Millions disenfranchised in Israeli vote due solely to ethnicity and geography

Israel/Palestine
on 265 Comments
Who Votes
(Click on the image below to view it larger.)

Gary Spedding comments on yesterday’s Israeli elections in his post “No ‘Democracy in Action’ for the Disenfranchised“:

I thought to highlight the overriding flaw found in the idea of Israel having an airtight democracy. This is demonstrable simply by discussing just who does get a vote in Israel’s democracy, highlighting the fact that one in every 4.5 people living under Israeli rule does not have the right to vote.

Indeed whilst their Israeli neighbors living in the illegal settlements, constructed on snatched Palestinian land, were casting their votes in locally available ballot boxes, the completely disenfranchised Palestinians living under Israeli rule in the Occupied Territories were not even able to utilize the privilege of voting because as Liel Maghen learned and expertly articulated; the right to vote is not a basic right in Israel, but a privilege dependent on geography and ethnicity.

Yousef Munayyer makes a similar, if more blunt, point in his post sharing the official election results from the occupied territories:

With 100% of Ballots Counted, here’s how the following localities voted -

Ramallah (pop 400000 )
Total Ballots Cast: 0*

Nablus (pop 150000 ):
Total Ballots Cast: 0*

Al-Khalil (pop 250000 )
Total Ballots Cast: 0*

Qalqilya (pop 50000 )
Total Ballots Cast: 0*

Bethlehem (pop 30000)
Total Ballots Cast: 0*

Tulkarem (pop 70000)
Total Ballots Cast: 0*

Jericho (pop 20000)
Total Ballots Cast: 0*

Jenin (pop 50000)
Total Ballots Cast: 0*

Gaza (pop 1.7 million)
Total Ballots Cast: 0*

About Adam Horowitz

Adam Horowitz is Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

265 Responses

  1. sardelapasti
    January 23, 2013, 10:05 am

    And what if everyone could vote? It remains totally useless in a “Jewish state”.

  2. Virgule82
    January 23, 2013, 10:05 am

    I’m not sure if this line of thought is productive. If you’re saying that the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza should have the right to vote, aren’t you saying that the West Bank and Gaza are not in fact occupied but should be considered legitimately part of Israel, thus implicitly condoning the military conquest in 1967?

    • Annie Robbins
      January 23, 2013, 11:32 am

      how does this ‘implicitly condone the military conquest in 1967?’

      • Virgule82
        January 23, 2013, 11:56 am

        It was perhaps a bit glib of me to phrase it like that, but my point is that if you’re saying that if the OPT should now legally be considered part of Israel, then Israel has effectively enlarged its territory through conquest. It sets a precedent for the admissibility of acquisition of territory by war.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 23, 2013, 1:07 pm

        if you’re saying that if the OPT should now legally be considered part of Israel, then Israel has effectively enlarged its territory through conquest.

        i’m not saying the occupied territory should now legally be considered part of Israel. scroll up: Millions disenfranchised in Israeli vote due solely to ethnicity and geography.

      • kylebisme
        January 23, 2013, 1:35 pm

        Virgule, making all Palestinians under Israeli control voting citizens of Israel would effectively reverse the Zionists’ acquisition of territory by force, not just what they’ve taken since ’67 either, but everything since they started in late ’47, as less that half the electorate would be Zionists.

      • James Canning
        January 23, 2013, 2:08 pm

        Yes, obviously it would mean the dissolution of the state of Israel, at some point.

      • seafoid
        January 23, 2013, 2:08 pm

        Annie

        Look at the map behind Netanyahu when he voted yesterday

        link to i.telegraph.co.uk

        He told the world that YESHA is Jewish land. There is no nuance.

      • Virgule82
        January 23, 2013, 2:12 pm

        That is true, assuming Gaza can be considered to be under Israeli control. But that is the political logic. I was talking more of the legal logic under international law. Under international law, Zionism doesn’t enter into it, there is just a state called Israel and that state would expand by annexing territories it conquered in a war. The demographic aspect, i.e. whether it’s majority Jewish or Arab, wouldn’t really matter. Of course, in international relations and in this case in particular, the political logic has always mattered more.

        My worry however, is that Israel will annex the West Bank in its entirety once it feels demographically secure enough to do so (given fallen Palestinian fertility rates and stable Jewish ones coupled with the relative emigration rates, that is not implausible in a decade or two). It is relatively easy for Israel to rid itself of any legal responsibility for Gaza by giving up the control it has now, and the Palestinians will be left with a small city-state. The logic of saying that Palestinians under occupation should have the right to vote in Israel might down the road play into Israel’s hands.

        That is my prediction for what will happen eventually (but not my hope)

      • Annie Robbins
        January 23, 2013, 2:53 pm

        The demographic aspect, i.e. whether it’s majority Jewish or Arab, wouldn’t really matter. ….My worry however, is that Israel will annex the West Bank in its entirety once it feels demographically secure enough to do so

        obviously ptb in israel are not waiting for any ‘demographic security’ to steal the land. they’ve been doing it for decades. but it’s heartening to hear someone say ‘Jewish or Arab, wouldn’t really matter’ in the same comment as ‘given fallen Palestinian fertility rates and stable Jewish ones’. it’s hard to take your worry too seriously virg.

      • Virgule82
        January 23, 2013, 3:31 pm

        They’ve been nibbling around the edges (well, actually, quite a bit more than just the edges I suppose), I’m afraid they’ll take all of it in one bite. I’m really just taking the zionist right at their word. I think anyone who sympathizes with the Palestinian plight dismisses their plan at their own peril.

        Essentially much of Israeli policy the last few decades have been aimed at squeezing as many Palestinians as possible out while grabbing as much land as they can. I think they’re succeeding and yes, that worries me.

  3. yrn
    January 23, 2013, 10:08 am

    Adam Horowitz.
    This is really Amazing…….. As a joke it might amuse someone.
    Since when do those who live in Ramallah Have an Israeli Citizenship ????

    When did Israel declare on the Annexation of the west bank or Gaza.
    Israel Left Gaza, Gaza has it’s own voted government…….
    Let me tell you another thing…….. Israelis that hold an Israeli Passport, cannot vote if they are out side of Israel…….
    You just made it clear, why a ONE state is not an issue at all.
    I wonder how far you can go…….

    • Light
      January 23, 2013, 12:08 pm

      If Israelis living outside of Israel can not vote then why do Israelis living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have the right to vote? Adam’s point is valid. There are 12 million people living under Israeli rule but nearly half have no representation in the government.

    • Mndwss
      January 23, 2013, 12:26 pm

      “Since when do those who live in Ramallah Have an Israeli Citizenship ????”

      It is sort of reverse Nuremberg Laws.

      Jews were citizens and then lost citizenship and were traeted very badly, so they had to go and build their own country, where most of the indigenous population never could have citizenship so therefore they can not vote and are not citizens.

      Only a token minority are allowed to vote…

      • Antidote
        January 23, 2013, 1:28 pm

        “It is sort of reverse Nuremberg Laws.”

        not quite. The citizenship laws (it was a series of laws passed in the mid-30 -early 40w, and the Nuremberg race laws actually did not yet abolish citizenship for German Jews) passed during the Third Reich did not only affect Jews: full citizenship (and voting rights) were explicitly granted to Germans/Aryans (not synonymous but excluding Jews, or all Jews who were not exempted on the basis of ‘honorary’ Aryan status) only as long as their behavior demonstrated their loyalty and service to the Fatherland. This would exclude all Germans/Aryans who did not share the view of what was in the best interest of Germany as defined by the Party/Führer.

        There were no elections for anyone in Germany from 1933 – 1949 – although Nazi Germany did use direct democracy devices such as plebiscites.

        I see no evidence of either a one-party system or discrimination against Jewish voters in Israel. False analogy

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2013, 2:14 pm

        “all Jews who were not exempted on the basis of ‘honorary’ Aryan status”

        Just a tip, landsmann before you get your hopes up, like I did. That is not what happens when you marry “out”.

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2013, 2:18 pm

        “False analogy”

        In view of Mndwss past comments, I would guess that false analogy is freighted pretty heavily, right down to the Plimsoll line, with irony.

      • talknic
        January 23, 2013, 5:42 pm

        Sewerage has a plimsoll line?

      • yrn
        January 23, 2013, 1:43 pm

        “Jews were citizens and then lost citizenship”….. when exactly did someone in Ramallah had an Israeli citizenship that you claim they lost.
        What is the connection to Nuremberg Laws ????

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2013, 2:38 pm

        “What is the connection to Nuremberg Laws ????”

        Too heavily freighted, she’s listing, and there’s water coming over the deck.
        Just like the Edmund Fitzgerald. Not that I haven’t launched an entire fleet of comments which went right to the bottom.

      • Mndwss
        January 23, 2013, 2:41 pm

        I did not claim that people in Ramallah had Israeli citizenship.

        I was thinking of Jews in Germany, who lost their citizenship.

        And then moved to Palestine to deny Palestinians citizenship.

      • Klaus Bloemker
        January 23, 2013, 6:13 pm

        “What is the connection to Nuremberg Laws ????”
        —————
        As far as citizenship and voting rights of Palestinians are concerned there is indeed absolutely no connection/analogy between the German Jews and the Palestinians. – One could claim an anology between the Palestinians in the occupied territories and the Poles in Western Poland under German occupation in the so called ‘Generalgouvernement’, part of what was called at the time ‘Großdeutsches Reich’.
        —————–
        But there is another analogy between the Nuremberg Laws and Israel.

        – In Nazi-Germany you had to prove you are German/Aryan by proving your descent (3 of your 4 grandparents had to be German). – In Israel you have to prove you are a Jew by proving your descent from a Jewish mother or grandmother (to get a marriage license, for instance, that’s Nuremberg).
        —————
        Just a note on the citizenship in Nazi-Germany.
        There were two: Reichsbürger (German descent) and Staatsbürger (other).

        Hitler’s policy was to force the Jews to leave Germany. But in oder to immigrate into a country, the US for instance, it would have been very difficult if you were a ‘stateless person’. The German Jews immigrated to America with German citizenship (‘citizens of the state’) on the German quota .

      • lyn117
        January 24, 2013, 1:28 am

        There are close to 5 million Palestinians whose place of origin is inside Israel, who lost their citizenship in their country of origin because Israel drove them or their immediate forebears from lands Israel claims. I’m sure some of them reside in Ramallah, in any case, millions in the occupied territories.

