is in that group. He is an Israeli by choice, as he announces. He moved from the United States to Israel as a youth for a reason, and he doesn't look back. He says that Israel must provide refuge for "people persecuted as Jews... [any] where in the world." His children have Hebrew names, and he seems to love a place “where the public arena is largely Jewish” and-- this is interesting-- “where the standards of physical beauty are shaped by how Jews look.”
Such a narrator is pointedly not worldly. Gorenberg is not interested in the new global political movement about Palestine, though he is aware of it; he fears that Israel could become a “pariah” state internationally. He's not interested really in Palestinian society or politics. Mahmoud Abbas and boycott don't show up in the index. He has interviewed a few Palestinians for this book, but they don't show up much either. He doesn’t seem to care at all about American Jewish politics. Barack Obama isn’t in the index, even though Gorenberg is trying to save the two state solution.
He seems to believe this is an inside-Israeli challenge. He is engaged here as an Israeli with what Israel is doing to itself. He is worried that Israel has become Pakistan, whereas it should be the United States of the civil war and the civil rights movement. He fears that the religious have taken over the public culture and the settlers have taken over the politics. So this book is about being a liberal Zionist in crisis, the crisis of Israel’s soul.
The blinders are sometimes disturbing. Cast Lead, that monstrous onslaught that precipitated so much international criticism of Israel, only really figures in this account because of the ways that Israelis talked about it—“The IDF’s behavior in Gaza, especially toward Palestinan civilians, was intensely controversial—not just abroad but within Israel,” he writes. Then for a few pages, Gorenberg describes that Israeli controversy: rightwing objections that Israeli soldiers were commanded to bend over backwards to protect Palestinian civilians.
He does not ever mention that 1400 Palestinians were killed in 3 weeks, more than 300 of them children. Even Gaddafyi wasn't that efficient. He never says that his government dropped white phosphorus on children. I guess Israelis didn’t talk about that. I don't think Gorenberg has a clue how bad things are in the occupation.
He does not count the 250,000 or so Israeli settlers of East Jerusalem as settlers. He says Jerusalem was annexed. Full stop.
It ought to be curious that such a nonworldy perspective is so prominent inside the American discourse, but then Gorenberg has earned high status for writing well about Israeli Jewish culture and politics, and he has had a good ride in recent years. The American Prospect, which I guess is liberal Zionist, anointed him a guide on the issue. He's been promoted by Fresh Air, the New York Review of Books, and Columbia University. Michael Chabon blurbs this book as a hopeful one.
Still, I wonder how helpful such a doggedly-I'm-an-Israeli-inside-Israel focus is. When he says that the Palestinian desire to move back into their villages in Israel and make one country between the river and the sea is as preposterous as Algerians claiming not just Algeria in the 1960s but France too-- "Unlike Palestinians, Algerian nationalists did not claim France as part of their birthright"-- that is nutty. Many of those Palestinians were born in what is now Israel and have been denied the right to return to their homes. Wikipedia says that Gorenberg was born in St. Louis, Missouri. He seems to believe that Israel really always was the homeland of the Jews, even when they were outnumbered in the place 18 to 1. And that's the way it's always going to be.
His ideas on how to bring about the two state solution aren’t original: you’ve read them before. The settlers have to move, to save Israel’s soul. Israel can do it and also secularize its public space. Just as America had to have the civil war to save itself from slavery. (Well the civil war was a huge bloodletting...)
The most interesting part of the book is Gorenberg’s argument against the one state solution, above. I think Gorenberg ought to debate Ali Abnimah or Udi Aloni. Maybe we could make that happen?
Thanks for writing about his book at some length.
He’s talking to the same audience that you originally claimed to be speaking to, until you morphed into the partisan BDS theme.
He has an extended debate at 972 with Dimi Reider from October
link to 972mag.com
The single state is currently an imposition, not consented by any majority.
It may be argued for as a concept, but there are long-term substantive contradictions between a democratic approach and sentiment and the single state, resulting from its imposition onto communities that don’t regard themselves as one nation, but two.
The tracing of possible consequences to that fundamental contradiction are guesses on his part, and to criticize those guesses as the substance of his argument rather than the argument itself is a deflection.
Israel is in potentially better status than Lebanon as although there considerable interaction of the Arab and various Jewish communities in Israel, there is none in the West Bank. The two communities are not in a forced intimacy. They are still basically separate communities, and have the potential to form into two states, if there are willing parties to do so. (Netanyahu administration is not that currently.)
At 20% minority population, there is critical mass for acceptance. At 5% minority status, there is too much urge to “purify” the state.
Maybe you are arguing that the Palestinian prospect of removing all Jews from the West Bank is the evil that you are thinking to avoid. I don’t hear it.
Gorenberg is definitely a liberal Zionist, seeking to preserve the Jewish state that attracted him, and reform to realize the features of Jewish in association and in values (including the universalistic ones that appeal to the logic of one-state).
Gorenberg has spoken personally of his sense of inevitability of a confederated region, comprised of two distinct nation-states but with such close inter-personal, diplomatic, economic, ecological interaction that there is full freedom of movement, even residence between the two.
The single state proposal CONFLICTS with the proposal to required Jewish residents east of the green line to be moved forcibly.
IF there is developed cosmopolitan, non-nationalist, parties say 99% parties, in both Israel and Palestine, then there may be an electoral path to integration, rather than the imposed revolutionary path.
“Maybe you are arguing that the Palestinian prospect of removing all Jews from the West Bank is the evil that you are thinking to avoid. ”
In Richard’s ethical system, people who live on stolen property are victims if they are Israeli Jews who have stolen from Palestinian Arabs.
“The single state is currently an imposition, not consented by any majority”
Erez Israel is the single state..run by the Jews for the Jews. But they no longer have a majority…
RW: “Israel is in potentially better status than Lebanon as although there considerable interaction of the Arab and various Jewish communities in Israel, there is none in the West Bank. The two communities are not in a forced intimacy. They are still basically separate communities, and have the potential to form into two states, if there are willing parties to do so. (Netanyahu administration is not that currently.)”
Richard, are to trying to tell us that although the Jewish settlers force themselves onto the Palestinians by stealing their land and building on it, they are “not in a forced intimacy” (???) because they are separated by walls and fences?
And now you are telling us they have the potential to form two states. Surely the only way to do that without “forced intimacy” is to make the those fences and walls the new border i.e. Israel to annexe the stolen territory?
But haven’t you for some while now been promoting here on MW the Witty Plan to keep the 1967 borders (more or less) and foist the settlers onto the Palestinians as new citizens? Would that not mean tearing down the walls and fences around those settlers thus creating, if not forcing, “intimacy”?
So Richard, is this talk of “forced intimacy” simply case for Freud or is the entire Witty Plan a case of fraud?
The 67 borders leaves 20% minority in Israel, 10% minority within Palestine.
It leaves a minority in each, rather than ethnic cleansing from any. Befpore 1948, the West Bank did contain a not insignificant % that were Jewish, none after 1948.
There are integrated communities, Jaffa still even, Haifa, Beersheba.
Why do you use the word “foist”?
The proposal was meant to accomplish two things:
1. No more mass forced removal
2. Significant ethnic minorities in each, creating a setting in which full democratic rights have an exercised precedent to be the norm of the societies.
If Israel turned out to be a democracy, but Palestine turned out to be a mono-ethnic nationalist state, would that be justice?
Please actually pursue justice in fact.
Richard’s bottom line is that any land that Israeli Jews have been allowed to steal should not be taken from them.
Richard didn’t always take this view–he used to talk as though some of the settlers might have acquired their land legitimately. Now it’s all of them. It’ll be interesting to see how much further to the right he might move in the next year or so, always with the complete conviction that defending racist privilege on behalf of Israeli Jews is “pursuing justice”.
The 67 borders leaves 20% minority in Israel, 10% minority within Palestine.
The 67 border didn’t “leave” any illegal settlers within the West Bank, for the simply reason that were not there at the time.
Donald,
I CONSISTENTLY describe the question of title issues as the perview of color-blind court system, that the status of title is not perfected until a consented color-blind court determines an appropriate remedy to deficiencies, ANYWHERE, and resulting from any event (including 1948).
The common abusively dogmatic theme of both the expansionist Zionist and the anti-Zionist ideologies, is that the title doesn’t matter, individual rights don’t matter, that ONLY national rights matter.
The war.
Law is different than that. Law reconciles only two things politically:
1. Title – What individual or what individual entity owns this property, with what specific rights associated and conveyed. So, one party can own property permanently (transferred by legal process to heirs or in the case of an organization remaining), and can lease that property (land and built) on a renewable permanent basis as in a land trust, or on a temporary basis as with a lease; or just by permission (squatters rights).
The tracing of title is mostly clear, and demonstrable by evidence, occassionally with ambiguities. (Political collective assertions by decree supported by either legislation or by force, create ambiguities as to title, whether the legislature is the knesset or the UN decree.)
The test of the validity of title is the transition of status from reasonably contested to reasonably consented. Even if a consented court determines that a remedy, there are often many that object. That minority objection is not a contestation per law, but an irritant.
Do you consent to the rule of this court by this law, is a question of sovereignty.
2. Sovereignty – The determination of jurisdiction of the consent of the governed.
In democratic societies, its by some form of majority rule based on one-person one-vote, within the jurisdiction.
The issue with the single state is to OPTIMIZE the degree of self-determination, of actual consent of the governed. If 45% do not consent, then that is a very weak, dangerous basis of sovereignty.
If 80% consent, that is strong.
The single state proposal is currently a step BACKWARDS as far as degree of consent of the governed is concerned, especially when proposed through the means of externally forced BDS.
It is an unavoidable contradiction in the idea. For those that pretend to advocate for justice and self-determination, it is a fundamental contradiction.
If it was presented through either persuasion, and/or formulated in non-confrontational political forms (non-radical civil parties in Israel and Palestine), then there would be a path to it.
The irresponsible revolutionary approach demanding imposed magic, rather than doing the work to persuade, is a gross violation of justice, a gross violation of principles of self-determination.
You won’t get to good by emphasizing what is actually the oppossite of valid principles. It is a repetition of what is objected to.
Something better than that is possible and needed. We don’t need more backbone ultimately, we need a better argument that backbone is worthy of.
I CONSISTENTLY describe the question of title issues as the perview of color-blind court system, that the status of title is not perfected until a consented color-blind court determines an appropriate remedy to deficiencies, ANYWHERE, and resulting from any event (including 1948).
Richard you are chasing your own tail. A title to real estate has never been considered the same thing as an immigration or resident visa from the governing jurisdiction. After the final settlement, nothing would prevent the Courts of Palestine from applying the Geneva Conventions or customary international law and simply deporting all of the citizens of Israeli who are in their country illegally.
In 2004, the ICJ noted that both Israel and Jordan were High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions when hostilities began in 1967 and that “the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto”.
The ICJ supplied a legal analysis of the status of the territory and determined that all of the Israeli settlements had been established in violation of international law and that the wall and the associated administrative regime were also illegal.
>> The irresponsible revolutionary approach demanding imposed magic, rather than doing the work to persuade, is a gross violation of justice, a gross violation of principles of self-determination.
>> You won’t get to good by emphasizing what is actually the oppossite of valid principles.
This is so incredibly rich coming from a guy who has repeatedly stated his support for the campaign of terrorism and ethnic cleansing that was waged against Palestinians in order to realize a religion-supremacist “Jewish state”.
Richard Witty said, ‘Uh-oh. Hostage sounds like a real lawyer. I think I’ll hide until this blows over, then pop up on another thread to once again flog my “color-blind court system” remedy, even though, as Hostage points out, it has no basis in legal reality.’
“This is so incredibly rich coming from a guy who has repeatedly stated his support for the campaign of terrorism and ethnic cleansing that was waged against Palestinians in order to realize a religion-supremacist “Jewish state”.”
Yep.
“Richard you are chasing your own tail. A title to real estate has never been considered the same thing as an immigration or resident visa from the governing jurisdiction. After the final settlement, nothing would prevent the Courts of Palestine from applying the Geneva Conventions or customary international law and simply deporting all of the citizens of Israeli who are in their country illegally.”
Sadly, a two-edged sword.
Are you saying that title does not support the right of residence?
That is a primary basis of the right of return.
“This is so incredibly rich coming from a guy who has repeatedly stated his support for the campaign of terrorism and ethnic cleansing that was waged against Palestinians in order to realize a religion-supremacist “Jewish state”.”
This is a reiteration of the same old question, whether there is a moral difference between advocating for mass forced removal in the PRESENT, compared to academically speculating on what I might have advocated for if an adult during an event that occurred 6 years before my birth.
You don’t consider the advocacy for mass forced removal a wrong, at least even a moral consideration, a reluctant advocacy even?
In even asking those questions, I am trying to preserve your argument, that you are not just inhumane angry partisans.
RW: The common abusively dogmatic theme of both the expansionist Zionist and the anti-Zionist ideologies, is that the title doesn’t matter, individual rights don’t matter, that ONLY national rights matter.
What percentage of the land you assume was privately hold, versus state land or common land? It feels this may well have to do with your “balanced” assessment. No?
Richard Witty said, ‘Here again I try to apply my unusual standard to moral reasoning: BW (Before Witty), and AW (After Witty).
‘Morality changed that magical day in the early 1950s when I, one Richard Witty, was born. Alleged crimes that took place BW, like the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, are not in fact crimes. But theoretical events that might take place AW — Israeli settler/colonists not being allowed to keep their stolen lands on the West Bank — are in fact immoral.’
Hard to know what that relates to.
Its really an either/or question of whether one advocates for residence on the basis of common law title basis, or on national decree basis.
If the national decree basis is wrong for Israel (which it is), then it is also wrong for Palestine.
Its not a question of preserving past gains, as my contention does state that the issues of title preceed 67, preceed 48 even.
But, it definitively is a basis of law rather than political agitation, assertion, or even legislative decree.
Titled land is the easiest to reconcile (still with the recommendation to preserve current residence, rather than to insist on mass forced removal).
Leased basis of residence is slightly less easy.
Squatted basis is less easy.
Nationalist decree is only possible in a society that entirely disregards individual rights, law.
You mean like what Israel’s founders did in 1947-1948, when they decided to use violence and terror to create an artificial Jewish majority, not only within but beyond the UN Partition? How about what Israel is doing right now, when they forcibly deport Palestinians from the Occupied Territories?
“‘Morality changed that magical day in the early 1950s when I, one Richard Witty, was born. Alleged crimes that took place BW, like the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, are not in fact crimes. But theoretical events that might take place AW — Israeli settler/colonists not being allowed to keep their stolen lands on the West Bank — are in fact immoral.’”
Again, what we are comparing is a CURRENT advocacy of mass forced removal, of one ethnicity only, versus an academic speculation of an event that occurred 6 years before my birth.
One’s ACTIONS, including one’s words, (present) are the basis of moral judgment.
Hard to know what that relates to.
What relates to what?
Well, in case you are addressing me, I would know what we are exactly talking about, if we talk about expropriation. As I am assuming that title may have been less important, or based on rules very different from the West, at the time the Zionists arrived.
If it is not:
Its not a question of preserving past gains, as my contention does state that the issues of title preceed 67, preceed 48 even.
What exactly is the foundation of your repeated moral argument below?
This is a reiteration of the same old question, whether there is a moral difference between advocating for mass forced removal in the PRESENT, compared to academically speculating on what I might have advocated for if an adult during an event that occurred 6 years before my birth.
>> Again, what we are comparing is a CURRENT advocacy of mass forced removal, of one ethnicity only, versus an academic speculation of an event that occurred 6 years before my birth.
Ah, I get it now. RW is saying that there’s no harm in openly defending and justifying the genocide of Jews during WWII as long as the person making the statement:
i) was born after WWII; and
ii) does not CURRENTLY advocate for genocide.
To condemn such a person would be to engage in “academic speculation”.
Got it.
RW: “Are you saying that title does not support the right of residence?
That is a primary basis of the right of return.”
Richard, when it comes to Palestinians, you would have them queuing up for years to have their “title” documents adjudicated by a “color-blind” court.
Yet for yourself, as an American Jew, the only “title” you assume is that in your sense of “entitlement” to hop onto a plane to Tel Aviv tomorrow and immediately take up your “right of residence” in Israel.
Did this simple inequity not strike you as a fundamental flaw when inventing your legal theories on the right of return? Or did you just hope no one would spot it if you buried it deep within a pile of waffle and tortured syntax?
nothing would prevent the Courts of Palestine from applying the Geneva Conventions or customary international law and simply deporting all of the citizens of Israeli who are in their country illegally.” . . . Sadly, a two-edged sword.
Richard the Palestinians are not tourists. Israel has illegally terminated the residency rights of more than 100,000 Palestinians already, and the overwhelming majority of them were lawful residents of territory where Israel is merely an occupying power.
Are you saying that title does not support the right of residence? . . . That is a primary basis of the right of return.
All of the settlers are residing in the occupied territories illegally. Palestinian right of return is based upon Israel’s acceptance of resolutions 181(II) and 194(III) when it applied for membership in the UN, and upon jus sanguinis and jus soli (which do not apply to citizens of the State of Israel living in the occupied territories in violation of international and Palestinian law).
So long as you don’t include the legal rights of Jews, Israelis, others in your description and application of justice, then you remain only a partisan advocate, not an advocate of justice.
Its disappointing.
You do understanding my distinction between a past and a present orientation to justice?
Do you think that is of any merit, that justice is a present to forward phenomena?
“All of the settlers are residing in the occupied territories illegally.”
Only if you regard the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank in 1948 as legal. At least some are there legally if you do regard the forced dispossession of Jews from the West Bank as illegal.
There is a very strong likelihood that the right of return from 1948 as currently asserted as a legal right, would not be upheld as a currently remediable right.
The theory based on residence based on title, however, is an alternative basis of the substance of the right of return.
The Israeli offer to me to expedited citizenship is its sovereign legal right. It makes a pithy slogan, but not a legally enforceable principle.
“Richard didn’t always take this view–he used to talk as though some of the settlers might have acquired their land legitimately. Now it’s all of them. ”
Thats your less than attentive reading comprehension at play, and unwillingness to respectfully ask for clarification if you didn’t understand. Instead, you prefer the morally lazy route of “shoot first”.
Richard Witty said, ‘More proof that my mellow ex-hippie persona is just a disguise. It doesn’t take much to bring out my nasty streak, as here, when I accuse Donald, who has always tried to understand me, with taking “the morally lazy route” of “shoot first.” I ask Donald to “respectfully ask for clarification,” but then I accuse him of moral failings.
‘Just imagine me, Richard Witty, trying to have “dialog” (sic) with Palestinians who have lost family members to Israel. No wonder I hide out here in western Massachusetts, not having visited the place I “self-govern” in since 1986.’
“Thats your less than attentive reading comprehension at play, and unwillingness to respectfully ask for clarification if you didn’t understand. Instead, you prefer the morally lazy route of “shoot first”.”
That might have stung, Richard, several years ago when I first started reading this blog and thought you were sincere albeit a little confused.
Now it just makes me roll my eyes.
Why would a right of return based on a factual 1948 forced exodus of innocent non-Jews, in this case, Palestinians, not be given at least as much rightful world -wide authority and justice by me as the right of return claimed by Jews based on an alleged thousands of years old claim nobody can verify as to if it ever happened, nor if it was justified by the moral-ethical standards of the ancient day? Further, why would somebody such as myself, an American goy, by my own logical default an agnostic, but with respect for the human race, be content with what my own government enables by Jews in Palestine with my tax dollars? Am I suppose to ignore the many things I find same or similar in Zionist and Nazi philosophy and implementation?
Its really an either/or question of whether one advocates for residence on the basis of common law title basis, or on national decree basis.
No it isn’t. Common law recognized occupiers as enemy aliens, not lawful residents. You’re misstating the ascriptive view of the English common law, according to which a person born within the King’s realm was necessarily a subject of the King. The only exceptions were the children of ambassadors and children of occupying enemy aliens:
–See United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) link to law.cornell.edu
The Palestinians were not, and are not, occupiers. They are not the children of an occupying power. They have the right of return on the basis of jus soli (jus sanguinis in the case of children born abroad). They also have the right of return based upon Israel’s agreement to accept the terms of the two United Nations resolutions that I cited above. States remain bound by the terms of their own acceptance (pacta sunt servanda, i.e. agreements must be kept). Israeli citizens and their children remain subjects of an enemy occupying power who are in the Occupied Territory illegally.
Hostage,
What point are you addressing, the statement about right of return, or on residence rights for settlers?
The issues relative to right of return are statute of limitations, and mitigating circumstances.
I can’t imagine that there is a precedent relative to right of return applied 63 years after the fact.
In that light, the assertion of the right of return is not clear, not unequivocal (even referencing UNRWA refugee status definitions, who is servable by UNRWA – which are explicitly not binding relative to the right of return law).
The best that I can imagine is repeal of the 50′s knesset laws prohibiting return itself, and state taking of “abandoned lands”, then day in court.
Per Bernard Avishai, Olmert and Abbas had tentatively agreed on a basis of form of right of return based on day in court.
The residence basis 3 generations hence, is unlikely realizable at all.
“The residence basis 3 generations hence, is unlikely realizable at all.”
So the only Jews in the West Bank who have a right to be there according to the Witty doctrine (if it were applied equally to both ethnicities) would be the ones who used to live there before 1948.
There is a very strong likelihood that the right of return from 1948 as currently asserted as a legal right, would not be upheld as a currently remediable right.
Richard, unlike the situation in other conflicts, the government of Israel acknowledged undertakings to implement the portions of the minority protection plan in resolution 181(II) that apply to compensation for expropriated property and the ones in resolution 194(III) with regard to the refugees right of return and compensation. The PCIJ and ICJ have noted that resolutions are generally non-binding, except in cases when the state parties have accepted their terms. In those cases, states become bound by the terms of their acceptance.
The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People reported to the Security Council that:
So Israel agreed to make RoR a remediable right.
“All of the settlers are residing in the occupied territories illegally.” . . . Only if you regard the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank in 1948 as legal. At least some are there legally
Witty I’ve cited the difference between Palestine refugees and Palestinian refugees on several occasions, e.g. link to mondoweiss.net
There were 17,000 internally displaced Jews in 1948. About 7,000 were permanent residents who were registered as such with the UNRWA. They do not have a unilateral right to compensate themselves during a belligerent occupation or to expand their properties or water supplies through natural growth and illegal expropriation. Those 7,000 do not justify or explain the presence of 600,000 modern-day settlers either.
Hostage, What point are you addressing, the statement about right of return, or on residence rights for settlers? . . . The issues relative to right of return are statute of limitations, and mitigating circumstances.
Witty the legal system of the State of Israel invented a temporary right of residence for its settlers in municipal law that it ruled was terminable – capable of being ended.
On the other hand, I’ve pointed out many times that grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, like population transfer, “eviction by armed attack or occupation and inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid” are not subject to any statutory limitations – even if such acts do not constitute a violation of the domestic law of the country in which they were committed. See Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity link to www2.ohchr.org
I’ve also explained that the official commentary on “Article 8. Non-renunciation of rights” in the Fourth Geneva Convention explains:
link to icrc.org
Any final treaty agreement with the Palestinians is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. See Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties link to untreaty.un.org
So there is no prospect of negotiating a valid settlement containing the sort of concessions on repatriation envisioned by Zionists.
Alexander Orakhelashvili and Judge Elihu Lauterpact have both explained that the UN Security Council is unconditionally bound by the customary norms. Orakhelashvili said
— EJIL (2005), Vol. 16 No. 1, 59–88 link to papers.ssrn.com
Per Bernard Avishai, Olmert and Abbas had tentatively agreed on a basis of form of right of return based on day in court.
Once again, any agreement that violates a peremptory norm of international law or an attempt to validate a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions would be null and void at the time of its completion in accordance with the Law of Treaties cited above.
“Those 7,000 do not justify or explain the presence of 600,000 modern-day settlers either.”
Agreed.
The land though is the defining question as far as the population that it can support.
I thought that you objected to the standard of the actual number of dispossessed as entitled to right of return, that it included descendents and classes even.
“Witty the legal system of the State of Israel invented a temporary right of residence for its settlers in municipal law that it ruled was terminable – capable of being ended. ”
So, you are talking about the settlers, and not the general concept of the right of return to all of the land.
What point of mine are you addressing relative to the settlers?
I thought that you objected to the standard of the actual number of dispossessed as entitled to right of return, that it included descendents and classes even.
The international community of states laid down the Principle of unity of the family in the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. They also laid down the principle that a person is no longer a refugee when he acquires a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality – like the survivors of the Etzion bloc.
Israel accepted the right of return for all of the Palestine refugees in resolution 194(III), but it made the Jewish refugees citizens of Israel and made the Palestinian refugees stateless.
So Richard, this is your chance to clarify. So the only settlers who have a right to be in the West Bank are those who were evicted or fled in 1948 or who have clear title to the land dating from that period? If so, I think that sounds right. But it sounds like this applies to very few of the settlers.
Their stateless status is a dilemma.
So, are you speaking of the settlers rights in this discussion, or of the right of return?
