Jimmy Carter: Israel has dropped the two-state solution for a ‘Greater Israel’

Israel/Palestine
on 106 Comments
carter
Former prime minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland (left), former President Jimmy Carter and former president of Ireland, Mary Robinson, October 22, 2012. (Photo: Allison Deger)

Speaking in Jerusalem today President Jimmy Carter said Israel has turned a corner in its foreign policy and “abandoned” a two-state solution for a “Greater Israel.”

“The two-state solution has basically been abandoned and we are now moving towards a Greater Israel, or Eretz Israel taking over all of the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River,” said President Carter.

Concluding a two-day tour of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories alongside former president of Ireland, Mary Robinson, and former prime minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland, President Carter singled out Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (who has refused to meet with the former American president on his previous trips to Israel) and lamented the lack of “political will” from Israeli officials. I asked the President if it was Israel’s long-standing apartheid-style policies, a two-tier system that has existed since 1948, rather then the leanings of the current leadership that has prevented the possibility of an independent Palestinian state. President Carter affirmed his position that every previous Prime Minister in earnest sought a negotiated solution:

I think for the first time in my memory of the mid-east peace process we have reached a crisis stage because of all of the previous prime ministers of Israel have been detectably and provenly committed to a two state solution, working with other nations in the world including the United States and European countries and the Arab countries as you know. That is our policy…and it seems to be abandoned.

“It was clear that hope has faded of a general two-state solution, so we need to change the dynamic,” continued President Robinson whose voice carried a sincerity for her concern of the conditions Palestinians live under. In particular she referenced Israel’s “national parks” in East Jerusalem which have expropriated Palestinian private property under the delusive heading of conservation. President Robinson said “I think what is really worrying, and I’ve been thinking about this, is the lack of accountability to what is happening in East Jerusalem, to what is happening since 1970, to what is happening with the so-called facts on the ground. There is no accountability.”

The global leaders are expected to travel to Cairo tomorrow to meet with Egyptian officials in the next phase of their Elders tour, an organization founded by Nelson Mandela comprised of some of the world’s most influential former heads of state. Since the group’s founding in 2009, Israel’s unchecked expansion into the West Bank and human rights in the region—including gender issues and abuses committed by the Palestinian authorities—has been a chief priority. President Carter in particular is an outspoken critic of Israel’s path toward what he calls an “inevitable apartheid,” if Israel does not change its current path.

“The only result of a one state-move, which I call a catastrophe, will be an inevitable move towards apartheid, or a willingness by the Israelis, by the Jewish citizens of Israel to relinquish political control to perhaps an Arab majority. Those are the only two options. And my prayer is that this will not happen,” said President Carter.
 

About Allison Deger

Allison Deger is the Assistant Editor of Mondoweiss.net. Follow her on twitter at @allissoncd.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

106 Responses

  1. talknic
    October 22, 2012, 5:06 pm

    Israel informed the UN/UNSC and threatened to ignore the UN Charter if it didn’t get its way on 31st August 1949 … there never was a two state solution … link to wp.me

    • more progressive
      October 22, 2012, 7:25 pm

      considering that the UN offered a state for Palestine, you’re pretty much fulla spin.

      • talknic
        October 23, 2012, 12:01 pm

        more progressive October 22, 2012 at 7:25 pm

        “considering that the UN offered a state for Palestine”

        Oh? The LoN Mandate FOR Palestine offered a State for Palestine. Article seven: The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.” link to wp.me

        The UN only recommended partitioning Palestine. The Jewish Agency accepted. Israel was declared and recognized as the Israeli Government asked it to be recognized “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947 ” link to wp.me

        Partition was instituted in part by default of Israel becoming independent of what remained of Palestine and; as corpus separatum was never instituted it includes Jerusalem without differentiation between the Old City or East or West. ” Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;” UNSC res 476 link to wp.me

        One cannot declare independent statehood whilst any of one’s territories are under the control of another entity and; there has always been some entity or other in control of some or all of Palestine throughout its long history. Palestinians have never had full control of their territory for over 2,000 years, since the Roman era.

        Self determination/independence is why the LoN Mandate had to “expire” beforelink to mfa.gov.il the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel came into effect at “at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time” link to trumanlibrary.org

        However at the time the Mandate expired, Jewish forces under Plan Dalet were already in control of territory slated for the Arab State. “territory” Israel admitted on the 22nd May 1948, was ” outside the State of Israel” link to wp.me

        64 years later Israeli forces are still in territory slated for the Arab State. The Palestinians still cannot declare Independent statehood. There has never actually been an opportunity for the Palestinians to miss.

        However the Zionist “Colonial” enterprise missed opportunity after opportunity. Now, since achieving an independent Jewish State and it having obliged itself to adhere to the Law and UN Charter in its entirety link to un.org , Israelis are prohibited from living “any where in Palestine”. Even Israeli Arabs are prohibited from living in “territories occupied” and never ‘unoccupied’

        Odd that the primary motivator for the colonization of Palestine though he wasn’t even from the region could have in his lifetime, legally immigrated to Palestine, legally obtained Palestinian citizenship, legally bought land and legally lived anywhere in Palestine …. didn’t!

        No “We were poor and happy” for Herlz. No “…two shirts and two pairs of pants” while (unsuccessfully) turning desert into garden

        Now he’s buried in “territories occupied”.

  2. Les
    October 22, 2012, 5:08 pm

    Raw Story headline on this story: (In spite of giving Israel zillions of dollars)

    “President Carter: U.S. has ‘zero’ influence over Israel and Palestine”

    A comment notes that “on the other hand, how much influence does Israel have over the US?”

    It sounds like a good foreign policy question we should be asking our politicians.

    • pabelmont
      October 23, 2012, 8:33 am

      Formally, Obama has (or could have) power over Israel because his Ambassador to the UN could — in principle — vote against Israel (until another president takes his place). But that is “formally”. (Carter does not have that “formal” power.) But Obama is likely to want pro-Israel money to keep coming to the Democratic party, and is likely to want to keep his party “with” him for legislative purposes. And he will therefore be unlikely to actually use that formal power.

      So, Jimmy Carter, say hello to Barack Obama!

  3. radii
    October 22, 2012, 5:38 pm

    Carter in his heart feels a strong kinship with Israel and Jews – he put his own presidency on the line to help them move toward peace with the Palestinians. To this day he weathers criticism, threats, and the open hostile contempt of today’s Jewish zionists in Israel when all he’s attempting to do is tell a friend, “You’re on the wrong path”

    • talknic
      October 22, 2012, 7:03 pm

      radii

      Criminals cannot afford honest friends. Were Israel was to adhere to the law now, it would be sent broke for decades as it tried to compensate for 64 years of illegally usurping the Palestinians from their rightful territory. Israel’s illegal ‘facts on the ground’ hole is too deep and its citizens are too entrenched in it and the lies used to create it.

      Having dug itself into the mire, Israel must now retain the US veto vote in the UNSC, the ONLY basket protecting Israel’s illegal eggs and hope that the Palestinians will be even more generous than they have already been.

    • CloakAndDagger
      October 22, 2012, 10:43 pm

      when all he’s attempting to do is tell a friend

      Israel is no friend. Please stop using pander-phrases like these that are used by politicians that don’t have the moral fortitude to call a spade, a spade.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 23, 2012, 12:10 am

        carter is the sole arbiter of who he considers a friend.

    • kalithea
      October 22, 2012, 11:23 pm

      Friend, my ass.

  4. Nevada Ned
    October 22, 2012, 5:57 pm

    Normally, an ex-President does nothing controversial. Jimmy Carter courted controversy with his book and inflammatory title (“Peace, not Apartheid”). My opinion is that Carter speaks for a significant fraction of the ruling class, who thinks the US defers to Israel in ways that undermine US interests.

    In addition, consider the example of Mearsheimer and Walt (“The Israel Lobby”) are card-carrying members of the US foreign policy Establishment. Normally these gentlemen do not have to appeal to the public: they can get things done behind closed doors. M&W opened themselves up to a torrent of abuse, which they knew was coming when their book was published. M&W are opposing the “special relationship” between the US and Israel for reasons that are not a surprise to MondoWeiss readers.