      • Klaus Bloemker
        January 24, 2013, 9:58 am

        P.S. – Two categories of citizens in Nazi-Germany and in Isarel
        ——————————
        I now realize that there are in fact similarities: In Germany at the time the membership in professional organizations and other things were restricted to Reichsbürger (German descent). – In Israel many things (property) are restricted to Israeli citizens “as defined by the Law of Return” = Jews who
        prove their descent from a Jewish mother/grandmother.

        So, the corresponding citizenships are:
        – There was the Nazi-German ‘Reichsbürger’ = the Israeli citizens “as defined by the Law of Return” (Jewish descent).
        – There was the Nazi-German ‘Staatsbürger’ (no German descent) = the Israeli citizens of non-Jewish descent.

      • pipistro
        January 23, 2013, 3:01 pm

        “so they had to go and build their own country”

        … just throwing the dice over the Palestinians.

        Something like playing Risiko.

      • Citizen
        January 25, 2013, 10:16 am

        @ Mndwss
        The Jewish/Israeli law of return itself is based on Hitler’s Nuremberg laws. Orthodox Jews believe a Jew is a Jew (entitled to ROR) if his or her mother is Jewish (of if converted, though the Orthodox Jews don’t except Reform or Conservative conversions as valid). But Israel’s law of return is based on the Nuremberg formula for who is a Jew, which is anyone with one grandparent (or more, of course) who was or is Jewish.

      • Klaus Bloemker
        January 25, 2013, 7:02 pm

        Citizen –
        but Mndwss wouldn’t contest what you say.

        His only mistake, half-truth was to say that the German Jews lost their German citizenship. – They lost several of their civil rights, to be members
        of professional organizations etc.. But as far as I know they were not disenfranchised. That didn’t matter anyway, since there were no more real elections after 1933 and the number of Jews in Germany was about 0.4% of the voting population in 1937.

        My point was – and that is something Mndwss probably wasn’t aware of:
        – It would have made no sense for the Nazi government to strip the Jews of their German citizenship – turn them into stateless persons -because that would have greatly impaired their chances of emigration.
        ————-
        The Polish government made an attempt in March 1938 to strip all the Polish Jews living in Germany (18% of the Jews in Germany) of their Polish citizenship. They didn’t want them back. – That caused the Gestapo in the dead of night on Oct. 28 to ship all the Polish Jews back to Poland just before the date (Oct.31) they would lose their Polish citizenship.

      • yrn
        January 26, 2013, 4:08 pm

        Citizen
        Both issues are the same,
        Jewish Law….. Orthodox and reform, declare that you are a jew if you mother is a jew.
        Based on that, the Israel law says, that if you are Jewish you are entitled to the law of return.
        So what you say is ,that the law of return and most basic “THE JEWISH LAW” are based on the Nuremberg Nazi Formula……..

      • Hostage
        January 27, 2013, 12:54 am

        So what you say is ,that the law of return and most basic “THE JEWISH LAW” are based on the Nuremberg Nazi Formula……..

        He explained that the Law of Return was based upon the Nuremberg formula which considered anyone to be Jewish if they had one grandparent or more (patrilineal or matrilineal) who was or is Jewish. That is NOT the same criteria used under rabbinical law (the halakhah) to determine an individual’s personal status.

      • Klaus Bloemker
        January 27, 2013, 7:21 am

        The rabbinical Courts in Israel which are an arm of the Israeli justice system and control marriages and divorces, consider the immigration authorities too lenient in granting Israeli citizenship/’Jewish nationality’ based on descent (not strict matrilineal in the case of Russian immigrants for instance).

        Therefore, to marry Jewish, a couple has to prove to these rabbinical courts their Jewish descent according to the halakhah in order to get a marriage license. – But in both cases, it’s Nuremberg laws.

      • Cliff
        January 27, 2013, 8:04 am

        yrn,

        Jewish Laws for Jews is racist/bigoted/ethnocentric.

        Israel has 20% non-Jewish population as well as the occupied Palestinian people it controls/murders/steals from/colonizes.

        You are upset that we don’t kneel down to Jewish sovereignty over non-Jews and affecting non-Jews.

      • Citizen
        January 27, 2013, 12:39 pm

        @ yrn
        You make no sense at all. Are you drunk? Why don’t you read the Israeli Law of Return, and then read the Nuremberg Laws on who is a Jew? The criteria is the same: One Jewish grandparent, no matter the gender.

        Traditionally, one has to be born of a Jewish mother, or a female convert to Judaism, to be recognized as a real Jew.

      • Klaus Bloemker
        January 29, 2013, 5:32 am

        “Nuremberg Laws on who is a Jew … One Jewish grandparent …”
        —————–
        But Citizen, this was not so. The definition of a Jew was:
        – 3 Jewish grandparents

        How about those with 2 Jewish grandparents (or one Jewish parent)?
        These half-German, half-Jews were classified as Jews when
        – married to a Jew
        – member of a Synagogue community

        A Person who was classified as a Jew according to the above criteria could not be a civil servant, not be a member of a professional organisation and lost his right to vote. He was not a ‘Reichsbürger’ just a citizen of the German state (deutscher Staatsangehöriger).

        A person with one Jewish grandparent was called a ‘second degree half breed’ but classified as a German Reichsbürger.

      • Klaus Bloemker
        January 29, 2013, 6:56 am

        Adorno the ‘half-Jew’

        To give an example of this Nuremberg classification: The Frankfurt philosopher Theodor W. Adorno (19o3 – 1969) had a Jewish father named Wiesengrund and a catholic mother. He was a half-Jew. He was of course not
        a member of the Frankfurt Synagogue community since his mother wasn’t Jewish.

        He emigrated to America in 1938. Why did he have to emigrate? He made the ‘mistake’ to marry a German Jewish woman in London and was therefore classified as a Jew and kicked out of the German writers organization. He could no longer publish in German papers or with German book publishers. – He would have probably emigrated anyway for political reasons, but he now had to for racial reasons.

    • tree
      January 23, 2013, 2:10 pm

      Israelis that hold an Israeli Passport, cannot vote if they are out side of Israel…….

      Except if they are outside of Israel but inside the West Bank. Then they are allowed to vote. But Palestinians in the West Bank, who are just as effectively under Israeli control as the Jews in the West Bank are not allowed to vote. Voting rights in this case are limited to one religion/ethnicity. That is not democratic. It is ethnocratic.

    • talknic
      January 24, 2013, 10:26 am

      It’s quite hilarious watching a Hasbarrister step in their own sh*te

      yrn “Let me tell you another thing…….. Israelis that hold an Israeli Passport, cannot vote if they are out side of Israel……”

      Israelis have been voting in ” in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel” for 64 years.

  4. Newclench
    January 23, 2013, 10:24 am

    1. How would you write this story when the Palestinian Authority has an election? Should Israelis demand the right to elect the Palestinian leadership?
    2. Palestinian residents of Jerusalem have had the right to Israeli citizenship for many years, allowing them to vote if they so choose. (Yes, it is complicated…) But in general, the national consensus was to NOT exercise that right. Are you suggesting that this is a strategic mistake, and Palestinian residents should hurry up and get citizenship so they can vote?

    • Annie Robbins
      January 23, 2013, 11:39 am

      1. How would you write this story when the Palestinian Authority has an election?

      the PA is the ‘authority’ in name only.

      Should Israelis demand the right to elect the Palestinian leadership?

      i answered already that here: link to mondoweiss.net

      israelis already have more say than palestinians over palestinian leadership. israelis elect their own leaders, who in turn outlaw any palestinian political party they don’t like, as well as jailing their leaders. everyone knows this.

      • seafoid
        January 23, 2013, 2:10 pm

        The PA is responsible for garbage collection.
        Imagine in New York if Jews could only vote for garbage collecting.
        Imagine if they weren’t allowed to vote for President or Governor.

      • yrn
        January 24, 2013, 3:51 am

        So Hania is Only responsible for garbage collection. ????

      • Newclench
        January 23, 2013, 7:59 pm

        Annie, according to your logic Israel ‘likes’ all the Palestinian political parties in the Israeli parliament. Which is super not true.
        According to your logic, Palestinians in the PA/Gaza have been unable to vote for parties that Israel does not like, such as Hamas. Super not true! Palestinian political parties that have stood in elections include the PFLP and Hamas, and Israel couldn’t do a damn thing.
        I think…. you are conflating things.
        Please consider that as flawed as things are, Palestinians do have a history of voting in free and fair elections, as certified by international election bodies, both in Israel and the PA. Yet you seem averse to honoring the choices of those voters and seeing them as legitimate. That’s a very extreme position.
        and
        Name two Israeli Palestinian political leaders who have been jailed as a political leader in the recent past? (Two because, well, something did happen with the former head of Balad, but he fled and his party seems to be alive and well. No jail time though.)

      • Annie Robbins
        January 23, 2013, 9:00 pm

        clench, scroll up. the topic is “Millions disenfranchised in Israeli vote due solely to ethnicity and geography”. those are the palestinians i am referencing. i specifically italiced your comments referencing the PA, that’s means i was addressing the PA.

        Palestinian political parties that have stood in elections include the PFLP and Hamas, and Israel couldn’t do a damn thing.

        you mean except kidnap a whole slew of them and throw them in jail when they didn’t like the results? set up an economic embargo later described as the blockade? come on clench, you can do better than this.

      • Hostage
        January 23, 2013, 10:09 pm

        Please consider that as flawed as things are, Palestinians do have a history of voting in free and fair elections, as certified by international election bodies, both in Israel and the PA.

        The scholarly literature and the landmark Israeli High Court of Justice decisions on the subject say otherwise. In the first place Israel practices Grand Apartheid. It drove the bulk of the Arab voters into permanent exile and persecuted the remainder by placing them under martial law for two decades, while using threats and blackmail to control their small remaining block of votes. See John Quigley Apartheid Outside Africa: The Case of Israel”, 2 Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, Volume 1, pp 221-252

        The lists of Arab candidates also have to be approved in advance by the Central Election Commission. Beginning with the Socialist list organized by al-Ard (the Land) in 1965 the Zionist regime has disqualified Arab parties which either:
        a) deny that Israel is the land of the Jewish people (Yardor v. Central Elections Committee for the Sixth Knesset (1965) 19 P.D. III 365); or
        b) challenge “the foundations of the state as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Law of Return” (Neiman v. Chairman of the CEC 1985, 238).

        The Zionist regime has also rounded up and illegally deported Palestinian Authority representatives and lawmakers from occupied East Jerusalem based upon allegations that they are affiliated with Hamas.

      • yrn
        January 25, 2013, 3:43 am

        I wander why is my comment still on moderation…….

        yrn says:
        Your comment is awaiting moderation.
        January 24, 2013 at 3:49 am
        Name two Israeli Palestinian political leaders who have been jailed as a political leader in the recent past?