I’m not clear.
Settlers:
“So Richard, this is your chance to clarify. So the only settlers who have a right to be in the West Bank are those who were evicted or fled in 1948 or who have clear title to the land dating from that period? If so, I think that sounds right. But it sounds like this applies to very few of the settlers.”
My own impression is that those that reside in a locale have a right to remain there, with rare exceptions, so long as they perfect title to the land and other property that they reside on.
Any mass forced removal is questionable legally, and more than questionable morally.
Please find another approach that is not so mean.
Right of return:
I don’t believe that the right of return has an unlimited shelf-life, regardless of the status of families of refugees.
There may be supporting references to propose so, to argue so, and if you are a legal advocate, please do so. The concept of unlimited duration of right of return is problematic as law and in implementation, in that it does two horrible things:
1. Keeps the refugees in a refugee status (say in Lebanon and Syria), rather than offer them citizenship in the land in which they were born and live.
2. Proposes to force civilians from their current homes.
If it turns out that the right of return as interpreted and in the form proposed, does not have an unlimited legal duration, then a great injustice will have been done to Palestinian civilians, but BY their solidarity.
In all cases, the world, including Israel, should endeavor to help Palestinian refugees get on their feet. To the extent that Palestinians and solidarity adopt an attitude of warring against Israel, then this will delay that.
Its hard enough to convince Israel and Israelis to be of any help at all, without the very strong current of warring.
Virtually none of them, I expect, Donald.
What we are witnessing from Witty is what his real idea of a two state solution would look like, and as it turns out, he’s on the same page as Netenyahu.
What does this mean in terms of the citizenship of these settlers Witty? Do they remains citizens of Israel or Palestine?
But is is not necessary, even if one were to hold their noses?
So, you are talking about the settlers, and not the general concept of the right of return to all of the land. . . . What point of mine are you addressing relative to the settlers?
Richard you’ve attempted to make a number of irrelevant points, like expiration of the statute of limitations for war crimes and crimes against humanity; a non-existent common law right of title for occupying enemy aliens; and a demand that the consequences of a joint criminal enterprise to acquire territory by war and commit serious war crimes be validated and treated as the basis for equitable claims.
The Etzion bloc was established as part of an unsuccessful attempt by the Zionists to enlarge the borders of the future Jewish State. The JNF and the Settlement Department of the Jewish Agency established an isolated bloc of settlements that included four kibbutzim: Kfar Etzion (1943), Massuot Yitzhak (1945), Ein Zurim (1946), and Revadim (1947). These were the only Jewish settlements in the area between Jerusalem and Hebron. They were only populated by a few hundred inhabitants. So, based upon the Arab majority in the area, the UN allocated it to the proposed Arab State.
The Etzion bloc settlers, like many thousands of other illegal Israeli settlers, aren’t really exercising the right to “return to the land” or properties they personally owned in the State of Palestine. They’re engaged in an overt and illicit attempt to once again enlarge the borders of the State of Israel with territory acquired by war. There is no such thing as a license to violate international law on the basis of an assertion that a “community is slated for retention by Israel under any conceivable peace plan”.
In the municipality where I live, you can’t even apply for the job of dog catcher unless you are willing to reside within the city limits. Israel frequently points out that the Occupied Palestinian territories are not part of its sovereign territory or jurisdiction, e.g. See CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, para 8 or E/1990/6/Add.32, para 6-7 So, it’s pretty shocking for a State to appoint a person, like Justice Noam Sohlberg, to the Supreme Court when he chooses to reside in an illegal settlement, one kilometer from Kfar Etzion, in another country.
You should be check the wording of Article 11 of Resolution 194 which reads:
(The General Assembly) 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.
Note the italicised portion. Those who bleat that Israel is not obeying international law should be aware that Israel is not obligated to permit the return of Palestinians intent on undermining the state.
When that resolution was passed there was no evidence that had the Palestinians been allowed to return they would have undermined the state. When I spoke in 1970 with Palestinians in Lebanon who had been evicted in 1948, to my surprise I did not encounter the expected hatred of the Jews but instead grudging admiration for the way the Israelis had carried out the operation. At the same time, they did not want to become Lebanese but to return home. Many had lived next to Jews and had enjoyed good relations with them.
Of course, to make sure they would never return, the Israelis made sure that their villages would be totally destroyed and that they would have nothing to return to.
Ironically, it was not until I was in Amman and spoke with Jordanian businessmen did I hear what would be classified as antisemitic remarks but at the same time these businessmen wanted to do business with “the Jews” and did not support the Palestinian fedayeen.
The next time I returned to Lebanon and Jordan, in 1983, I found a very different attitude, one of hatred of “the Jews” that was understandable, given what Israel had done to them the year before and was still doing to them as occupiers. They welcomed Jews who opposed Israel but had no illusions about their having influence over American politics. The only one who believed they did, apparently, was Yasser Arafat.
Those who bleat that Israel is not obeying international law should be aware that Israel is not obligated to permit the return of Palestinians intent on undermining the state.
The Mandatory administration complained that the illegal Jewish militias were mortaring terrified Palestinians who didn’t pose any threat, i.e. unarmed women, children, and the elderly. — See for example Theory and practice in the history of European expansion overseas, By Robinson, et.al, Routledge, 1988, ISBN 0714633461, page 144
To cite just one example, the refugees of the 67 war are protected by the terms of Article 8 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which ensures that protected persons in all cases without exception enjoy the protection of the Convention until they are repatriated. link to icrc.org
Perhaps you should read this comment again: link to mondoweiss.net
The General Assembly and Security Council are unconditionally bound by the norms of customary international law. The late Abba Eban never grasped that fact. As a consequence, he wasted a great deal of everyone’s time trying to introduce ambiguity in resolutions, like 242, in order to create loopholes in international law to Israel’s benefit.
Those of us who bleat international law know that the Security Council and General Assembly can’t authorize or condone territorial aggrandizement, forced population transfers, massacres, & etc. by omitting the definite article, using the term “should”, or other polite words in one of their resolutions. Nations are governed by the customary and conventional international laws reflected in UN resolutions, not by the laws of grammar.
He says the settlers have to move, to save Israel’s soul. This means that they have to move voluntarily (the Jewish people of Israel must decide, voluntarily for their own Jewish reasons, to move AWAY from settlements and occupation and war).
Wouldn’t that be nice?
Because those very Israeli Jews have for 44 years been accelerating their movement TOWARD settlements, occupation, wall, siege, and war — I perceive that they must move AWAY (as he says) but because of a reaction to EXTERNAL pressures. That’s what BDS is for. That’s what PLO/PA’s UN maneuvers are for. That’s what Mondoweiss is for.
Pabelmont,
So BDS is for applying external pressures. What kind of external pressure do you think will work on right wing Israelis, you know, those Israelis that don’t go to Elvis Costello concerts if they have ever head of him?
To answer eee’s question, I think financial pressure on large Israeli exporting corporations (and even on small ones) would perhaps create a desire on the part of Israel (or on the part of its financial masters, if (like the USA) it has them, to end the lawlessness and even to end the occupation — assuming any part of it be lawful which, after 44 years, is itself hard to imagine.
pabelmont, yes that financial pressure plus, other kinds, like US using its leverage, initiating end of US aid to Israel, starting with the current $30 Billion package, plus end of US underwriting of Israel’s debt so its borrowing comes at a higher price, etc
Re: Citizen November 12, 2011 at 7:31 am
……plus end of US underwriting of Israel’s debt so its borrowing comes at a higher price, etc
Question: Is that so? I did not know this one.
That means Israel’s debts of international borrowing are guaranteed by the USA??
Money. the only language they understand.
There is also a lot of potential in revealing the cost of YESHA to the Mizrahim who wonder why they are still trash .
How about banning spitting as a matter of international law?
it’s carrots and sticks eee. BDS is a little twig. BDS obviously will not change the mind of an expansionist settler, or most “right wing israelis”…. they need to be marginalized by “moderates” and a (future) peace camp (israel’s only hope, though i don’t see a new peace block rising soon). the target is really two fold, first EXTERNAL, and then INTERNAL to israel-
1) it is a very effective tool for organizing and increasing awareness in the wider world, and then by extension influencing world governments. i will note that world jewry in “the diaspora” (just puked in my mouth a little for using such a BS loaded zionist word) are also a target, and i know some that upon hearing all the protests, BDS, and the word apartheid, start to inspect their FALSE narrative.
2) once external pressure mounts, the target is the israelis who have a *real* desire for peace with a modicum of justice, and the israeli establishment. BDS will make *some* realize how bad it is in eretz israel, when they see who supports BDS, and the level of worldwide support. further, some may just note that it hurts the economy (once it grows), or dislike the feeling of ostracism and being told how bad their policies really are (plus loosing out on elvis costello or pixies concerts). the many israelis who never really liked the settlement subsidies and the occupation itself might soon realize it is altering their lives in more tangible ways now. the apolitical youth in tel aviv might decide they want to end the occupation already, and vote that way….
there you have it….
it will piss people like you off (the vast majority of israelis, but this may change in time). you and people to your right are just too sensitive, attach your persona to the state of israel in some odd fashion, and/or don’t like to pay a *minimal* price for the actions of your state. there is honest debate about how BDS will play in israel, or the net effect. i consider it a clear net positive, and see few other options to raise global awareness and push a country that has been building settlements for 40 years now. israel had its chance for decades, so now it is about external pressure and it will come in many ways.
but regardless of your personal self-interested (and short-sighted) view of BDS…. it is going to GROW.
Since most Israelis are for the two state solution anyway, what is the BDS for? Do you guys think it will persuade Israelis to accept the ROR? What terms in the negotiations is BDS supposed to make Israelis agree to that they do not agree to now? Is it anything different than the Clinton parameters?
If most Israelis support the two state solution, how come there are so many invading troops and settlers in Palestine? Actions speak louder than words, and the world has learned that what comes out of Israeli mouths as far as promises go, are basically meaningless.
what part of the billions we give israel is not external pressure on palestinians eee. you’re not against external pressure as long as it’s hurting palestine. oh wait, it’s only called ‘hurting’ when applied to israel.
most israelis bla blblblbla bla . don’t follow their words follow their actions. they care so much for two states they nix it from their j14 movement, that’s how much they care. silly you.
“BDS is a little twig. BDS obviously will not change the mind of an expansionist settler, or most “right wing israelis”…. they need to be marginalized by “moderates” and a (future) peace camp (israel’s only hope, though i don’t see a new peace block rising soon). the target is really two fold, first EXTERNAL, and then INTERNAL to israel-”
There is a great problem with that sequence.
First as the goal of BDS is unclear, whether to urge reforms in Israel (and sovereignty for Palestine) or whether to remove Israel as Israel from the map, NO liberal Zionist, no moderate, can support it enthusiastically.
Second, BDS kills the peace movement, partially because of the ambiguity of the goals, but also for the action of shunning itself.
BDS will not grow far as these ambiguities to any Jew, and to any moralist, are severe.
The motivation for assisting the Palestinians accomplish some viable life in the world is a good. But, it takes resistance/solidarity/hate of Israel level motivation for that to take in the Jewish community, and that won’t happen.
And, if BDS is imposed from outside, it will represent a form of anti-semitism in the world, and will be fought again by universalist moralist and Jew alike.
Pendulum swings very often result in greater wrongs than the wrong opposed, even as serious a one as the isolation of Palestinians.
What, are you threatening even more hate speech against Palestinians. You’re already cutting Palestinians off from food, clean water and medicine, what are you going to isolate them from breathable oxygen somehow too?
By pledging allegiance to Israel over the United States, and core American concepts such as multiculturalism, you are the one who will be declared anathema, ultimately. The only thing I worry about in that, is that innocent Jews may end up suffering even if they actively opposed your zealotry.
Witty: “The motivation for assisting the Palestinians accomplish some viable life in the world is a good. But, it takes resistance/solidarity/hate of Israel level motivation for that to take in the Jewish community, and that won’t happen.”
No. Not “hate of Israel,” just hate of Israeli state policies.
No. BDS must be imposed from outside, just as it had to be so imposed re apartheid S Africa.
No. Jew-hatred is not involved. Universal morality is heavily involved.
Witty now repeats the lie about the goals of BDS being “vague”, when he has refused to produce any evidence that the goals of BDS ever suggested removing Israel as a state.
Witty, you’ve been asked countless times to produce such evidence. You have failed to, but continue to lie.
Either put up or shut up.
RW remains:
- an apologist for past terrorism and ethnic cleansing committed against Palestinians;
- an advocate for a religion-supremacist state (rather than a secular, democratic and egalitarian state);
- a hypocrite who holds occupied and oppressed Palestinians to a higher standard of behaviour than he does occupying and oppressive Israelis; and
- an immoral human being, who spurns universal justice and morality in favour of tribal allegiances, however hateful and immoral they may be.
I perceive that they must move AWAY (as he says) but because of a reaction to EXTERNAL pressures. That’s what BDS is for. That’s what PLO/PA’s UN maneuvers are for. That’s what Mondoweiss is for.
I agree with the part of Gorenberg’s argument that progressives are still fighting with the tactics used in “the last battle,” in South Africa. I figured that all of the Palestinians who have talked themselves blue in the face over international law and war crimes would have demanded that the permanent representative of Palestine deposit a definite signature instrument for the Rome Statute the same day as the UNESCO vote, and that they would have occupied the Prosecutor’s Office in the Hague the very next day demanding justice.
But we are still discussing the functional equivalent of holding car washes, selling candy bars or holding bake sales. The South Africans would have used the ICC if it had existed back in their day. I wonder why we aren’t hearing a lot more about this new avenue for applying pressure on the leadership of the settlement movement from Victor Kattan, Dianna Buttu, and Noura Erekat?
HOSTAGE,
I wonder why we aren’t hearing a lot more about this new avenue for applying pressure on the leadership of the settlement movement from Victor Kattan, Dianna Buttu, and Noura Erekat?
Because they don’t know to do it. They’re all using the same toboggan run down the hill. They don’t know there’s another hill. You should write a MW homepage post about this, you know What the Palestinians Should Do Now. Maybe it will get the needed attention.
MRW, yesterday (?) you had this “nice” comment about us elders. I am paraphrasing: no, it’s not only about age, look at Blankfort, look at Hostage. After all this time I realized who Jeffrey is, but could you help out with a relevant link or search term for the Mondoweiss Hostage archives to understand what you had in mind?
What the heck are you inquiring about, LeaNder? Some assumed difference between generational thought as a fact?
I suspect that they are trying to do something behind the scenes but in the end, look what they have to work with. Abbas? Noura’s pathetic uncle, Saeb? It must be very frustrating for them.
“and when the economies are combined”
They are already combined FFS. They have the same currency. Israel controls everything. Customs, road passages, electricity, water, exports, everything.
Israel’s economic successes are undeniable and this does not come from exploitation but from innovation. Refer link to 247wallst.com
Israel’s economic successes are undeniable?
But still they need aid. Just like a third world country.
“In international relations, aid (also known as international aid, overseas aid, or foreign aid) is a voluntary transfer of resources from one country to another, given at least partly with the objective of benefiting the recipient country.[2] It may have other functions as well: it may be given as a signal of diplomatic approval, or to strengthen a military ally, to reward a government for behaviour desired by the donor, to extend the donor’s cultural influence, to provide infrastructure needed by the donor for resource extraction from the recipient country, or to gain other kinds of commercial access. Humanitarianism and altruism are, nevertheless, significant motivations for the giving of aid.[4] In line with this train of thought, the capability approach promotes the development of giving aid with an aim towards improving each individual’s freedoms to develop capabilities.”
link to en.wikipedia.org
Is the US aid to israel
Humanitarian and altruistic?
or/and
“given as a signal of diplomatic approval, or to strengthen a military ally, to reward a government for behaviour desired by the donor”?
who wouldn’t have ‘economic successes’ with stolen land and yer neighbors resources for free. look daddy, i can steal!
“Look Sweetie, Daddy just stole this nice dress/car/house/land/village for you. Now run along and play.”
If it were not for the constant threats to Israel’s existence that necessitate huge wastage on the military and security then the country would truly be basking in economic glory and the Palestinians would share it.
“If it were not for the constant threats to Israel’s existence that necessitate huge wastage on the military and security then the country would truly be basking in economic glory and the Palestinians would share it.”
If Palestinians agree that Palestine is Israel, then Palestinians “would share it”?
They will have agree to become slaves, and then someday maybe they can “share it”?
Do they have to change their religion before they can “share it”?
Correctrion: If it were not for the constant false claims of threats to Israel’s existence that justify the huge wastage on the military and security then the country would truly be basking in economic glory and the Palestinians would share it – provided Israel continued to:
1. continued to reap the benefits of massive industrial espionage it carries out against the US
2. continued to reap the benefits of massive patent infringements it carries out against the US
3. continued to reap the benefits of one sided trade agreement with the US that has been revealed to amount to a $10billion annual grant
4. continued to reap the benefits of billions in loan guarantees.
BTW Mayhem,
Look up the word “hafrada”. Zionism never had any intention of sharing with Paslestinians.
Mayhem, 1st, a significant percentage of Israel’s budget for its military/security comes for free, with interest, from 98% goy American taxpayers, who also pay principal plus interest to China to give that financial aid to Israel. Second, those settlements divert funds from Israel’s domestic social-welfare net (as they divert from American domestic social-welfare net). Israel’s economy also grows from US underwriting its debt, making Israel credit currently better than America’s, and it grows from Israel’s theft of patents, and from use of at least a quarter of US aid to grow its own arms sale industry.
“Do they have to change their religion before they can “share it”?”
That could be a very interesting tactic. All the Palestinians convert to exceedingly orthodox Judaism. (All right, the women would have to sit naked in a bath and be ogled by a bunch of rabbis, but sacrifices have to be made.) They then invoke the Law of Return and make Aliyah. They take over a political party, and gain complete control of the Knesset. (Being orthodox, they don’t have to work for their living, and so would have plenty of time for politics.)
They then make Israel a state for all its citizens. Then they convert back to Islam and Christianity.
Unremitting corporate (and governmental) espionage on “Big Brother” US, not to mention billions upon billions on “aid,” “loan guarantees” and “charitable donations” speak otherwise.
What would Israel do if it were weaned off of the American teat, exactly?
Let’s get the full story for a change.
Refer to
‘International Assistance to the Palestinians after Oslo: Political guilt, wasted money (Routledge Studies on the Arab-Israeli Conflict)’ by Ann Le More
which discusses
“Why has the West disbursed vertiginous sums of money to the Palestinians after Oslo? What have been donors’ motivations and above all the political consequences of the funds spent?
Based on original academic research and first hand evidence, this book examines the interface between diplomacy and international assistance during the Oslo years and the intifada. By exploring the politics of international aid to the Palestinians between the creation of the Palestinian Authority and the death of President Arafat (1994-2004), Anne Le More reveals the reasons why foreign aid was not more beneficial, uncovering a context where funds from the international community was poured into the occupied Palestinian territory as a substitute for its lack of real diplomatic engagement. This book also highlights the perverse effects such huge amounts of money has had on the Palestinian population and territory, on Israeli policies in the occupied Palestinian territory, and not least on the conflict itself, particularly the prospect of its resolution along a two-state paradigm.”
No wonder the US has decided to curtail the flow of monies to the PA – throwing good money after bad is never recommended practice.
First, the US has NOT decided to curtail the flow of monies to the PA–that was the desire of Israel’s lackeys in Congress but not the Obama administration. “Throwing good money after bad is never recommended practice,” but that is what the US has been doing for Israel since 1967..
A better question than what you pose is:
“Why has the US disbursed vertiginous sums of money to the Israelis after Oslo? What have been donors’ motivations and above all the political consequences of the funds spent?”
The money has been dispensed to the Israelis because Washington is their most important occupied territory and the political consequences are obvious. If nothing else, the US has joined Israel in its isolation from much of the rest of the world and has launched and lost a disastrous war in Iraq.
Let’s get the full story for a change. . . .Anne Le More reveals the reasons why foreign aid was not more beneficial
Okay, lets do that then. The author blames the “peace process” and Israel for making life a living hell and for wasting vast amounts of everyone’s time and money while the IDF stayed busy destroying Palestinian society and infrastructure. She blames the Quartet for making security first, as judged by Israel, the top priority. She claims it resulted in a more authoritarian and anti-democratic Palestinian regime, e.g.:
BTW, the US was quite outspoken about the reason that it cutoff the flow of money. That was done in response to the decision by Abbas and Fayyad to reject the World Bank (and Netanyahu’s) plan for economic peace two years ago and go to the UN to demand equal footing as a State. They said they plan to pursue remedies against Israel in the international courts, international organizations, and in any future negotiations.
Israel is already South Africa. If Israel became Lebanon it would have a decent food culture. Most unlikely.
‘He fears that the religious have taken over the public culture and the settlers have taken over the politics. ”
Israel has 7 emerging crises all converging – neoliberal inequality, the Orthodox, where will economic growth come from, regional isolation, the end of the holocaust free pass, the settlers and apartheid. None of these are being addressed. It is going to explode.
From what you say about him he sounds like a jerk (more precisely, a narcissistic Israeli pseudo-liberal). However, that doesn’t mean his arguments against the one state solution are wrong. I’d like to see a serious discussion/debate on this subject between people who know both the Palestinians and the Israelis really well.
Donald
Shir Hever’s political economy of the occupation is a good starting point.
It is such a mess.
I think this deserves a thread all of its own
Eyall Press in the New York Review
link to nybooks.com
55% of 1948 or Israeli Palestinians are unemployed
Wages for most Israelis have stagnated in the last decade
65% of Haredi men are unemployed
The IDF consumes 20% of the Israeli government budget
$100 BILLION was spent on the settlers
from 1970-2008
The 16 oligarchs control 30% of the Israeli economy
Israel has the fifth highest level of inequality in the OECD, the highest poverty rate and is 25 out of 32 in health care investment
Who are these oligarchs? googling uncovers this very thread but no list of 16 Israeli oligarchs.
maybe he mentions them here:
link to therealnews.com
i googled ‘who are the richest 18 families in israel’
top story
……………..
link to richardsilverstein.com
link to ynetnews.com
-when Saban made the most lucrative transaction in history — several billions — he arranged for the transactions to take place through off-shore accounts, so he would not have to pay US taxes.
-according to this forum, “Sheri Arison – enherited all her money from daddy RIP, who moved his capital here before death to escape the American estate tax – didn’t make the money herself, and used the american people. Never before that have their paid any tax in Israel.”
I think Israel may have the highest level of inequality in the OECD because I don’t think it ever fulfilled the condition subsequent attached to its acceptance into the OECD, which was to input stats on the Arabs it had left out of its OECD application’s supporting documents. (Just as it never fulfilled the condition subsequent to its admission into the UN, which was to ASAP allow the dispossessed Palestinians back to their homes.)
/Agree Donald
Alot of the One State Solution debate is just people debating its merits over the Two State Solution. It would be good to have more policy debate on what steps need to be taken to make the One State Solution workable. Also history can be a good guide on how to work these things.
For example I think joining Gaza, West Bank, Israel into one entity would cause a similar situation to German re-unification during the 90′s. You would have large under-developed cities like Gaza close to developed cities Ashdod. Certainly alot of lessons from Germany could be adopted.
Also joining the different ethnic/religious groups shouldn’t automatically led to gridlock and Lebanon style civil war. Another good comparison here would be to look at Northern Ireland which has come a great way in solving its problems of warring neighbourhoods.
Many of these arguments still apply even in a two-state solution. Two states do not sweep the refugee issue under the rug for example. One state would actually address it rather than ignoring that it exists.
The Zionists made their bed and now they have to lay in it. And they only made it 63 years ago – recent history.
Israelis are living an artificial lifestyle at the expense of others. Excuses to extend the status quo are excuses to get away with murder. Yeah the Israeli standard of living will go down and their economy will tank. But none of that was real or sustainable to begin with. The extreme right will wind up in jail or leve the country. Zionism will die and Israel will be a footnote in history. People will be freed, that’s what matters the most
Charon,
You are a breath of fresh air in this discussion. At least you admit the consequences for Israelis of the one state solution.
“You are a breath of fresh air in this discussion. At least you admit the consequences for Israelis of the one state solution.”
Think of those rich white plantation owners. If we give the negro slaves their freedom, who will work the fields and bring us our mint julips?
Yeah — justice.
eee: you’re such a selfish, short-sighted person. In other words a typical Israeli, so afraid of looking like a freier you’re stuck at the basic level suggested by game-theory, where you can’t do anything that requires mutual trust for a bigger mutual long-term payoff.
The key point Charon makes is the problems exist anyway. Right now they simply get worse, though you naively assume this can carry on indefinitely. In a single-state they can start to be addressed to everyone’s long-term benefit (including your own though you hardly deserve it).
The basic fact you have yet to grasp, due no doubt to your myopia, is that you’re living in the Middle East (yes, that’s what lies beyond that big wall). At some point, you are going to have to learn to get on with your neighbours and that will definitely be easier in a single-state. Then Israel is going to be much better off when it can a) reallocate its resources to productive sectors, b) make its religious extremists work c) provide education and employment opportunities for the Palestinians d) access the huge market on its doorstep for the useful things it makes and develops. Think Switzerland rather than Belgium.