    Taken together, the examples of Jimmy Carter and M&W shows significant dissent within the ruling class about US/Israeli relationship. It’s not working now, and the future looks even worse than the present.

  5. Mooser
    October 22, 2012, 6:06 pm

    “The only result of a one state-move, which I call a catastrophe, will be an inevitable move towards apartheid, or a willingness by the Israelis, by the Jewish citizens of Israel to relinquish political control to perhaps an Arab majority. Those are the only two options. And my prayer is that this will not happen,”

    Say what, exactly? Huh? Anyway, didn’t we read, oh last week or something that the Jewish demographic advantage was fading away? Can anybody parse this Carterese?

    • American
      October 23, 2012, 12:22 pm

      @ Mooser

      Parsing the Carterese….

      They’ve ruined a 2 state solution, they will be a aparthied state….and the bit about Israelis ‘willing’ to relinguish control to Arabs?…..he’s just saying without having to call Israelis apartheid loving racist, that the demographic bomb will get them sooner or later and Arabs ‘will’ take control eventually.
      He’s being pc…as in ‘oh so sad’ there will be no more Jewish State and they did it to themselves.

      • Mooser
        October 23, 2012, 5:35 pm

        Thanks, American. It was murky to me. Probably better to have heard it.

  6. Mayhem
    October 22, 2012, 7:45 pm

    Carter’s anti-Zionist views are well documented and his opinion about Israel’s attitude to a two-state solution must be taken with a grain of salt.
    This relatively recent article explains why a two-state solution is the only way forward
    link to foreignpolicy.com
    The Palestinians have made it impossible to progress towards a two-state because their underlying agenda is to subvert the Zionist enterprise.
    @talknic, your intimation that Israel never wanted a two-state solution is classic revisionism based on nothing but your own fantasized agenda.

    • Shingo
      October 23, 2012, 2:02 am

      Carter’s anti-Zionist views are well documented and his opinion about Israel’s attitude to a two-state solution must be taken with a grain of salt.

      Why is that? Because it has not been vetted by AIPAC?

      This relatively recent article explains why a two-state solution is the only way forward

      Purely from an Israeli centriv point of view.

      The Palestinians have made it impossible to progress towards a two-state because their underlying agenda is to subvert the Zionist enterprise.

      The Israelis have made it impossible to progress towards a two-state because their underlying agenda is to subvert any possibility of a Palestinian state. That is the Zionist enterprise.

      your intimation that Israel never wanted a two-state solution is classic revisionism

      Revisionist historians are the only cedible ones.

      Fail again Mayhem!!

    • piotr
      October 23, 2012, 2:22 am

      Mayhem,

      you cite an article that while not impartial, at least makes a stab at it, and thus Aaron David Miller starts the synopsis of the patient (dead? alive? zombie?) with those words: “To paraphrase Mark Twain, signs of the two-state solution’s demise aren’t exaggerated.

      Israeli settlement activity continues unabated. In fact, in a truly bizarre and tortuous bit of twisted logic, a recent report by a committee created by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu actually recommended sanctioning the Israeli activity. [Palestinians are divided, cannot decide in which universe they operate etc.] Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, Israel — run by the deepest unity government in its history — is unified around a coalition agreement that ensures a do-nothing approach on this issue for at least the next year. “

    • seafoid
      October 23, 2012, 3:43 am

      “The Palestinians have made it impossible to progress towards a two-state because their underlying agenda is to subvert the Zionist enterprise”.

      the Palestinians are locked behind a wall out of sight while Zionism points a loaded gun in the direction of its feet.

    • talknic
      October 23, 2012, 3:51 am

      Mayhem October 22, 2012 at 7:45 pm

      “your intimation that Israel never wanted a two-state solution is classic revisionism based on nothing but your own fantasized agenda.”

      Strange, the Israeli Government statement is on the record as are its illegal actions since and numerous UNSC resolutions condemning those illegal actions. Only a idiot makes false accusations when the evidence has been provided and can be read by anyone who cares to read it

      “The Palestinians have made it impossible to progress towards a two-state because their underlying agenda is to subvert the Zionist enterprise.”

      Uh huh. I guess that’s why Abbas, in front of the world at the UN, has twice now offered Israel ALL the Palestinian territory Israel had illegally acquired by war by 1949 in return for peace link to haaretz.com .. Israel has offered exactly NO THING, ever.

      You and your kind are the problem. A denialist, blind to everything you don’t like and full of twaddle stale from the holey olde Hasbara

    • thankgodimatheist
      October 23, 2012, 8:14 am

      “your intimation that Israel never wanted a two-state solution is classic revisionism based on nothing but your own fantasized agenda.” Mayhem

      Maybe you should take it to Uri Avnery who also agrees that Israel never wanted a neighbouring Palestinian state. It’s in the genetic code of Zionism (his words). Or as he also calls it “The Main Effort”. Here:
      “Hidden somewhere underneath it all, on the fringes of the collective consciousness, Zionism always had an answer. It is so self-evident, that there was no need to think about it. Only few had the courage to express it openly. It is imprinted on the “genetic code” of the Zionist movement, so to speak, and its daughter, the State of Israel.

      This code says: a Jewish State in all the Land of Israel. And therefore: total opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state – at any time, anywhere in the country, at all costs.

      WHEN A strategist plans a war, he first of all defines its aim. That is the Main Effort. Every other effort must be considered accordingly. If it supports the main effort, it is acceptable. If it hurts the main effort, it must be rejected.

      The Main Effort of the Zionist/Israeli movement is to achieve a Jewish State in all of Eretz Israel – the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. In other words: the prevention of an Arab Palestinian state.

      When one grasps this, all the events of the last 115 years make sense. All the twists and turns, all the seeming contradictions and deviations, all the curious-looking decisions make perfect sense.

      In a bird’s eye view, the Zionist-Israeli policy looks like a river striving towards the sea. When it meets an obstacle, it goes around it. The path deviates to the right and to the left, sometimes even going backwards. But it perseveres with a wondrous determination towards its goal.

      The guiding principle was to accept every compromise that gives us what we can get at any stage, but never let the final aim out of our sight.

      This policy allows us to compromise about everything, except one: an Arab Palestinian state that would confirm the existence of an Arab Palestinian people.

      All Israeli governments have fought this idea with all available means. In this respect there was no difference between David Ben-Gurion, who had a secret agreement with King Abdullah of Jordan to obstruct the setting up of the Palestinian state decreed by the UN General Assembly’s 1947 resolution, and Menachem Begin, who made a separate peace with Anwar Sadat in order to get Egypt out of the Israeli-Palestinian war. Not to mention Golda Meir’s famous dictum: “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people”. Thousands of other decisions by successive Israeli governments have followed the same logic.”
      link to avnery-news.co.il

      • ritzl
        October 23, 2012, 12:30 pm

        Miko Peled gives a good summary account of facts supporting the view that Israel was never serious about two states, and the process used to quietly kill the concept while maintaining the lie.

        Starts at 19:30.

    • amigo
      October 24, 2012, 3:04 pm

      Mayhem is what you are posting.

      “One day after the UN vote to partition Palestine, Menachem Begin, the commander of the Irgun gang and Israel’s future Prime Minister between 1977-1983, proclaimed: “The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized …. Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever.” (Iron Wall p. 25) *

      Every successive Zionist Leader has taken the same tone right up to the present war monger.See the Likud Charter for verification.

      Unless you can point to that part of said charter which allows the creation of a Palestinian State.

  7. more progressive
    October 22, 2012, 9:49 pm

    I enjoy carter’s willingness to avoid the formulaic talk expected of old former presidents.

    Love that he talks about Netanyahu with all due disrespect.

  8. dimadok
    October 22, 2012, 10:15 pm

    President Robinson and the rest of the party should mind their own country business and not go to the capital of another state, and while staying there tell how to run municipal affairs of it!!! Especially when it comes to the Irish President. Israel has become a political safari tour for every activist or fool, who thinks that he has the solution, proclaims them and then leaves. Mind your own country business and stay away from my capital, my state and my nation. Start respecting my history and my perspectives before lecturing me about yours.

    • lyn117
      October 23, 2012, 1:33 am

      How do you know he said this in Israel? The only location given is Jerusalem. East Jerusalem certainly isn’t in Israel, and legally, neither is West Jerusalem as it is outside the only internationally accepted borders of Israel, those of the U.N. 181 partition.