        Annie you insist that they are “kidnap a whole slew of them and throw them in jail when they didn’t like the results?”

        So provide names …… or you are going to say again.
        No answer for you CIAO

      • Hostage
        January 26, 2013, 4:34 am

        Annie you insist that they are “kidnap a whole slew of them and throw them in jail when they didn’t like the results?”

        So provide names

        How about Khaled Abu- Arafa, Muhammad Totah, and Ahmad Attoun? See:
        *Hamas MPs hiding in e. J’lem Red Cross arrested.
        link to jpost.com
        *The east Jerusalem office of the International Committee of the Red Cross has become, over the last six months, the de facto headquarters of three
        Hamas legislators, who had been ordered by the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) to leave the city.
        link to jpost.com

        FYI, there are no exceptions to the provisions of Article 49(6) of the 4th Geneva Convention regarding the prohibition against the forced transfer or deportation of civilians by an occupying power.

        See also
        *AG refuses to ok use of Hamas officials as ‘bargaining chips’
        G8: IDF detention of 64 lawmakers raises ‘concerns'; Israel warns not even Haniyeh immune from detention.
        link to haaretz.com

        The 4th Geneva Convention provides that
        Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited
        Article 34. The taking of hostages is prohibited.
        link to icrc.org

        The Olmert government illegally rounded-up 68 Palestinian lawmakers for use as bargaining chips for Cpl Gilad Shalit and treated the public to the spectacle of saying they would contrive some sort of criminal charges after the fact, when the Attorney General refused to go along with the plan to use them as hostages to obtain the release of the Israeli POW:

        Attorney General Menachem Mazuz refused a request by the Shin Bet security service and the government to place dozens of senior Hamas officials under administrative detention or hold them as “bargaining chips” under the Unlawful Combatants Law.

        Mazuz insisted that the arrests be carried out under ordinary criminal warrants that would require legal proceedings against the Hamas officials under the Prevention of Terror Ordinance. They will probably be charged with membership in or leadership of a terrorist organization.

        The detainees will be brought before a judge for a remand hearing within the next 96 hours, and legal proceedings against them will be carried out in military courts in the territories.

        The Group of Eight industrialized countries said Thursday that the Hamas arrests raised “particular concerns.”

        A Justice Ministry spokesperson said that the change in policy towards ministers and parliamentarians who are members of Hamas was carried out with the approval of and in coordination with the judiciary, and that Israel intends on arresting more Hamas officials.

        Either you are completely out of touch with reality or you are trolling the thread.

    • Light
      January 23, 2013, 12:12 pm

      Tell me, who controls the border, natural resources, the courts, and everything else?

    • talknic
      January 24, 2013, 10:55 am

      Newclench “Palestinian residents of Jerusalem have had the right to Israeli citizenship for many years, allowing them to vote if they so choose.”

      A ‘right’ Israel doesn’t have the right to offer “outside the territory of the State of Israel”

      “Are you suggesting that this is a strategic mistake, and Palestinian residents should hurry up and get citizenship so they can vote?”

      Of course you must miss the point, it is after all the only thing you can do, lest your precious Hasbara unravel

      Israel is stuck in the sh*t hole it has created for itself. Instead of getting out of non-Israeli territory while it could, it has taken more and more. Now its hand is firmly stuck in the cookie jar

      It could adhere to the law for once and get the hell out of Palestine, take it’s hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers, pay the Palestinians rightful reparations, face well deserved humiliation and bankruptcy for decades

      Or it can attempt to circumvent the Law by plea bargaining with the Palestinians who have no legal obligation to forgo ANY of their territory or ANY of their legal rights in negotiations.

      Thus far we have seen who is willing to resolve the situation. It ISN’T Israel, whose only response to the incredibly generous offer from the Palestinians to accept only 22% of their rightful territories, was to build more illegal settlements.

      • JeffB
        January 24, 2013, 11:48 am

        @talknic —

        Or they could what most states don’t annex the stuff they want, leave behind the stuff they don’t want and walk away. That creates disputed territory between the State of Palestine and the State of Israel, the UN sides with Palestines and then the two sides work it out.

        See Scarborough Shoal / Huangyan Island between China and the Philippines or
        East China Sea with Japan and China.

        Every Israeli who serves in the army swears, “Masada shall not fall again” They aren’t going to be bankrupt for a generation. If the choice is that or upping the violence, they will up the violence.

      • sardelapasti
        January 26, 2013, 7:19 am

        “Every Israeli who serves in the army swears, “Masada shall not fall again” ”
        What a band of insane jihadists…

      • Newclench
        January 25, 2013, 1:08 am

        You seem to have avoided answering my question while… responding to my question.
        “Are you suggesting that this is a strategic mistake, and Palestinian residents should hurry up and get citizenship so they can vote?”
        This is a fun question because… if the topic is a complaint that Palestinians can’t vote, and there exist a group of Palestinians who actually can vote but choose not to, then the thesis is problematized. (ugh to crit studies!)
        If those Palestinians who could vote but choose not to are behaving this way because there is a strong national consensus endorsing such a view, that what we have is a well articulated Palestinian position calling for NOT VOTING in Israeli elections if you are from outside ’48 Israel.

        My inclination is to respect that position, while the original post suggests it is mistaken. The contradiction is simple: most Palestinians outside of Israel do not want to belong to the same entity as Israelis and jointly elect their representatives together. Disagree if you like, but don’t make it sound like a Zionist position.

  5. JeffB
    January 23, 2013, 10:30 am

    The right to vote everywhere is a privilege based on ethnicity and geography. I can’t vote in Spanish, French or British elections because I don’t meet the ethnic or geographical criteria. So what?

    • Mooser
      January 23, 2013, 1:37 pm

      “The right to vote everywhere is a privilege based on ethnicity and geography. I can’t vote in Spanish, French or British elections because I don’t meet the ethnic or geographical criteria. So what?”

      The problem here with all these hasbaratchniks is that they are pushing an 19th or even 18th century model of ‘citizenship’ in a stratified society, and also are pushing the nearly medieval concept that long military occupations augmented by illegal settlement and ethnic cleansing is just everyday business for states.
      This makes them, understandably, hard to talk to. And of course, if the might-makes-right stuff fails, there’s always the Bible.

      Jeff, does Britain, France or Spain militarily occupy your country? If they did, you might want to vote in those elections. Or maybe you’d be happier in a ghetto, YMMV.

      • yrn
        January 23, 2013, 4:14 pm

        “they are pushing an 19th or even 18th century model of ‘citizenship’ in a stratified society”……..
        So lets hear the 21 century divine intellectual, what’s his model of citizenship……… please take us out of the medieval era………

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2013, 9:19 pm

        “So lets hear the 21 century divine intellectual, what’s his model of citizenship………please take us out of the medieval era………”

        That’s easy! I’m not going to haggle over the details, but the first thing “Israel” (look, it’s shorter than “the Zionist regime”) could do to take itself out of the medieval era is stop counting Jews. You even count them by categories, don’t you? Is there another god-dammed country that does that anymore, that marks people’s identity material with “Jew”?
        What the hell do the Zionists have against them? Questions about their loyalty? Afraid they might try to deny it?

      • yrn
        January 24, 2013, 3:40 am

        Divine 21 century Intellectual, you said nothing……. what is your model of Citizenship that you declared so powerful you have ?
        when you start a joke……. end it so we can enjoy.

      • JeffB
        January 24, 2013, 8:07 am

        @Mooser

        — Is there another god-dammed country that does that anymore, that marks people’s identity material with “Jew”?

        Yes there is. America is an exception in considering nationality to be a matter of individual choice and thus everyone is American, most countries list nationalities. Of particular importance Soviet and Russian passports list Jewish nationality as Jew. And since that passport is used to kindergarden on up everyone all across the spectrum knows to make sure to discriminate. That’s real evil and not the pretend kind, its why Jews had to leave.

      • Hostage
        January 26, 2013, 8:50 am

        Yes there is. America is an exception in considering nationality to be a matter of individual choice and thus everyone is American, most countries list nationalities.

        No, according to the US Code, American Samoans are US nationals, but not US citizens. You can read about the efforts to eliminate forms of racial discrimination like that against various indigenous groups in the country CERD reports. Simply comparing one country’s wrongful acts with those of another is irrelevant when they all have a treaty obligation to end racial discrimination in the territories subject to their jurisdiction.

      • JeffB
        January 23, 2013, 4:17 pm

        Mass migrations followed by societies being replaced by other societies is everyday business for states. There are about probably 20 states right now having those sorts of issues. And there is nothing medieval about it there was likely less mass migration then than it most times before of since.

        As for 18th century notion of citizenship, yeah. There are two models:

        The 17th century Westfalia notion that established the idea of a state for a people expressing their common will

        The model of Christendom / Rome of a global empire where peoples and states were arrangements for semi-local government under the empire / Pope…

        Those are the two models we have.

      • justicewillprevail
        January 24, 2013, 1:07 pm

        you seem to have forgotten the Zionist model, the only one which mimics the apartheid S African one.

      • James Canning
        January 24, 2013, 2:11 pm

        England was a state in that sense, even prior to the Norman Conquest more than 1000 years ago.

      • JeffB
        January 24, 2013, 8:39 pm

        @James

        England was a state in that sense, even prior to the Norman Conquest more than 1000 years ago.

        1000 years ago England viewed itself as a continuation of the provenance of Britannia. Until Henry VIII the legitimacy of the British monarch came at least partially from the Pope, which is why he worked so hard for a papal dispensation to marry Anne Boleyn . When Henry broke with the Pope he set in motion the process by which England adopted the Westfalia model along with the rest of Protestantism. But I’d say those ideas clearly evolved during his rein and during the subsequent reins of Mary (with her failed attempt to restore the previous system) and Elizabeth (who shattered the old system once and for all).

        So while England was clearly a nation state I’d argue from the time Wessex decided to start unifying it, it didn’t think of itself in those terms for many centuries.

      • James Canning
        January 25, 2013, 1:58 pm

        Was the Spanish Netherlands a “state” at the end of the Thirty Years War?
        The Franche-Comte?

        Westphalia was important for stating that the religion of the ruler was the proper religion of the people he or she ruled.

        England was a state centuries before Westphalia.