It may indeed hurt you in the pocket for a while but, let’s be honest, that’s not what really concerns you. It’s the thought of that Palestinian family moving next door that you can’t abide.
Well good for you guys. Annie and Shmuel do not want to admit that what they are proposing will hurt Israelis. You at least admit that it will hurt Israelis but you don’t care because that is justice. Oh, how selfish Israelis are, not wanting their living of standard to go down. Isn’t that the basic attitude of all people? The people in OWS have it 100 times better than many other countries yet they complain. Are they selfish? I don’t think so.
Any solution that involves lowering the standard of living of Israelis will never fly unless applied by force. Good luck with that. I hear Blankfort and his army are on the way.
What eee and the rest of the apologists don’t grasp is that they already live in one state. It is merely a convenient fiction that the Palestinians live somewhere else, some limboland non-state, some twilight zone – which Israel completely controls. The whole thing is an elaborate fiction in order to maintain the pretence of ‘democracy’, and deny the reality of apartheid, which it is. State racism in a gerrymandered, segregated Jim Crow state. The only thing they are quibbling about, and terrified of, is admitting it, and thus the prospect of equal votes, and equal rights for all.
eee: “You at least admit that it will hurt Israelis but you don’t care because that is justice.”
That’s really not what I said. Again you focus only on the short-term pain to some Jewish Israelis (mainly yourself) not the long-term gain to all Israeli’s in a single-state.
Let’s face it, it hurt the Lebanese to be bombed by the IAF but they bounced back soon enough stronger than ever. That’s how you need to think. And not to overlook the huge market on your doorstep for those new Israeli solar cells (they could be even bigger than cherry tomatoes).
Bring on the force.
What eee and the rest of the apologists don’t grasp is that they already live in one state. It is merely a convenient fiction that the Palestinians live somewhere else
All states are convenient fictions. Like corporations, they are legal, not natural persons. The Palestinians have just been given a green light to use that fiction to their advantage for a change in international and national courts.
Whether I/P transitions from apartheid to independence, like Namibia-South Africa or incorporation into a single state, like South Africa’s transition from apartheid and the elimination of the TBVC States, isn’t really a matter of transcendent importance.
Annie and Shmuel do not want to admit that what they are proposing will hurt Israelis.
Of course BDS will hurt Israelis, but not in the way you suggest (economic hardship). It is a form of non-violent struggle, intended to create a climate of both external and internal pressure on Israeli leaders to recognise Palestinian human rights and comply with international law. You reject all forms of Palestinian struggle – both violent and non-violent – so it comes as no surprise that you reject BDS.
“At some point, you are going to have to learn to get on with your neighbours and that will definitely be easier in a single-state. ”
That is a utopian view.
There are communities that have done well by confederating and communities that have utterly fallen apart.
The ability to get along with neighbors is one of attitude, not of political structure.
Enemy shifting to
Opponent shifting to
Different community/neighbor shifting to
Commonality shifting to
We
The shift from Enemy all the way to different community/accepted neighbor is a prerequisite BEFORE a single state, without civil war. And, it has to happen BOTH ways, and #and# construction.
Witty, the utopian view is that a Jews-only state can survive in the modern global world. You’re trying to apply a pre-medieval concept to a post-modern society.
RW: “That is a utopian view.”
I don’t know Richard, with your continued pursuit of a two-state solution in the face of Israel’s on-going theft of Palestinian land it seems to me you’re the one trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube.
eee, after South Africa became free of Apartheid the crime and poverty rates went up, the economy and overall standard of living went down.
For those formerly privileged whites that chose to stay, this is the price they had to pay for committing Apartheid in the first place. Using it as an justification for Apartheid would be immoral.
There is a video game called Fallout 3 which takes place in a post-nuclear apocalypse Washington D.C.. Eventually you stumble across a gated luxury hotel full of privileged and wealthy people which is out of place in an otherwise run-down and dangerous wasteland. There is a ‘race’ of humans who had their faces melted by the radiation (called ghouls) living in the outskirts. They want to live in the hotel too because even though they look like zombies, there are still human. You have a moral choice to make, kill the ghouls, allow the ghouls to ransack and kill the wealthy people in the hotel, or convince the two to peacefully live together. In the latter option, the two get along great for a couple days. Then no matter what the ghouls kill the humans because of the human bigotry.
Even though the humans die no matter what, that is still the most moral decision to make (and the only one that doesn’t result in negative ‘karma’) and the humans may not have deserved it, but they had it coming. Strange analogy, I know. I suppose you would say this is what the Palestinians would do to Israelis.
Anyways, that hotel reminds me of Israel. A fortress of bigots living a luxurious artificial lifestyle at the expense of others.
Charon
Rich Israelis are living off poor Israelis who are shafting Palestinians
sounds like a regular food chain, seafoid
Phil, pretty cogent response after merely “skimming” the book! Talk to Abunimah…
Also consider suggesting Abunimah post up a review of this book on his own website and then cross-post it on MW.
Phil, you would have better served your community here if you would have actually addressed his worries, especially the economic and divisional questions. Instead of merely criticizing him, perhaps you could offer solutions to the issues which will no doubt plague a single state of “Israel”
Think about it! Jews might actually have to reduced to having the same exact rights as Arabs! What an insult, huh?
Yeah, terrifying. The issues are already plaguing the de facto single state. But as it is only Palestinians that suffer, that doesn’t matter. But what if Jews had to suffer the same oppressive, discriminatory, abusive behaviour? Unthinkable – as it is inconceivable to right the wrongs and treat Palestinians as equal to them in every respect, the original owners and inhabitants of the land.
“where the standards of physical beauty are shaped by how Jews look.”
Mooser, where art thou?
What Gorenberg is really scared of, is a country full of “A-rabs” and jewish religious fanatics. It shows how shallow this man is, and how shallow the commitment to Israel as the “jewish state” is. A jewish state made up of secular jews shopping at Saks fifth is fine, but a real jewish state, under religious law? heavens no. What a fraud this guy is. He isn’t worried about Jewish/Palestinian sectarianism, he’s worried about being under the control of the ultra religious jews. And that is likely to be the case, as the fraud zionists will probably leave, once their institutionalized privileges are taken away.
“What a fraud this guy is. He isn’t worried about Jewish/Palestinian sectarianism, he’s worried about being under the control of the ultra religious jews. And that is likely to be the case, as the fraud zionists will probably leave, once their institutionalized privileges are taken away.”
The Spitting Jews, Dan Crowther. It’s mind-boggling to realize these barbaric Haredi cultists will soon be in control of a nuclear arsenal.
What a whirlwind Project Israel has reaped!
“It’s mind-boggling to realize these barbaric Haredi cultists will soon be in control of a nuclear arsenal.”
The barbaric American Christians had no problem with nuking the Japanese. Anyone else so far?
“The barbaric American Christians had no problem with nuking the Japanese.”
And they’ll nuke again! Imagine the news item headline several days before the bomb is detonated: Christian Rapture Heads from around the world join the Spitting Jews in Israel to await the Last Days.
How about: “Christian Rapture Heads nuke Spitting Jews in Israel: ‘We will win the Final Battle’”
as the fraud zionists will probably leave, once their institutionalized privileges are taken away.”
where they gonna go?
half the nations in the world say NIMBY!! You want zionists or religious settlers in YOUR backyard/school district/home town?
RE: “You want zionists or religious settlers in YOUR backyard/school district/home town?” What was the name of that town, Pottsville? In Iowa? The kosher factory thing? There was a good book written about it.
Ah, here it is, the reality of when Orthodox Jew values meets American Midwestern values–in Postville, Iowa.:
link to isteve.blogspot.com
Gorenberg is, unfortunately, correct. Creating one state, under the present conditions is a pipe dream. If there is to be one state, for which the signs are not encouraging, the land first has to be de-Zionized which would require the forced removal, and here’s a good use for NATO, of every Jewish settlement on the other side of the Green Line. Those, not born in what is now Israel, as opposed to the settlements would be returned to their countries of origin since they would have no legal basis to remain there.
Palestine, which is what it naturally would be called, would become an Arab state with a Jewish minority which would have all the rights and privileges, such as they are, that the Israeli state accords to its Palestinian Arab citizens. This will not come about, peacefully, I am afraid, but at gunpoint, but this time the guns would be pointed in the right direction, though not necessarily fired.
Jeffrey Blankfort: But why armed force? Why not by economic BDS from the nations if they would simply notice the horror and the 44 years and get off their bottoms and act. And of these two, economic sanctions or armed force, which is more likely to occur?
Without some added element, such as an Israel attack on Iran which initiates a major regional war and concurrent economic disaster, neither, the NATO intervention, humanitarian for the first time, nor BDS, is likely to cause Israel to give up the settlements.
It has a far stronger economy than did South Africa and it is backed by powerful Jewish establishments not only in the US, but in Canada, Australia and Western Europe, that will not allow Israel to fail. BDS is important but it is not really a game changer.
The idea that Israel, with the world’s 4th or 5th most powerful military and vying with the US as to which is the more warlike, will willingly and peacefully give up the West Bank and all the settlements is a delusion that has fostered the “two state” movement for the past 20 years and provided the cover for expanding the settlements and making such a solution not only impossible but undesirable since the Palestinian state would be a Bantustan in Washington’s pocket, at best.
Glad to know you are for a non-violent solution.
I am a little disappointed you are sending Nato to do the job because that will never happen. It is unimaginable that countries like the US, Canada and Germany would be willing to fight and deport Israeli Jews. Why don’t you organize an army of volunteers to do what you recommend instead? You could be their commander in chief!
Hey, eee, you’re a violent problem. It’s only natural that the solution follows the same vein.
Hey Chaos,
At least do not try to sell us the notion that your movement is a non-violent one. It clearly is a violent one. Zionism never claimed it was a non-violent or a pacifist movement. You are trying to hide behind the veil of non-violence but you are not fooling anyone. Do you worst then. Will you be joining Blankfort’s army?
Oh, I have plenty of Israeli agents to fight right here in the United States, apparently.
You wait and see what happens if Israel starts a war with Iran sending oil prices sky high and the European economy collapses. There is very likely to be wide support in Europe to punish those who caused it. Once again, Jews will prove not to have learned the lessons of history. That’s one of the reasons Herzl wanted a separate state when what was required was further assimilation and abandonment of the “chosen people” mentality.
It is unimaginable that countries like the US, Canada and Germany would be willing to fight and deport Israeli Jews.
Only to unimaginative ideologues like you. The idea of using NATO forces in the West Bank has been suggested by President Clinton, and former National Security Advisors James L. Jones, Brent Scowcroft, and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
link to newsweek.com
See also Abbas: “Future State Will Be Under NATO Security Forces Headed By The USA” link to imemc.org
Blankfurt,
Do you think that Nato will remove Jewish settlers?
And, do you honestly think that Jews should be removed from the land that they reside so that a “just” Palestinian Arab majority would emerge?
You must be a likud plant to propose such.
The same Likud that you bobblehead to when they insist that Jews-only settlements MUST remain on the West Bank?
No, Wittgenstein, at this point I don’t but I would certainly support it, even, as an ex-GI, volunteer to help. And, yes, I honestly believe that every last Jewish settler should be removed from their illegal presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. There is not a single one who is not aware that his or her presence as an occupier is illegal against international law and it is long past time that those who break that law were forced to observe it.
Speaking of Likud plants, Wittgenstein, your leaves began to wilt a long time ago.
As a fellow ex-GI, along with my brother, ex (& always) US Marine, we volunteer to help you help, Jeff. We are also both lawyers, so that may help too. No Jewish settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has a moral or legal right to be left standing. To do so violates core universal principles articulated at Nuremberg, then at Geneva, including before the contemporary state of Israel was proclaimed. WW1 and WW2 and the Holocaust cannot be for nothing.
How many ethnic Germans were transferred to the West immediately following WW2? This included the greater majority who left their home of many generations. Many died along the way; the UN or some other delegated and/or agreed designated coalition could prevent that of course.
I refer to The Expulsion of 1945-1948. 15 million ethnic Germans were expelled, of which 2 million died in the process. At the time Americans of German descent comprised the largest ethnic group in America–they still do, but not by as wide a margin. Ignoring tribes as, e.g. the Germanic Ostrogoths and Visigoths as not direct forebears of modern Germans, German settlements commenced in East Central Europe in the 12th Century.
Richard Witty said, ‘I call for “dialog” (sic), and to “humanize the other,” but the moment Jeffrey Blankfort says something I don’t like I a) insult him by mispelling his name, and b) call him “a likud plant” (sic).
‘You see that I’m quick to reach for the insults, but I don’t hesitate to lecture Palestinians who have been murdered, imprisoned, tortured and driven off their land that they should be calm, stay polite, and “make the better argument.”‘
I call him a likud plant because he articulates enthusiastically, the most inhumane “remedy” that could be imagined.
“Send them back where they came from”.
Phil and you should make the better argument because you’re smart enough to and hopefully regard justice to all as a component of the word justice.
Palestinians should make the better argument so that they succeed in accomplishing self-determination (rather than self-rationalization), and that their success realizes a just, democratic, diverse community.
That contrasts with the prospect of a truly ethnically cleansed West Bank. (You do know that a % of Jews that live in the West Bank, live on land that was purchased by the Jewish Agency before 1948?)
Mass removal, even of West Bank settlers, is still mass removal of a civilian population. A good in your estimation obviously.
Do you advocate for that from a sense of resentment only, or is there a goal that you are trying to achieve?
Wittgenstein, you write:
“Mass removal, even of West Bank settlers, is still mass removal of a civilian population. A good in your estimation obviously.
“Do you advocate for that from a sense of resentment only, or is there a goal that you are trying to achieve?
I do so from a sense of justice, something that is entirely lacking, by necessity, in the Zionist canon, and hence, I can’t expect you to know anything about. As long as Jews are allowed to remain in their illegal settlements there will be no justice.
I call him a likud plant because he articulates enthusiastically, the most inhumane “remedy” that could be imagined.
No the most inhumane remedy would be to condone evil and lawlessness by allowing the Israelis to stay.
And, by the word “justice”, do you mean the remedy for one community’s wrongs, or do you mean justice as the goal of future relations?
The rhetorical, as long as Jews are allowed to remain in their illegal settlements (accompanied by the prejudicial assertion that all of the settlements are illegal), is not justice probably in either usage.
Justice represents the right of ALL parties to argue their case. You don’t propose that. You propose an answer already determined, inevitably with incomplete knowledge, but loudly.
The application of the theme leaves the majority of the world as disenfranchised, denied justice, as the vast majority of us ALL are migrants. The Palestinians are only no migrants with the selection of some statute of limitations.
You have made a value judgment that rights are not to be afforded to those that reside for three generations, but 4 to 10 generations are entitled to rights. But, not to 90 generations.
There is NO QUESTION in my mind that Palestinians individual rights have often been abused, incidentally and institutionally.
And, I do NOT propose a second inhumane remedy (forced removal of hundreds of thousands from homes, a large minority that were born in those locales – HOME to them).
Its a great tragedy when compassion gets politicized, rather than universally applied.
And, by the word “justice”, do you mean the remedy for one community’s wrongs, or do you mean justice as the goal of future relations?
I mean arrest, prosecution, and upon conviction punishment for the crimes committed by individuals on the territory of the State of Palestine since 2002.
The rhetorical, as long as Jews are allowed to remain in their illegal settlements (accompanied by the prejudicial assertion that all of the settlements are illegal), is not justice probably in either usage.
You’re pretty clueless when it comes to your grasp of criminal justice. I didn’t formulate Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute; Article 85(4)(a) of the 1st Additional Protocol; or Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The international community of states declared those settlements illegal.
You have made a value judgment
No I haven’t, the international community of states adopted rules to govern the conduct of peoples and states and the international community of states have judged the actions of Israel and the Jewish settlers in Palestine to be illegal and criminal. That’s why no one listens to your attempts to publicly condone and grossly trivialize crimes against humanity that have been committed against the Palestinian people.
Richard Witty said, ‘I’m not interested in paragraph numbers and legal citations:
‘My view of international law is actually quite simple. If it helps Israeli Jews, I’m for it; if it doesn’t, I’m not.’
“I mean arrest, prosecution, and upon conviction punishment for the crimes committed by individuals on the territory of the State of Palestine since 2002.”
The purpose of punitive law is to define ranges of acceptable behavior for the present to the future. To have only a retributive basis of justice, and not for the goal of civil life for present and future citizens, is frankly an abuse of the term.
Its a FLAW in the use of the term “justice”.
Justice is another #and# construction, of which the punishment for the past is barely a sliver of what it is composed of.
“Victims rights” – The right to the family of a murdered child to have the perpetrator murdered in response. (death penalty is a murder).
And, at the same time, advocating for the rights of the accused, but ignoring that they occur simultaneously, and that the rights of the LIVING (accused and society) far far supercede the rights of victims to retribution.
“You’re pretty clueless when it comes to your grasp of criminal justice. I didn’t formulate Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute; Article 85(4)(a) of the 1st Additional Protocol; or Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The international community of states declared those settlements illegal.”
Actually, I’m not clueless in the slightest.
The action of the Israeli state to intentionally place settlers is probably illegal. The action of the individual civilian residents are NOT of victimizer. They are civilians and deserve the rights that all civilians are entitled to, whatever jurisdiction.
I certainly hope that you would not declare that civilians don’t have rights. It presents a very hypocritical precedent, a typical polemic political one.
“‘I’m not interested in paragraph numbers and legal citations:”
In your case, your use of quotes is for intentional misrepresentation.
Can you please take the moral responsibility to use quotes consistently?
Witty: “The application of the theme leaves the majority of the world as disenfranchised, denied justice, as the vast majority of us ALL are migrants. The Palestinians are only no migrants with the selection of some statute of limitations.”
Yes, Witty there’s a common-sensical statute of limitations–otherwise, imagine the result considering the world’s human ancestors all came from Africa, or, under recent theory, China.
The other reason, as I already commented, stems from Nuremberg and its progeny. The whole point is might-makes-right should have rightly died with its eloquent spokesman, Goering’s suicide.
RW: Justice is another #and# construction
I assume you are enormously proud of this construct, but could you please explain why “Justice” is just ” another #and# construction”. I think, I understand what you are trying to say. But I want to know what exactly: a #and# construction is.
You know dialogue, what exactly was on your mind? I am not interested in future versus past but in the exact meaning of the above term.
An #and# construction is something that requires two or more simultaneous characteristics to be realized.
Justice as only remedy for a past asserted wrong, and only for one party’s, is a sliver of it.
The orientation to the past, punishment for past asserted wrongs, is for the purpose of consistency and definition of acceptable behavior in the present and future. It itself is not justice in the slightest.
If a cruelty is proposed as the remedy for a prior cruelty, that is not justice. That is retribution only.
Not an improvement in the world, just a change in the world.
“Justice, justice shall you pursue”, not “retribution, retribution you shall pursue.”
>> If a cruelty is proposed as the remedy for a prior cruelty, that is not justice. That is retribution only.
Holding the perpetrators of cruelty accountable for their crimes is not retribution, it is accountability.
Inflicting cruelty upon a third party in response to cruelty is not accountability. It is not retribution. It is pure injustice and immorality. And RW approves of it…as long as Jews are doing it to others, and not having it done to them.
RW is a morally bankrupt, hypocritical Zio-supremacist.
“Holding the perpetrators of cruelty accountable for their crimes is not retribution, it is accountability.”
Thats EXACTLY my point, that the purpose of accountability is create a present environment that individuals will be confident that their rights are protected, and defendable.
To the extent that ANY prejudicial politically motivated decree relative to title is pursued diminishes that confidence radically.
Also, law includes the rights of the accused as well as the accountability.
Seriously, when you think of justice, are you thinking of “justice for Palestinians” or are you thinking of “justice for Palestinians and justice for Jews/Israelis”.
The purpose of punitive law is to define ranges of acceptable behavior for the present to the future.
Exactly. Nothing that you mentioned is mentioned in “Grounds for excluding criminal responsibility” in Article 31 of the Rome Statute. The 119 State Parties to the Rome Statute reaffirmed that population transfer and deportation are among the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole and must not go unpunished. The said that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation; and they determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes in the future.
The “future” has finally arrived for the Israeli government and its settlers. They deliberately violated international criminal law for decades and ignored the entry into effect of the Rome Statute at their own peril.
>> Thats EXACTLY my point, that the purpose of accountability is create a present environment that individuals will be confident that their rights are protected, and defendable.
I like how he dodges the whole issue of accountability for B who, while a victim at the hands of A, is a criminal by virtue of the crimes he has committed against C, a third party.
He dodges it because he actually approves, supports, excuses and justifies B’s criminality. That’s just part of his moral bankruptcy.
The action of the Israeli state to intentionally place settlers is probably illegal. The action of the individual civilian residents are NOT of victimizer. They are civilians and deserve the rights that all civilians are entitled to, whatever jurisdiction.
Witty you are repeatedly hectoring everyone here with your clueless drivel about “civilian residents”. The members of the Yesha Council are public officials who are participants in a joint criminal enterprise as defined in Article 25 of the Rome Statute. The remainder are illegal enemy aliens who are citizens of another state with no rights of residency in any Palestinian jurisdiction.
In the 2005 Regional Council, Coast of Gaza v. Knesset of Israel case, H.C.J. 1661/05, the Court dismissed those arguments from the petitioners and ruled that:
*Judea and Samaria are being held in a state of belligerent occupation;
*that Israeli civilians are not protected persons there according to the applicable international conventions;
*that the military commander only has the right of usufruct and cannot convey a better title to others for state or private land than the one he possesses in accordance with public international law – none;
* that the settler’s residency and property rights are temporary, like the occupation itself.
The Court ruled:
While discussing the property right of Israelis evacuated from the Gaza Strip, the Court stated:
To the extent that ANY prejudicial politically motivated decree relative to title is pursued diminishes that confidence radically.
Richard, in the case of the Etzion block, I pointed out elsewhere that it was actually owned by the JNF, a public state organ of Israel. It was located in the proposed Arab state. A change of sovereignty certainly doesn’t effect private property rights, but that norm doesn’t apply to enemy state property acquired for used by organized and reinforced insurgent militias.
Jeffrey Blankfort,
Perhaps I’ve missed something, but why would the so-called one state solution require the forced removal of colonists from the occupied West Bank?
How so? At the moment there is an equal number of Jews and non-Jews living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Palestinians have been mired in a decades’-long occupation, suffered instability and prolonged trauma. They are TIRED. An opportunity to settle justly the grievances of the last 60 years would be a much welcome opportunity. Have you spoken to any Palestinians about this? I really think you ought to do so.
In addition, you seem unfamiliar with the Palestinians’ (or any human beings’) capacity — as a collective — to forgive and move on.
Avi G, I have spent about the last 40 years working on this issue which began with a four month stay in Lebanon and Jordan in 1970 and most of the Palestinians I know, both there and here, would be more than happy to see what I have proposed become a reality.
I am not sure that someone named Avi G, should be advising Palestinians to forgive what has been done to them for 60 years by your co-religionists and to move on. Would you suggest that Jews whose families had been victimized by the Nazis “to forgive and move on?” No, I didn’t think so.
Indeed, the Palestinians are tired, they are tired of the daily humiliations, they are tired of having their land stolen and their trees uprooted, of watching Israeli soldiers break into their homes in the middle of the night, kidnapping young men while their parents watch helplessly, of seeing Jews who were born in the US, the UK, France, So. Africa, and Australia, deprive them of their orchards, their water, and their dignity. Of seeing them use their power to raze a hue and cry about one Israeli soldier, legally captured while there is dead silence about thousands of Palestinians illegally held in Israel by their oppressors. They are also tired of Jews like yourself telling them they should forgive and move on and while your Israeli lanzmann grind their boots ever deeper into Palestinian necks.
I first saw the religious settlers of Gush Emunim in action in Hebron in 1983 just after the IOF had taken over the central bus station for a military HQ and the vicious, unbridled racism with which they harassed the Palestinians and had their spoiled brats do the same was unlike anything that I had ever seen.
It was not until I returned 21 years later, after most of Hebron had already been stolen, that I saw it once again. I would give them 30 minutes to pack up and leave. Which is more than they deserve.
Jeffrey,
There seems to be a misunderstanding between us.
“Forgive and move on” was in the sense of reconciling and living together after the so-called conflict had been settled. What I read in your original comment was an implication that Palestinians would remain vengeful until the last Israeli Jew was kicked out of the region.
That is why I disagreed with Gorenberg’s assertions.
With this clarification in mind, could you re-read my original response above? There were some questions to which I would be interested in reading your answers.
Avi, I don’t think I misunderstood you. Israel as state and Israelis as individual citizens of a “democratic” state have freely chosen, under no compulsion, to commit grievous crimes against the Palestinians and do so for decades and those crimes have been informed by levels of sadism that have been unparalleled elsewhere in modern history for such an amount of time.
Now, should the Palestinians, collectively, decide to let bygones be bygones, I will not be the one to rush over there and tell them not to, but I seriously doubt that the majority of Palestinians are ready to do that and there is no justification in suggesting that they do so.