      • Allison Deger
        October 23, 2012, 4:07 am

        President Carter and the other heads of state were speaking at the American Colony Hotel in East Jerusalem.

      • giladg
        October 23, 2012, 5:25 am

        Allison, why don’t you tell us what is 30 meters away from the hotel and almost surrounding it on two sides? It happens to be ancient, happens to be Jewish, and happens to have been around a long, long time before local Arabs knew or understood what Palestinian means.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 23, 2012, 9:47 am

        “It happens to be ancient, happens to be Jewish, and…”

        …happens to be wholly irrelevant. Get off their land, you thieving bastards.

      • Shmuel
        October 23, 2012, 9:55 am

        what is 30 meters away from the hotel

        30 metres, hmm. The Olive Tree Hotel? Orient House? That gas station on the corner?

      • seafoid
        October 23, 2012, 9:58 am

        It is also Muslim, Gilad. You may have noticed that there are 2 mosques on top of that wall. G-d obviously meant for the city to be shared.

      • FreddyV
        October 23, 2012, 10:12 am

        Ooh! I know! I know!

        You mean the Antonia fortress right?

        Oh and besides, even the ancient Egyptians referred to the area as Palestine in 1150BCE, well before Herod built the temple you’re alluding to.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • seafoid
        October 23, 2012, 10:27 am

        30 metres away may also include a group of settlers on their way to a pogrom

      • piotr
        October 23, 2012, 11:31 am

        I want my temple of Jupiter back. By the way, the hill belongs to a private religious corporation that was duly chartered under Calif of the faithful and Sultan, the secular ruler, and subsequent treaties contained promises not to abrogate traditional privileges like this waqf. Israel lawlessly interferes with the operation of the waqf.

      • Meyer
        October 26, 2012, 2:03 am

        Woody,

        I’m curious about this. You clearly see east Jerusalem as strictly being Palestinian land. (And maybe West Jerusalem and all of Palestine/Israel, but that’s neither here nor there.)

        Why is it exclusively Palestinian IYO?

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 29, 2012, 6:17 pm

        “Why is it exclusively Palestinian IYO?”

        Because of the right of self-determination and at no time did the Palestinian people of al-Quds/Arab East “Jerusalem” agree to cede to the israelis the sovereignty over their land.

    • talknic
      October 23, 2012, 4:12 am

      dimadok October 22, 2012 at 10:15 pm

      “President Robinson and the rest of the party should mind their own country business and not go to the capital of another state, and while staying there tell how to run municipal affairs of it!”

      Problem. Israel agreed to adhere to the UN Charter. Jerusalem was not declared as Israeli, not recognized as Israeli and has never been legally annexed to Israel. It is outside of the sovereign extent of the State of Israel and actions by a state outside of its sovereign extent IS THE BUSINESS of the International Community.

      You must of course ignore International Law, the UN Charter and UNSC resolutions on the matter to reach your criminally insane conclusions.

      The simple fact is, Jerusalem is not in legally Israel and that is why Israel desperately seeks to keep the only thing between it and the consequences of the law, the precious US veto vote in the UNSC.

      Denialists die of cancer rather than take early treatment

      • dimadok
        October 23, 2012, 8:09 am

        Does claim of nation capital has to come from the outside or from the country itself? I don’t think so. Yes it may not be recognized by UN de jure but de facto every single ambassador or head of state goes to Jeruslaem and meets our officials there. There is a law but there is the application of it. Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel- like it or not. Once you swallow that pill the rest might be easier also.

      • tripledobe
        October 24, 2012, 4:15 pm

        “Once you swallow that pill the rest might be easier also.”

        Spoken like a true Conquistador! All in awe after the shock…

      • talknic
        October 25, 2012, 1:52 pm

        dimadok October 23, 2012 at 8:09 am

        “Does claim of nation capital has to come from the outside or from the country itself? “

        States usually have their capitals ‘inside’ their own territory where, as the actual sovereign, they can do whatever they like. Why do you think the UNSC passed res 252 and EIGHT reminders? Hint … it has something to do with Israel not having de jure sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. UNSC res 476 “1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;”

        “Yes it may not be recognized by UN de jure”

        It IS not recognized by anyone except Israel.

        ” de facto every single ambassador or head of state goes to Jeruslaem and meets our officials there”

        Irrelevant to the actual legal status of Israel’s sovereign extent. The officials of other countries can only meet Israeli officials where Israeli officials agree to meet. If they met in Washington, would that make Washington the capital of Israel?

        “There is a law but there is the application of it.”

        Indeed. Israel AGREED to the law when it was declared and became a UN Member State. Cute to see you’re all for getting away with breaking the law. Sheeeeeesh what nice people Israel has spruiking for its illegal activities.

        “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel- like it or not.”

        I don’t mind, however equal billing ought be afforded the capital of Palestine = Jerusalem must be a neutral entity.

        “Once you swallow that pill the rest might be easier also”

        Ah yes, just swallow the bitter pill of one’s homeland State being in breach of the law and the UN charter, skipping on its obligations and then hearing it whine about the UN.

    • FreddyV
      October 23, 2012, 5:14 am

      I don’t know why you bother Dimmy, you just end up picking your teeth up every time. EJ isn’t Israel despite what your lying government tells you.

      ‘In 1980, the Knesset passed the Jerusalem Law, which declared that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel”,[2] thus formalizing Israel’s unilateral annexation. This declaration was declared “null and void” by United Nations Security Council Resolution 478.’

      link to en.wikipedia.org

    • MarkF
      October 23, 2012, 9:17 am

      “Mind your own country business and stay away from my capital, my state and my nation.”

      Correction – that’s “welfare nation”. My tax dollars. I get to mind YOUR nation because you leech off MY nation.

      • dimadok
        October 23, 2012, 10:01 am

        @MarkF- I see “your” tax dollars going everywhere around the globe, but it doesn’t mean that you can tell me how to run my INTERNAL affairs. Shove it deep and do not show it to anyone, please-it’s embarrassing.

      • MarkF
        October 23, 2012, 10:53 am

        Stand on your own two feet, and then maybe we can talk. Until then, my opinion counts. After all, it’s MY homeland too big guy.

      • talknic
        October 25, 2012, 1:56 pm

        dimadok October 23, 2012 at 10:01 am

        ” it doesn’t mean that you can tell me how to run my INTERNAL affairs”

        If Israel had legally annexed West or East or in fact any territory since being declared, it might be your ‘internal’ affairs. But as Israel has never in fact legally annexed ANY territory, it ISN’T ‘internal’ affairs, it’s ‘outside’ of Israel’s legal sovereign extent.

    • Woody Tanaka
      October 23, 2012, 9:44 am

      “Mind your own country business and stay away from my capital, my state and my nation.”

      Sorry. See, when you and your predecessors didn’t respect the Palestinians’ country, capital and nation, and continue not to respect their country, capital, state, and nation, you have no basis to require others to look away from your crimes.

      “Start respecting my history and my perspectives before lecturing me about yours.”

      Again, because you have ignored and continue to completely ignore the history and perspectives of the Palestinians whose land you stole, we are all justified in not giving the slightest dame in what you think.

      • Meyer
        October 24, 2012, 12:45 am

        Wellllll, though it makes for a snappy narrative, obviously there never was a Palestinian country capital state or nation when Zionism first took shape. Now we can and should discuss Palestinian rights to self determination as a key aspect of any path forward. But to revise history by suggesting that a fully formed nation of Palestine existed and was then stolen by zionists is neither true nor relevant to the question of how to best move forward while ensuring the fulfillment of both nations’ inherent rights.

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 24, 2012, 9:46 am

        False. There was no Palestian state until the 1988 declaration. But there was a Palestinian country (i.e., the land of Palestine), it had a de facto capital, al Quds (“Jerusalem”) and there has long been a Palestinian nation. It is nothing but a filty lie to deny the Palestinians’ culture and history as you do; it’s in many ways akin to similar antisemitic lies (such as Holocaust denial, etc.)