      • JeffB
        January 26, 2013, 12:16 pm

        @James —

        You are missing my point. I agree England was a state prior to Westphalia. Where I’m disagreeing with you is the English didn’t consider England a state in the modern sense prior to Westphalia since the notion of state in the modern sense didn’t exist. A 13th century English person would have identified himself as part of Christendom, a continuation in some sense of the Western Roman Empire. His local king was a provincial ruler, and his right to rule did not bubble up from the English people but trickled down: God the father to Jesus to Jesus’ vicar on earth the Pope to his King whom was indirectly anointed by God to his role via. his local agency.

        If you had talked about peoples who share a language and culture forming a voluntary association for common governance, even though he might agree that is what happening de facto he wouldn’t agree that de jure that was what he was part of.

        Westphalia was important for stating that the religion of the ruler was the proper religion of the people he or she ruled.

        No precisely the opposite. Westphalia was important for stating that the ruler was proper regardless of their religion. It didn’t change the idea that the ruler / prince should impart whatever religion they belong to to their subjects. What it did however was break the tie between the God’s true church and rulers.

      • James Canning
        January 29, 2013, 2:11 pm

        @JeffB – – Look up “Cuius regio, eius religio” – – “Whose realm, his religion”.
        Meaning, the religion of the ruler dictated the religion of the ruled.

      • James Canning
        January 29, 2013, 2:14 pm

        @JeffB – – I would suggest you read a bit about Geoffrey Chaucer and the sense of Englishmness he helped to reinforce. And I am sure you remember that Henry VIII set up the Church of England more than a century before Westphalia.

    • Woody Tanaka
      January 23, 2013, 1:53 pm

      ” I can’t vote in Spanish, French or British elections because I don’t meet the ethnic or geographical criteria.”

      Nonsense. There is no ethnic or geographical criteria to voting in Spain, France or Britain.

      • JeffB
        January 23, 2013, 2:27 pm

        Really then why can’t I vote in Spanish elections?

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 23, 2013, 3:25 pm

        “Really then why can’t I vote in Spanish elections?”

        For a reason other than your ethnicity.

      • JeffB
        January 23, 2013, 3:53 pm

        Well primarily my geography, absolutely.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 24, 2013, 10:09 am

        “Well primarily my geography, absolutely.”

        Nope. Try again.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 29, 2013, 3:22 pm

        Come on, JeffB, are you out of guesses?? I’ll give you a hint… consider that Timothy Michael Dolan is eligible to vote for the head of two different states. (Okay, technically, he is eligible to vote for one head of state and to vote for a slate of electors who vote for the other head of state…)

    • kylebisme
      January 23, 2013, 1:55 pm

      What ethnic criteria for citizenship in Spain, France, and Britain are you referring to specifically? I’m fairly sure there aren’t any.

      • JeffB
        January 23, 2013, 2:26 pm

        Being of descent of Spanish citizens or naturalized into Spanish citizenship. Spain, for example, has two categories of people who can vote:

        nacionalidad española de origen — born Spanish
        acionalidad española no de origen — naturalizad

        And naturalized has criteria.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        January 23, 2013, 3:35 pm

        In other words, you can vote in Spanish elections if you are a Spanish CITIZEN. Being ‘ethnically’ Spanish (whatever that is) does not automatically grant one the right to vote – or any other rights in Spain. Pretty much like every other state – citizens can vote, non-citizens cannot. In the land controlled by Israel, however, the right to vote is based on ethno-religious identity, so a non-Jew, unlike his Jewish neighbour, can vote in Israeli elections. See the difference?

        You need to come up with a better comparison than that.

      • justicewillprevail
        January 23, 2013, 5:08 pm

        But not criteria artificially created to favour one group over another, and certainly not criteria which exclude the indigenous people who have lived there for centuries. Nor criteria which grant citizenship to foreign people based on what self-selected tribal or social grouping they belong to. In other words, nothing like the gerrymandered concept called ‘Israel’.

      • JeffB
        January 23, 2013, 6:06 pm

        Not true. The 330k recent immigrants from Russia who are Christian vote. The Israeli arabs vote. Citizens vote, n0n-citizens do not.

        Being ethnically Spanish (i.e. born to Spanish parents) does confer citizenship… Same exact system. Israelis vote in Israeli elections, Spanish vote in Spanish elections.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 23, 2013, 6:18 pm

        The 330k recent immigrants from Russia who are Christian vote.

        The 330k recent immigrants from Russia who are racist rightwingers vote. that was the whole point of inviting them into the fold.

      • JeffB
        January 23, 2013, 6:25 pm

        Annie —

        That disproves the only Jews vote. 1st generation Russians in the USA are Tea Partiers. The fact that you dislike the politics of Russian immigrants doesn’t change the fact that Israel does not use a Jewish only criteria.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 23, 2013, 6:54 pm

        jeff, you’re barking up the wrong tree. i never said only jews vote in israel.

        read slowly (or scroll to the top of the page):

        Millions disenfranchised in Israeli vote due solely to ethnicity and geography

      • NickJOCW
        January 24, 2013, 8:55 am

        I am British and have a UK passport etc. For now I live in Southern Spain. I obtained a Certificado de Registro de Ciudadano de la Union from the appropriate office and then a Certificado de Empadroniemento from the local town hall and my vote is actively canvassed for both local and national elections. As far as I can see, all those living in settlements are actually living in Palestine and no doubt when the time comes, so long as they qualify and register as residents with the appropriate Palestinian authority they will even be allowed to vote for Hamas.

      • James Canning
        January 24, 2013, 1:44 pm

        I agree. Jews living in Palestine should be eligible to become citizens of Palestine. Perhaps down the road, EU-type rules on voting could apply.

      • Citizen
        January 25, 2013, 10:27 am

        @ JeffB
        What you say is misleading. You write as if its clear in Israel that those immigrants from Russia are Christian. There’s tons of controversy about that issue. It’s not like 330 Russian Pat Boones immigrated to Israel. There is no Israeli law of return that validates Christian ROR to Israel. Those “Christian Israelis” who vote are in a very gray area, but obviously they were all approved for automatic right of return to Israel as JEWS. This is because the law of return uses the Nuremberg definition (Hitler’s) of who is a Jew, not the Jewish orthodox definition.

        Those who want to see just how glibly misleading JeffB is in his reference to “immigrants from Russia who are Christian vote,” see, e.g.,:
        “Jewish Non-Jews” Of Israel
        link to thejerusalemconnection.us

        link to samsonblinded.org

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • Newclench
        January 25, 2013, 12:22 pm

        Excellent demonization there. Not that I’m protesting your conclusion.

      • JeffB
        January 25, 2013, 5:17 pm

        @ Citizen

        No I meant what I said. Those 300k are quite often family members, spouses. Others are biologically Jewish (one Jewish great grandparent) but religiously Christian. And they are quite often openly and obviously religiously Christian. If they were biologically and religiously Jewish there wouldn’t be any controversy. But your first link I’d agree with. It shows successful assimilation. The children of these Christian are essentially secular Israelis.

        My only point of major disagreement with the article is the Christmas comments. That’s common in the Russian Jewish community even in the USA. Communism recast Christmas so that Santa Claus is Father Frost, Christmas is New Years, a Christmas tree is a New Years tree… I find it as offensive as most American Jews do, but that’s Russians not Christians.

    • thankgodimatheist
      January 23, 2013, 10:07 pm

      ” I can’t vote in Spanish, French or British elections because I don’t meet the ethnic or geographical criteria.”
      ?!!
      What is the vote “ethnic criteria” for any of these countries? I vote in French elections yet I’m of an Arab “ethnic” group.
      Dumbo..

      • JeffB
        January 24, 2013, 8:08 am

        @thankgodimatheist

        You meet the geographic criteria to vote in French elections. Same way that Russian Christians and Israeli Arabs get to vote in Israeli elections.

    • talknic
      January 25, 2013, 2:32 pm

      JeffB “The right to vote everywhere is a privilege based on…”

      citizenship!!

      • JeffB
        January 25, 2013, 6:31 pm

        talknic —

        Exactly! And citizenship is based on geography and birth.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 25, 2013, 7:03 pm

        “Exactly! And citizenship is based on geography and birth.”

        Nope. Good try, though.

      • talknic
        January 25, 2013, 8:21 pm

        JeffB “Citizenship is based on ..”
        …the laws of the relative state.

  6. Citizen
    January 23, 2013, 10:38 am

    A Martian would ask, then why do America’s leaders always tell the public America has same values as Israel? They don’t do that with Saudi Arabia, for example, because saying the word “Oil” is enough to justify support for that country. What does Israel give the US? A good world-wide reputation?

    • JeffB
      January 23, 2013, 12:23 pm

      What Israel gives the USA is a trusted friend, and state that is happy to be a vassal state. In a world where most of their other friends are generally alliances of convenience the Israelis stand by the USA even on issues they don’t care about. We know a lot about the ones from a few decades ago like contras, the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan… More recently it appears the Israelis were running hot operations with the Kurds in Syria, Northern Iraq and Iran. They are funding the MEK, in Iran and doing all sorts of intelligence there…. We know the CIA dumps war on terror suspects on the Israelis now that the renditions program is shut down.

      Yes they are helpful.

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2013, 1:43 pm

        “What Israel gives the USA is a trusted friend, and state that is happy to be a vassal state.”

        Really, Jeff? You see the Jews as “vassals”? Wow, that’s a role we should know well. And a role, the playing of which has always done us good. Whoopee! Out of the camps, to become happy vassals! Makes it all worth it.

      • JeffB
        January 23, 2013, 3:01 pm

        Yep. The purpose of Zionism was to make Jews a people line any other. A small state acting as a vassal for more powerful states is likely the status of about 90% of the states on the planet.

        Jews haven’t ben a vassal state since the Roman empire. They’ve been a vassal population and I’m not sure if it worked out or not on balance. It bred a lot of hatred but where it worked it often got Jews out of serfdom, education and resources. We don’t get to run history twice and see how it plays out with Jews never having agreed to cooperate with the ruling classes, but I suspect they don’t make it through 1900 years.

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2013, 9:29 pm

        “Yep. The purpose of Zionism was to make Jews a people line any other.”

        There it is, folks, raw and stinking on the page. There you see it, the self-hatred which lies at the base of Zionism. Hell, self-hatred doesn’t do it justice, I think nihilism is the bonner mot.
        So the Jews were not “a people like any other” until we dispossessed another people, and served as a vassal to Empire? Gee, it’s hard to tell which you hate more, Jews or the rest of the world.

        So I guess, as a non-Zionist Jew, I’m less than a person like any other? And I always thought being Jewish made me a person more like any other.