What I am saying and there is ample evidence provided every day to back me up, is that Jews have lost the right at this point in time to live in the West Bank and Palestinian East Jerusalem. They have been living there, knowing that even if they never lift a hand against the Palestinians, they are sitting on stolen land and lavishly using stolen water and the IOF is guaranteeing that they can continue to do so.
I have not an ounce of sympathy for any one of them, for whatever reason they move to Gilo or Maale Adumim. I am not one who believes that those who commit such crimes as Israel has against the Palestinians and those who have benefited from those crimes should escape paying for it. I say the same for the US regarding Iraq and before that Vietnam.
Well, you know what I find curious is that throughout this entire exchange you repeatedly focus on the West Bank, the Territories, the occupation.
So, let me get this right, you assert that Jews have lost the right to live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but you do not find it objectionable, nor do you disagree with the notion, that Jews can live on stolen private property in Jaffa or Nazareth.
Isn’t that curious?
And even IF one were to assume that you made that distinction based on international law (Because the West Bank was occupied in a war of aggression etc. etc. whereas Tel-Aviv, for example, was part of the original Jewish state as mandated by the Partition Plan of 1947, etc.) then it’s still an odd distinction given the fact that Jaffa was actually occupied in a war of aggression. Sure, Israeli forces didn’t occupy it in 1967, but in late 1947 and early 1948, well, that’s a different story. So, how does Jeffrey Blankfort make the distinction? On what does he base it, and why is he stuck on the territories acquired in 1967, while somehow forgetting entirely about 1948?
But then, of course, Jeffrey Blankfort repeatedly makes pronouncements about Zionist this and Zionist that and how the Zionists are like Nazis. So his ‘credentials’ are ‘impeccable’. Right? But, is it possible that deep down inside, perhaps Jeffrey has a soft spot for Zionism? Or, god forbid one should accuse Jeffrey Blankfort of being a Zionist, at the very least, Jeffrey does envisage a condition wherein Jews deserve their own state, their own ethnic nation-state, hence his obsession with the Occupied Territories of the West Bank.
But, let’s hear what Jeffrey has to say.
Say, Jeffrey Blankfort, what do you think?
Maybe Jeff will say it should be up for UN revote, with the Palestinians this time not only being represented, but represented by their own? Let’s hear what Avi_G says about that.
I think what I have thought since spending four months in Lebanon and Jordan in 1970, much of it in Palestinian refugee camps. I think the establishment of Israel and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and you could not have one without the other, was an immoral criminal act which has only grown in its intensity over the years.
I speak of using force, if necessary, to liberate the West Bank of every last settler because there is a legal basis for such an act. While I would very happily give the majority of Israeli Jews the old heave-ho, as well, they have a legal right to be there. So, too, do the Palestinians and there families who were ethnically cleansed in 1948.
As for all that nonsense of me being a closet Zionist, that does more to expose where you’re coming from than what it says about me. Since 1967, there has been one state, de facto, if not de jure, and what I foresee, as I mentioned, are those foreign born illegal settlers being deported from whence they came and from what remains there would be a Palestinian Arab state with a Jewish minority in which Palestinians, regardless of where they were born, enjoying the right of return. That would, of course, no longer apply to Jews.
Maybe, Avi G, you need a course in reading comprehension.
“As for all that nonsense of me being a closet Zionist, that does more to expose where you’re coming from than what it says about me.”
It doesn’t expose anything except that this was a misunderstanding that escalated between two people who are pretty close in their views as best I can tell.
“de-Zionized?”
“the forced removal…of every Jewish settlement on the other side of the Green Line?”
“and here’s a good use for NATO?”
Nice chap, this Jeffrey.
Boo friggin’ who, Israel would have to lose it’s lebensraum and give up Poland — I mean, Palestine.
They could leave voluntarily, a step ahead of the bulldozers, and save everyone the trouble.
Yes, give them a better deal than Rachel Corrie got.
Well, Werdine, no need for NATO if they would go voluntarily. It would only be tit for tat with the tit having more legitimacy than the tat. You will recall Operation Dalat, the Zionist plan to cleanse Israel of its Palestinians by force. My sister’s late brother-in-law who left the oppression of his Beverly Hills home to volunteer for the Haganah, laughed as he told how, armed, he and his buddies had entered a Palestinian home and found an unfinished meal still on the kitchen tables. A Syrian bullet later knocked out one of his testicles which I am sure he didn’t see as a laughing matter, although I admit I did.
Over 500 Palestinian villages destroyed by Israel in 1948, and 750,000 ethnically cleansed, Werdine. By that standard, the “transfer” of the settlers from the West Bank, would be a picnic. You do the math.
“A Syrian bullet later knocked out one of his testicles which I am sure he didn’t see as a laughing matter, although I admit I did.”
A model of personal character.
Actually, his brother, my late ex-brother in law, who told me about it also thought it was funny. I’m not sure about his wife, however, who discovered that her half-gelded hubby was nevertheless able to cheat on her with another kibbutznik.
Whereas supporting ethnic cleansing if it’s “necessary” is taking the moral high road. How many panes left in your glasshouse Witty?
The man who lost his testicle was a Jewish terrorist, Witty.
Yeah, as Witty puts it, “a model of personal character,” especially with all the additional details provided by Jeff.
Nice chap, this Jeffrey.
Perhaps you’d prefer the Gen. Dan Halutz method of evacuation? I’m sure that Hezbollah could loan NATO some recycled leaflets that could be used to warn the
LebaneseIsraeli population to vacate all land south of the Littani river. Turnabout is fair play after all.Hostage: Turnabout is not fair play. I think that we should be trying for a state is more moral than Israel. It is not just more moral than Israel – that bar is so low as to be a complete embarrassment. It is a state that is much more moral than Israel.
As far as NATO goes – be careful of what you ask for.
States are not moral. None. Not one. But I’m not sure who you mean by “we?”Unless you are a Palestinian, the first one probably named Edwin. If the opportunity presents itself it will be up to Palestinians to determine how their state will function.
Hostage: Turnabout is not fair play. I think that we should be trying for a state is more moral than Israel.
It was a rhetorical question and I was being sarcastic. If you check the archives, you’ll find I’ve explained over and over again that neither side has the right to attack civilians who are not actively participating in hostilities.
Here’s one where I even pointed out that, if the Yesha Council declared their independence, the UN Charter prohibition against the threat or use of force might prevent the IDF from removing them: link to mondoweiss.net
“the forced removal, and here’s a good use for NATO, of every Jewish settlement on the other side of the Green Line”
I’m looking forward to the Bundestag debate on committing Bundeswehr units to the task of throwing screaming and kicking Jews out of their houses and deporting them across the border: “Jews back to Israel” , at gunpoint (the Brownshirts shouted “Jews back to Palestine” during Kristallnacht). And it won’t be much different anywhere else in Europe. I wouldn’t count on the Canadian forces either. I suppose the Turks would do it, and Obama could send some American units to join them. Why do I hear “Obama is a Muslim”?
If Israel attacks Iran and, as a result, the already shaky world economy takes a deep tumble the like of which it can not begin to afford, the world will know who was responsible and you can expect the European governments that now publicly kiss Netanyahu’s tuchus , while privately describing him as “a pain in the ass,” and worse, to take a course of action that would be supported by their respective populations and that might just include enforcing a settlement which would include moving the settlers out.
When polled by Gallup in 2003, 7500 residents in 15 European countries declared that “Israel was the greatest threat to world peace,” greater than either Iran or North Korea. When the ZIONTERN complained, they apparently stopped taking such polls, but does anyone think anything Israel has done over the last eight years would change their opinions?
I don’t have any use for NATO or the notion of “humanitarian intervention” although the Vietnamese saved the lives of countless Cambodians when they responded to repeated Chinese sponsored attacks in it border by the Khmer Rouge, by invading Cambodia and driving Pol Pot and his bloodthirsty killers from power.
In the scenario that I have suggested, NATO’s intervention in the West Bank to evict the settlers would not be to benefit the Palestinians but to punish Israel for having driven Western Europe into bankruptcy, and whatever the US or Canada did or didn’t do, the European countries would have no problem, under those circumstances, to do the job. I am sure that not only would that move be supported by the Russians, they would probably also volunteer troops. As for the Germans, the current generation is tired of being guilt tripped and you can bet that the Bundeswehr, at that point, would only hesitate a nano second before pitching in. It might not take much. If the West Bank itself was relative untouched, which is not likely, I think the settlers might suddenly awaken to reality of their situation and take the first plane back to the states.
I would not wish such a war and the collapse of the global economy on the world for any reason, even if it meant the liberation of Palestine. It would be far too costly, but I have little to say about it. If it does happen, however, everyone in the world will know who was responsible, that “shitty little state.”
Yep, and I don’t think playing the “Jew-Haters” card would be of much help in such a logical scenario. Of course centuries from now Establishment Jewish historians would be showing only that card at the appropriate Jewish calendar date(s).
Blankfort,
You are completely delusional. If the Europeans ever want to punish Israel, which as you remember has to be a unanimous EU decision and thus never will happen, it will be by “soft” power, sanctions and such, never sending an army. They cannot project power.
Cough Samson Option cough cough.
The peoples of Europe, across the board, eee, don’t like Israel. They think its the greatest threat to world peace the last time such a poll was taken. Their governments cannot go that far because of powerful Jewish lobbies in their respective countries and for fear of running afoul of the US.
But should Israel attack Iran and the results are as catastrophic for Europe and the global economy as many knowledgeable people about the region predict, everyone will know who was to blame for their misfortune, and it won’t be “soft power” they will visit on Israel, I assure you. And you can bet the Jewish establishment worldwide that has supported Israel to the bloody hilt will be shitting in its collective pants.
Lebanon is a republic like the USA, it has a constitution which guarantees the rights of the minority against the majority so far from being a bad example its a good example! Israel the only “democracy” in the middle east doesn’t even have a constitution and has instigated far more violence than Lebanon.
Get real petersz.
Just the Lebanese Civil War which lasted from 1975 to 1990 resulted in an estimated 150,000 to 230,000 civilian fatalities.
Arab-Israel conflict 1945-1995 74,000 military deaths, 18,000 civilian deaths.
“Just the Lebanese Civil War which lasted from 1975 to 1990 resulted in an estimated 150,000 to 230,000 civilian fatalities.
Arab-Israel conflict 1945-1995 74,000 military deaths, 18,000 civilian deaths.”
Statements like this would appear more “real” if there were sources to back them up.
When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 it killed 20,000 people. You seem to have forgotten them.
From link to en.wikipedia.org
“In terms of the human cost, estimates range from 51,000 fatalities (35,000 Arabs and 16,000 Jews) from 1950 to 2007, to 92,000 fatalities (74,000 military and 18,000 civilian from 1945 to 1995).”
From link to en.wikipedia.org
“The war lasted from 1975 to 1990 and resulted in an estimated 150,000 to 230,000 civilian fatalities. Another one million people (a quarter of the population) were wounded, and today approximately 350,000 people remain displaced. There was also a mass exodus of almost one million people from Lebanon. The Post-war occupation of the country by Syria was particularly politically disadvantageous to the Christian population as most of their leadership was driven into exile, or had been assassinated or jailed.”
QED
The first wikipedia link doesn’t go to any particular article. And anyone who thinks a wikipedia link in itself means “QED” is just a little naive. Wikipedia is okay on some subjects, but on the I/P conflict its main use (when it has one) would be any links it provides to other sources, good or bad.
Try link to en.wikipedia.org
for the first link
Mayhem, Israel has violated the territorial integrity of Lebanon and used it to warehouse its Arab inhabitants for decades. For your own part, you’ve attempted to downplay and publicly trivialize the deaths of far more Lebanese military and civilians at the hands of Israelis than the US experienced in the 9/11 attacks and in the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. Lebanon’s casualties are a much higher proportion of its total population. Presumably the Lebanese view their national security and the lives of their people as being just as valuable as American lives and security.
So all you’ve managed to do, from my POV, is explain why the Lebanese people are perfectly justified in viewing Israel as a top threat to their security that can’t be ignored or trusted. It has bombed and invaded their country, deliberately inflicting excessive casualties in the process, and occupied it for years-on-end in violation of the UN Charter. Can you cite the number of Israeli civilians and armed forces who died at the hands of Lebanon which justified that, or the territory that Lebanon occupied inside the borders of Israel?
Israel was heavily involved in the Lebanese Civil War and inflicted many of the civilian deaths itself. That “18,000″ figure you cite for all of the deaths in the Israel-Arab wars is probably in the neighborhood of the correct figure for the 1982 Israeli invasion.
The Lebanese civil war was instigated by Israel, which destabilized the equilibrium. The foundation of Israel was like an asteroid striking the mideast, causing tectonic upheaval everywhere.
seafoid:
“$100 BILLION was spent on the settlers
from 1970-2000″
How much of this $$$ came out of Uncle Sam’s public purse? I’ve heard that there’s a joke in Israel: “For every dime American taxpayers have spent on new homes for settlers, they’ll pay a dollar to have them relocated inside Israel.” If the time comes to move settlers back into Israel, American taxpayers will, no doubt, be asked to pay the bill. Whatever the solution to I/P may be, one state or two, American soldiers should not be asked again to fight and die to make the world safe for Israel and American taxpayers shouldn’t pay one more brown penny for the tragic fiasco Israelis have created for themselves.
It’s ridiculous to think that Palestinians could go all the way back to 1948 with claims of stolen property. The next thing you know is that Jews whose property was stolen by the Nazis will demands to get it back.
Or even more absurd, that Nazi collaborators would still be prosecuted in this century! Nakba, Holocaust, it all happened last century, those books are closed, right?
“It’s ridiculous to think that Palestinians could go all the way back to 1948 with claims of stolen property. The next thing you know is that Jews whose property was stolen by the Nazis will demand to get it back.”
That would be as ridiculous as Jews/Israelis compensating Germans/Nazis for stolen property:
” the Templers [are] an evangelical Christian sect founded in southern Germany in the mid-19th century. The members of the sect yearned for the Holy Land, and their intention was to prepare people for the End of Days. In 1868 the first two Templer colonies were established in Palestine – in Haifa and Jaffa – followed by Sharona (now next to where the Kirya military complex sits in Tel Aviv), Wilhelma (today Bnei Atarot), Bethlehem in the Galilee, Waldheim (today Alonei Abba), and a subsidiary of the colony in Jaffa, called Valhalla, where the Lorenz Cafe was located.
Historian Dr. Michal Oren, from the school for Land of Israel Studies in the Schechter Institute, points out that the meaning of the neighborhood’s name is “the paradise of the gods,” an important place in German and Nordic mythology, which marks the resting place of dead fighters, where the god Odin entertains them with rich meals of wild boar and goat’s milk liquor until the end of days.
[...]
But alongside the flourishing cultural institution, in the 1930s Nazi propaganda began to filter into the Templer colonies. A branch of the Nazi Party was established in Haifa, and swastikas were hung on houses and cars. In 1934 the Templers decided not to rent apartments to Jews and to greet one another with a Nazi salute. At the Lorenz Cafe, Herta Wieland spoke about “Danzig and the East Germany,” the first in a series of lectures about the renewed German nationalism. A week later, to the sound of cheers, the swastika flag was raised over the nearby German Consulate building.
In 1935 there were 250 members of the Nazi Party in Palestine, and in January 1938 the number had grown to 330 (17 percent of German nationals in Palestine). But the outbreak of World War II was the beginning of the end of Templer settlement in Palestine. The British government declared them enemy nationals, and they were placed under arrest in the colonies of Waldheim and Sharona, or were sent to the detention camp in Atlit. In the summer of 1941, 665 detainees were expelled to Australia, with 1,052 remaining in the detention camps in Palestine.
The Jewish community did not forgive the Templers for the Nazi period, and after the establishment of the State, in May 1948, the last of the Templers were exiled to Australia. The Knesset German Property Law determined that German property in Israel would not return to its owners, but excluded property that had served directly for religious purposes. In the end, says Dr. Oren, due to international pressure involved in reaching the reparations agreement with West Germany, Israel agreed to pay for the non-religious property it had nationalized: 32 dunams in Jaffa, including in the Valhalla neighborhood (46 lots) and about 1,700 dunams in Sharona. Most of the property was secular, and therefore for the most part it was supposed to come into Israeli hands in return for payment. In order to prevent private lawsuits, Israel preferred to conduct concentrated negotiations, which continued until June 1962. In an arbitration agreement, Israel was obliged to pay 54 million DM, which were deducted from the reparations payments.”
link to haaretz.com
I should note that the term ‘reparations’ doesn’t strictly apply to the bilateral agreement between the FRG (1949-) and Israel (1948-). The Luxemburg Agreement was signed in 1953, and no other agreement like this had been established before or ever since. Unlike Jews expelled from Nazi Germany, the Templers have no ROR. They were, after all, just settlers and colonists from Germany, and Palestine wasn’t their homeland. It would be ridiculous for Jews expelled from Germany/Europe to claim a ROR for both Palestine and their former homeland. But that’s how it works for Jews. Two former homelands for Jews, one for Germans, none for Palestinians.
It was also in the 30s, of course, that the Nazis and the Zionists in Palestine came up with the Haavara or Transfer Agreement in which German Jews who were not allowed to take their money out of Germany which, as I understand it, applied to all Germans at the time, bought German goods which were than shipped to Palestine where they could pick up the goods and sell them with the Yishuv leadership taking their cut.
It was also the time when Eichmann himself visited Palestine to see how the “transfer” was going as did Baron Leopold Itz von Mildenstein, a member of the Nazi party and of Hitler’s SS who after returning to Germany, impressed with what he had seen, Der Angriff, a Nazi publication, had a medal made with a swastika on one side and the Magen David on the other. How prescient. link to randompottins.blogspot.com
Thinks for the Pottins link including the picture of the commemorative coin minted to celebrate the tie between the Nazis and the Zionists. It’s also good to be reminded of the purpose of Eichmann’s visit to Palestine. The furor against the publication of that history by Israel’s supporters is not unlike the opposition from the same people these days to any discussion of Israel’s occupation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians at Occupy Wall Street.
That’s sad but not surprising. I suspect that there are some people currently involved in OWS who are there, not because of their opposition to Wall Street, but to make sure that the Israel-Palestine conflict is off limits. We have seen that in both anti-Iraq war movements (Rabbi Waskow even boasted of his success in doing so to the Jewish weekly Forward as well as among the opposition to the Afghan war.
I wonder if making blow-up posters of that medal showing both sides would be considered a “hate crime?”
Les, the hasbarists here would probably say the same exact thing (sadly without the sarcasm).
The way that Jewish victims were compensated can actually serve as a model in a hypothetical solution for the Palestinians. All the refugees could be given a citizenship choice between Palestine or the US. Despite resentment toward the US, I guarantee it would be the more popular choice. That’s the same choice the Jews were given except in this case it would actually make sense.
Israel and the US could then be responsible for reparations to all Palestinians similar to how Germany is. Palestine could have their own version of the Nuremberg trials which would put the Revisionist Zionists right where they belong (behind bars or worse depending on the crime). Maybe even have some ‘Zionist hunters’ looking for war criminals who flee the country.
“The way that Jewish victims were compensated can actually serve as a model in a hypothetical solution for the Palestinians.”
Model? It has never served as anything but a deterrent. No country in the world wants to end up like the Germans, being taken to the cleaners for generations and subjected to endless harassment in the form of emotional, diplomatic and economic blackmail, compensating Jews who have been expropriated by Austrians, Soviets or Poles, among other absurdities.
@Les, you didn’t get your comparison quite right. Second sentence should read “The next thing you know is that the Jews who fled Arab countries around 1948 from fear of genocide will demand compensation for what they were forbidden to take with them as they became Jewish refugees.” When talking about Palestinian refugees you need to take a look at the full ledger; Palestinian refugee claims are countermanded by those of Jewish refugees.
You don’t give credit to Israel for setting off bombs to blow up some Jews in Iraq in order to get the rest of them to become those refugees.
Palestinian refugee claims are countermanded by those of Jewish refugees.
Actually the wrongful acts of third states do not create rights or obligations for either the Palestinians or their government. See Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts at the UN Treaty Organization link to untreaty.un.org
In addition, many of the Jewish refugees aren’t Israeli and have never assigned their claims to the government of Israel.
Mayhem, you’re new, at least under that name, to MW, but I have already responded to the notion that the Arab Jews who were expelled from the region beginning, but definitely not ending, in 1948, were considered or described as refugees. If you can find any Israeli source describing them as such before 1967, I would appreciate seeing it.
It was, in fact, none other than the late racist rabbi, Meir Kahane, who first made it an issue when he spoke about the “exchange of populations.” Before that I had neither heard nor saw the Mizrahim who emigrated from their Arab birthplace after 1948 referred to as refugees and the ones that I knew in Los Angeles never used the term.
When the Iraqi Jews were reluctant to leave a country where they had prospered, it took a bomb thrown by a Mossad agent to stimulate their exit and Israel made it easy, providing the planes to carry them off to Israel. Same for the Jews of Yemen, who were at the bottom of the tribal totem pole who also got air transport. They were to be the new state’s cheap labor force as well as the fodder for the Palestinian fedayeen.
Refer link to theforgottenrefugees.com
which is a site publicising an extraordinary film which won top accolades at the Warsaw and Marbella film festivals.
It says there:
‘On March 31, 2008, the first-ever Resolution recognizing the rights of “The Forgotten Refugees” was adopted by the United States House of Representatives. The Resolution asks the President to ensure that when the issue of Middle East refugees is discussed in international forums, U.S. representatives will ensure that any explicit reference to Palestinian refugees is matched by a similar explicit reference to Jewish and other refugees.’
Jewish refugees were quickly absorbed and not used as pawns like the Palestinian refugees who became human weapons intended to keep the Palestinian agenda on the table until the Jewish state was eradicated.
@Blankfort
You remark about some Mossad agent’s involvment is a discredited allegation. It does nothing to diminish what was a mass exodus from Arab countries by Jews facing a new genocide so soon after the Shoah.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Jews who were quickly absorbed after fleeing Arab lands did not need to harp on about refugee status as they quickly got on with their new lives. They realized there would be no point in attempting to get compensation from their previous homelands and consequently never really tried.
BTW, from link to en.wikipedia.org
“They also estimated Jewish-owned real-estate left behind in Arab lands at 100,000 square kilometers (four times the size of the state of Israel).”
Jewish refugees were quickly absorbed and not used as pawns
oh please, hasbrats use them like pawns everyday and there’s a long record of israel using them like pawns from day one. ‘trading’ them for their ethnic cleansing ..unbelievable the crap you peddle
2008, by the Israeli controlled US House of Representatives, otherwise known as the Knesset West? I asked you for a source that depicted the Arab Jews as refugees before 1967 and the best you can come up with is a vote in Washington’s biggest whorehouse?
Mayhem, I suspect that name is some projection of what you’d like to do to those folks who wish to see Israel “eradicated.” But you should address your concerns to the Knesset East. Behind, its Il Duce lookalike, it is well on the road to getting Israel eradicated and doing a better job of it than the Palestinian Authority.
False. There was no new genocide or mass exodus.
This myth was inveted by the WOJC in the 1970′s and rejected by the Mizrahi Jews in Israel.
The organization’s claims infuriated many Mizrahi Israelis who defined themselves as Zionists. As early as 1975, at the time of WOJAC’s formation, Knesset speaker Yisrael Yeshayahu declared: “We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations.”
Shlomo Hillel, a government minister and an active Zionist in Iraq, adamantly opposed the analogy: “I don’t regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.”
In a Knesset hearing, Ran Cohen stated emphatically: “I have this to say: I am not a refugee.” He added: “I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee.”
The opposition was so vociferous that Ora Schweitzer, chair of WOJAC’s political department, asked the organization’s secretariat to end its campaign. She reported that members of Strasburg’s Jewish community were so offended that they threatened to boycott organization meetings should the topic of “Sephardi Jews as refugees” ever come up again. Such remonstration precisely predicted the failure of the current organization, Justice for Jews from Arab Countries to inspire enthusiasm for its efforts.
Also alarmed by WOJAC’s stridency, the Foreign Ministry proposed that the organization bring its campaign to a halt on the grounds that the description of Mizrahi Jews as refugees was a double-edged sword. Israel, ministry officials pointed out, had always adopted a stance of ambiguity on the complex issue raised by WOJAC. In 1949, Israel even rejected a British-Iraqi proposal for population exchange – Iraqi Jews for Palestinian refugees – due to concerns that it would subsequently be asked to settle “surplus refugees” within its own borders.
link to haaretz.com
It says there: ‘On March 31, 2008, the first-ever Resolution recognizing the rights of “The Forgotten Refugees” was adopted by the United States House of Representatives.
You’ll never hear it from CAMERA, so just to keep the record straight:
*The term “Palestine Refugees”, not “Palestinian Refugees”, was used in UN GA resolution 194(III). It applied to both Jewish and Arab refugees of Palestine registered with the predecessor of the UNRWA. link to unispal.un.org
*The House resolution was really adopted on April Fools Day, not March 31. link to opencongress.org
*It was only a sense of the Congress resolution with no legal force. It was adopted while the rules were suspended and without any recorded vote.