      • tripledobe
        October 24, 2012, 4:38 pm

        “But there was a Palestinian country (i.e., the land of Palestine), it had a de facto capital, al Quds (“Jerusalem”) and there has long been a Palestinian nation.”
        That seems right, but I’d like to know why this point is so important to debate. There was undoubtedly a group of people living on a chunk of land at the end of 19th century. The large portion of their land was stolen and it is still happening, they were and still being abused by a better armed group of people. Does it really matter whether “a fully formed nation of Palestine existed” at the time of the theft? And by whose standards fully formed? You mean like big army and the police force? With every piece of land and water privatized?

      • Shingo
        October 24, 2012, 5:52 pm

        But to revise history by suggesting that a fully formed nation of Palestine existed and was then stolen by zionists is neither true nor relevant to the question of how to best move forward while ensuring the fulfillment of both nations’ inherent rights.

        Whether it was a fully formed nation or otherwise, does not change Israel’s criminality one iota.

      • Meyer
        October 26, 2012, 12:07 am

        So you think that Arab Palestine chose a capital that was primarily inhabited by Jews? You expect people to believe that a Palestinian country existed, yet did not have a majority population in their own capital?

        What was it that delineated this Palestinian country that you speak of?

      • Shingo
        October 26, 2012, 10:08 am

        So you think that Arab Palestine chose a capital that was primarily inhabited by Jews?

        Jews chose a state that was primarily inhabited by Arabs did they not?

      • talknic
        October 28, 2012, 7:52 pm

        Meyer October 26, 2012 at 12:07 am

        “What was it that delineated this Palestinian country that you speak of?”

        By default. Prior to Israel being declared, it was when the other Arab States were declared independent. The last instance was when Israel was declared and recognized as independent, by the same borders the Israeli Government acknowledged on May 22nd 1948 link to wp.me .

        If it isn’t the sovereign territory of Lebanon or Syria, Jordan or Egypt, or Israel, by default it’s Palestinian territory.

        Quite simple really. Tho if one’s brain has been sizzled in Ziocaine …

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 29, 2012, 6:13 pm

        “So you think that Arab Palestine chose a capital that was primarily inhabited by Jews?”

        No, I think that Palestine (Arab/Jewish — Christian/Muslim/Jewish Palestine) had a capital that was central to the region and to the religions of the people that inhabited it and made up its people.

        “You expect people to believe that a Palestinian country existed, yet did not have a majority population in their own capital?”

        Until the judeo-supremacists came along, there was nothing which prevented Palestinians who were Jews from being considered Palestinian. You think like a bigot and that’s the source of your error.

    • Erasmus
      October 23, 2012, 4:15 pm

      @dimadok
      re: ….Mind your own country business and stay away from my capital, my state and my nation…..

      iow: BOYCOTT Israel. Good idea!
      The latter actually would indeed be a positive contribution towards problem solution.
      If all the Christian tourist-pilgrims and other beach-holiday makers would indeed BOYCOTT Israel travels……that indeed may bring about a major shift in attitudes of Israeli business and tourism related employed persons, necessary to finally get ready for a comprehensive poltical solution of the I-P conflict.

    • amigo
      October 24, 2012, 3:08 pm

      “. Start respecting my history and my perspectives before lecturing me about yours.” dim adok.

      Start respecting international law then we will keep out of your perspective.

  9. jimmy
    October 22, 2012, 10:18 pm

    I can not believe Israel let this trio in…

    are they out of jail yet

    hehehhe

  10. piotr
    October 22, 2012, 10:38 pm

    I think that Carter is not acting as a member of the “ruling class”. he is one of those weird people who were in the ruling elite and yet treat morality and religion seriously. Which may be also the case with Robinson and Brundtland.

    However, I do not think that Robinson and Brundtland were ever abused as much as Carter. Basically, Americans beat out of their politicians any moral impulses. Carter is a dreaded example, so Clinton and Obama knew what to avoid. However, immorality is supported by an illusion of rationality rather than the real thing, this is what M&W were explaining.

  11. CloakAndDagger
    October 22, 2012, 10:40 pm

    Benjamin Netanyahu (who has refused to meet with the former American president on his previous trips to Israel)

    Just makes my blood boil!

    How can beggars be choosers? That shitty little country takes our money, but is able to dictate to us and refuse to meet one of our statesmen! The sheer audacity is mind-boggling!

    I want every congress critter that continues to pander to Israel and send our tax money there to be lined against a wall and shot for treason.

    Unbelievable!

    • dimadok
      October 23, 2012, 10:03 am

      @cloak
      Israel is a sovereign state- read and repeat until you get it. There are around 100 of states getting US support but I don’t see you boiling over there independent policies. China holds US by it’s cojones and you pipe it down about their policies.

      • Mooser
        October 23, 2012, 5:46 pm

        “Israel is a sovereign state- read and repeat until you get it.”

        Hey Dimmy: MAYBE IT WOULD HELP US “GET IT” IF YOU DREW A MAP OF ISRAEL, SHOWING ITS BORDERS!!!
        I’m sure a delineation of what is Israel and what is not will clear everything up.

      • talknic
        October 23, 2012, 7:47 pm

        dimadok October 23, 2012 at 10:03 am

        “Israel is a sovereign state”

        A sovereign state has defined borders delineating the extent of its sovereignty link to jcpa.org A) so their neighbours know what is and what is not theirs B) so the rest of the world will know when a state’s sovereignty is actually breached link to wp.me and; C) No sovereign state has more right to more secure borders than its neighbours (UN Charter link to un.org ) & D) link to un.org …. read and repeat until you get it. I’m sure someone will lend you a cold sweat blanket.

        “There are around 100 of states getting US support but I don’t see you boiling over there independent policies.”

        Are they acting outside the actual legal extent of their sovereignty? Have they been occupying their neighbour’s territory for 64 years ? link to wp.me .. Have they been illegally ‘acquiring’ territory by war since becoming UN Member States ? link to wp.me .. Have they been illegally annexing territory since becoming UN Member States ? link to wp.me .. Have they been illegally settling other folks territory since becoming UN Member States ? link to unispal.un.org .. Have they HUNDREDS of UNSC resolutions against them for breaching International Law and the UN Charter ? link to wp.me and; if they are, do numerous wrongs make a right?

      • Meyer
        October 24, 2012, 1:19 am

        Talknik,

        In the first part of your post you accuse israel of not being a sovereign state by virtue of the fact that it’s borders are under dispute and have never been clearly defined.

        But in part two you then accuse Israel of illegally occupying their neighbors territory… Referring to a state with far less credibility as a sovereign state than Israel itself. Palestine not only lacks defined borders… For decades it lacked any semblance of government or national identity. Until the late 80s a large percentage of its population we’re citizens of a different state entirely.

        My point… Is it fair to criticize Israel according to a set of criteria that seems to shift in support of any point ever raised against Israel?

        This question also applies to your comment about UNSC resolutions. If a state has racked up more condemnations than anyone else it makes sense to assume that something is very wrong with that country. But when a state racks up more condemnations than every other state on the planet added together, multiple times over and over and over, to an exponential degree, then it might make more sense to look for problems within the system that’s making the condemnations, instead of the state it’s targeting.

      • tripledobe
        October 24, 2012, 4:52 pm

        Why does it matter whether Israel is a sovereign state or not in some strict definition? Why does it matter whether it receives any financial aid for US? To just be able to criticize it. What Zionism has been doing almost from its beginnings has been quite EXTERNAL. What Israel has been doing has been very EXTERNAL from its foundation and on. In fact it is seriously endangering the world peace as we speak. Unfortunately Israel has been involved in US INTERNAL affairs much greater than the other way around. On a personal note… I feel my own well-being is threatened by all crimes that Israel commits partially in my name.

      • Shingo
        October 24, 2012, 5:51 pm

        But in part two you then accuse Israel of illegally occupying their neighbors territory…

        The two positions are not contradictory. Israel is legally sovereign inside it’s 1948 borders. It is not sovereign beyond those borders.

        For decades it lacked any semblance of government or national identity.

        Thanks in part to Israel’s relentless efforts to destroy it.

        My point… Is it fair to criticize Israel according to a set of criteria that seems to shift in support of any point ever raised against Israel?

        Nothing has shifted. The previous criticisms remain and Israel simply adds to the list of crimes it commits, so the criticisms increase accordingly.