      • James Canning
        January 24, 2013, 2:23 pm

        There are many “people” that do not have nation-states. The Kurds. The Alawites. Etc.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 23, 2013, 1:57 pm

        “What Israel gives the USA is a trusted friend”

        LMAO. Yeah, that’s why they got Pollock to steal the US’s secrets, in order to sell them to the USSR (at the cost of an an unknown number of US agents) in order to smuggle some malcontents out of that state.

        Some “friend.”

      • JeffB
        January 23, 2013, 4:11 pm

        That was during a period of time when Carter shut off arms sales. The friendship was in trouble. Same as what happened in ’54 when Eisenhower shut off the flow of arms and Israel conspired with the British and French.

        Friends in international relationships just mean currently sharing common interests.

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2013, 2:25 pm

        “We know a lot about the ones from a few decades ago like contras, the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan… More recently it appears the Israelis were running hot operations with the Kurds in Syria, Northern Iraq and Iran. They are funding the MEK, in Iran and doing all sorts of intelligence there….”

        Does anybody know the Yiddish for “With fiends like that, who needs enemas?” JeffB, do you have any idea how frigging hysterical that bit is? It never occurs to you some people (oh, probably “leftists and terrorists” granted) don’t exactly see those things as high points in American foreign policy?

        “like contras, the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan”
        Yes, I dimly remember a certain connection between those two.

      • JeffB
        January 23, 2013, 10:19 pm

        @Mooser —

        The issue is not whether these were good or bad policies for the USA. I think everyone in retrospect would want to reexamine the blowback from how the US beat the Soviets in Afghanistan. Contras for example I think was terrible policy for the USA. The issue is whether Israel was a friend to America. Now whether America makes good choices.

        Israel helps the US out on all sorts of things. That’s the point.

      • James Canning
        January 24, 2013, 2:04 pm

        Israel can continue to help the US in various ways, if it gets out of the West Bank.

      • Citizen
        January 24, 2013, 8:28 am

        @ JeffB
        The same vassal state Ike had to yank out of Egypt along with those other vassel states, France and England? The same vassal state that attacked the USS Liberty? The IDF forces that have fought so many wars shoulder to shoulder with US military forces? Two in Iraq, another in Afghanistan, and next up Iran? The same vassal state with a strong military funded more by American tax payers than Israeli tax payers, as Lt Gen Ashkenazi recently told us all?

        The vassals are loaded into the US Congress, not the Knesset.

      • JeffB
        January 24, 2013, 11:55 am

        Hi Citizen

        In 1954 the relationship between the USA and Israel broke down and became mildly hostile. The invasion of Egypt was part of Israel getting into France’s sphere. America was caught of guard that Israel would be quite that aggressive in acquiring arms and Israel’s current relationship stems from them agreeing to leave Egypt.

        As for US aid it is a token $3b at this point out of $15b / yr in expenses. The real value of the alliance for Israel is the USA selling great stuff to Israel. For America they get Israel regularly testing USA stuff in battle conditions. Also the USA buys quite a bit of Israeli weapons: Python, SMAW, SIMON grenade…

      • Mooser
        January 25, 2013, 3:55 pm

        Look, I know I’m not all that, in fact I’m not much, and now an 80lb. brown Lab sleeps on my head, but I always had an ambition to do better than “Jewish vassal”. Oy,fleshugginner ideas the Goldenah Medina puts in a dumb Jew-boy’s head!

  7. hophmi
    January 23, 2013, 10:43 am

    This extremely silly post is indicative of the thinking here. Palestinians vote in Palestinian elections, which this site has taken great pains to represent as fair and democratic. You seem to think that, contrary to their own intent, they should vote in Israeli elections too. Should Israelis, then, be permitted to vote in PA elections? Perhaps you are one of the ones who favor annexation in the West Bank to make this so. Do you?

    • Annie Robbins
      January 23, 2013, 11:30 am

      Should Israelis, then, be permitted to vote in PA elections?

      if the PA were their governing body, yes.

      • hophmi
        January 23, 2013, 12:21 pm

        Israel does not govern the vast majority of Palestinians. Perhaps most of the citizens of the world should vote in American elections, since what America does has a considerable influence over their lives. Maybe we should give the Palestinians a vote there too.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 23, 2013, 12:46 pm

        don’t divert, you know i ever claimed anything about a ‘vast majority’ of palestinians. and we’re not talking about ‘considerable influence’. we’re talking about the rule of law in those parts.

        who’s the judge hophmi? who decides if there are even charges made against people imprisoned. don’t play games with me, i am not in the mood. ciao

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 23, 2013, 12:55 pm

        “Israel does not govern the vast majority of Palestinians. ”

        You’re delusional or a liar, hoppy. The vast majority of Palestinians are either directly subject to israel as citizens of the state or as victims of the occupation.

      • Antidote
        January 23, 2013, 1:49 pm

        “Perhaps most of the citizens of the world should vote in American elections, since what America does has a considerable influence over their lives. ”

        I thin that’s a perfectly valid point, hophmi. However, given the choices, much of the world would most probably have voted like Americans did in the last presidential election – for Obama.

        Another question is: why do Israeli Arabs who do have the right to vote in Israel’s election not make much use of this right?

        Arab Israeli voter participation appears to be rather low.

      • seafoid
        January 23, 2013, 2:17 pm

        Israel controls who travles between Ramallah and the village 5 miles away.
        Israel runs the population database. Israel decides who gets a passport.
        Israel controls the water and the airspace.

        In what way has this anything to do with the US and ordinary life in France?

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 23, 2013, 2:29 pm

        “Another question is: why do Israeli Arabs who do have the right to vote in Israel’s election not make much use of this right?”

        Because the system of the zio state is stacked against the Palestinians’ vote having any meaningful effect; the system was designed so that their vote will never matter, so why bother dignifying the corrupt racist state by pretending the “polling of the oppressors” is a valid exercise in democracy?

      • tree
        January 23, 2013, 4:18 pm

        You’re delusional or a liar, hoppy.

        In his case I don’t think its an either/or problem. Both adjectives are apt.

      • James Canning
        January 23, 2013, 6:38 pm

        Are you quite sure? I understand the Palestinians could elect at least 4 more MPs than they do.

    • eljay
      January 23, 2013, 11:39 am

      >> Should Israelis, then, be permitted to vote in PA elections?

      No, what Israelis should do is:
      – end their supremacist “Jewish State’s” 60+ years occupation and violation of Palestine and Palestinians; and
      – get their supremacist “Jewish State” back to within Partition borders.

      As a bonus, they could also:
      – honour their obligations to Palestinian refugees;
      – hold accountable Israelis who have committed atrocities against Palestinians; and
      – work to reform their supremacist “Jewish State” into a secular, democratic and egalitarian Israeli state, a state of and for all its citizens, equally.

      • hophmi
        January 23, 2013, 12:23 pm

        Sure, the Israelis could do what no other country on Earth has done faced with similar circumstances. But countries are not usually in the business of committing national suicide to satisfy the will of Western leftists and terrorists.

      • eljay
        January 23, 2013, 12:51 pm

        >> Sure, the Israelis could do what no other country on Earth has done faced with similar circumstances.

        No other country on Earth has ever halted an occupation and retreated to within its borders? Never ever? I call BS on your BS.

        But if it is true – if other countries have only involuntarily, and under threat of force, halted their occupations and retreated to within their borders – that’s what needs to happen with Israel, too. Thanks for pointing that out.

        >> But countries are not usually in the business of committing national suicide to satisfy the will of Western leftists and terrorists.

        Israel is the country; “Jewish State” is the immoral and supremacist construct. And although Zio-supremacist drama queens like you enjoy conflating the two, the elimination of “Jewish State” does not equal or imply the elimination of a secular, democratic and egalitarian country of Israel.

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2013, 2:08 pm

        “But countries are not usually in the business of committing national suicide to satisfy the will of Western leftists and terrorists.”

        You don’t think an exclamation point (!) would have been appropriate at the end of that inspiring declaration of Zionist will? Remember, we can’t hear you, and stand up and cheer like they do at the AIPAC meetings.
        I can hear them now, shouting Bravo Tov, Hophmi!

      • seafoid
        January 23, 2013, 2:56 pm

        Human rights used to be something Jews cared about

      • justicewillprevail
        January 23, 2013, 5:11 pm

        Israel has already done what ‘no other country on Earth’ has done, by creating a gerrymandered ethno nationalist state with no declared borders, and based around the subjugation of the indigenous people of the region.

      • JeffB
        January 23, 2013, 12:25 pm

        I love this “occupation” and ROR rhetoric. It should be one or the other. Either there are two states for two people in which case it should be Jewish west of the partition or it should be one Democratic state in which case there is no occupation just a civl rights issue.

      • eljay
        January 23, 2013, 1:02 pm

        >> Either there are two states for two people in which case it should be Jewish west of the partition …

        In a two-state solution, there should be no “Jewish State” and no “Muslim State”. The former currently is – and the latter would also be – a supremacist construct.

        A two-state solution should comprise:
        – Israel, the secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all Israelis, equally; and
        – Palestine, the secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all Palestinians, equally.

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2013, 1:59 pm

        “one Democratic state in which case there is no occupation just a civl rights issue.”

        Yes sir, all those torts and reparations suits will flow smoothly through the Israeli courts. You won’t have any trouble affording it. A few slight adjustments is all it’ll take.

      • JeffB
        January 23, 2013, 3:30 pm

        This is all never going to happen but if it did, I assume that Palestinians in Israel would be subject to the same kinds of agreements we signed with the confederacy. There will be no trials for taking up arms against their country, but at the same time those who acted to defend their country against their rebellion will have the same immunities. Citizenship is citizenship in Israel.

      • Hostage
        January 23, 2013, 3:34 pm

        I love this “occupation” and ROR rhetoric.

        Then you probably dislike the occasional discussions here about the similarities to South African occupation of neighboring Namibia too.

        There was a decades long argument in that case about the existence of one state vs. two. But everyone with any knowledge about the history of the crime of apartheid knows that denial of nationality or the adopotion of policies and practices designed to prevent the targeted group from participating in the political, social, and economic life of their own country are constituent acts of apartheid.

      • Light
        January 23, 2013, 4:06 pm

        Actually, JeffB, citizenship is in Israel is not citizenship. Israel differentiates between citizenship and nationality so by law not all citizens are equal. In fact, political parties are prohibited from advocating for a state of its citizens.

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2013, 4:16 pm

        “This is all never going to happen but if it did, I assume that Palestinians in Israel would be subject to the same kinds of agreements we signed with the confederacy.”

        Okay JeffyPap, sure; first the Zionist might-makes-macher-right statement, I get that, you intend to keep what you’ve stolen, cause, frankly, you never could afford to pay for it. But as for the rest, the “confedaracy” part, that is one of ther master ROTFLMSJAO’s I have ever seen. Yeah, Jeffy, the Palestinians are the Confederates? Hilarious.