*The companion Senate resolution died in subcommittee. link to govtrack.us
*The Jewish Daily Forward said the Congressional move was an apparent bid to neutralize the contentious Palestinian refugee issue in anticipation of the Annapolis Middle East peace talks. link to unispal.un.org
*The draft Soviet resolution (S/8253, 20 November 1967) used the standard UN terminology, “Palestine refugee”, not “Palestinian refugee”:
link to unispal.un.org
*The House Resolution was deliberately misleading and inaccurate. It falsely claimed the Soviet draft used the term “Palestinian refugee” and sends the reader on a wild goose chase by providing the wrong UN document number:
Neither of the documents cited actually contained any material on refugees or discussions about limiting the scope of the settlement solely to Arab refugees. See paragraph 117 of S/PV.1382 link to unispal.un.org
and S/8236 link to un.org
US Ambassador Goldberg and Foreign Minister Eban’s post-Six Day War discussions about the Security Council resolution, like those between other US, Israeli, and Security Council officials, dealt solely with Arab or Palestinian refugees, not Jewish refugees. FRUS documents:
*d13 *d134 *d182 *d283 *d367 *d442 *d482
The bombing of the Baghdad synagogue by Mossad agent was reported in the Israeli press in 1953, as I recall, and the Israelis have succeeded in largely covering that story up, although admitting that Mossad agents were indeed active in Iraq. What were they doing there? We know that in Egypt, a ring of Egyptian Jews working for Mossad set fires in the the US and British film libraries, hoping to place the blame on the Egyptians and when they were caught, as expected, the Egyptians were accused of “anti-Semitism,,” which has long been used both as a cover and an excuse for Zionist crimes.
There was no mass exodus, at least to Israel, after the Shoah, although to quote Lenni Brenner, “there is no business like Shoah business” and he said that before Finkelstein appeared.
In fact, according to official Israeli statistics, only 12,931 arrived in 1948, 110,780 in 1949, 82,296 in 1950, 123,449 in 1951, 16,725 in 1952, 7,760 in 1953, 15, 493, in 1954 and between 1948 and 1962, just 575,755. (Israeli Society, S.N. Eisenstadt, Hebrew Univ., Basic Books, 1967). In that 451 page book, published under the auspices of the Inst. for Contemporary History of Hebrew University, there is not a single reference to them as refugees and that is because they were not considered as such by anyone at that time.
Not exactly a mass exodus in any case.
*The House resolution was really adopted on April Fools Day, not March 31. link to opencongress.org
*It was only a sense of the Congress resolution with no legal force. It was adopted while the rules were suspended and without any recorded vote.
*The companion Senate resolution died in subcommittee.
what is ‘a sense of the Congress’ and how is it a resolution can be ‘adopted while the rules are suspended’. iow, if the lobby can’t even get it thru committee they wait around till an opportune moment and slide it in? or what?
i see they’ve been at this for a long time
I asked you for a source that depicted the Arab Jews as refugees before 1967
Initially, there were about 17,000 internally displaced Jews from areas in Palestine who were considered refugees. The UN provided them with support from 1948 to 1952. They lived in camps in Israel. Only about 7,000 were actually citizens of the former Mandate. They were given Israeli citizenship and were no longer considered or called refugees.
The last mention of refugees during negotiations was in September of 1949 during the Lausanne Conference. Once again that reference was limited in scope to repatriation and resettlement of Jewish refugees from Arab controlled areas of Palestine. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
Israel never negotiated for repatriation or a “right of return” for Arab Jews from other countries and never obtain a formal assignment of their claims for compensation. So, it really has no legal authority to use the assets of non-citizen Jews living elsewhere to offset its own State liabilities.
Nonetheless, that has always been the tactic employed from the first day that the subject of Jewish property in Arab states was raised in 1958 by Foreign Minister Golda Meir. Note that there is no mention of Jewish refuges or their rights. link to history.state.gov
She claimed that she wanted the refugee question settled, but really only wanted the US government to use its good offices to make the UN Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC) and a troublesome draft resolution in the General Assembly go away. She emphasized that Israel would not go back to “49” and objected to the involvement of the UN General Assembly and the Palestine Conciliation Commission in the settlement of the refugee problem. She suggested that a resolution be adopted limiting the role of the PCC, and that the refugee problem be handled separately from the over-all Israel-Arab settlement. It was also the first time that Israel suggested offsetting Arab property claims against the loss of Jewish properties in other Arab states without consulting the wishes of the individuals concerned.
what is ‘a sense of the Congress’
Your tax dollars
in actioninaction.Blankfort’s statistics ignore the refugees who fled to other countries besides Israel. The overall figure of 800,000 is substantiated at link to en.wikipedia.org
Israel never negotiated for repatriation or a “right of return” for Arab Jews from other countries
Why bother when there were none left?
While Wikepedia does provide some factual information, it is selective on this issue and for the most part the entry is Zionist propaganda, exemplified by this part of its opening statement:
“was a mass departure, flight and expulsion of Jews, primarily of Sephardi and Mizrahi background, from Arab and Muslim countries, from 1948 until the early 1970s.”
A mass departure does not take place over a period of years, but weeks as was the case with the Palestinians.
It’s reporting on Jews losing their citizenship and being forced to leave Algeria applied only to the pied noirs, the French Jewish colonists who were treated the same as their fellow French colonists and deserved the boot. This was not the case with Algeria’s Arab Jews and, as late as December, 1970, when I visited there, a Jewish town of Beni-Yeni in the Kabyl area, home to Jewish silver artisans was not only thriving but its silversmiths had benefited from the Algerian revolution whose government saw to it that its wares were sold in fine shops in NY, Paris, and London.
As for Morocco, the government begged them to stay, and many who left for Israel expressed their regrets later.
Mayhem, like every other Zionist, you are allergic to the truth. That’s not surprising because living in denial has proven to be a requirement for tribal membership.
I am still waiting for you to provide any Israeli reference to those Jews who left Arab lands as being refugees before 1967. I didn’t see any in the Wikipedia entry. Did I miss something?
Israel wasn’t interested in getting the Arab Jews repatriated. Who else would provide the Ashkenazi with an underclass? Someone had to do the dirty work before 1967 when the Palestinians were brought in from the West Bank to do menial and physical labor, what racist Israel considers “Arab work.”
The figure of 800,000 was purely fabricated to buttress the false argument that these had been a population transfer.
It’s purely invented out of thin air. In fact it gets increased by 100k every year.
From the Wikipedia entry:
In 1948, there were between 758,000 and 881,000 Jews (see table below) living in communities throughout the Arab world. Today, there are fewer than 8,600.
I don’t fathom why Blankfort cannot conceive that there could not be a mass departure that takes place over a period of years. Nobody wants to leave their homeland until one day there is no choice any more. Considering 1948-1972
Aden 8,000 -> 0
Algeria 140,000 -> 1,000
Bahrain 550–600 -> 36
Egypt 75,000–80,000 -> 500
Iraq 135,000–140,000 -> 500
Lebanon 5,000–20,000 -> 2,000
Libya 35,000–38,000 -> 50
Morocco 250,000–265,000 -> 31,000
Palestine Mandate (Jordanian part) 10,000 (dwindled to zero after 1948 Palestine War)
Sudan 350 -> 0
Syria 15,000–30,000 -> 4,000
Tunisia 50,000–105,000 -> 8,000
Yemen 45,000–55,000 -> 500
which means total population of 758,350–881,350 dropped to ~50,000 over a 25 year period
All that proves is that there used to be between 758,000 and 881,000 Jews living in communities throughout the Arab world. Today, and that there are fewer than 8,600 today. It does not prove they were forced to leaveor expelled.
I don’t fathom why you cannot conceive that a mass departure that takes place over a period of years is clearly not a result of ethnic cleasing. The mass departure was clearly driven by a desire to migrate to Israel for messinic reasons.
Homeland you say? I thnough Israel was the homeland of the Jews?
All these numbers prove is the numbe fo Jews who left those countries, and did so at a very leasurely rate, which kinda debunks the argument that they were forced out.
I don’t fathom why Blankfort cannot conceive that there could not be a mass departure that takes place over a period of years. Nobody wants to leave their homeland until one day there is no choice any more.
Perhaps it’s because Jews everywhere had spent 70 years arguing that Palestine was their homeland and forming Zionist organizations, and colonial companies. They planned massive emigration over a period of years employing antisemitism as the engine to achieve their goals. After all, the authors of Basle Program were not refugees.
I would question the veracity of those figures since they imply an accurate census was taken in each of those countries which given the level of technology of the time was highly unlikely.
But a movement of peoples, whatever their numbers that takes place over two or three decades, can not be described as a “mass movement.”
Whatever the number, there were two unique features of Arab Jewish emigration that separate it not only from the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.but from every other genuine mass exodus which took place over restricted time periods.
The first is that the emigration of Jews from Arab countries was openly encouraged by Israel. I cannot think of any other comparable example. The second is that by emphasizing that their Jewish identity trumped whatever national identity they had, the Zionists were, in effect, undermining the security of Arab Jews at a time when Israel had dealt the Arab countries a major military defeat. (BTW, they did the same thing in Germany during the 30s, ‘in order to force the [assimilated] Jews out of the woodwork.’ Rabbi Joachim Prinz.)
One can only look at what “civilized” America did to American-born Japanese during WW2 to get an idea of the problems that Israel’s actions and chauvinist propaganda caused the Arab Jews who had no interest in Zionism and who were not consulted by the Yishuv in its planning for either statehood or war.
On top of that, given the instances of Israeli sponsored terrorism such as what took place in Iraq and Egypt it is easy to imagine both the suspicion of their country’s Jews by their non-Jewish neighbors and the fear of their Muslim and Christian neighbors by the Arab Jews, all of which had been stage managed by Israel to get the Jews to leave what had been their ancestral homes.
So, not only was the Zionist movement guilty of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it was also primarily responsible for the destruction of the only genuine Jewish communities that existed in the region, some for far more than a millennium.
Shingo,
You combine the argument that they were not forced out, and that Israel was not a real attraction for them.
You invoke the fantasy that Israel was responsible by terror, for everyone of them leaving their former home countries.
It sounds incredulous.
48 – 72 is only 24 years.
There is anti-ziocaine in the world as well.
Superb post Jeffrey,
The argument you made about the Zionists undermining the security of Arab Jews in arab states after the 1948 and 1956 wars, puts things in context. The parallels with the American-born Japanese during WW2 is an excellent observation.
While both can clearly be true, you are probably confusing me with Jeffrey, who pointed out that many who left Morroco for Israel later regretted doing so.
You invoke the fantasy that Israel was responsible by terror, for everyone of them leaving their former home countries.
No Witty, it is you that is invokikng fantasy by suggesting I even made this argument.
Ethnic cleasing does not take place over 24 years.
Not nearly enough.
Obviously people don’t want to acknowledge facts that delegitimize their position. Read this emotive account
link to jewishrefugees.blogspot.com
I recommend the following links from You Tube in 5 parts to the excellent, award winning Forgotten Refugees film to which I have referred.
It clearly tells the story of the expulsion of Jews from the Arab countries over a period of years.
link to youtube.com
link to youtube.com
link to youtube.com
link to youtube.com
link to youtube.com
Emotive indeed. Emotive is not historical or factual and this pathetic documentary is simply laden with sentiment.
You habrats always retreat into the muddy waters of sentiment, emotion, perception whenever your argument are torn apart and exposed as baseless.
I had a quick look through some of these youtube clips. Lot’s of mythical and ahistorical stories about Babylon.
As always the argument relies on the following narrative:
1. The used to be x numbers of Jews in a region
2. There are now x – y Jews or none left in that region
3. This proves that y number of Jews were expelled and became refugees.
4. Those Jews did it tough, also proving they were expelled.
Needless to say, no evidence is given of any pogroms or mass expulsion and no reference si made wahtsoever to the 800,000 Palestinians deliberately expelled from Palestine.
It’s almost fracical to hear these people complaining about Jewish Dihmmi homes having to be lower than muslim houses or heaven forbid….be demolished. Or complaining about having to get permission to build homes and synagogues.
Seriously, these people have no concept of introspection.
Interestingly, Part 2 debunkes your claim that Jews fled to other lands oteh than Israel. The claim made here is that only Israel was prepared to receive them.
“After all, the authors of Basle Program were not refugees.”
You’ll know more about them than I do, but I thought they were comfortably situated, middle class citizens of developed European countries.
@Blankfort, a case of selective memory.
The pre-conditions for genocide were there already with the
Farhud, a pogrom carried out against the Jewish population of Baghdad, Iraq in 1941 during the Jewish holiday of Shavuot. The riots occurred in a power vacuum following the collapse of the pro-Nazi government of Rashid Ali while the city was in a state of instability. Before British and Transjordanian forces arrived, around 175 Jews had been killed and 1,000 injured. Looting of Jewish property took place and 900 Jewish homes were destroyed. Refer link to en.wikipedia.org
The accounts you’ve read off, they all take place after Zionist Jews drove 750,000 Palestinians into refugee status, seizing their property — almost their entire homeland — and with standing orders to use land mines or gun fire, or even just kill people outright execution style, in order to carve a pound of your “Jewish state” out of a Palestinian people who owed you nothing.
If I’m not mistaken. Right, Mayhem?
Mayhem, the preconditions for ending the historical Jewish presence in the Middle East and North Africa were laid at the First Zionist Congress in 1897. The openly stated plans by European Jews to colonize Palestine (and “colonize” was indeed the term they used) was not lost on the Muslim and Christian populations. They had seen more than enough of Europeans of every stripe over the centuries and they would have been no more receptive had the colonizers been Catholics. What the European Jewish racist pronouncements did, however, was to undermine the situation for Jews in the Arab world to varying degrees which culminated with the Nakba.
In the end, the Zionists clearly decided that if the price for creating Israel was to be the liquidation of the historic Jewish presence in the region, despite the fact that it went back millennia, it was worth it. Maybe, wrapped in their European ethnocentrism, the thought of what would happen to the Mizrahim and Sephardim never occurred to them. In any case, when Israel no longer exists, I give it two decades more at the most, I wonder if any of the racist Ashkenazim who dominate the Jewish world today will come to understand that Zionism was, in the end, their greatest enemy? I doubt it. In any case, they’ll probably be too scared to think about anything but saving their own behinds.
@Chaos4700 you are definitely mistaken. 1941 precedes 1948. There were many signs of Arab anti-semitism in the Arab world well before the Nakba:
1. In 1894, before the creation of the Zionist movement, the book The Talmud Jew by the German anti-Semite Eugen Duhring, was translated into Arabic. This book popularized the concept of the ‘Jewish threat’.
2. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was first translated into Arabic in 1920. In 1925 it appeared in Arabic translation in Palestine, and in 1927 the book was released in Egypt.
3. Following the liberation of North Africa by allied forces, antisemitic incitements persisted. The most severe racial violence erupted in Tripoli (Libya) in November 1945. Over a period of several days more than 130 Jews (including 36 children) were killed, hundreds were injured, 4,000 were left homeless (displaced) and 2,400 were reduced to poverty.
Many accounts are in the film about the Forgotten Refugees for which I have posted youtube links.
It is a myth that Jews were treated equally under Moslem rule, from time to time incidents happened which were signals of worse to come.
Mayhem, translation of an anti-Semitic book does not indicate anti-Semitism in the populace, any more than translation of a book on Keynesian economics indicates widespread Keynesianism.
” Following the liberation of North Africa by allied forces”
After foreign armies had tramped back and forth destroying the towns and filling the countryside with landmines, how liberated did the people feel under the allied occupation? The violence in Tripoli happened on the anniversary of the Balfour declaration, which was an example of the colonial arogance of the occupiers. Once again, it was the Zionists who set the stage for the violence.
1941 precedes 1948.
Sionists were openly declaring their plams to the expel the Arabs by force from the turn of the century, which defintiely preceeded 1941.
There were many signs of Arab anti-semitism in the Arab world well before the Nakba
The need among secular Jews to explain history throught he prism of anti-semitism is born of a desire for a Jewish identity. Not every misfortune that befel Jews was directed exclusively at Jews. As your Youtube doco explained, Jews and Christians were treated equally by the Muslim majority. The way you’re treated is not always because of who you are so much as who are are not.
What distinguishes Jewish tribalism is the inability to see any historical event absent a Jewish filter. Hence, as the brilliant Israel Shahak pointed out, when the serfs rose up against their rulers in more feudal times and turned their anger, understandably, on the landlord’s Jewish middle men, it was described as an “anti-Semitic pogrom.” When there were no Jews involved, they were described as what they actually were, peasant uprisings.
@Blankfort et al, if the remark about Jewish tribalism had any validity it would suggest that Jews only cared about themselves, but as the open-minded are aware that is far from the case. The repeated refusal here to acknowledge what ACTUALLY happened to Jews in Arab lands pre 1948 is very suggestive /reminiscent of Holocaust denial. Are we going to bear witness to further denial as the same fate befalls the Christian communities left in the Arab world?
The fact that you are resorting to such a pathetic charge sugegsts you know the narrative of Jewish refugees post 1948 has no basis in ususupported by any evidence.
Why? Are we going to even pretend that you care about the fate of Christian communities left in the Arab world?
Mayhem,
Are, you like your Zionist brethren going to continue to deny that it was the introduction of Ashekenazi Zionism that undermined, sabotaged, or whatever you wish to call it, the Jewish, non-Zionist communities that existed in the Middle East for millennia?
As for driving out the Christians, perhaps, you should consult with the leading Maronite Christian parties that have allied themselves with Hezbollah against Israel and those Lebanese who would collaborate with it.
In fact, since you persist in your dishonesty, let me give you another scenario. Were it not for important US Zionists such as Louis Brandeis, who was close to Pres. Wilson, the US would not have entered WW 1 on the side of Britain when they did, an act which allowed the Brits to keep fighting that bloody war when the Germans were ready to negotiate a peace treaty with no change in territory.
Thanks to the help of the Zionists, the US came into the war, at least that’s what the Brits believed according to the evidence, and as a reward, they were given the right to set up a Jewish homeland in Palestine even though they had no legal right to do so and even though it would give them nothing but headaches until they left in 1948.
Now, had Britain and the allies not won the war and demanded a pound of flesh and then some from the Germans at Versailles, the economic conditions that produced A. Hitler and consequently, the Judeocide, would not have occurred. Do you get what I am saying? Without the Zionists, there would have been no holocaust and no Israel. But we know the choice the mainstream Zionists were ready to make. See Ben Hecht’s “Perfidy” for proof of that.
The Germans were aware of that, of course, and it did not endear them to their own Jews, 95% of whom were non-Zionist, and who were not responsible for helping the Brits. They even tried to stop, but without success, the American Jewish organizations from holding a huge rally at NY’s Madison Square Garden in March, 1933, at which they called for a world wide boycott of the Nazis because they feared that Hitler would hold them responsible. They were right. The next day, the papers all over Germany carried the headlines, ” Jews declare war on Germany.”
The Zionist minority in Germany had viewed their non-Zionist and anti-Zionist co-religionists as a challenge and so they did whatever they could to out those who wished to assimilate an spread their noxious propaganda that Jews could not and should not live with non-Jews, a basic tenet of Zionist ideology.
When Hitler promulgated the Nuremberg Laws in 1935, the young Zionist Rabbi Joachim Prinz, publicly welcomed them, declaring that “no longer would Jews be able to hide in the woodwork.” A pretty anti-Semitic comment, don’t you think, Mayhem? Prinz survived, as did most German Jews, to become the head of the American Jewish Congress and admitted that he had misspoken. Whether his apology extended to the implications his statement may have had on the lives of his fellow Jews I never learned.
The repeated refusal here to acknowledge what ACTUALLY happened to Jews in Arab lands pre 1948 is very suggestive /reminiscent of Holocaust denial.
So, why aren’t you shreying about this to your own government if its such a big deal? The peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan didn’t even mention the subject or provide a formal framework for refugees to make claims. Was there a shortage of good Jewish lawyers in Israel or something?
If this situation was anything at all like the Holocaust, the government of Israel would simply incorporate it into their existing Holocaust Industry® narrative and milk it for billions in compensation. No, the negotiating record shows that they just want to make the Palestinian claims against the government of Israel to go away. Your officials have no intention of obtaining the right of return or compensation for these idividuals.
A priceless reponse Hostage.
The peace treaties themselves were the goal, and the omission of potential deal-breakers were just accepted, justly or not.
The points about ethnic cleansing of the West Bank prior is an issue currently, only because the issue is revived in the context of discussion of 1948.
If 1948 weren’t raised by Palestinian solidarity, then 1948 wouldn’t be raised by Zionist.
It makes the assertion of “we want justice” a partisan demand, rather than a substantive one.
The peace treaties themselves were the goal, and the omission of potential deal-breakers were just accepted, justly or not.
LOL! So the foxes agree to keep their ill gotten gains and tell the victims that their claims for compensation offset one another! I’m pretty underwhelmed by that line of argument.
It’s obvious that Israel is making fraudulent claims against the Palestinians based upon the supposed liabilities of those third-party Arab states in order to prevent a just settlement for all of the victims, Arab Jews and Palestinian Arabs alike.
If 1948 weren’t raised by Palestinian solidarity, then 1948 wouldn’t be raised by Zionist.
Richard the Palestinian Arabs have never stopped demanding the right of return and compensation. So long as Zionist courts are awarding possession of properties to Palestinian Jewish owners based on pre-1948 title or honoring the demands of other Palestinian Jewish claimants, I can’t imagine why Palestinian Arabs should waive their claims.
Zionists don’t have any legal standing to offset their liabilities with the assets of innocent third parties. Palestinians have no standing to simply dispose of third party claims against other Arab States. The suggestion has always been nonsensical propaganda and filler for non-binding resolutions from our parliament of whores here in the US.
1. In 1894, before the creation of the Zionist movement, the book The Talmud Jew by the German anti-Semite Eugen Duhring, was translated into Arabic. This book popularized the concept of the ‘Jewish threat’.
I can’t think of any title by Düring that feels could be translated that way.
so the father of Socialism for the Aryan people was already translated into Arabic in 1894? What or whom are you relying on in this context? I seem to vaguely remember though, that more enlightened circles in the Arab world at least slightly later realized that the racial Oriental perspective would consider them Semites too.
Do you know more about the precise circles that spread the Protocols in the ME?
In Europe and the US they were spread by the White Russian networks that were forced out by the revolution. Some may have ended up in the ME.
Yes, there seems to have been big demand in Nazi propaganda films in the Arab world post 48. I discovered hints when I studied the field. As I had a peculiar experience with the Egyptian husband of my sisters schoolmate, decades ago. …
But I have troubles with scholars that politicize* the topic now. Whom would you recommend?
* We have a very spooky neo-Nazi scandal over here at the time:
Neo Nazi terror
From the moment I studied the post 911 context, it felt that the conspiracy theories from the hawkish pro-Israel camp could easily connect in support of our not so nice friends on the right. In the late 20th century the Turks were prominent among their targets. The Turks had already become a favorite aim. Single names don’t make the news.
The question was why this was being raised now, when it hadn’t been included in the original treaty discussions.
In 1894, before the creation of the Zionist movement, the book The Talmud Jew by the German anti-Semite Eugen Duhring, was translated into Arabic.
The Arabs were already well acquainted with the “Talmud Jews” and had treated them fairly for centuries. This is just another example of westerners spreading their particular prejudices to other parts of the world. The historical sources of Jewish persecution tended to have western origins, like the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust. The Western maritime powers, mainly the British and French, started dismembering the Ottoman Empire in the late 1700s when they began making treaties directly with the so-called “trucial states” and other “protectorates” in southwest Asia and northern Africa, e.g. link to metmuseum.org
They set-up their own autonomous settlements under the sysem of capitulations and were the source of many of the problems that were attributed to their Arab hosts. For example, some accounts of the Damascus affair of 1840 highlight the role played by Western government officials in spreading their tradition of libel against the Jews. e.g.
— Ronald Florence, “Blood libel: the Damascus affair of 1840″, Univ of Wisconsin Press, 2004 link to books.google.com
No Palestinian leadership was ever involved in treaty discussions.
The question was why this was being raised now, when it hadn’t been included in the original treaty discussions.
Long story short to kick the can down road in order to delay and deny the Palestinians a settlement within the framework of international law and the applicable UN resolutions.
The declassified documentary record shows that when Golda Meir first raised the issue in 1958, that was what she had in mind, i.e. to sever the refugee issue from the Arab-Israeli peace process and limit the role of the UN. The Daily Jewish Forward opined that the sense of Congress resolution, which was adopted by the House just prior to the Annapolis Conference, served exactly the same purpose. These things are no longer a big secret.
Yes, Hostage, European influence surely matters. As there seems to have been the idea on the colonialist side of “using the Jews” as a bridge, since they were “Semites” too, but slightly sophisticated by European culture.
Hostage,
You mentioned that the Israeli claim to rights for dispossessed Jewish West Bank property owners wasn’t incorporated in the Egyptian and Jordanian treaties.