        But when a state racks up more condemnations than every other state on the planet added together, multiple times over and over and over, to an exponential degree, then it might make more sense to look for problems within the system that’s making the condemnations, instead of the state it’s targeting.

        Yawn. Israel has tried every strategy under the sun to make that case, and the best they have been able to come up with is:

        a) everyone else does it or
        b) we’re allowed to do it to the Palestinians because of the way in which we have chosen to interpret the law or the application of the Geneva Conventions.

        Of course, the one time Israel tried to argue this before the ICJ, all 15 Justices laughed them out of court.

        A criminal who keeps breaking the law and parole could make the argument that the law is out to get him, or he could simply admit that he keeps breaking it.

      • talknic
        October 25, 2012, 12:18 am

        Meyer October 24, 2012 at 1:19 am

        “In the first part of your post you accuse israel of not being a sovereign state by virtue of the fact that it’s borders are under dispute and have never been clearly defined”

        Alas, I did not. Israel’s legal sovereign extent was recognized by the US 11 minutes after the Declaration came into effect, as Israel asked to be recognized ” as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ (More verifiable info on the legal extent of Israeli sovereignty at link to wp.me )

        “But in part two you then accuse Israel of illegally occupying their neighbors territory… “

        Again, I did not. Occupation is legal. However, Occupying Powers have legal obligations under the UN Charter Chapt XI. Occupying Powers over territories are usually determined under an Armistice Agreement between the warring parties. Armistice Demarcation Lines specifically do not change borders. By 1949 Israel had illegally ‘acquired’ by war, territory outside the state of Israel (never legally annexed to Israel) . It has illegally annexed “territories occupied” in ’67 and illegally settled its citizens in “territories occupied”

        ” Referring to a state with far less credibility as a sovereign state than Israel itself.”

        Wrong again. Sovereign states are independent of any other entity. What remained of Palestine, after Israel was declared independent of Palestine, has had some or all of its territories under the occupation of one entity or another from the moment Israel was declared. (There were already Jewish forces in territory slated for the Arab State by May 15th 1948) There are still foreign (Israeli) forces in control of Palestinian territory. Palestine has never been an ‘Independent Sovereign State’.

        “Palestine not only lacks defined borders… “

        Twaddle. Palestine’s borders were defined by default of A) the states existing before Israeli independence 1946 – 1948 and B) of Israel being declared and recognized on May 15th 1948 ” as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ (The state of Israel has never been in or a part of the non-self-governing territory of Palestine. Israel didn’t exist from the Roman era until May 15th 1948 when it was declared independent of Palestine.)

        “For decades it lacked any semblance of government or national identity.”

        Irrelevant. Israel is a UN Member State. All UN Member States are bound to the UN Charter in its entirety, no exceptions. UN Charter Chapt XI link to un.org

        “Until the late 80s a large percentage of its population we’re citizens of a different state entirely”

        Irrelevant. Jordan annexed on the request of the Palestinians link to jcpa.org.il … as a trustee only at the demand of the Arab League as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950) link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

        Under the Israeli/Jordanian peace treaty, Jordan relinquished its role as a Chapt XI trustee “without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli Military Government control in 1967″ ( Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” link to avalon.law.yale.edu )

        “My point… Is it fair to criticize Israel according to a set of criteria that seems to shift in support of any point ever raised against Israel?”

        States acting outside of their Internationally recognized sovereign extent are subject to the UN Charter, International Law which tell us what they can and can not do in other folk’s territories

        “… when a state racks up more condemnations than every other state on the planet added together, multiple times over and over and over, to an exponential degree, then it might make more sense to look for problems within the system that’s making the condemnations, instead of the state it’s targeting”

        Problem: The majority of UNSC resolutions against Israel are only reminders. E.g., UNSC res 252 has some eight reminders. EIGHT! All issued under the Laws and UN Charter Israel AGREED to uphold.

        If you don’t pay your electricity bill according to your contract, are reminders biased against you? Had Israel adhered to the law there’d be NO original UNSC resolutions and NO reminders. It hasn’t.

      • MarkF
        October 24, 2012, 8:39 am

        “Israel is a sovereign state- read and repeat until you get it.”

        Any country/person/state that is on the dole and is dependent on another for survivial is NOT independent or sovereign. You see, dependency is the opposite of independence.

        Funny how you’re not willing to give up your welfare for you sovereignty. 5+ million Jews on welfare. Who’d a thunk it?? Why not come to America where us Jews don’t need welfare?

      • Shegetz
        October 24, 2012, 10:31 am

        Israel is a sovereign state- read and repeat until you get it.

        That’s pretty hilarious!

        Especially about a country that seems to persistently and consistently meddle in the affairs of other countries, assassinate whom it pleases, and tries tirelessly to get other countries to mess with those it has “issues” with so it doesn’t even have to get its hands dirty.

        Somehow I doubt you, or anyone else in Israel takes the same stance about the sovereignty or sanctity of a country’s ‘internal affairs’ when it comes to Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, Syria, et al.

        The list goes on and on, but your simple philosophy lays bare the truth about what you really want: One set of rules for you and one set for everyone else.

        …and until now – that’s worked – but it is rapidly crumbling presently, so best be prepared to be treated in the exact same manner you paved the way for all those other ‘sovereign’ countries to be sanctioned or invaded. Turnabout is a bitch, innit?

        You’ve made all this possible, and inevitable, in ways you’ll probably never be able to admit to yourself. I’m sure you’re going to love your turn being subjected to the very apparatus you constructed to stifle your opponents.

        Enjoy!

    • piotr
      October 23, 2012, 11:38 am

      I can understand avoiding tedious old men. However, Netanyahu himself is not a charmer, and then he complains when he crashes into a town and the President, quite busy, has no time to see him.

      Actually, this could be a good policy, to suggest to Obama. Any visits from Israeli prime ministers should be preceded by a retreat where the Elders could raise their concern.

  12. kalithea
    October 22, 2012, 11:22 pm

    You know the two-state solution is dead when it doesn’t even get mentioned in the foreign policy Presidential debate. Funny how Romney falsely brought up Apartheid in the context of Iran when everyone knows which is the only country in the world practicing APARTHEID today. Greater Israel is defined by Greater Apartheid.

    • thankgodimatheist
      October 23, 2012, 8:29 am

      “Funny how Romney falsely brought up Apartheid in the context of Iran when everyone knows which is the only country in the world practicing APARTHEID today. ”

      Gideon Levy in Haaretz:

      “Apartheid without shame or guilt / That’s just the way we are.
      We’re racists, the Israelis are saying, we practice apartheid and we even want to live in an apartheid state. Yes, this is Israel.
      link to webcache.googleusercontent.com

      And here’s the survey :
      “Israeli poll finds majority in favour of ‘apartheid’ policies”
      More than two-thirds of Israeli Jews say that 2.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank should be denied the right to vote if the area was annexed by Israel, in effect endorsing an apartheid state, according to an opinion poll reported in Haaretz.

      Three out of four are in favour of segregated roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank, and 58% believe Israel already practises apartheid against Palestinians, the poll found.
      link to guardian.co.uk

  13. mcohen
    October 23, 2012, 1:37 am

    One state solution is the way to go with no right of return.
    Gaza to become a seperate state. West bank to become part of israel.
    As for those hoping for a south aftica apartheid style quick fix change of regime no chance
    Wish you luck with sanctions because unlike south africa israels supporters live outside israel and will always support israel
    Palestinians in the west bank will vote to become citizens of israel in the next 5 years as gas imports take off and money flows into the west bank
    Why should palestinians bother with a seperate state when they can live well together with jews in one secular stste

    • seafoid
      October 23, 2012, 3:44 am

      And ponies

    • talknic
      October 23, 2012, 4:29 am

      mcohen October 23, 2012 at 1:37 am

      “One state solution is the way to go with no right of return”

      Uh huh. If it is a single state, its citizens must surely be allowed to live anywhere within that state. Unless of course it is an apartheid state.

      “Gaza to become a seperate state”

      Uh huh …. that’s TWO states …

      “West bank to become part of israel”

      Will it be legally annexed to Israel? By a referendum of the legal citizens of the West Bank? (sans illegal Israeli settlers)

      “israels supporters live outside israel and will always support israel”

      They’re a tiny minority in the world and in the US, which at present holds the only thing preventing Israel facing the consequences of its 64 years of illegal ‘facts on the ground’ activity, the US veto vote in the UNSC, without which Israel would be sent bankrupt for decades.