      • JeffB
        January 23, 2013, 4:25 pm

        And why would the Israelis ever agree to that. What would even be the point of partition in that case? That’s just combines the worst of the one and two state solutions. Add the complexity of partition to lack of either people having their national aspirations.

        I can understand if you don’t like the idea of nation states. That’s an understandable position. And once say the Japanese and Koreans to live in common states this will be worth talking about for Israel.

      • JeffB
        January 23, 2013, 6:20 pm

        @Hostage —

        IANAL but my understanding of the crime of apartheid is it requires an intent to establish racial dominance.

        a) Israel doesn’t want to dominate the Palestinians they want them to leave.
        b) Israel’s system isn’t based on race.

        So I’d disagree with your definition.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 23, 2013, 7:12 pm

        a) Israel doesn’t want to dominate the Palestinians they want them to leave.

        the crime of apartheid is not determined by what the ethnic cleansers or dominating party say they want. it’s sort of irrelevant what you say you want. the palestinians are not leaving. the crime here, is based on what israel actually does in lieu of palestinians not voluntarily making all your wishes come true.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        On 30 November 1973, the United Nations General Assembly opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.[1] It defined the crime of apartheid as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”

        yep, sounds like israel to me.

        this is probably a complicated concept for you jeff. this ‘what one says vs what one does’. for example, if i want my neighbors house and go about it by making his life miserable; poisoning his dog, raping his children and stabbing him thru the heart. people are probably not going to judge me based on what i say i wanted, which was for him to take his family and leave me the house.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 23, 2013, 7:22 pm

        b) Israel’s system isn’t based on race.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        According to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,

        the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.[11]

        This definition does not make any difference between discrimination based on ethnicity and race

        israel’s oppression against palestinians definitely falls under the category of the crime of apartheid as defined by the UN.

      • JeffB
        January 23, 2013, 7:33 pm

        @Annie —

        Yes actually it is based on what they want. Apartheid is a crime of intent. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is intent.

        The rest of your analogy doesn’t make sense. Making someone’s life miserable to get them to leave isn’t apartheid since you aren’t acting to maintain dominance. Read your own definition.

      • eljay
        January 23, 2013, 8:07 pm

        >> a) Israel doesn’t want to dominate the Palestinians they want them to leave.

        Well, that’s just SO much more moral! And if they don’t leave, I suppose Israel won’t actually want to kill them all (and gawd will recognize his own), they’ll just be forced to. Y’know, for the good of the “Jewish State”.

        It really sucks being an oh, so reluctant, hateful and immoral aggressor-victim… :-(

      • Annie Robbins
        January 23, 2013, 8:25 pm

        Yes actually it is based on what they want.

        absolutely jeff, i completely agree. but i didn’t say otherwise. i said is not determined by what the ethnic cleansers or dominating party say they want. it’s sort of irrelevant what you say you want.

        iow, you don’t get to be the judge and jury on your intent or whether it’s a crime of apartheid.

        my other analogy wasn’t a lesson on apartheid. (here’s your clue in case you missed it the first time: this ‘what one says vs what one does’) it was an explanation about what you say you want, vs your actions and how others judge your intent based on your actions.* it’s a tough distinction for someone who’s used to a system whereby their ‘group’ is accustomed to domination and making all the rules.

        *this is because sometimes criminals lie to evade culpability for their crimes, shocking as that may seem.

      • RoHa
        January 23, 2013, 8:27 pm

        “my understanding of the crime of apartheid is it requires an intent to establish racial dominance. ”

        I presume you base this understanding on well-established legal principles.

        If you are right, then we need a different name for the evil Israel is guilty of.

      • sardelapasti
        January 23, 2013, 8:38 pm

        The stupidity of JeffB allows in fact to address how totally absurd is the ridiculous, but perhaps someday necessary, compromise called of the “two states”.

        “Israel, the secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all Israelis…”
        Absurd. Not all are “Israelis”, as “Israelis” today are fake-racially defined as “Jews” (no need for our purposes to go into subdivisions) and non-Jews.
        Palestinians, on the other hand, are certainly not religiously defined and still comprise some 6% of Jews and their offspring.

        Then, “Israelis” as you call them, have no necessary right to be there. Disregarding a bully-imposed “2-state” compromise or not, citizenship decisions with respect to the locally-born and the millions of illegal race-or-religion-based immigrants will rest with the representative government of the Palestinians when and if there is such a one.

        “Palestine, the secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all Palestinians, equally.”
        Now we are going over the limit. What if a majority of Palestinians, no matter if under the influence of their over a hundred years of suffering or the Zionists’ shenanigans, demand a religious or undemocratic state? Who are we to impose some such concept on them? With all my personal respect for democracy and my virulent hate of all religion and my loathing of their recent change, I still have to remember that they are in their own territory, while the invaders, by definition, are not.

      • JeffB
        January 23, 2013, 8:40 pm

        @elijay —

        It may or may not be more moral, lets assume less. But it ain’t apartheid.

      • JeffB
        January 23, 2013, 8:42 pm

        @Annie —

        So is your claim that Israelis are secretly making people think they want to cleanse the land of Palestinians when in reality they are trying to setup a long term system of economic exploitation? Does that even make sense? Why would so many of their actions then undermine an colonial exploitation arrangement?

      • JeffB
        January 23, 2013, 8:46 pm

        @Light —

        I agree. Israel has problems with discrimination and several classes of citizenship. But this discussion was about the vote where all citizens are equal.

        As far as the issues with parties. I don’t think parties should be banned or be banable. I absolutely positive disagree with these sorts of restrictions in the many democracies that have them France, Germany and Israel. I’d like to see them gone. That being said, France has them and France is still a democracy.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 23, 2013, 9:48 pm

        But it ain’t apartheid.

        you are not the judge of that, and you will not be in the future. you will be on the side that will be judged.

      • Light
        January 24, 2013, 12:20 am

        The intent of the Israeli government is to stifle the economic, social and cultural development of the indigenous Palestinians. When a government intentionally makes 5 million people’s lives miserable to get them to leave that government is guilty of apartheid.

      • Hostage
        January 24, 2013, 4:28 am

        IANAL but my understanding of the crime of apartheid is it requires an intent to establish racial dominance.

        The first international convention which contained a prohibition regarding apartheid and similar forms of racial segregation was Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

        Article 1 defines the term “racial discrimination” as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. link to www2.ohchr.org

        The State Parties elect a panel of legal experts who review each country’s reports regarding implementation and compliance with the terms of the Convention. The CERD panel of experts have cited grave concerns about apparent violations of Article 3 in their reviews of Israel’s reports ever since the first observations were published in the 1990’s. Here is a link to the most recent CERD report: link to www2.ohchr.org

        a) Israel doesn’t want to dominate the Palestinians they want them to leave.

        You’re correct, you’re not a lawyer. Article III of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid stipulates that international criminal responsibility shall apply to any of the acts mentioned in Article II irrespective of the motive involved.
        link to www1.umn.edu

        b) Israel’s system isn’t based on race. So I’d disagree with your definition.

        It most certainly is a formal legal regime of distinctions, exclusions, restrictions and preferences based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. Palestinian persons suffer systematic discrimination on the basis of their “Arab” nationality or ethnicity.

        For example, the Goldstone report contained observations which explained that Israeli law qualifies the non-Jewish indigenous population as “alien persons” in their own country:

        Despite prohibitions under international humanitarian law (IHL), Israel has applied its domestic laws throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 1967. . . . .[T]he application of Israeli domestic laws has resulted in institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the benefit of Jewish settlers, both Israeli citizens and others. Exclusive benefits reserved for Jews derive from the two-tiered civil status under Israel’s domestic legal regime based on a “Jewish nationality,” which entitles “persons of Jewish race or descendency” to superior rights and privileges, particularly in land use, housing, development, immigration and access to natural resources, as affirmed in key legislation. Administrative procedures qualify indigenous inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory as “alien persons” and, thus, prohibited from building on, or renting, large portions of land designated by the Government of Israel as “State land” (para 206)

        From the facts available to it, the Mission believes that in the movement and access policy there has been a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin. . . . The Mission is also concerned that the increasingly entrenched array of movement and access restrictions, both physical and non-physical, amount to a deliberate policy of closely controlling a population in order to make use of areas of its land.

        The Mission further considers that the series of acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed.

      • Hostage
        January 24, 2013, 5:10 am

        If you are right, then we need a different name for the evil Israel is guilty of.

        The notion that persecuting members of a protected population on the basis of their ethnicity or nationality can be condoned if the motive involved is one of population transfer – whether Grand Apartheid or Bantustaniaztion – is pretty unconvincing. Israel does actively use deportation and permanent exile as a means of maintaining domination and control over Palestinians in order to deprive them of the right to participate in the political, economic, and social life of their country of origin.

        Under the heading of “Crimes Against Humanity”, Article 7(1) of the Rome Statute, subparagraph (h) covers “Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

        Some of the other crimes referred to in that paragraph are:
        (a) Murder;
        (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
        (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
        (f) Torture;
        (i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
        (j) The crime of apartheid;
        (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

        UN Special Rapporteurs have reported examples of all of those crimes in the Occupied Territories and the fact that a logical inference can be drawn from such a widespread, systematic, and long term pattern of behavior:

        The IDF inflicts serious bodily and mental harm on Palestinians, both in Gaza (paras. 8-13 above) and the West Bank (para. 42 above); over 700 Palestinians are held without trial (para. 43 above); prisoners are subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment (para. 44 above); and Palestinians throughout the OPT are denied freedom of movement (paras. 38-41 above). Can it seriously be denied that the purpose of such action is to establish and maintain domination by one racial group (Jews) over another racial group (Palestinians) and systematically oppressing them? Israel denies that this is its intention or purpose. But such an intention or purpose may be inferred from the actions described in this report.

        link to un.org

      • Sibiriak
        January 24, 2013, 6:09 am

        Amira Hass:

        link to zcommunications.org

        …ghettoization is itself the aim, having been implemented for the past 65 years. In other words, the aim – unfolded with the advent of time -has been to concentrate the Palestinians in reserves, after most of their land had been robbed of them. And if they desert and move abroad, it’s of their own free will.

        A direct planning and ideological line stretches between the enclaves in which the Palestinian citizens of Israel live and those of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

        This is the real Israeli historical compromise. It is not with the Palestinians, but with the dictates of reality and among the various Zionist ideological currents.