You remember that point?
And, I responded that it wasn’t incorporated into the treaties because Israel was happy to get the treaty, that it was of the present, that 1948 was long past, and that they were willing to accept the injustice to their citizens, so that they could have those treaties in place, rather than let them be deal-breakers.
Per Bernard Avishai, BOTH Olmert and Abbas described that they had accomplished the principles of an agreement that would satisfy the demand of the right of return.
Can you map out for me, how you would regard the right of return as feasible, applying to three inter-marrying generations of refugees (from within Israel original residence, from within West Bank original residence, from diaspora original residence; of great great grandparents).
How would you distinguish who had residence rights in Israel by virtue of the right of return to the jurisdiction of former residence, or by virtue of title rights. How would you recommend structuring the remedy?
Practically.
So what, at most a hundred or so Jewish families, as opposed to 750,000 Palestinians who were dispossessed by Zionist invaders?
Witty, your Jewish fingernail is NOT, in fact, worth more than a thousand Arab lives. Get that through your thick skull.
Richard Witty said, ‘Hostage: I have to (reluctantly) recognize that you are a legal/historical genius, which is why I pose to you questions like this one (assuming you can figure out what I mean):
Here’s another question, even more important: Can you map out for me, how you would regard the right of return as feasible, taking account of the hundreds of generations of Richard Witty’s ancestors who have lived outside Palestine, that would justify my right to immediate Israeli citizenship in a place I have only briefly visited twice in my entire life? And while you are at it, please provide a legal justification for my right as opposed to the non-rights of Palestinians who were born there?
You mentioned that the Israeli claim to rights for dispossessed Jewish West Bank property owners wasn’t incorporated in the Egyptian and Jordanian treaties. . . . I responded that it wasn’t incorporated into the treaties because Israel was happy to get the treaty
I’m certain they were happy to get the treaty. I’m also certain that it would have been impossible to address the issue of compensation or return of the 7,000 Jewish refugees to the West Bank, while ignoring the continuing occupation and the quarter of a million plus illegal Israeli settlers that were already living there in those days. The UN General Assembly had adopted several resolutions during emergency sessions about Israel’s obligation to withdraw its armed forces unconditionally and pay compensation for the theft and destruction of Palestine’s natural resources. I think that I emphasized most of the West Bank property we are discussing in this thread wasn’t privately owned or listed in the PCC’s registry of refugee property. It was held in trust by public organs of the State of Israel. After nearly 45 years, there is ample evidence that Israel has no intention of ever returning that particular West Bank territory or property to a Palestinian Arab State or compensating any Arab entity for the misappropriated natural resources.
In any event, there’s much more of a lacuna with respect to the tens of thousands of Jews from Egypt, since Zionist organizations and the Lobby always club the Palestinians over the head with the irrelevant issue of “the Jewish refugees from Arab States”. So, I actually had the ex-patriot or “refugee” members of the Egyptian Jewish communities in mind. There isn’t any evidence of concern about their right of return or compensation in the treaty, despite the fact that Israel insisted that they be paid lip service in the Camp David Framework Agreement, i.e.
That’s significant, since the preamble of the treaty suggests that the “Framework as appropriate is intended to constitute a basis for peace not only between Egypt and Israel but also between Israel and each of its other Arab neighbors”. So it appears the portion of the framework on refugees was only window dressing that wasn’t an “appropriate” item for inclusion in the final agreement between the two States.
Can you map out for me, how you would regard the right of return as feasible, applying to three inter-marrying generations of refugees
Surely, just as soon as you map out how Palestine can feasibly handle 600,000+ inter-marrying Jewish olim from families that have been living somewhere else for the last 80 generations. This is not difficult, the right of return applies to individual refugees registered by the UNRWA who elect to return in accordance with the terms and conditions in UN GA resolution 194, other relevant UN resolutions, and international law. That isn’t feasible in the context of the current regime of apartheid.
The publication and distribution of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion in the Arab world and its acceptance there and elsewhere is quite understandable, irrespective of questions concerning its authenticity.
Given the relatively miniscule number of Jews in the world, compared to their extraordinary and disproportionate political influence and economic power, the Protocols’ popularity is obviously due to non-Jews asking, “How come?” It’s still a good question.
I started, but never finished reading the Protocols. I found the going a bit tedious–it was expressed as the thoughts of a single person, not a group–and for the most part is as nutty as passages from Herzl’s diaries. What did stick out was the need to control the media and thinking of the neocons, to promote chaos. But it also opposed the establishment of a Jewish state.
I have heard all the arguments about it being a Czarist forgery, that whole sections were lifted from some other document with just words changed to make it appear as it is, but it is not a subject I have pursued.
The only thing that puzzles me is that were Jews so powerful under the Czar that such a carefully prepared propaganda piece was thought necessary to suppress them? That’s not how I read the history which was more of pogroms than world programs.
“It was held in trust by public organs of the State of Israel. After nearly 45 years, there is ample evidence that Israel has no intention of ever returning that particular West Bank territory or property to a Palestinian Arab State or compensating any Arab entity for the misappropriated natural resources. ”
The Jewish National Fund is not a state institution. In any case, you are accurate that the challenge to address 1948 will expose both claims to questions.
That is my point.
“After nearly 45 years, there is ample evidence that Israel has no intention of ever returning that particular West Bank territory or property to a Palestinian Arab State or compensating any Arab entity for the misappropriated natural resources. ”
The Palestine Papers as well as documented interviews by Bernard Avishai with Olmert and Abbas, indicate that that assumption is a false one, at least as far as statements of impossibility. It is certainly possible, IF there are willing Israelis and willing Palestinians. The difference between a willing Israeli regime and an unwilling one is a combination of hearts and minds (by persuasion), manifesting in elections.
“This is not difficult, the right of return applies to individual refugees registered by the UNRWA who elect to return in accordance with the terms and conditions in UN GA resolution 194, other relevant UN resolutions, and international law. That isn’t feasible in the context of the current regime of apartheid.”
My understanding was that the UNRWA registry only determined who are entitled to UNRWA services, and is determined liberally, and that that registry intersected but was also different than the legal claims to right of return.
Do you assume that right of return applies to the jurisdiction that the families originated in, or from anywhere to anywhere in historic Palestine?
The condoning, the justifying of modern Arab hatred of Jews as being completely explicable because of Zionism, presupposes that if Zionists were meek and mild individuals who never bothered to express their wish for a genuine homeland for the Jewish people, then that would magically solve everything and anti-semitism would just evaporate.
On top of all that I see Shingo making assumptions that I don’t give a stuff about the fate of the Christians because I belong to the Jewish tribe and can by definition only care about my own kind. What is happening to the Christians in Arab countries cannot be explained by Zionism so what new brilliant analysis are we going to hear next to explain this on-going saga of persecution?
What in the hell is going on here Blankfort? You are drumming up the same hate messages (see link to paulbogdanor.com
that you have been trumpeting to others for years about Zionist complicity with Nazism. Zionism was all about saving Jewish lives and compromises had to be made in the harsh political climate pre World War 2. Making Zionism out to be like some poisonous elixir that taints everything is ultimately simplistic extremist thinking that overlooks the other contributing factors and deeper complexities. Anti-Zionism was a seed in dormancy and Zionism was its incentive.
What about the 1066 Granada massacre?
“The condoning, the justifying of modern Arab hatred of Jews as being completely explicable because of Zionism, presupposes that if Zionists were meek and mild individuals who never bothered to express their wish for a genuine homeland for the Jewish people, then that would magically solve everything and anti-semitism would just evaporate.”
I think that is pretty close to correct. Arab hatred of Jews (such as it is*) is justified by the fact that the majority of the world’s most powerful Jews give the impression – by word and deed – that they are the enemies of Arabs.
If the world’s Jews renounced and opposed the evil doctrine of Zionism, there would be far less anti-Jewish feeling among Arabs.
(*And it seems to be nowhere near as intense or widespread as Mayhem wants to believe.)
The Jewish National Fund is not a state institution.
Oh please, by definition a “foreign state” includes any parastatal “agency,” “instrumentality,” “organ,” “entity,” “legal person,” “corporate or otherwise” whose shares or other ownership interest is controlled by a foreign state. Israel’s “Keren Keyemeth Le Israel Law” (1953) recognized the JNF for its “public utility” and formally brought it into association with the State of Israel, providing for its continuity under article 6 of the Status Law.
JNF-KKL has 5 of the 12 seats of the governing board of the Israel Land Authority and chairs positions in its subcommittees.
The Palestine Papers as well as documented interviews by Bernard Avishai with Olmert and Abbas, indicate that that assumption is a false one, at least as far as statements of impossibility.
The Palestine Papers illustrated that Israeli negotiators refused to accept the maximum possible Palestinian concessions. It’s very doubtful that either Abbas or Olmert could have delivered the support of their own cabinets for the proposals, much less obtain ratifications in the national referendums that would have been required.
Do you assume that right of return applies to the jurisdiction that the families originated in, or from anywhere to anywhere in historic Palestine?
The Palestinians have already stated that refugees are welcome to live in the State of Palestine. That could apply in cases to refugees choosing not to return to Israel. The framework is spelled out in resolution 194(III):
“their wish for a genuine homeland for the Jewish people,”
Australian Jews, at least, have a homeland. It is the country where they were born and brought up. It is the country where they have their homes and careers. It is the country where they are full, equal, citizens.
It is called “Australia”.
“Anti-Zionism was a seed in dormancy and Zionism was its incentive.”
So there were millions of Anti-Zionists just waiting for Herzl to cook up his evil scheme so that they could be against it?
I really wish someone would create Kleftnobulism so that I could express my dormant Anti-Kleftnobulism.
Zionism was all about saving Jewish lives and compromises had to be made in the harsh political climate pre World War 2.
Objectively speaking, Zionism was all about building a state and the most senior officials in the movement didn’t give a shit about saving Jewish lives. You are welcome to rebut this evidence. I’ve asked several of your fellow hasbrats, but none have responded:
*link to mondoweiss.net
*link to mondoweiss.net
*link to mondoweiss.net
*link to mondoweiss.net
@Roha, you could say the same for the Jordanian Palestinians.
I do. So do we agree that the idea of a “homeland for the Jewish people” is bunk?
Zionism was NOT about saving Jewish lives, it was about building a Jewish state and if there was choice to make between the two, as Ben-Gurion has been widely quoted, building the state had its priority.
If saving Jewish lives had been a priority, for example, the mainstream Zionist movement in the US would not have gone out of its way to sabotage an attempt by the Irgun in the US to raise money to purchase the safety of the Jews of Romania before the Nazis’s arrival by claiming, without proof, that an offer from the Romanian government was a hoax.
If saving Jewish lives had been a priority, it would have been the main subject of the historic Zionist meeting at the Biltmore Hotel in 1942 when they planned the state. In fact, other than offering “a message of hope and encouragement to their fellow Jews in the Ghettos and concentration camps of Hitler-dominated Europe and prays that their hour of liberation may not be far distant,” there was no mention of the holocaust or request that the allies take steps to halt it. Rather, the assembled Zionists called for:
(1) the fulfillment of the original purpose of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate; (2) “to found there a Jewish Commonwealth,” (3) “unalterable rejection of the White Paper of May 1939,” and (4) “that Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth integrated in the structure of the new democratic world.” link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org
If saving Jewish lives had been a priority, Yitzhak Shamir, whose Stern Gang, wrote a letter to Der Führer, seeking to establish an alliance with the Nazis against Britain, saying they were ideological soulmates , would never have been allowed to show his face in Israel let alone become its prime minister. When he was appointed to replace Begin when the latter resigned in 1983, a group of holocaust survivors wrote a letter to the government claiming that to have this would be collaborator as prime minister was a sacrilege. I was there at the time and found that report buried deep in an article in the Jerusalem Post.
If saving Jewish lives had been a priority, articles about what was happening to the Jews in Europe would not have been relegated to the back pages of the Post, nor would the Zionists, as Ben Hecht describes it in “Perfidy,” would they have turned in Joel Brand to the British as he was attempting to mak a deal with the Nazis to rescue Hungarian Jews.
If saving Jewish lives had been a priority, rather then persecuting Malchiel Greenberg, a 73 year old survivor from Hungary for denouncing the head of the Zionist organization in Hungary, Rezo Kastner, for collaborating with the Nazis and testifying at the war crimes trial of Nazi SS General Kurt Bucher, the Israeli government would have prosecuted Kastener as a collaborator.
While one may make excuses for the Zionists making the Haavara agreement with the Nazis which allowed German Jews to emigrate to Palestine there can be no excuses for the campaign they carried out in Germany designed to expose assimilated Jews while repeating the anti-semitic propaganda that was one of the foundations of Zionism, that Jews could not live successfully with non-Jews, that they could not be true Germans, which I mentioned in my post.
I do, indeed, insist that Zionism is a”poisonous elixir that taints everything” it touches. Let’s look at the record. (A) If the Zionists had not pushed the US to come to the aid of Britain in WW 1, and they only did so when hated Russia pulled out, it is likely that the war would have come to an end without a German defeat, hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved and we would have seen either Hitler or the holocaust, nor for that matter, the state of Israel.
(B) If the Zionists had not sought to establish a new European colony in the Arab Middle East at a time when the world was moving toward decolonization, there would only not have been a Palestinian Nakba, there would still be Jewish communities throughout the region, some thriving, some not, but all there. The anti-Semitism of which you speak, was a European concoction and the Zionists seized upon it as a godsend and have never let go.
If there had been no Israel, there would have been no motive for the American Jewish establishment to undertake a campaign, following orders from Ben-Gurion and the Jewish Agency, to establish a powerful “lobby” with which to infiltrate every sector of the American body politic to advocate on Israel’s behalf and, in doing so, play a major role in corrupting what little is left of American democracy.
Finally, your last sentence, that “Anti-Zionism was a seed in dormancy and Zionism was its incentive,” is ludicrous. How could anti-Zionism even been in anyone’s thought were it not for Zionism?
Before they reduced him to a crawling Uncle Tom, Jesse Jackson once said, “Zionism is a cancer in the soul of Judaism.” You can say it differently but you can’t say it any better.
@Hostage, you say the Zionists “didn’t give a shit about saving Jewish lives”. Most definitely they preferred refugees to come to Palestine, but that accusation about not giving a shit about Jewish lives is baseless rubbish.
What about the genocides committed by the ancient Hebrews beginning with the land of Canaan, as ordered by the god that they, themselves, had created? Perhaps, some are fictional, but are they all not endorsed without apology by those adhering to the faith?
Get real, Mayhem (and what kind of a handle is that?). There have been massacres of many peoples over the centuries and whole nations have been wiped from the earth and are now of interest only to archeologists and a handful of historians. Jews, if one sees Israel in a positive light, are the only group that has suffered a genocide and come out of it more powerful than ever. In the last 130 years or so, the peoples of the Congo have suffered more than any people in recorded history with millions dead and nothing to show for it, not even the attention of the world. Today, Jews are the ones causing the suffering and it’s time you owned up to it and stopped playing the victim.
Jews everywhere had spent 70 years arguing that Palestine was their homeland and forming Zionist organizations, and colonial companies. They planned massive emigration over a period of years employing antisemitism as the engine to achieve their goals. After all, the authors of Basle Program were not refugees.
interesting
link to en.wikipedia.org
hmmm
@Hostage, you say the Zionists “didn’t give a shit about saving Jewish lives”. Most definitely they preferred refugees to come to Palestine, but that accusation about not giving a shit about Jewish lives is baseless rubbish.
Bullshit! Like your fellow travelers, you don’t have any rebuttal evidence to offer in defense of the statements of these Jewish Agency and Zionist Organization senior leaders:
*The Jewish Agency’s Executive met on June 26, 1938 to discuss the Evian Conference goal of raising Allied attention to the need for efforts and funding in order to resettle endangered Jews in other countries. Boas Evron wrote that:
“It was summed up in the meeting that the Zionist thing to do ‘is belittle the Conference as far as possible and to cause it to decide nothing… We are particularly worried that it would move Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for aid to Jewish refugees, and these collections could interfere with our collection effort.” Ben Gurion said “No rationalization can turn the conference from a harmful to a useful one. What can and should be done is to limit the damage as far as possible.” — See Boas Evron, “Jewish State or Israeli Nation?”, Indiana University Press, 1995, page 260
*Here is a quote from a letter written by Georg Landauer, the managing director of the Jewish Agency Central Bureau for the Settlement of German Jews, to Rabbi Stephen Wise, the Co-Chair of the American Zionist Emergency Council, dated February 13, 1938:
I am writing this letter at the request of Dr. Weizmann because we are extremely concerned lest the problem be presented in a way which would prejudice the activity for Eretz Israel. Even if the conference does not propose immediately after its opening other countries but Eretz Israel as venues for Jewish emigration, it will certainly arouse a public response that could put the importance of Eretz Israel in the shade. . . . We are particularly worried that it would move Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for the aid of Jewish refugees, and these collection efforts would interfere with our collection efforts. S. Beit Zvi, Post-Uganda Zionism and the Holocaust, Tel Aviv: Bronfmann, 1977, page 178 – cited in Boas Evron, “Jewish State or Israeli Nation?”, Indiana University Press, 1995, page 260
*There was also the statement by Menachem Ussishkin in the meeting of the Zionist Executive on June 26, 1938 regarding the report of Mr. Greenbaum:
“He is also concerned at the Evian Conference. . . . Mr. Greenbaum is right in stating that there is a danger that the Jewish people also will take Eretz Israel off its agenda, and this should be viewed by us as a terrible danger. He hoped to hear in Evian that Eretz Israel remains the main venue for Jewish emigration. All other emigration countries do not interest him. . . . The greatest danger remains that attempts will be made to find other territories for Jewish emigration.” — also cited in Boas Evron, “Jewish State or Israeli Nation?”, Indiana University Press, 1995, page 260
*Weizmann had demonstrated an uncanny power in 1940 to estimate the number of Jews Palestine would be able to accommodate after the war. His plans didn’t include the six million:
“In the last 130 years or so, the peoples of the Congo have suffered more than any people in recorded history with millions dead and nothing to show for it, not even the attention of the world.”
They’re just not chosen enough.
Hostage, give it a rest.
When will you finally understand that facts are irrelevant and documentation is anti-Semitic?
the greatest danger? wow
i am just now working my way thru your other links..thanks for repeating some of this info here (just read some following your links) on the other threads which are dead. it seems inconceivable people could be on such a mission as too leave people behind in this way…. hard to imagine..how could they have had the forethought tho, certainly they didn’t imagine the holocaust was coming. how could they imagine that? no one is that prescient. the thought of it is worse than mindboggling.
Good post, Hostage! The evidence that the state took precedence over the people is overwhelming. It didn’t end with the establishment of Israel. When Shamir, the would-be Nazi collaborator was PM, he objected to Jews leaving the Soviet Union being allowed to go anywhere but Israel and even publicly called on the Dutch government to not admit Jews who first said they were going to Israel then switched their itinerary for Holland deserting the world’s largest Jewish ghetto.
I should also note, that while a number of the quotes placing statehood before rescuing Europe’s Jews were made in 1938, before Kristalnacht and before the mass roundup of the Jews had begin, the Biltmore meeting took place in 1942 when it and the Judeocide was well under way.
Add to that the refusal of the Jewish Agency’s Itzhak Gruenbaum to free money for Jewish rescue was cited by Hecht in “Perifidy:”
Speaking in Tel Aviv in 1943, Gruenbaum, chief of the Rescue Committee of the Jewish Agency, said:
“When they asked me, couldn’t you give money out of the United Jewish Appeal funds for the rescue of the Jews of Europe, I said, ‘No!’ And I say again ‘No!’ In my opinion one should resist this wave which pushes the Zionist activities to secondary importance.”
Zionist apologists accused Hecht of taking the quote out of context, and noted that Gruenbaum also said, “we must continue with all our rescue operations and not leave a stone unturned to stop the massacre…. I want to emphasize again, in conclusion, that we must do all in our power to help people and to save lives, to the extent that lives may still be saved.”
Maybe no stone unturned, but no money spent and that additional comment does not contradict the fact that he admittedly placed state building activities before saving Jewish lives.
The Zionist movement launched a major attack upon Hecht’s book. First thing apparently was to buy them all up so it was almost impossible to find a copy. Then they put out a “rebuttal” which basically ignored the main feature of the book, the text of Kastner-Gruenwald trial, and distorted the result by only publishing the High Court’s reversal after Kastner had been murdered. link to webcache.googleusercontent.com
I gave one example from Granada in 1066 that disposes of the trope that Zionism is responsible for Arab anti-semitism but there are plenty of others. And I see this old fiction about the Jews having supposedly committed genocide over the Canaanites has re-emerged as a counter argument.
Gerald Schroeder in his recent book “God according to God” points out that Joshua gave the Canaanites the option to stop murdering their children; they were burning them as offerings to their gods.
“There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel except the Hivri, the persons of Givon.” (Joshua 11:18-19)
This was a clash of civilizations where the older evil practices were to be defeated by newer more humane behaviors.
@Hostage, I had never heard of Boas Evron before and I thank you for introducing me. I see now that you are trying to convince me by directing me to a guy whose work is viewed approvingly by the rabid anti-Zionist Norman Finkelstein.
I gave one example from Granada in 1066 that disposes of the trope that Zionism is responsible for Arab anti-semitism but there are plenty of others.
No you asked about a single massacre of Jews, but didn’t provide any historical details which establish that it was caused by antisemitism.
There are several versions of the events, including one which claims it was simply an ordinary civil war between the Berber majority and a proud, haughty, and unpopular Jewish leader, Joseph ha-Nagid, and a corps of Jewish mercenaries. Joseph’s father, Samuel, had been the vizier of the Kingdom of Badis and commander of the Army. He appointed his son, Joseph, to succeed him as though it was a dynastic succession. Joseph held the reins of government, surrounded the King with spies, and appointed Jews to all of the key public offices. He was accused of several acts of violence and treason against the King during a war with a rival, Al-Mu’taṣim of Almeria.
Jewish historians have mined the story for evidence of Muslim antisemitism, but gloss over the fact that Jewish mercenaries were in fact appointed to high public office and that there were many political plots and massacres in the wake of the internecine Muslim wars of Spain. Here are some sources for further reading on Samuel and his son Joseph:
*link to jewishencyclopedia.com
and *link to en.wikipedia.org
*link to books.google.com
*link to books.google.com
@Hostage, I had never heard of Boas Evron before and I thank you for introducing me. I see now that you are trying to convince me by directing me to a guy whose work is viewed approvingly by the rabid anti-Zionist Norman Finkelstein.
A “genetic fallacy” is a line of “reasoning” in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself.
Boas Evron was a journalist who worked for Ha’aretz and Yedi’ot Aharonot. He was citing the verbatim minutes of the meeting and correspondence between the Jewish leaders from publicly available archives.
Please explain for example why it’s relevant that Norman Finkelstein has cited the works of Boas Evron, when neither man is the source of the damning archival materials in question?
Gerald Schroeder in his recent book “God according to God” points out that Joshua gave the Canaanites the option to stop murdering their children;
There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the Canaanites were under a ban and that they were supposed to be utterly destroyed:
This was a clash of civilizations where the older evil practices were to be defeated by newer more humane behaviors.
There is a great deal of evidence that the ancient Jews had the same evil practices, Shoftim – Judges – Chapter 11:30-34. For example the prophet Jeremiah said that the Jews had murdered their children by burning them as offerings to their gods:
Most definitely they preferred refugees to come to Palestine, but that accusation about not giving a shit about Jewish lives is baseless rubbish.
Actually, the Zionists didn’t prefer refugees go to Palestine. They wanted young healthy Jewish “pioneers” to go to Palestine. (Zionist term.) They had screening procedures in place for those they allowed to come to Palestine.
“The old ones will pass They will bear their fate or they will not.They are dust, economic and moral dust in a cruel world,” as Weizman said.
link to tau.ac.il
So, there’s your Zionist “concern” for European Jews. If they weren’t useful to the state building, they weren’t wanted. So how about the Zionist “concern” for Arab Jews? It didn’t exist either, among the early and most influential Zionists, including Arthur Ruppin, declared the father of Zionist settlement in Palestine. The concern was for the state and their concept of eugenics. Individuals were only important as contributors to the state, and expendable as such.
Thank you, tree, for this excerpt. And thanks to you Hostage. Clearing the air of hasbarist pollution is an ongoing task at mondoweiss.
@tree, you have provided a lot of references to the workings of the Zionist movement at the early part of the 20th century.
Inter alia you said, “Actually, the Zionists didn’t prefer refugees go to Palestine. They wanted young healthy Jewish “pioneers” to go to Palestine. (Zionist term.) They had screening procedures in place for those they allowed to come to Palestine.”
This all makes logical sense – the Zionists wanted their efforts to be successful and did their best to optimise aliyah with the sparse resources that were available to them at the time.
I am willing to take on board information of which I was previously unaware and have found a thesis about Ruppin to read that will help to fill in some of the gaps in my knowledge of this period of history.
What concerns me though with the tenor of the discussion I have had under this topic about the refugees issue, Zionism and concomitant Arab anti-semitism is a complete unwillingness to accept one jot of information that might refute or negate the anti-Zionist position.