      “Palestinians in the west bank will vote to become citizens of israel in the next 5 years as gas imports take off and money flows into the west bank”

      “imports” COST. Perhaps you mean exports. Palestinians aren’t Israelis, they will never benefit from Israeli gas exports.

      “Why should palestinians bother with a seperate state when they can live well together with jews in one secular stste”

      Like Israel’s current second class Arab and Bedouin populations? As for secular state, search for this “THE STATE OF ISRAEL” ” as envisaged by the prophets of Israel;”

    • eljay
      October 23, 2012, 7:28 am

      >> Why should palestinians bother with a seperate state when they can live well together with jews in one secular stste

      Zio-supremacists don’t want a secular state. Assuming they do, they shouldn’t have bothered with a separate “Jewish State” when they could have lived well together with Palestinians in one secular state in Palestine.

      • Meyer
        October 24, 2012, 1:39 am

        “Zio-supremacists don’t want a secular state. Assuming they do, they shouldn’t have bothered with a separate “Jewish State” when they could have lived well together with Palestinians in one secular state in Palestine”

        So then in your view, at the beginning, the idea of a shared secular state was a viable option. Then what do you think caused the decision to split the two nations into separate states according to ethnicity?

      • eljay
        October 24, 2012, 11:15 am

        >> So then in your view, at the beginning, the idea of a shared secular state was a viable option.

        No, in my view the idea of a shared secular state should have been an option. Zio-supremacism did not – and still does not – allow for this option.

      • eljay
        October 24, 2012, 11:33 am

        >> Then what do you think caused the decision to split the two nations into separate states according to ethnicity?

        I like how that sentence makes the entire Zio-supremacist enterprise – Jewish/Zionist terrorism; the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes and lands; and the establishment of an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine – sound so passive, so victim-like.

        Nicely done!

      • talknic
        October 25, 2012, 12:25 am

        Meyer October 24, 2012 at 1:39 am

        “what do you think caused the decision to split the two nations into separate states according to ethnicity?”

        The persistent demands of the Zionist Federation and its agencies to have a Jewish state in all of Eretz-Israel. Haven’t you followed the history of the Jewish State?

      • Meyer
        October 25, 2012, 11:00 pm

        Yes, I am aware of the history of Israel. So you are saying here that the Zionist Federation demanded a Jewish state in all of Palestine? And that had the effect of splitting Palestine into two parts, how exactly? According to you it is not what they were demanding.

        It’s not really accurate history either, but I am interested in what you think happened. Why would a ZF demand for a Jewish state in all of Eretz-Y’Israel have resulted in a partition plan?

        These demands you speak of… what form did they take?

      • Shingo
        October 26, 2012, 10:06 am

        So you are saying here that the Zionist Federation demanded a Jewish state in all of Palestine?

        Yes.

        And that had the effect of splitting Palestine into two parts, how exactly?

        They superficially settled for a split, having no intention to honor the partition. Since 1937, Ben Gurion said that the partition would be a temporary stepping stone towards reclaiming Palestine in its entirety.

        It’s not really accurate history either, but I am interested in what you think happened.

        Actually it is. Ben Gurion convince the Zionist Congress to endorse the partition on the grounds that it was only temporary.

      • talknic
        March 4, 2013, 8:28 pm

        Meyer

        ” I am aware of the history of Israel. “

        Let’s see. History or Hasbara

        “..you are saying here that the Zionist Federation demanded a Jewish state in all of Palestine?”

        You didn’t know that part of history?
        link to google.com

        ” And that had the effect of splitting Palestine into two parts, how exactly?” According to you it is not what they were demanding.

        Quite. They got only half their demand. (ziocaine really does seem to impair logical thought)

        “It’s not really accurate history either, but I am interested in what you think happened.”

        A) It is quite accurate
        B) No you’re not. You’re only interested in promoting fallacies in defense of Israel’s illegal activities

    • thankgodimatheist
      October 23, 2012, 8:34 am

      “One state solution is the way to go with no right of return.”
      Denying the right of return puts you at odds with a principle of International law. Stop being such a criminal. Respect the law!
      “Right of return
      link to en.wikipedia.org

      • dimadok
        October 23, 2012, 10:07 am

        @atheist:
        In the wiki article there are 20 countries with right of return issues-Israel will not accept it due to the simple fact that it would end it’s existence. Take that band-aid off quickly and a lot of problems will become a solutions.

      • eljay
        October 23, 2012, 10:40 am

        >> In the wiki article there are 20 countries with right of return issues-Israel will not accept it due to the simple fact that it would end it’s existence.

        Although the oppressive, colonialist, expansionst and supremacist “Jewish State” would – and should – cease to exist, there’s no reason for a secular, democratic and egalitarian state of Israel – the state of and for all Israelis, equally – to cease to exist.

        But you don’t care about Israel, you care about “Jewish State”.

      • talknic
        October 23, 2012, 12:13 pm

        dimadok October 23, 2012 at 10:07 am

        Wiki is secondary sourced opinions …. for the most part cherry picked and reworded.

        There is no demographic threat within the ACTUAL sovereign extent of the State of Israel.

        There IS a demographic threat to the territory Israel has acquired by war since being declared independent of Palestine. link to wp.me

      • Mooser
        October 23, 2012, 5:54 pm

        -“Israel will not accept it due to the simple fact that it would end it’s existence”

        So what happened to the “sovereignty”? ( Not that “sovereignty” is even relevant to the issues, but obviously, whatever “sovereignty” Israel has is paper-thin, established by ethnic cleasing, and can only be maintained by continuous warfare. Not to mention an imported population. That’s the best you could do? I thought we were supposed to be smart.)

      • Shingo
        October 23, 2012, 6:30 pm

        “Israel will not accept it due to the simple fact that it would end it’s existence

        …as a racist, ethno supremacist state yes, but not it’s existence. Giving up heroin would end one’s existence as a junkie, but some would argue that’s a good thing.

        The end of apartheid ended South Africa’s existence as an apartheid state, but South Africa lives on.

      • Meyer
        October 24, 2012, 1:31 am

        Right of return is not a principle of international law. It can’t be for the simple reason that the cornerstone of all international law is the right of sovereignty for individual states.

        For this reason Jewish refugees from Arab states have no inherent right to return. Nor do Arab refugees of the Nakba. Nor do Palestinian-Jordanians who lost their Jordanian citizenship. Nor do Jewish refugees from Europe like holocaust and pogrom survivors. German-Jewish refugees of the holocaust do have a right of return as do their offspring but only because Germany chose to pass the law of its own accord.

      • Shingo
        October 24, 2012, 5:44 pm

        Right of return is not a principle of international law. It can’t be for the simple reason that the cornerstone of all international law is the right of sovereignty for individual states.

        Don’t be stupid. You can’t expel people from their own land and property and then claim that they are not allowed to return to their homes because you have conveniently declared independence in the mean time. Property rights are property rights – they are the cornerstone of democracy.

        For this reason Jewish refugees from Arab states have no inherent right to return.

        Rubbish. They have a right to return. The fact that Israel denies them that right does not mean they have the right.

      • talknic
        October 25, 2012, 12:50 am

        Meyer October 24, 2012 at 1:31 am

        “Right of return is not a principle of international law.”

        Uh huh. The IJC says your talking twaddle link to icj-cij.org Right of Return is a basic and inalienable right of all refugees. The IJC was asked for an advisory opinion 14 : 1 . However, in their opinion were it to be asked for a judgement, they would 14:1 rule against Israel.

        ” It can’t be for the simple reason that the cornerstone of all international law is the right of sovereignty for individual states.”

        All Sovereign States are bound by International Law, Customary International Law, Customary Laws of War, Conventions they have ratified and the UN Charter in its entirety (the latter only if they’re UN Member States)

        ” For this reason Jewish refugees from Arab states have no inherent right to return.”