        The crowded, offensive reservations – the creation of which is violence, pure and simple – are a compromise between the craving to eject the Palestinians from their land and the recognition that regional and international conditions do not permit it.

        So, Israeli apartheid is both a “compromise” end in itself, since immediate, full-scale, direct ethnic cleansing is not politically possible, and also a longer-term, indirect means to ethnic cleansing via intolerable oppression.

      • Hostage
        January 24, 2013, 6:18 am

        It may or may not be more moral, lets assume less. But it ain’t apartheid.

        Wrong Israel’s actions satisfy all of the legal criteria and every constituent act listed in the Convention:
        Article II

        For the purpose of the present Convention, the term “the crime of apartheid”, which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:

        (a) Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person:

        (i) By murder of members of a racial group or groups;

        (ii) By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

        (iii) By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;

        (b) Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;

        (c) Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;

        d) Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;

        (e) Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;

        (f) Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.

        Article III

        International criminal responsibility shall apply, irrespective of the motive involved, to individuals, members of organizations and institutions and representatives of the State, whether residing in the territory of the State in which the acts are perpetrated or in some other State, whenever they:

        (a) Commit, participate in, directly incite or conspire in the commission of the acts mentioned in article II of the present Convention;

        (b) Directly abet, encourage or co-operate in the commission of the crime of apartheid.

        link to www1.umn.edu

      • Hostage
        January 24, 2013, 6:31 am

        That being said, France has them and France is still a democracy.

        There’s nothing comparable to the laws of Israel regarding Arab parties in the laws of France and Germany. Israel has adopted a plethora of laws, including one which makes any non-Jewish political parties “illegal associations” unless they recognize “the territorial integrity and existence of the Jewish State”. See David Kretzmer, 1990. The Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel, Boulder: Westview, page 24. Here is part of what that policy entails:

        *Israeli Supreme Court President Shimon Agranat ruled that “the wish of a handful of Jews to break away from the nation and create a new concept of an Israeli nation was not a legitimate aspiration. . . . There is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people. . . . The Jewish people is composed not only of those residing in Israel but also of Diaspora Jewries.”

        – HCJ 630/70 Tamarin v. State of Israel [1970] IsrSC 26(1) 197

        *Deputy President of the Supreme Court Elon ruled that Arab citizens merely have an equal right to recognize that Israel is the state of the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people:

        The principle that the State of Israel is the state of the Jewish people is Israel’s foundation and mission [yessoda vi-yeuda], and the principle of the equality of rights and obligations of all citizens of the State of Israel is of the State’s essence and character [mahuta ve-ofya]. The latter principle comes only to add to the former, not to modify it; there is nothing in the principle of the equality of civil rights and obligations to modify the principle that the State of Israel is the state of the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people. (Ben-Shalom v. CEC 1988, 272)

      • JeffB
        January 24, 2013, 8:17 am

        @Hostage

        I’m going to have to look into this a little bit. Under your theory of the law, racial has nothing to do with race even though the statue uses the term “race” over and over and over. That in fact it has nothing to do with race.

        And now additionally that dominance has nothing to do with dominance. So if your understanding were correct “the crime of apartheid” is a collection of acts with no ties to intent nor any ties to any particular racial criteria. Under that understanding of the law, I don’t see how it wouldn’t apply to the US regarding its prison population.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 24, 2013, 9:10 am

        I’m going to have to look into this a little bit. Under your theory of the law, racial has nothing to do with race

        you won’t have to look very far jeff. i already linked to wiki’s ‘racism’ page for you. as far as international law is concerned, the definition of race is blockquoted here (and we can all note how you glossed right over it):

        link to mondoweiss.net

      • Annie Robbins
        January 24, 2013, 9:27 am

        @Annie –So is your claim that Israelis are secretly making people think they want to cleanse the land of Palestinians

        no, my claim is that israel has shown clear intent to set up a system of apartheid to oppress palestinians as a means of

        1) forcing them from the land by making their lives miserable and untenable

        2) complete control over a palestinian society who have withstood decades of forced expulsions, imprisonment, torture..etc etc..for the purpose of stealing their land and expanding ‘the land of israel’ to encompass every inch of palestine.

        there’s no secret at all, it’s very clear. what isn’t clear is why you think your argument holds any water. you easily admit israel’s intent is for a land cleansed of palestinians , but you deny any intent wrt israel means to make that happen. do you think we’re all blind?

      • JeffB
        January 24, 2013, 10:09 am

        @Annie —

        I didn’t gloss over it. I referenced it in my response to Hostage, as “your theory of the law”. I’d want to see how this incredibly broad definition of “race” is considered in other cases. For example the Copts in Egypt. Or for example Venezuelan government over the last 10 years has through systematic discrimination expelled 2/3rds of their Jewish population. I’d be curious to see how the UN doesn’t apply your broad definition to that.

      • JeffB
        January 24, 2013, 10:10 am

        @Annie —

        Both the things you list aren’t domination, they are expulsion. Domination requires a desire for control.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 24, 2013, 10:15 am

        I’d want to see how this incredibly broad definition of “race” is considered in other cases.

        sure, for example let’s take the US government:

        link to en.wikipedia.org
        (their bold)

        Hate Crime

        In both crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes, or a race hate) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. Examples of such groups include but are not limited to: racial group, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or gender identity.[1]
        ….
        History

        The term “hate crime” did not really begin to be used until after World War II and the end of most major government-sanctioned racial cleansing[citation needed], but the term is often used retrospectively about persecutions earlier than that. Examples include pogroms against Jews and the Armenian genocide.[citation needed]

        you can read about how it’s applied to other countries at the link. as far as the law is concerned, wrt ‘race’ crimes or racial discrimination there’sjust no difference. including crimes like ethnic cleansing and genocide.

        for example Ethnic cleansing link to en.wikipedia.org

        i think the burden is on you to find an example of ‘race hate’ as it pertains to the law, crimes and persecutions of crimes that does not include ethnic hate.

      • LeaNder
        January 24, 2013, 10:15 am

        I absolutely positive disagree with these sorts of restrictions in the many democracies that have them France, Germany and Israel. I’d like to see them gone.

        Could you elaborate? Do you think Germany should allow parties that basically aim at destroying the German system, abolishing democracy and aim at some type of Germany for the Germans? Don’t you think one shouldn’t look closer if evidence surfaces that people gathering around these parties kill all type of people that they define as enemies?

        Concerning the larger apartheid discussion, would you say Israel does not control the West Bank? How can they withhold Palestinian taxes if it does not? Who exactly controls peoples ability to travel to use their cisterns to build houses? Who exactly has access to their water? And to remain slightly with the economic angle, what type of economic warfare is Israel exactly conducting on Gaza, no control there? What about the serial destruction Could it be that once she developed the Orientalist image of the Arab village, with a little help from German Orientalism, and once it had hammered ihis image successfully into the Western minds, it does it best to make Palestinians conform at least superficially with that image. If necessary by bombing them back to to the stone age occasionally.

        If you think that is perfectly good so, then I would like to warn you that German Jews would be on that enemy list too. Not to worry, since they should all come to Israel anyway?

      • Annie Robbins
        January 24, 2013, 10:39 am

        Both the things you list aren’t domination, they are expulsion.

        jeff, expulsion is a crime against humanity also, but to get back on track…apartheid is a means to an end. you want the to talk about the end. we all know empty land is not a crime, it’s empty. hence, the myth/hasbara A land without a people for a people without a land.

        but if the the means taken to get your empty land is apartheid, you’re culpable. it’s irrelevant whether you say apartheid is not your ‘end’ intent if israel is judged as intending to create a system of apartheid. it’s not just a coincidence the system is in place. it’s in place because someone built it with intent. ciao.

      • JeffB
        January 24, 2013, 11:02 am

        LeaNder —

        Do you think Germany should allow parties that basically aim at destroying the German system, abolishing democracy and aim at some type of Germany for the Germans?

        Yes. I think neo-Nazi parties should be able to openly express their views and run for office in free and fair elections like they do in the United States. If a time comes where a large percentage of the German electorate in a consistent way comes to believe that they no longer want to live under the sort of government they have today I think they are entitled to form a new system through a balanced method of change.

        Don’t you think one shouldn’t look closer if evidence surfaces that people gathering around these parties kill all type of people that they define as enemies?

        That’s a different situation. That’s a terrorists organization with a political wing. I have no problem dismantling terrorists organizations. This was about political parties.

        If you think that is perfectly good so, then I would like to warn you that German Jews would be on that enemy list too. Not to worry, since they should all come to Israel anyway?

        Anti-semitism has gone out of fashion in Germany and the anti-semitism that exists today in Europe is mainly on the left not the right. So I don’t think this is likely. A better example than Germany is France, where Jews in France are conservatives because they’ve been driven out of the left wing parties. A suspect a similar thing would happen in Germany.

        Jewish expulsions in the last 2 generations have all been left win socialists governments. Most recently, Venezuela. Hugo Chavez wanted “zionists” out of his country and the Venezuelan Jewish population is down from 30k to 9k. That’s the next batch of settlers.

        (rest in next post)

      • Cliff
        January 24, 2013, 11:38 am

        @JeffB

        So you would be ok with a neo-Nazi Germany if that were the democratic outcome?

        And you say 21,000 Jews have left Venezuela because of Chavez’s and his beliefs about Israel? Cite it.

      • LeaNder
        January 24, 2013, 12:31 pm

        the anti-semitism that exists today in Europe is mainly on the left not the right.

        Dream on, that’s obviously a quite successful meme.

        Fact is, it was always really easy to see the closer people move towards the right the more antisemitism surfaces again. It’s not really surprising either …

        I watched this over the decades, Not long ago I spoke to an earlier lefty, that feels he has been tricked by the left, they have destroyed his life. Quite a few familiar themes surfaced. The media is controlled by the left, but paradoxically his initial awakening happened when he saw a portray of this guy: Hermann J Abs, (who had played a key role in the economic design and stabilization of Nazism), he told me recently. Not a single grain of worry, about his work for and under the Nazis. And yes, when I challenged him about it, he blurted out that a late compensation under Schroeder to Israel was paid out of the pension fund. I have been watching him for some time now, and asked myself if I would have heard the same stuff had some other figure surfaced in our debates, some hero worship I would have challenged.

        I am amazed to what extend German Jews like Hendryk Broder, who has been drifting to the extreme right over the decades, tricking themselves by moving ever further to the right into exactly these circles. He was cited by Anders Breivik, by the way. It even seems to have pleasing him (see below). I guess he tells himself every day it’s only about them lefties and them Muslim, after all.