In any conflict there are always two sides to the story and by taking up a position that the Palestinians are absolved from any responsibility for their plight and are just victims of forces beyond their control is extraordinarily simplistic and very lop-sided. Adopting a position of bashing the shit out of Israel and completely ignoring the transgressions of the other side will never convince anyone at the end of the day who is trying to consider all the facts and weigh up the arguments.
Mayhem, judging from this I suppose you would find a way to blame the indigenous peoples of this country whose ranks were decimated and their lands stolen by an earlier group of white European settlers for their plight.
The Ashkenazi Zionists who established colonies in Palestine were clearly outsiders, different from the Mizrahim, phenotypically, culturally, and linguistically. Only if you subscribe to the theory of Stalin’s favorite geneticist, Lysenko, that people’s skin color will change relative to their exposure of lack of same to the sun, would you accept that these pale skinned Jews had any physical connection to the land of Palestine or a right to steal the land and ethnically cleanse the people who had lived there for centuries.
Sorry, that the Palestinians haven’t observed the Marquis of Queensbury rules in resisting their decimation by your beloved Israelis but as of yet they have not resorted to dropping blockbusters, cluster bombs, or white phosphorous on their occupiers.
What concerns me though with the tenor of the discussion I have had under this topic about the refugees issue, Zionism and concomitant Arab anti-semitism is a complete unwillingness to accept one jot of information that might refute or negate the anti-Zionist position.
I invited you to provide any rebuttal evidence at your disposal, but you really haven’t supplied a thing in response but rhetorical questions, innuendo, hypotheticals, and ad hominems. There is certainly nothing in your comments that “refuted or negated” any of the statements made by Ruppin, Weizmann, Ben Gurion, Landauer, Ussishkin, Greenbaum, Meir, or Hecht in his book about the subject and exposé of the Kastner-Gruenwald libel trial that were provided in the comment section above.
I didn’t adopt my anti-Zionist views on the basis of ignorance or mistaken first impressions. I adopted them after a thorough examination of the subject and upon the basis of the knowledge that I’ve acquired from thousands of reliable sources, including first hand accounts of family members. I’d say that applies in Jeffrey’s case too.
Adopting a position of bashing the shit out of Israel and completely ignoring the transgressions of the other side will never convince anyone at the end of the day who is trying to consider all the facts and weigh up the arguments.
It only feels that way because you were speaking for the “other side” and didn’t, or couldn’t, offer a rebuttal. I referred to the responsible Arab states as “foxes” and recommended that they and Israel should repatriate or compensate the victims of any wrongdoing.
The Ashkenazi Zionists who established colonies in Palestine were clearly outsiders, different from the Mizrahim, phenotypically, culturally, and linguistically.
Exactly. Arthur Ruppin’s “The Picture in 1907″ graphically illustrates that point. He disparaged the indigenous Jews and claimed they were practically indistinguishable from their Arab brethren. Another good example is provided by Elkan Nathan Adler, who authored Jews in many lands (1905). It was printed by the Jewish Publication Society of America. He didn’t grasp the tradition of inalienable religious endowments (e.g. waqfs) and considered property owned by the Relief fund as a sort of colonial estate. He stated in the foreword that his
So the Zionists targeted the local Jews with evictions and home demolitions too.
@Hostage, you are drawing a very long bow. People with no legal entitlement to a piece of land have to move – that is the law of the globe.
@Hostage, you are drawing a very long bow. People with no legal entitlement to a piece of land have to move – that is the law of the globe.
It obviously wasn’t that simple, since the author says the purpose of his visit was to clear-up “legal difficulties” involving the formerly vacant land. The Ottoman’s did in fact have laws in the 1880s regarding land that laid idle, and lands owned by religious charities. In any event, a so-called “Relief Society” that brags about evicting poor Jews so that it can demolish their “rude uninhabitable shanties” and build “decent little dwellings” for “industrious settlers” are ginormous assholes in my book.
The statement that Ashkenazi Jews that legally purchased land (by whatever motivation) were interlopers is a racist view, no?
And the prohibition from selling to someone that is “different” is a racist view, no?
A side of the hull preferred with holes over a different side of a hull with holes.
The sealing of the hull is acceptance of the other, not rationalization for the status of “interloper”.
@Hostage, you are drawing a very long bow. People with no legal entitlement to a piece of land have to move – that is the law of the globe.
And you, Mahem, are short on self-awareness. Your own words betray you: “no legal entitlement to a piece of land” “move” “law of the globe”
These words apply to Israeli settlers who squat illegally on Palestinian land and steal Palestinian water and other resources. How is it you don’t get this?
The statement that Ashkenazi Jews that legally purchased land (by whatever motivation) were interlopers is a racist view, no?
Richard, I didn’t make any statement about “Ashkenazi Jews”, you did. FYI, Sir Moses Montefiore and his friend Judah Touro were both descended from Sephardic Jews.
Concerning the land purchase, Judah Touro died and left money for the establishment of an Almshouse and Mill. Montefiore was merely Executor of Touro’s estate. Adler was merely the late Baron’s solicitor. The purpose of an almshouse was to give shelter and work to the county’s poor, not to facilitate immigration. Montefiore had encouraged the poor families of Palestine to move to the properties in line with his friend’s wishes.
The Ottoman Sultan had issued a firman that prevented Oriental and European Jews from settling in Palestine. The first Jewish Aliya was carried-out in violation of that prohibition on mass Jewish immigration. For example in 1882, the American Consul summed up an immigration request from a group of Romanian Jews living in the Ottoman Empire this way:
It goes without saying that Montefiore’s lawyer, Mr. Adler, was not an Ottoman subject and was acting as an interloper by encouraging the establishment of Jewish settlements or a “New Yishuv” in Ottoman Palestine.
I certainly have not seen very much concern expressed by this community about the obvious plight of Christians across the Middle East. Do we blame that on the Zionists too like everything else?
@Hostage, you are desperate it seems to preserve some shanties for your ideological argument. This is commonly called progress, only objected to by Luddites and their ilk.
And where else have Christians suffered massively in the thousands than in ethnically-cleansed Israel/Palestine? Yeah, really clever of you, lurching into that rhetoric.
“Progress,” Mayhem? Yeah they called it “progress” in Germany too.
@Hostage, you are desperate it seems to preserve some shanties for your ideological argument.
I could care less about shanties. I notice that neither you, nor those of your ideological ilk, care about these historical episodes where Zionist interlopers made poor Arab Jews or Palestinians homeless or penniless refugees.
It’s no accident that Zionists, like yourself, always start shreying and shedding crocodile tears over Jewish claims for compensation against third-party Arab States whenever Israel is pressed to rectify its own wrongful acts. Changing the subject or resorting to ad hominem attacks is all you’ve got left in your bag of tricks. But you won’t fool anyone here by doing that.
You’re absolutely right Hostage, but that won’t stop them from trying.
@Hostage, there is no point in reading the biblical text without recognizing the oral tradition.
@Hostage, there is no point in reading the biblical text without recognizing the oral tradition.
There are hundreds of us hanging on your every word, mayhem. Care to elaborate on this priceless gem??
@Hostage, there is no point in reading the biblical text without recognizing the oral tradition.
I usually do cite the oral tradition. The only biblical texts that I mentioned above explained that Jewish culture did not eliminate the purported Canaanite practice of making child sacrifices. For example, the Jerusalem Talmud, Pesah, 9:6, holds that Jephthah’s vow was not valid. But it nonetheless assumes that he did in fact fulfill it by sacrificing his own daughter.
Rabbi Moshe Reiss says “For the first millennium of the Common Era, Jewish commentators unanimously (insofar as is known to us) interpreted the text literarily: that Jephthah put his daughter to death. This includes non-rabbinic sources such as Josephus and Pseudo-Philo, the latter of whom draws a comparison of the fate of Jephthah’s daughter to the near death of Isaac.” link to moshereiss.org
again, i’ll repeat my mantra…. 1 state is the *theoretically* most just resolution. but given realpolitik and that we now have a right wing zionist *democraticish* state, i see almost no hope for implementation… and gorenberg is highlighting that, in actuality, it would likely be an utter mess and end in disaster.
further, if the world somehow pressures israel to go the 1 state route (how?), it looks like a crap deal anyways, as israel would not be implementing it on the just terms we might envision.
also let’s realize this…. many more israelis support a 2 state solution than support a 1SS with equality and without ethnic cleansing (the number of jewish israeli 1SS advocates is TINY, then i assume add in the bulk of arab-israelis). we are having so much trouble getting the 2 SS….. how they hell do we shift to the more unpalatable (for israelis) 1SS and expect success?
the bottom line is that the right of return for refugees gets screwed in a 2SS. i hate that, but israel is obviously set on this point (it is the whole deal with zionism, right? jewish effing state). the best i hope for is that we get to end the occupation and roll back the expansion, but the RoR is what gets lost. there are two injustices in this conflict, and we may have to be resigned to fully ameliorate 1 (occupation/expansion), while partially ameliorating the other (compensation in place of full RoR).
but we can all switch to 1SS, and demand full RoR and just see where it leads…. status quo, continued occupation, continued colonization, and maybe a repeat of 1948. ugh.
anonymouscomments,
I agree with what you say about pursuing the 2ss . Your attitude is realistic and will lead to peace and to a plan most Israelis can get behind.
There is no two state solution with a country that is hungry for lebensraum.
The logo of “the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations” – on their website (link to weeklystandard.com
and on top of their official statements at the U.N. – shows the Palestinian Authority’s claim to a Palestine that stretches throughout the entire historical entity of the former Palestine mandate. It is the Palestinians evidently who don’t want a two-state solution.
The logo of “the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations”
You’re right, Mayhem. They really should have used this map
on their logo.
The logo of “the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations” – on their website (link to weeklystandard.com
and on top of their official statements at the U.N. – shows the Palestinian Authority’s claim to a Palestine that stretches throughout the entire historical entity of the former Palestine mandate.
Your thinking reflects a logical fallacy. The PLO claims to represent the Palestinian people, including refugees from all of mandate Palestine. FYI, neither side surrendered their territorial claims under the terms of the 1949 Armistice Agreements, but Palestine has subsequently asked for, and received, recognition of their State within the 1967 boundaries. Israel asked for, and received, recognition within the boundaries contained in the UN resolution of 29 November 1947.
To me, Mayhem, it looks like what’s happened is Palestine had a problem with insurgent immigrants. Israel was formed by European colonists.
Great. Two “realists”. But here’s the problem. However small the number of 1SS advocates is, the number of Israelis and Palestinians who can agree on the borders of the 2SS is even smaller.
And I suspect as what’s left of Palestine shrinks, the number of 1SS supporters will steadily increase. Possibly even in Israel itself as some Israelis may retain sufficient humanity to shrink from pursuing the logical conclusion to their greed. Though perhaps eee will prove me to be hopelessly over optimistic on that last point.
People talk as if there is still some sort of choice. Israel killed a genuine 2SS a long time ago, but needs the cover of an infinitely postponed solution to keep clearing and appropriating land and water, whilst leaving the Palestinians barren ghettos. It’s not a matter of preferring some sort of idealistic, utopian single state, it’s simply that it is the only option Israel’s deliberate strategy has left – except that they are happy to make it an apartheid single state with half of the population left with no rights, unable to make a real living, encouraged by the imposed deprivation and impoverishment to slowly flee.
i agree the side that has consistently been in power in israel is the “1SS” side (greater israel, expansionist type). the MAJOR point though is this…. they are ZIONIST first and foremost. israel is effing ZIONIST. they want AS MUCH land they can possibly get, but are NOT going to accept any “demographic” threat. with enough pressure, they will have to roll back expansion, as they must keep 2 major things in play-
1) their citizenry must remain majority jewish, the whole point of this BS zionist thing, which is not going away (there is no coming thought revolution, and jewish israel is 99.9% zionist)
2) they must maintain enough reasonable relations with the world to persist and remain viable (ie they cannot have simultaneous wars with too many players, or crippling global sanctions, or an utter lack of trading partners)
#2 is their pressure point. but putting pressure on #2 will not cause them to cede point #1. in fact, they will very carefully play politics to ensure that loosing ground on #2 does not REALLY threaten #1. if the world ever really did mount enough pressure to threaten #1, israel would be jumping right back to ~1967 to maintain #1, and the world would back off. land is one thing, but the death of the MAIN point of zionism is not something they will risk.
israel also has nukes. we need to push on #2, and finally get some concessions out of israel. but if you think the world will ever push on #2 enough such that israel looses #1, you don’t know how the game works; the world is not so “give these refugees and these people absolute justice or ELSE”. israel is clearly “crazy”, but they are also a little bit “evil genius”, so don’t think that the apparent “crazy” will cause them to implode and abandon their CENTRAL characteristic (#1).
———————
but i do like to point out this….
why do some of the idealistic people want to agree with the zionist right on borders, essentially from the river to the sea? we know that was the goal of the expansionists… to kill the 1SS and try for those borders, or at least bite off as much as they could chew. i know those were the best borders in 1947…… but we are not there anymore, and there are power structures.
so we seemingly AGREE with the zionist right, who has apparently been getting what they want since 1967, or perhaps 1948, or perhaps the early 1900s…. but we DISAGREE on what it should ultimately look like INSIDE of these borders. curious position for us to be in. i am an avid poker player and know statistics and game theory. i think a lot about I/P and how it can be played out. the key is to look into the mind of the expansionist settler, study right wing zionist history, and actually put yourself in their twisted shoes. i think about the number of extremists, their power blocks, and the means at their disposal to achieve their (sick) ends…… how do you feel about the odds regarding who will win on defining what is within these (pretty i admit) borders? they have *consistently* won out, but you want to bet the house that through some very uncertain path (do tell me your idea), you can CEDE them the borders THEY pushed for against all odds, only to win when the last hand hits the table? what is this hand you hold really, aside from the fact that you have JUSTICE on your side, and a growing *civil* society movement? yes, we have that, but it is a weak hand if you expect to do too much with it. in fact it is a fools hand if you overestimate, and then get even less than you had.
they are crazy, but they are not impotent, or dumb, or suicidal. in fact, as far as i can tell, they have been CONTINUALLY getting everything they ever wanted with minimal casualties, over ~100 years, but bit by bit… sometimes in a quick war, sometimes slowly.
ask yourself what just a dozen or so *activated* fanatics could do within these borders. imagine them killing random palestinians, with sporadic massacres of unarmed palestinians (something reminiscent of 1947-1948); they have people in the IDF, police, and security forces. in fact that could be who engages in the serial killings. how does a few dozen brutal murders sound, some mosque bombings, and then palestinian protests/riots met with deadly violence (like the 2nd intifada spark). imagine the race riots they could spark off so easily. ask yourself what side the armed forces and police are on when this gets initiated. who has the guns even? ask yourself how bad it can get. ask yourself what happens if this occurs under a regional war, and if there might be a flow of refugees, yet again.
ask yourself what happens if some “nut” in the IAF decides to obliterate the al aqsa mosque, perhaps during the next israeli “war”. i actually think the mosque will almost inevitably get destroyed, when the nutters think the timing is right. what happens then? the arab world erupts, palestinians erupt, but what state actor actually hits israel, and gives it a death blow? NOT ONE. israel has nukes…. and they also have “plausible” or “actual” deniability- the IAF pilot was a lone wolf crazy! enter the race riots, and missiles from gaza and labanon. missiles hit tel aviv from lebanon for sure. cue the insanity. are you getting the picture? and these are not hyperbolic. after WWI the world thought things were chill. you could never see humanity, or at least the west, having WWII. what the hell was vietnam? what went down in rwanda, balkans, etc. etc. israel may be next in line (again).
i know there is a massive movement, the world is catching on to the israeli game, but don’t overestimate our position in real terms. we also have economic issues the world over, and regional wars can come again. the world takes one step forward, then sometimes two back.
i am ranting but i see it as CLEAR. if we do NOT get a 2SS we get some form of a living hell, where crazy people can easily hijack the situation and give us worse things than we ever imagined; like a 1948 repeat. whatever it is, it sucks… even the middle ground and the INDEFINITE extension of this sick living reality is bad enough.
our hand looks good in moderate diplomacy based on the oslo *idea* of a 2SS, that both SIDES HAVE AGREED TO IN PRINCIPLE, AND IN POLLS. and we can shift the paranoid israeli public with the right conditions. yes, we failed before, but we are gaining ground in the UN and in civil society; but that is not a sign we should shift from the tough-to-achieve 2SS to the just-not-gonna-happen-without-ethnic-cleansing 1SS. our hand looks like rags if we go for a 1SS, cause like a caged animal, israel will lash out, and play some sick hands you do not want to see, and we do not need to see.
if you actually read this repetitive incoherent rant, sorry. but i’m very serious on this point, despite my bad analogies and random (but sincere) hypotheticals. don’t underestimate the power of fanatics who have no regard for human life, including some of their own. the rules of the game change when you slip inside their mindset, and ask yourself what actions they would consider, and TAKE… and realize how easy it is to move the masses in a very dark direction.
Not incoherent at all, and very passionately and lucidly argued. Of course the Palestinians would take a 2SS, they would take anything which would allow them to live in peace in charge of their own affairs. I would be more than happy to see it happen. But for it to happen means the Israeli state and the majority of its population facing down and removing settlers – a reversal of epic proportions not just practically but ideologically. There is no evidence of any such move, indeed the opposite is true. It’s not a question of choosing one over the other, even if 2SS is the best solution. It looks like Israel is heading for the 1 (apartheid) state, by default, whatever we or anyone else does. It doesn’t mean ‘we’ or anybody else are arguing for it over the 2SS, but if we are forced to accept the brutal reality Israel has imposed what is the solution except a functioning non-apartheid state, instead of the miserable reality which Israel imposes on Palestinians, one which encompasses universal human rights? It is Israel and its uncompromising, merciless occupation and land grab which is forcing the one state, not anybody else. Idealism is being crushed by brutal realism, and it becomes a question of what can be salvaged from the horror of Israeli occupation and destruction.
Which is why I believe if there is to be a solution, it will come when Israel provokes the major Western powers and/or Russia to the point where they decide that Israel, as it currently exists, needs to be dismantled, and they take military action to remove every last one of the settlers from the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
At that point in time, Israel may be so shaken itself by the last war it will ever initiate as to offer little resistance to being offered, take it or leave, a vastly reduced Jewish ghetto/state.
Ah, dream on, you Zionists out there will say, but if you think about the speed with which Israel has succeeded is isolating itself and antagonizing one former ally after another, and if it goes ahead with its threat to attack Iran, you should think about getting another passport and perhaps a facial makeover. The way things are going does anyone seriously think Israel will be around in any form under that name in 20 years? Do you think a French president and a US president two decades from now will still be having the same private exchange that just passed between Sarkozy and Obama about an Israeli PM? I’d bet against it.
Your summaries remain out to lunch.
The Sarkozy/Obama conversation is the discussion of a temporary irritation only.
It should comprise a motivation for Israelis to elect more benign leadership.
Other Israeli prime ministers have been loved by both Sarkozy and Obama.
Loved?? Benign?? this is just laughable. Your lunchbox is full of drugs.
“Other Israeli prime ministers have been loved by both Sarkozy and Obama.”
Loved? What a damning indictment of both Sarkozy and Obama. Though in the end it’s birds of a feather. Obama blows up innocent civilians and says we shouldn’t investigate American war crimes, so why shouldn’t he “love” some Israeli PM with a similar attitude?
I don’t recall Sarkozy mentioning his irritation being temporary. He didn’t say Bibbi is a liar dome of the time, or that he hated him at the moment.
WTF are you talking about? Bibbi came to office at teh same time Obama did. Bibbi is the only leadership he’s ever dealt with.
Anonymous’ comments aren’t out to lunch.
Obama quoted Rabin at length in his campaign. “Loved”.
This would be the same Rabin whose peace process died when Israelis did away with him and replaced him with business as usual war hawks?
i feel a little odd having you in agreement eee, but what we need is more points of agreement to make progress. i do find that for 2SS people who are secular, and accept some ugly realpolitik in the name of resolution, the likely end game is almost the same/identical.
what troubles me with you eee is your lack of a viable PLAN FOR PRODUCTIVE ACTION, and where you place your efforts. clearly there are people on both sides that delay what we see as the rough resolution we think is the best that can be *achieved*.
i think we both believe that if there was a strong and VERY idealistic international position, the world would ask more than israel would assent to. this would perpetuate the conflict, and possibly end very very badly. this is what i think you entirely miss eee…… this is hyperbolic fear, and there is ZERO chance that this will materialize, in the international arena, in any reasonable period of time. we cannot get unambiguous international pressure for the 2SS (but it is close, minus the lobbied USA). the idealistic opinions you hear on MW and from others who study this conflict are FRINGE.
but what you do not seem to realize is there is a VERY mainstream position, which is even more dangerous and destructive, within israel, world jewry, christian zionists, and the american political structure; this position has power, real, tangible, “facts on the ground” power. i am sure you fight many on the israeli hard right, and the eretz israel crowd…. but why don’t you realize there is one side the pressure needs to come from, especially from you, being within the jewish community? there is ONE side that is really saying no to the viable 2SS, and destroying it. yes, palestinians have divisions, and there are rejectionists on the other side (who generally just want their injustice ameliorated). but they are impotent, israel hold the chips and does the colonizing.
until israel *sincerely* positions itself to offer a real 2SS, with something serious for the refugees, you are barking up the wrong tree. and guess what NEEDS to happen before such “sincere offers” can even be taken seriously, and your exalted negotiations can commence? a 100% freeze on all settlement growth. maybe natural growth the only exception. you always seek a return to the BS negotiations that failed so miserably (and now the dynamics are worse… a more right wing gov and more settlements!)… unless you seek negotiations with a CHANGED DYNAMIC, you are einstein’s definition of insanity- doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
i really think you do not get this…. if i was you i would be screaming all day about settlements. no palestinian can or should negotiate until there is a real freeze, hence why obama first stressed this issue.
please do get on it, and stop attacking some idealists you perhaps correctly disagree with. pick a side to pressure, cause a bunch of words thrown at both sides on the internet is basically a net nothing. and i will state something obvious…. the side we can most effectively CHANGE is the side which we are wrapped up in due to identity. our “own”, whoever that may be. therefore i look at US policy and jewish opinion…. and there is a very CLEAR way those need to shift to ever hope for peace.
so eee, do you agree with me on this a little? i am not saying don’t discuss and debate these things- i’ve done just that on this thread, supporting your side and criticizing the 1SS position. but i hope you actually put productive efforts in the right direction, when it comes to the larger fight.
we need to move the median, and pragmatic people always disagree with the two extremes on any issue. but to move the median means a push in one direction.
sorry i made 1-2 points over 1-2 pages, but i really would like people like you to bridge the divide and gain a unified voice when it comes to israel’s worst policies. some future specifics are intellectual and can be left as points of disagreement until they are even in the present tense, but we need israel to change major policies now.
how bout it eee….. come join a diverse crowd where an initial goal is a settlement freeze. then maybe we can talk more realistically about ending the occupation and a 2SS. otherwise i will be seeing you on MW 10 years from now discussing the same BS, or the situation implodes and israel goes the way right wing fascist countries tend to go. to save israel is to note israel’s biggest threat…. itself.
anonymouscomments,
It is refreshing to talk about what can be done instead of each side saying what should be done according to its views.
If the Palestinian leadership came out with a statement that they are for a peace agreement based on the Clinton parameters, I would be for a settlement freeze while it is being negotiated. In fact, I believe a large majority of Israelis would be for such a move. But the dynamic is such, that publicly at least the Palestinians insist on the refugees coming back to Israel and that means for most Israelis including me that they want two Palestinian states. Same with the Arab peace plan. It was vague on the issue of refugees (specifying only a “just solution”).
This issue undercuts any motivation to do something about the settlements because if there is no possibility to solve the ROR problem, why bother about the settlements issue (especially since most of the building is in the Jerusalem area any way)?
What do you think Israel should suggest as a solution to the ROR problem? I’ll tell you if I think it is politically feasible. What the Clinton parameters suggest are giving the right to a symbolic 5,000 or so.
Why should Palestinians adhere to the Clinton parameters when Israel has shat all over them?
I second EEE’s comment on the refreshment of actually talking about what can be done.
I believe that if moderates in Israel and in Palestine are elected and achieve on the ground weight of support, possibly based on other topics than Israel/Palestine relations (J14 for example), that the tangible differences are reconcilable.
So, the question to my mind is how to encourage the moderates. I assume that the moderates are not “traitors”, that Abbas is no Palestinian “traitor”, and that the prospective modern equivalent of Rabin is no Israeli “traitor”.
In Israel, I believe it takes making other issues the primary ones in election, if that is possible. Social and economic issues, not political ones. J14 issues, that make common cause between high cost of living Arab Israelis, Mizrahi Israelis, Ashkenazi Israelis.
Issues that have a progressive voice, so a Burgian new party could emerge, or Hadash, or some other non-nationalist party could achieve even as little as 2% more of the electorate votes, it would motivate meretz, labor, and even kadima. On social issues, you could see a government coalition of kadima, labor, meretz, Hadash, and a Burgian moderate non-nationalist party.