        Twaddle. The reason is, they have taken up citizenship in a country other than that of return and are no longer refugees. link to unhcr.org

        “Nor do Jewish refugees from Europe like holocaust and pogrom survivors. German-Jewish refugees of the holocaust do have a right of return as do their offspring but only because Germany chose to pass the law of its own accord”

        .. as required by Humanitarian Conventions, Customary Laws of War, obligatory on all UN Member States.

        Your twaddle doesn’t pass scrutiny.

      • Meyer
        October 25, 2012, 11:31 pm

        Shingo,

        Property rights are not the cornerstone of democracy. They are the cornerstone of capitalism. That said there are countless instances of states legally seizing private property for any number of reasons, such as in eminent domain, to give one example. However, property rights are not the crux of the issue here anyway as most of the refugees in question were not property owners.

        If this is REALLY about property rights then am I to assume that you are only asserting a right of return for Palestinian refugees who owned property?

        “Rubbish. They have a right to return. The fact that Israel denies them that right does not mean they have the right.”

        Israel is not denying Jewish refugees the right to return to Arab states. Arab states are. That said, those states have every right to do so. If a right of return were actually enshrined in international law then you would be pointing to it, not making arguments about unrelated issues in an attempt to muddy the argument.

      • Meyer
        October 25, 2012, 11:43 pm

        talknic,

        That ICJ opinion you linked to had nothing at all to do with establishing a right of return. The word “return” was not even included anywhere in the entire document.

        Now then, you are saying that Germany passed its right of return laws as required by international law. But Germany’s law wasn’t amended to include Jewish refugees of the Holocaust until 1999. And it made no mention of conforming to any international standard.

        In any case, the law has thus far ONLY applied to people who are already citizens of other states. So how is it that you are saying that the German rule is required by international Law of everyone, yet the only people it applies to are people that you excluded already? Remember… you said that anyone who has taken up citizenship in another country aren’t refugees (which is true), implying that right of return does not apply to them.

        So which is it? Is the German Right of Return a rule that’s required by international law? Even though it’s only used by non-refugees? And why didn’t anyone complain about it not existing for all the decades leading up til 1999? And where is Poland’s version and Austria’s version?

        And if this supposed rule only applies to refugees, then does that mean that ALL of those Palestinians who were once Jordanian citizens have lost their eligibility for the Israeli ROR? Do they now have a ROR to Jordan?

        Perhaps you should just point out this law you speak of, instead of explaining what the rules are bit by bit. Where exactly is this law written? What convention was it?

      • Shingo
        October 26, 2012, 10:02 am

        Property rights are not the cornerstone of democracy. They are the cornerstone of capitalism.

        No they are indeed the cornerstone of democracy, because without property rights, you have no regard for individual freedoms and liberty.

        That said there are countless instances of states legally seizing private property for any number of reasons, such as in eminent domain, to give one example.

        Indeed, which is one that Israel has used to death, but even eminent domain requires that the property holder be compensated.

        However, property rights are not the crux of the issue here anyway as most of the refugees in question were not property owners.

        Yes they were; you’re just spouting outdated hasbra about state ownership.

        If this is REALLY about property rights then am I to assume that you are only asserting a right of return for Palestinian refugees who owned property?

        Speaking for myself yes, for without titles or deeds, then there is no real claim to the land. Of course, this includes those who own property by havign inherited it.

        Israel is not denying Jewish refugees the right to return to Arab states. Arab states are.

        Are they? Which ones and which Jews are demanding the right to return to return to those homes?

        That said, those states have every right to do so.

        No they don’t. You really should stop making this stuff up as you go along. You come of as another text book hasbrat.

        Please refer to Talknic’s response above if you want to avoid making a further fool of yourself on this forum.

      • talknic
        October 26, 2012, 8:01 pm

        Meyer October 25, 2012 at 11:43 pm

        “That ICJ opinion you linked to had nothing at all to do with establishing a right of return”

        Correct. Nice try at twisting what I had actually written tho. I didn’t say it had anything to do with ‘establishing’ a right of return. The ICJ doesn’t establish Law; or Conventions; or convention which has passed into Customary International Law. When asked for an opinion, it gives an opinion based on existing laws and conventions. According to it’s opinion, a judgement would come down in favour of the Palestinians, who only ask for their rights according to the Law. Faced with the consequences of the Law and conventions and numerous UNSC resolutions, Israel would face bankruptcy for decades as it attempted to compensate the Palestinians and re-locate all those Israeli citizens back to Israel’s actual sovereign territory. (unless they became Palestinian citizens). Why do you think Israel insists on negotiations instead of adhering to the law?

        ” The word “return” was not even included anywhere in the entire document”

        From the ICJ

        D. By thirteen votes to two, “…all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention;”

        You’ll find Right of Return covered in those documents.

        “.. you are saying that Germany passed its right of return laws as required by international law.”

        Indeed. Germany’s Article 116 (2) of the German Constitution 1949didn’t apply only to Jewish folk.

        Article 116 (2) of the German Constitution of 1949 :
        (2) Former German citizens who, between 30 January 1933 and
        8 may 1945, were deprived of their citizenship on political, racial
        or religions grounds, and their descendants, shall he regranted
        German citizenship on application. They shall be considered as not
        having been deprived of their German citizenship where they have
        established their domicile in Germany after 8 May 1945 and have
        not expressed a contrary intention.

        Very generous, over and above the basic requirement

        “And it made no mention of conforming to any international standard”

        German Basic law was approved 8 May 1949. On 12 May, it came into effect on 23 May on the signature of the Allies of World War II

        “And why didn’t anyone complain about it not existing for all the decades leading up til 1999?”

        Uh? A) It did exist before 1999 B) Jewish folk complained and; C) on those complaints on March 27, 1953 the reparations agreement between Germany and Israel entered into force.

        “..you said that anyone who has taken up citizenship in another country aren’t refugees (which is true), implying that right of return does not apply to them”

        Correct. People who’re not refugees, do not have refugee rights.

        “And where is Poland’s version and Austria’s version? “

        Try searching..

        “And if this supposed rule only applies to refugees, then does that mean that ALL of those Palestinians who were once Jordanian citizens have lost their eligibility for the Israeli ROR?”

        Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only at the insistence of the other Arab States (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950) link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org Jordanian citizenship for refugees was temporary as long as Jordan was trustee. Jordan relinquished all responsibility in the Israel/Jordon Peace treaty

        “Perhaps you should just point out this law you speak of, instead of explaining what the rules are bit by bit. Where exactly is this law written? What convention was it?”

        See above .. If you were actually interested you’d have searched them out long ago.

      • Shingo
        October 26, 2012, 8:01 pm

        Is the German Right of Return a rule that’s required by international law? Even though it’s only used by non-refugees?

        If it applies to non refugees, then is most certainly applies to refugees.
        link to journals.cambridge.org

        And if this supposed rule only applies to refugees, then does that mean that ALL of those Palestinians who were once Jordanian citizens have lost their eligibility for the Israeli ROR? Do they now have a ROR to Jordan?

        The citizenship offered to Palestinians was temporary and per a prior agreement.

        Perhaps you should just point out this law you speak of, instead of explaining what the rules are bit by bit. Where exactly is this law written? What convention was it?

        The right of return is one of the most fundamental rights granted to displaced persons all over the world and one which is anchored in several bodies of international law. Those being Resolution 194 (III); subsequent General Assembly resolutions and Security Council resolutions; the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949; the 1907 Hague Regulations; and other relevant principles of public international law.

        Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions forbids population transfer. Thus when population transfer has resulted of a states actions, this must be corrected and sovereignty does not grant immunity to such obligations. Quite the contrary in fact, all states are bound by them.

        The expulsion of the Palestinians was clearly an act of:

        1. Collective punishment (a war crime under the GC).
        2. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited. (forbidden under the GC)
        3. Population transfer (in and out) which is also banned under Article 49

        So if war crimes were committed to expel the Palestinians, then rectifying these crimes is mandatory.

        You might also want to look up UNGA194. Israel’s admission as a member of the UN was made conditional on its acceptance and implementation of resolutions including UN Resolution 194; this demonstrates that without question, the UN and the international community saw Israel as fully responsible for the complete implementation of this right. This right was further reaffirmed by the UNGA on more than 135 occasions, clearly reflecting the consistent will of the international community on this matter.