That coalition would not be led by the progressive parties, but influence, so that a viable peace is constructable (both Israeli risk-averse AND viable Palestine).
The likud platform is of risk-aversion (the most generous way to describe it) combined with free market near laissez faire. The Israel Beitanhu platform is similar, but with more emphasis on risk aversion. Shas and other religious parties have much more limited agendas, but agree on risk aversion.
It is an irony, but the success of militant views FEEDS the success of the approach of Israeli risk-aversion. Security, including dancing politically and propagandistically, becomes the most important electoral feature.
Social/economic issues of the 99%, community vitality, coexistence, become utterly secondary concerns.
I’ve said a few hundred times that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, single-state advocacy and BDS elects likud.
Support for conditional acceptance of Israel, support for moderate but assertive Palestinian leadership, elects kadima or to the left.
Support for social issues gives the potential of prominence for even Hadash, but more for meretz and labor.
And, it does make a very big difference.
The commitment to moderation though must be substantive, otherwise opportunists will distract (Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Israeli right-wingnuts)
There is an additional danger to Palestinians of the single state.
That is that in an open Israstine, that commercial and specifically Judaizing commercial interests could not be prevented from buying all of the important land.
Large parts of what is now definitively Palestinian in character will no longer be.
The only way to protect the ethnic dominance of regions would be if very wealthy external Muslims purchased large tracts of land. The problem with that is that there would then be enormous inflation in the cost of land and housing in those culturally critical areas.
The increased cost of living itself (gentrification), would drive the indigenous out, say of Hebron, of Sfad, or of Ramallah (Shechem), or East Jerusalem.
The single-state is a commercial vision (though not intended as such).
richard said
“The only way to protect the ethnic dominance of regions would be if very wealthy external Jewish purchased large tracts of land. The problem with that is that there would then be enormous inflation in the cost of land and housing in those culturally critical areas.
The increased cost of living itself (gentrification), would drive the indigenous out, say of Hebron, of Sfad, or of Ramallah (Shechem), or East Jerusalem.”
no shit sherlock
That would suggest to me that pursuit of the two-state approach would be a better strategy for Palestinians than the single state.
Witty, YOU reject the two state approach. You basically insist that if Palestinians want a state, they have to surrender their water, control of their borders and their communications, their diplomatic relations, etc. to Israel. To your “Jewish nation.”
You want to round up Palestinians and herd them into a bantustan so that there’s plenty of breathing room for Israeli Jewish settlements. That isn’t a “two state solution.”
Gorenberg’s analysis is flawed on several levels.
1. Lebanon’s civil war of 1975 erupted due to both unsettled disputes that were left to fester and due to outside intervention.
1a. After 1948 and 1967, the flow of Palestinian refugees into Lebanon destabilized the country, both politically and economically. Gorenberg does not seem to acknowledge that.
Absent this factor in the Israeli-Palestinian case, there is no reason suspect a similar outcome. In simple terms, Gorenberg is comparing apples and oranges.
1b. Festering injustices left behind by French colonialism resulted in an internal struggle for political power within Lebanon.
1c. Both Israel and Syria were interested in acquiring territory in Lebanon. Prior to the French mandatory period, Syria and Lebanon were one country. Thus, Syria regarded Lebanon as a region that was unjustly taken from it. Israel wanted to expand territorially, in addition to driving Palestinians further away.
2. Gorenberg does not acknowledge, nor does he come close to acknowledging, the simple fact that Israeli Jewish society itself is fragmented.
And Israeli scholars have written about this, they have written about the internal sectarian divisions within Israeli Jewish society. The glue that holds Jewish society in Israel together is the specter of external threats, nothing else.
So whatever conflict Gorenberg envisages between Jews and non-Jews, he is clearly not taking all variables and factors into account. That is to say, a fair analysis would have included all aspects of society, not one segment alone.
3. Current divisions between Fatah and Hamas, for example, have their historical roots in the Nakbah and the dispossession of Palestinians. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, the various Palestinian groups calling for a national struggle to liberate Palestine disagreed on strategy and philosophy. But their ultimate goal was the same. That is to say that political divisions within present day Palestinian society can vanish in the event of a just and equitable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
4. Gorenberg may not wish to acknowledge this and he certainly glosses over this simple fact, but pre-state Zionist groups were also highly divided. Whether it was the Stern gang, Lehi, the Haganah, or Irgun.
Yet, these factions somehow managed to come together under one banner and one flag and form what later became to be known as the IDF.
Sure, there were great political divisions and struggles within the newly established state of Israel, but that did not stop anyone from believing that uniting Zionists under one banner was possible.
If I had more time I could write at length about each of the aforementioned points. But, the inevitable conclusion that one should reach is that Gorenberg is making a false argument. His motives? It’s clear from the euphemism he uses about Israel’s assault on Gaza in early 2009 that he is motivated by ideology and ethnocentricism. There is great bias in his narrative.
As for the claim that he describes himself as a historian, well, I find that dubious. He appears to be no more a historian than Michael Oren.
Having read my post again I realize that in point (1c) I made it sound as though Syria agitated for Lebanese division in order to acquire territory. So, to clarify, motivated by that previously mentioned historical bond, Syria became involved in Lebanon when it moved in to aid the Maronites against the Palestinians in the civil war that erupted.
Did you read the book?
Did YOU read the book?
In fact, when was the last time you read A book, any book?
The irony of Witty asking that is actually almost painful.
Avi,
The Hagana was much, much larger than the Etzel. The Lehi was minuscule. This reflected their support in the Yishuv. Fatah and Hamas each have about 50% support and that is why it was much easier for Ben-Gurion to disband the Etzel and create the IDF.
Another point worth noting is that while the Zionist movement had many fragments, these fragments had already been working together in a democratic fashion decades before Israel was founded. It was easy for the institutions to become national ones seamlessly. This is not the case with the Palestinians.
The Hagana was much, much larger than the Etzel. The Lehi was minuscule. This reflected their support in the Yishuv. . . .that is why it was much easier for Ben-Gurion to disband the Etzel and create the IDF.
Wrong! David Ben Gurion had the defense portfolio in the Jewish Agency. He cabled Haganah commander Moshe Sneh and instructed him to give Irgun and Lehi a free hand in the outbreak of violence that started in Jerusalem. — See the Minutes of the 8th Sitting of the First Knesset, 8 March 1949, in Netanel Lorach, “Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981″ Volume 2, JCPA/University Press, 1993, page 445.
Many of the members of Etzel and Lehi went to work in the Shabak and Mossad when they were created.
Very good rebuttal Hostage.
In fact, in 1945 Chain Wiesman proposed that in order to speed up the withdrawal of the British from Palestine, the Hagana should collaborate with the Stern and Irgun to achieve this goal. This was after Ben Gurion persuaded the Jewish community in America to pay for the purchase of arms manufacturing machinery, so that the Hagana could produce it’s own weapons.
“This was after Ben Gurion persuaded the Jewish community in America to pay for the purchase of arms manufacturing machinery,…”
And not too long before the Zionist bagman showed up in Truman’s presidential railway car with the 2 million dollars of campaign donations.
“Wrong! David Ben Gurion had the defense portfolio in the Jewish Agency. He cabled Haganah commander Moshe Sneh and instructed him to give Irgun and Lehi a free hand in the outbreak of violence that started in Jerusalem. — See the Minutes of the 8th Sitting of the First Knesset, 8 March 1949, in Netanel Lorach, “Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981″ Volume 2, JCPA/University Press, 1993, page 445.”
What are you smoking? The Etzel and Lehi as well as the Haganah were disbanded and their people became part of the IDF. What was the Altalena incident all about if not that?
link to en.wikipedia.org
Gee, what was incessant youthful Protestant bible-reader Truman to do? If he didn’t take the Zionist cash & run with it, merely at the expense of the world’s future with a rabid Zionist state running amuck in it, Dewey would have–nothing’s changed, except for a bump when JFK wanted to prevent Israel from getting the bomb, but was murdered before he could do so, and ditto when re Bobbie K was murdered also coincidentally when he was about to make AIPAC’s predecessor Zionist lobby register as agent of a foreign government, and re Carter’s post-Presidency awakening wherefrom he produced his book on Israeli apartheid? If black Obama couldn’t change the routine, and his collapse after his Cairo speech, and collaboration in dissing original Goldstone Report, and his ignoring his VP & Petraeus statements on rogue Israel making US troops vulnerable, who can? Bring on the bombing of Iran coupled with US bankruptcy–it’s the only thing that can prevent the status quo descent into Hell. Samson says, Simon say–
Are you posting wikipedia entries that you yourself are editing before citing them, eee?
Chaos,
Are you denying now the veracity of the wikipedia entry? What a giant ignoramus.
You are referring to the notorious Abe Feinberg but the sum was probably less than $2 million since then the dollar was actually backed by silver and elections cost far less. JFK was one of those who told that story.. Feinberg also was the one who after the election in which he had raised a lot of money from his Jewish friends for JFK, he came into the president’s office and demanded that he let them dictate his Middle East policy. JFK was furious, after Feinberg, had left his office, of course, and the story made its way into the pages of Si Hersh’s “The Sampson Option.” The FBI kept a file on Feinberg which Grant Smith of IRmep obtained under the FOIA which made clear that this guy, largely unknown today was one of a handful of major US Jewish figures in securing US support for the state.
What are you smoking? The Etzel and Lehi as well as the Haganah were disbanded and their people became part of the IDF. What was the Altalena incident all about if not that?
Haganah, Etzel, and Lehi were disbanded after the Jerusalem uprising began. For example, the Haganah, Etzel, and Lehi bombed hotels, theaters, and carried out massacres in the villages of the Corpus Separatum, like Deir Yassin, months before the Altalena Affair in June of 1948. That altercation only happened after Menachim Begin had given some, but not all of his cargo to the Haganah.
In the declassified minutes of the Knesset meeting that I cited, Ben Gurion was berating Begin over the damage to Israel’s foreign relations that had resulted from the Jerusalem uprising. Moshe Sneh interrupted to remind the PM that “You sent me the cable not to harm the IZL!”. MK G. Meyer responded by threatening Sneh (ala Anat Kam/Uri Blau) : “Moshe Sneh, don’t threaten us with publication!”
What is the name of the account with which you edit wiki entries, eee? ;)
If Israel is so terrified of the single state solution, and rejects it, why have they done everything in their power to destroy the two state solution and replace it with apartheid ghettos controlled exclusively by them? Because Israel’s solution is one state, except without Palestinians – otherwise known as slow, grinding expulsion, removing the resources necessary to live and policing stunted, deprived barren areas at their constant mercy and daily harassment – little Gazas, in other words. It is a long game, and Israel can wait, since they have, thanks to the US taxpayer a state industry devoted to occupation, control and dispossession. They have their foot on the Palestinian’s neck, and refuse to take it away. It is calculated, ruthless brutality.
justicewillprevail, that is exactly the point. I would even go as far to say that Israel is awaiting the opportune moment to unveil their ‘final solution to the Palestinian problem’
With all their advances in Medical genetics, I would be very surprised if they hadn’t already researched a germ or chemical that affected only Palestinians. Since many Israelis now have quite a bit of Levantine Arab DNA themselves, that wouldn’t work so well. There is always Gaza-style bombing from the air, water supply poisoning, or sterilization (the latter already used on Beta Israel females and allegedly was the purpose of an Egyptian hair product some Israeli spy was arrested for).
If only David Ben Gurion were here to see that nearly 64 years later Israel still had no borders and Zionists were demographically outnumbered west of the Jordan River.
Gorenberg says the same divide will occur over return of Palestinian refugees. Jews will oppose it. Palestinians will demand return of property “lost in 1948 and perhaps the rebuilding of destroyed villages. Except for the drawing of borders, virtually every question that bedevils Israel-Palestinian peace negotiations will become a domestic problem setting the new political entity aflame
It is 2011 and Germany is still paying reparations for the Holocaust. Jews in diaspora can obtain Israeli citizenship, their ‘right of return’. They don’t need to have friends or family or speak a word of Hebrew. Palestinian refugees violently expelled from their homes they still have keys and deeds for, homes that Zionists destroyed, are not allowed to return.
This is a policy of insanity and any Zionist who believes the refugees will never be compensated by Israel and allowed to re-settle in Israel is delusional.
The single state solution, 1947 borders, is the only solution to peace. It would kill Zionism. Granting Israeli citizenship to all Palestinians in WB/Gaza would be a great start. Removing the check points and military outposts (along with illegal settlement outposts since those people didn’t pay to live there) would also be a step in the right direction. This would solve the Jerusalem question for the most part other than property disputes.
Israel would not be flooded with refugees because not all of them would want to live there. Strike some sort of deal with Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan that gives refugees the option of citizenship there, Israel, or the US even. Compensate families for property stolen and initiate an international reparations fund contributed to primarily from Israel and the US for ALL Palestinians (which Barak’s ‘generous offer’ called for minus Israeli contributions). Most importantly, apologize and take responsibility. Throw the war criminals from all sides into prisons or deport them.
If anybody commits a terrorist attack, deal with it normally and not by shelling civilians. Throw them in jail or worse, same with price taggers and Ultra Orthodox extremists. The right-wingers who can’t bear to live with this new Israel would just move to the US or some other place.
Tax the businesses, they even rip off Israeli citizens. Construction and processing the natural gas fields would create jobs. The boycotts would be gone and no longer affect business. The standard of living and the economy would hurt for a while, there would be racism for a few years, but education and PR, along with anti-discrimination laws would condition future generations like it did in the US south. Things wouldn’t be perfect but eventually they would stabilize. The country would gain new trading partners and Holy Land tourism would escalate through the roof.
The Israelis don’t look at the big picture. eee thinks Israel would be flooded with refugees. Like I said, it wouldn’t. The standard of living and economy would take a nose dive. Yeah, but it’s artificial to begin with plus the middle class are already screwed today. It would improve over time. Again, tourism would be huge, especially coupled with Egypt and Jordan tours to see the Pyramids and Petra or whatever. Gaza waterfront property would be a gold mine.
It’s not up to me to choose the destiny for those people obviously, but none of this seems unrealistic. Then again, some of the Zionists are so brainwashed there is no coming back…..
The single state effort is not solidarity with Palestinian self-determination, but a punitive war stance against Jewish/Israeli.
In war, it will be fought.
Liberal Zionists (the majority of American and European Jews, Phil’s original audience) criticize Israel, but will fight for it.
If there is any stance that will unite liberal Zionists against radical anti-Zionists, it is the revolutionary effort to eliminate Israel by external force (including BDS).
The difference between revolution and reform is stark, stark in strategy, stark in morality of goal, stark in morality of means.
Rationalizations about how noble one’s efforts are in such a war don’t cut it. If you emerge Palestinian self-determination (for the first time historically, a good thing), BY destroying Israeli self-determination without direct consent, you will have not succeeded at anything resembling justice.
Gorenburg is unrelenting in his criticism of Israeli injustice, of the hypocrisy of claiming to pursue peace when they don’t, of the stupidity of much Israeli policy.
He is a Zionist though.
There’s only been a little of bashing him, thankfully (much less than historically by editors and commenters alike).
Believe me, Wittegenstein, if Israel launches a war against Iran and it produces the catastrophic results on the global economy and the world’s supply of oil that many experts predict (which is why the Pentagon has opposed an attack on Iran until now), you and every Jewish armchair supporter of Israel will not be thinking of fighting on Israel’s behalf but how to protect your butt.
“That ALWAYS happens!” …except that it doesn’t. Case and point.
I have to agree with Gorenberg — a one state solution would probably look something like he describes. A majority native Palestinian state with a true one person one vote parliament would entertain many features that the Zionists would not like. Just to run off a few political changes.
.. The knesset votes to make Arabic the state language.
.. Now the parliament ( as it will be translated) votes to change the name of the state from Israel to Palestine.
..They now vote to change the name of their international airport from Ben Gurion to George Habash.
..They vote to allow returning Palestinians to collect back rent on lands that were stolen by the Zionist. Since these back rents will greatly exceed the value of the land, Zionist settlers have no choice but to return those properties to their original owners. Large tracts of suburban Tel Aviv (having be built on seized Palestinian villages) will have Arab citizens again as it was before 1948.
This is the horror show of the one-state solution. But guess what Gorenberg: you are totally powerless to stop that dynamic because your right settlers have taken over political power in Israel which means you really have no say any more and they have killed the two state solution.
One-state is the only alternative unless of course you are willing to move on to the massive Arab transfer or the Arab genocide option. But Gorenberg I do not believe that you are capable of doing that. So it is one-state: learn to live with it.
Toivos,
You should read carefully what anonymouscomments writes. Your view is ultra naive.
I did read and at one level I agree with anonymouse. You guys have the ability to kill and terrorize Palestinians to horrible levels. Doesn’t make any difference. You have been doing that for 60 years and the Palestinian people are still there and resisting as they always have. You must deal with them and guess what: they will not accept the apartheid solution that you think they should.
Therefore it will be one-state unless you guys are willing to give them a real second state. Or unless you are real men and are willing to do a major ethnic cleansing or genocide operation. I happen to believe that even you eee is not willing to go that far. Though I do not doubt that many or your country men are.
Given the last 63 years, I would say the Palestinians are the powerless ones.
DBG you are quite correct. The Palestinians are powerless. But in spite of all of their defeats they are the majority between the river Jordan the Mediterranean. Dearest Zionist this is the question: how do you deal with that demographic fact when faced with one person/ one vote.
That is your dilemma.
“how do you deal with that demographic fact when faced with one person/ one vote.”
You never get to that situation. Israel can always unilaterally withdraw to any line it wants, just like it did in Gaza. Nobody is ever going to demand that Gazans will be given a vote in Israel. And if Palestinians attack it, well it has the right for self defense.
So your plan is to raze every school and hospital in the West Bank? Like you tried to do in Gaza? What with you “leaving” Gaza?
Well, that’s what happens when a relatively peaceful agrarian society is invaded by violent, racist militant colonists.
“Israel would become a second Belgium, perpetually incapable of forming a stable government.”
Yet the Belgians have managed to keep going for 180 years, and (Euro problems notwithstanding) Belgium does not yet qualify as a failed state.
“Israel might well become Lebanon”
I though Lebanon was quite nice as long as the Israelis left it alone.
The hipocricy of Zionism in it’s essence:
During the mandate it was the (arab) Palestinians who opposed Jewish refugees (not from Palestine, but from Europe). That wasn’t ok, because it wasn’t good for Jews. It led also to a domestic and economical problem, which set the political entity aflame. That was ok, because it was good for Jews.
The Arab Palestinians were at least a 75% majority (considering Jewish refugees weren’t citizens, yet) and called for a representative Goverment in Palestine, meaning majority rule. That wasn’t ok, because it wasn’t good for Jews. The (former) Jewish Palestinians are now a 75% majority by keeping arab Palestinians expelled and denationalized. That’s ok, because it is good for Jews. It’s called a “jewish democracy”.
Hamas and others want’s to free the whole of Palestine, and some say that this would include massacre, expulsion, disfranchisement, dispossession and denationalization of Jews. That’s not ok, because it is not good for Jews. Jewish seperatists and their terror organisations DID take over Palestine by force, massacred Arab Palestians, expelled a major part of them and disfranchised and denationalized them. That was ok, because it was good for Jews.
Arab Palestinians in a one-state-solution might demand return of their property, on which Israel built it settlements. That’s not ok, because it is not good for Jews. Jewish seperatists and their terror organisations destroyed more than 400 villages and build their settlements on the ruins or one private land, tens of thousand took over ready-furnished housing units. That was ok, because it was good for Jews.
Creating one state Palestine is a pipe dream, which cannot be realized, because it’s not good for Jews. Creating a (de facto) one state Israel was Hertzl’s realized dream and it’s good for Jews.
Forced removal of illegal settling Jews is not ok, because it’s not good for Jews. Forced removal of native Palestinians is ok and has to be maintained, because it’s good for Jews.
The “unmaking” of Israel is not good for Jews. Palestinians after 60 years cannot turn back the clock. The “unmaking” of Palestine was good for Jews. Jews after 2000 years could turn back the clock.
Every violence and inhumane behaviour is good, if it is good for Jews. It’s called “warning”, “reaction” and “self-defence”. Every violence and inhumane behaviour isn’t good, if it isn’t good for Jews. It’s called “threat”, “agression” and “terrorism”.
Everything is ok, possible and justified, as long it is good for Jews. And everthing isn’t ok, possible and justified, if it is not good for Jews.
Forget about universal moral or human and equal rights for every human.
“Never Again!” is also the Zionist’s lesson, because of past crimes against humanity. Except if it’s good for Jews.
Talkback
Really do like this comment. Too true, and why I can only argue with Zionists for so long…. cause though I start with an attempt at dialogue, but it invariably ends with a biased argument where they do not cede one point, despite how many “points” you have clearly refuted. Ugh. But hell, what do we expect from true believers in a tribal identity developed and perfected for 2000+ years? Objectivity? Pfffft!
from Phil’s review: “Many Israeli Jews are proudly ethnocentric. They would say that the Jews built a society here and we have our narrative and the Arabs have their narrative . . .”
it’s been a while since I read it, but iirc that’s the basic theme of Elon’s “The Pity of It All:” Jews built a life in Germany, they had their narrative and the Germans had their narrative . . .”
Indeed, Jews lived in Germany and among Germans, basically at peace, since at least 700 CE. Things started to go to hell only after a relative few members of the minority group, backed by tremendous wealth in the hands of a few, sought to dominate the majority population. The majority group more or less acquiesced until they didn’t any more, then they exploded.
Palestine — pretty much the same situation.
Anybody see a pattern here?
The switcheroo is, as Norman Finkelstein observed, that Germany, like Israel, was hyper-militarized, and only a resounding military defeat could “bring Germany to its senses; today it’s the most morally aware state in Europe.” Likewise, Finkelstein continues, “Israel is carrying on like a marauding state, a vandal state; it needs to suffer a resounding defeat, to shake it back to its senses.”
Do you mean that Weimar Germany was very strongly under an influence that was specifically Jewish? I think that Ludendorff referred to the Dawes Plan, that seemed to make the payment of reparations practicable, as ‘a Jewish Tannenberg’. We should look at that kind of opinion sceptically, I think. Would a society in that state have elected Hindenburg as President?
here in america the most one can do to hasten the liberation of palestine is to participate in the justice for palestine movement.
once the israel-u.s alliance is no more the settler entity will be like this latest iceberg that broke away from the antarctic, alone with nothing to look forward to except its* own inevitable extinction
*the zionist entity, not its people
Its people don’t know the difference between the extinction of Zionism and a holocaust. They’ve been brainwashed into believing the end of Zionism and Israel symbolically or demographically will lead to a holocaust.
That’s probably the first thing the holocaust refugees were told in Palestine. That they are only safe in Israel, the world hates Jews and can’t be trusted, the world sat by knowing the holocaust was going on because they hate Jews, the world would cause another holocaust given the opportune moment, the grand mufti is Hitler’s right-hand man, the Arabs are rich and funded the holocaust, and if they lose Israel in any way at all a holocaust will occur.
The refugees believed it because of what they had just been through. Because of it, their children believe it. Their children’s children believe it. Now we have a problem, an entire population of brainwashed sociopaths unwilling to take responsibility for their actions because they think the world is against them
that’s why severing the israel-us. axis of evil is so critical. agreed that right now turning the settler-entity is impossible, but absolutely alone, without a friend in the world, that would have to change. unless, that is, the zionist entity actually goes for a masada reprise. personally, i believe survival instincts will suddenly assert themselves, and most of israel’s jews will support peace. granted, this is partly based on how grief-stricken and angry the jewish israelis become any time one of their idf “best & finest” is captured, wounded or killed. also the trade of more than a thousand captive palestinians for 1 idf soldier. in the first century after jesus is that what the martyred jewish rebels at masada would have done? don’t let’em fool you, they ain’t into martyrdom.
Michael Neumann also argues against the one-state solution, following Chomsky’s argument that it’s impractical:
link to counterpunch.org
The Western countries don’t fail to impose a one-state solution on Israel because it’s impractical, it’s impractical because they fail to impose it. The question is, why? Why are Jewish supremacists supported, where white supremacists were defeated?
A binational single state could already include constitutional guarantees for both nations, and, if it were the result of an international agreement, the guarantees could be enforceable by both the UN and the foreign powers that signed the international agreement.
I don’t think such an agreement should protect Jewish settlements within the Occupied Territories, but whether or not it did could be a matter of negotiation, and included within the international agreement setting up the single binational state.
Something more reasonable for such an agreement to protect than the settlements would be guaranteed constitutional status for the Jews (as well as the Palestinians) within a binational state. There could be separate legislatures for the two nationalities, and legislation could require the agreement of both legislatures. There could be the kind of guaranteed split of the major governmental offices for the different ethnicities that there has been in Lebanon.
Would Lebanon have been such a failure if there hadn’t been an Israel next door that encouraged ethnic sectarianism and violence?
Israel tried to end Lebanon, and ultimately Israel may just end up like Lebanon. I like the symmetry.