      • talknic
        October 26, 2012, 8:32 pm

        Meyer October 25, 2012 at 11:31 pm

        “… there are countless instances of states legally seizing private property for any number of reasons, such as in eminent domain..”

        Indeed. Within their own sovereign extent but NOT outside their actual sovereign extent. Israel is has been acting outside of it’s Internationally recognized sovereign extent for 64 years, in “territories occupied” and not legally annexed to Israel and in territories illegally acquired in the ’48/’49 war that Israel has never even attempted to annex.

        “However, property rights are not the crux of the issue here anyway as most of the refugees in question were not property owners”

        Correct. The crux of the matter is ‘territory’. ‘property’ is ‘real estate’. The UN Charter Chapt XI differentiates between ‘property’ and ‘territory’ link to un.org

        ‘territory’ belongs to all the legitimate citizens of the territory whether they own property/real estate, rent property/real estate or live under a bridge. A person who lived under a bridge has a right to return to the ‘territory’ even though they might never have owned ‘property’

        “Israel is not denying Jewish refugees the right to return to Arab states. Arab states are. “

        What Jewish refugees? If folk have taken up citizenship in a country other than that of return, they are no longer refugees.

        BTW Israeli military ordinance of 1948 ( still in force ) expressly prohibits Israeli citizens or residents from entering the territory of an hostile entity.

        “That said, those states have every right to do so”

        All states are obliged to International Law (voted into being), Customary International Law (a convention adopted by a majority of the International Community of Nations passes automatically into International Law) and the conventions those states may have ratified.

        ” If a right of return were actually enshrined in international law..”

        The ICJ says GC IV applies.

      • talknic
        November 28, 2012, 3:03 pm

        Meyer says: Israel is not denying Jewish refugees the right to return to Arab states. Arab states are. That said, those states have every right to do so.

        More Hasbara bullsh*te. Israeli military ordinance since 1948, forbidden citizens or residents of Israel to travel to the territory of any hostile state. Its the reason why Israelis couldn’t worship in Jordanian held territory for 19 years.

        Most hostile states do not allow their citizens and/or residents to enter the territory of their enemies. IT’S NORMAL and works both ways.

        Israel has a Peace Treaty with Jordan. Have you ever read it?

        Article 3 – 8. Taking into account the special circumstances of the Naharayim/Baqura area, which is under Jordanian sovereignty, with Israeli private ownership rights, the Parties agreed to apply the provisions set out in Annex I (b).
        9. With respect to the Zofar/Al-Ghamr area, the provisions set out in Annex I (c) will apply.

        Article 8 – 1. Recognising the massive human problems caused to both Parties by the conflict in the Middle East, as well as the contribution made by them towards the alleviation of human suffering, the Parties will seek to further alleviate those problems arising on a bilateral level.

        2. Recognising that the above human problems caused by the conflict in the Middle East cannot be fully resolved on the bilateral level, the Parties will seek to resolve them in appropriate forums, in accordance with international law, including the following etc etc

        The more someone bullsh*tes, the bigger idiot they are.

        You really take the cake.

    • ritzl
      October 23, 2012, 9:08 am

      “Gaza to become a seperate state. West bank to become part of israel.”

      If I was to bet on an outcome, that would be it. With WB Palestinians getting the vote, living wherever they want in Israel, institutionalizing the Waqf/protecting Islamic heritage sites in Israel, and voting to give Gaza Palestinians their own natural resources and generally throwing off that yoke.

      Gaza becomes the Palestinian state/flagship with all the rights to seek redress in international fora for decades of Israeli wrongs. US pays Palestine/Palestinians through the nose to meet Israeli obligations for those adjudicated claims. The worst of Israel’s political/military abusers become international convicts living under house arrest within Israel, and the rest learn from those examples and “get religion” along the lines of “well, maybe equal rights and justice aren’t such bad ideas after all.”

      This scenario isn’t particularly desirable as it breaks up Palestinian solidarity, but there are bene’s as well.

    • American
      October 23, 2012, 12:06 pm

      “Wish you luck with sanctions because unlike south africa israels supporters live outside israel and will always support israel”….mcohen

      We are aware that Israel supporters outside of Israel, in the US specifically, is the core of the entire Israel problem.

      • seafoid
        October 23, 2012, 12:31 pm

        Israel has very little core support outside the US.

        Sanctions will start in Europe and spread from there. When 69% of Israeli Jews are in favour of apartheid it’s very hard to see hasbara holding the line in the medium term.

        link to haaretz.com

        and a large majority of 69 percent objects to giving 2.5 million Palestinians the right to vote if Israel annexes the West Bank.

    • American
      October 23, 2012, 1:01 pm

      “Why should palestinians bother with a seperate state when they can live well together with jews in one secular stste”….mcohen

      And the answer is…..because you are the ones who cannot get along with or even want to get along with anyone else, much less with Palestines. So you’re doomed to keep repeating the past.

      Truest thing ever said by a disappointed zionist:

      “I currently sincerely doubt any Israeli government now, or in the future, will ever allow a real Palestinian state. The two state solution is dead. Eventually, the arabs will reclaim the territory of Israel. It may take them 100 years or 1000 years but it will happen. The past is prologue – it has happened before to the Jews and it will happen again. As Zionist Jew and a dual Israeli citizen, this makes me very unhappy but it’s our own damn fault.

      We’ve never figured out that assimilation does not mean we have to abandon our culture and religion but with only 15 million of us in the world we’ve got to figure out how to live with the other 6 billion humans in this world. ”

    • tripledobe
      October 24, 2012, 5:24 pm

      If they can live well together (which I also believe) than why not let “return” who wants to? At least with some conditions. Messy but huge as an extention of apology. And I see where you going with Gaza: that place is just sooo dirty…

  14. seafoid
    October 23, 2012, 9:52 am

    link to haaretz.com

    Survey: Most Israeli Jews would support apartheid regime in Israel

    “Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formallhy annexes the West Bank.
    A majority also explicitly favors discrimination against the state’s Arab citizens, a survey shows.
    The survey, conducted by Dialog on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, exposes anti-Arab, ultra-nationalist views espoused by a majority of Israeli Jews. The survey was commissioned by the New Israel Fund’s Yisraela Goldblum Fund and is based on a sample of 503 interviewees.
    The questions were written by a group of academia-based peace and civil rights activists. Dialog is headed by Tel Aviv University Prof. Camil Fuchs.
    The majority of the Jewish public, 59 percent, wants preference for Jews over Arabs in admission to jobs in government ministries. Almost half the Jews, 49 percent, want the state to treat Jewish citizens better than Arab ones; 42 percent don’t want to live in the same building with Arabs and 42 percent don’t want their children in the same class with Arab children.
    A third of the Jewish public wants a law barring Israeli Arabs from voting for the Knesset and a large majority of 69 percent objects to giving 2.5 million Palestinians the right to vote if Israel annexes the West Bank”

    Very hard to put lipstick on that pig

  15. piotr
    October 23, 2012, 11:56 am

    I checked and while you can find a photoshopped picture of Miss Piggy with full makeup, the actual Miss Piggy’s Piggy Lipstick is not on the market. Would it be a good challenge for Ron Lauder?

  16. seafoid
    October 23, 2012, 12:35 pm

    Hanan Ashrawi

    link to haaretz.com

    To date, 132 of the UN member states, more than 75% of the world’s population, have already individually recognised Palestine.

    The 45 year-long illegal Israeli occupation is the overarching cause of economic problems in Palestine. This occupation imposes 522 movement restrictions throughout the West Bank; places Gaza under constant siege; and steals large tracts of Palestinian land and natural resources. This occupation imposes a ceiling on every aspect of Palestinian life and costs the Palestinian economy a staggering 84.9% of its annual GDP.

  17. cogit8
    October 25, 2012, 2:19 am

    “The only result of a one state-move, which I call a catastrophe, will be an inevitable move towards apartheid, or a willingness by the Israelis, by the Jewish citizens of Israel to relinquish political control to perhaps an Arab majority. Those are the only two options.”

    Dear President Carter,
    Respectfully sir – the catastrophe is already here! Israel is already a de facto one state which is brutalizing it’s captive Arab citizens and robbing them to boot. The Jewish State (as Netanyahu has demanded it be called) presently and daily denies civil and basic human rights to half it’s population.

Leave a Reply