        He proudly presents this chapter of his hisotry. Translation top paragraph, which is German, the rest is English, from his blog the Axis of the Good.

        The mass murderer Anders B. Breivik in his manifesto cites among many big thinkers of European intellectual history several times the anoymous, Islam critic, the Norwegean blogger “Fjordman”, who in turn cites Hendry M. Broder. Some have tried to use these commentaries to claim that critique of radical Islam was used as a template for death and murder. I document the texts of “Fjordman”, in which Hendry M. Broder is cited.

        Look how pleased he looks while interviewed about this topic by a German newspaper.

        I found nothing about the Breivik story really surprising, I in fact feared it the propaganda during the last decades would trigger similar stuff over here. But you enjoy your “Arabo-phobia”, which I assume you share with Broder, if you write something like that and watch were it takes you mentally, if you can.

      • LeaNder
        January 24, 2013, 1:17 pm

        where Jews in France are conservatives because they’ve been driven out of the left wing parties.

        Like Daniel Cohn-Bendit has been pushed out of the German Greens, and before out of the diverse left groups in France, I guess?

        Look what are you reading besides smoking?
        I decided I have no interest in challenging propaganda.

      • JeffB
        January 24, 2013, 5:42 pm

        @Cliff

        I don’t know what the multiple links policy is here but here are some example cites:
        (considers the drop from 20k but has the 9500 number):
        link to jpost.com

        This one is earlier (2009) when it was only 1/2 but a more reputable source:
        link to tau.ac.il

        I can’t link directly (javascript) but the 2005 and 2011 US State department reports.

        Heck the person running against Chavez (Capriles Radonski) has some Jews in his ancestry (he’s lifelong Catholic) but even a little Jewish blood get’s commercials:
         Disloyalty
         Claims that his candidacy is a front for a Zionist conspiracy to take over Venezuela
         Belonging to a group of exploiters responsible for the misery of others
         Being part of international Zionist cabal which controls the media, Hollywood, and finances
         Promoting Nazi and Fascist methods
         Being an Israeli Mossad agent
         Seeking to import the Arab Spring to Venezuela
         Using “oppressive” tactics such as those allegedly used by Israelis against the Palestinian people
         Being an “illegitimate” Catholic who, like his ancestors, were Christ killers

        ____

        Which have led supports to come up with, “BEWARE OF THESE JEWS, they are invading us little by little, where they see an empty piece of land they build a shopping center harming all those that live around it…” (they are talking about Venezuela here not Israel… but the rhetoric sure sounds familiar regarding settlements)

        or chanting “GAS! GAS! GAS! FOR THIS SHITY JEWISH-NAZI!”

      • RoHa
        January 24, 2013, 11:24 pm

        The JP article certainly doesn’t do much to support claims of anti-Semitism in Venezuela. According to the “leader of the Jewish community”, Jews are leaving

        1. because the economy isn’t doing too well. (For everyone, not just Jews.)
        2. because there is a high murder rate. (For everyone, not just Jews.)

        So far, no persecution of Jews.

        3. Anti-Semitic attacks.

        But every example mentioned in the article is anti-Israeli. Not a single instance of anti-Semitic discrimination, let alone any sort of violent persecution, is mentioned.

      • RoHa
        January 24, 2013, 11:31 pm

        The second link mentions two attacks on synagogues, but nearly everything else mentioned is anti-Israeli, not anti-Jewish. ( If Venezuela’s Jews feel more attached to Israel than to their own country, perhaps they should leave.)

        Any more links to support the claim of Venezuelan anti-Semitism?

      • Annie Robbins
        January 25, 2013, 3:04 am

        The JP article certainly doesn’t do much to support claims of anti-Semitism

        yeah, especially the part about 1900 homicides..but they didn’t mention even one of them was jewish. hmmm

        maybe the people left because things got bad in Venezuela? i know some people who came here after all the money dried up. they had a really horrible depression about a decade ago. really bad. everyone’s bank account evaporated. not so sure one can claim these emigrations are due to ethnic prejudice. i think it’s likely everyone with money got hit hard.the poor, well..they’re poor whether there’s a depression or not.

      • Hostage
        January 25, 2013, 10:49 am

        jeff, expulsion is a crime against humanity also,

        Any inhuman act that physically segregates a targeted population group along racial or ethnic lines can be considered a constituent act of apartheid. The convention explicitly states that the ultimate motive involved is irrelevant. If you are herding people across an international frontier into permanent exile, expropriating their property, and using razor wire, snipers, minefields, and defense emergency regulations to keep the “infiltrators” away, that’s an obvious form of domination and control over the members of that group.

      • Mooser
        January 25, 2013, 4:05 pm

        “I decided I have no interest in challenging propaganda.”

        I can’t fault you for fading interest in dealing with Jeff B, but while you were engaged, your informative comments were interesting to me thanks, LeaNder.

      • ErsatzYisrael
        February 10, 2013, 11:59 am

        “JeffB says:
        January 24, 2013 at 10:10 am”

        Both the things you list aren’t domination, they are expulsion.

        Is your mind so addled, JeffB, that you actually believe it’s somehow possible for this systematic “expulsion” to occur – and for it to keep occurring – without the “domination” of one group of persons over another group of persons having already occurred first?

        “JeffB says:
        January 24, 2013 at 10:10 am”

        Domination requires a desire for control.

        And in JeffB world, does Israel have a “desire for control”, or not?

    • seafoid
      January 23, 2013, 11:43 am

      Israel practices taxation without representation.
      That led to the original Tea party

      Jews in Hebron voted. Palestinians in hebron couldn’t .
      How is Hebron part of Israel?

    • Mooser
      January 23, 2013, 1:45 pm

      “You seem to think that, contrary to their own intent, they should vote in Israeli elections too.”

      People can, and often do, vote in several elections for the different layers of representation. There’s no reason why Palestinians can’t vote in both, if only as a temporary expedience until the Zionist regime is…. well, you know the rest, Hophmi.

    • justicewillprevail
      January 24, 2013, 2:35 am

      Read this:

      link to juancole.com

      “Israel has annexed the Palestinians but is keeping them stateless. There is no other country in the world engaged in so cruel an enterprise. Some countries do subject neighboring territories and annex them, but they give citizenship, or the rights typically enjoyed by citizens, to the people there. The locals may not want that particular political identity, but at least they have a passport and they have the rights of citizens under the law. “

      • James Canning
        January 24, 2013, 2:14 pm

        Israeli programme appears to be to avoid “annexing” parts of West Bank into which the Palestinians can be forced. The “Bantustans”.

  8. pabelmont
    January 23, 2013, 11:25 am

    Why look only at people LIVING WITHIN Israeli militarily-controlled territory? Why not look at all those who have the internationally-recognized right to do so (principally, the exiles of 1948 and 1967 and their progeny) who are denied re-entrance by Israel? Israelis living abroad may not vote, but might — if they wished — go home and vote. Jews living abroad could go to Israel and apply for and receive citizenship, and vote. Not Palestinians.

    Suppose Israel decides to speed up the transfer-outward of Palestinians by, say, loading Palestinians on trucks and shipping them into southern Lebanon. Suppose these are Israeli Palestinians, who can vote presently. But who couldn’t vote afterward. Should such people be counted? If so, then why not the exiles of 1948 and 1967?

    Israel was never much of a democracy as measured by its allowing those who should live in it to live in it, or allowing those who should be allowed to vote in its elections to do so. Not from day #1. (Satanic.)

  9. mondonut
    January 23, 2013, 11:29 am

    Millions disenfranchised in Israeli vote due solely to ethnicity and geography

    As Philip Weiss would say: Horse Feathers. Complete and total Horse Feathers.

    Ethnicity and geography? How about the fact that they are not Israelis? In which countries of this world are overwhelming numbers of non-citizens permitted to vote in national elections?

    • Annie Robbins
      January 23, 2013, 11:48 am

      Ethnicity and geography? How about the fact that they are not Israelis?

      get back to us after israeli voters are not choosing those who rule over non israelis. you can’t have it both ways and expect others to consider israel a democracy.

    • Woody Tanaka
      January 23, 2013, 12:59 pm

      “Ethnicity and geography? How about the fact that they are not Israelis?”

      And they’re not “israelis” solely because of ethnicity and geography.

      • mondonut
        January 23, 2013, 2:34 pm

        Woody Tanaka says: And they’re not “israelis” solely because of ethnicity and geography.
        =======================
        Not so. As the graphic so clearly illustrates the Israeli electorate is multi-ethnic. As for geography there is something to that, as there should be. But again, the essay declares those as the SOLE reason. Which is obviously untrue and deliberately misleading.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 23, 2013, 3:39 pm

        “Not so. As the graphic so clearly illustrates the Israeli electorate is multi-ethnic. ”

        False. You cannot prove that “A” was not discriminated against by showing that “B” was not discriminated against. The fact is that the de facto annexation in 1967 of those portions of Palestine which were not stolen in 1948 was accompanied with a denial of human and civil rights of the people in that land solely because of their ethno-religious background and no amount of word play will alter that reality. A Jew born in Hebron in 1968 may vote in the israeli election; a Palestinian born in the very next room at the exact same time cannot, solely due to his ethnicity. That’s aparthied. That’s disgusting racism.

        “Which is obviously untrue and deliberately misleading.”

        No, if anything, it downplays the zionist crimes against humanity. It should simply state the truth: zionism = racism and this is an Apartheid state which should be tossed on the fire next to apartheid South Africa.

      • Avi_G.
        January 23, 2013, 4:01 pm

        If Israeli society is as you claim “multi-ethnic”, then it follows that you do not consider Jews to be an ethnic collective. So what you’re saying is that Shlomo Sands is right. Unless, you consider the mere presence of Jews on one side and Arabs on the other to constitute “multi-ethnic”, in which case such a claim wouldn’t be a great departure from the rest of your semantic contortions upthread.

        On a side note, the semantic gymnastics and contortions that Israel’s apologists are putting on display in this thread have gone from funny to amusing to being plain sad.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 23, 2013, 8:49 pm

        the semantic gymnastics and contortions that Israel’s apologists are putting on display in this thread have gone from funny to amusing to being plain sad.

        we’ve got some newbies on the threads today avi.

      • James Canning
        January 24, 2013, 2:28 pm

        Avi_G – – Obviously the line between “religous group” and “ethnic group” is indistinct. Consider the 110,000 Ethipians settled in Israel. Surely they are not of same “ethnic” background as German Jews now living in Israel.

    • sardelapasti
      January 23, 2013, 1:52 pm

      “How about the fact that they are not Israelis?”
      How about the fact that the Zionist-era “Israelis” still have no right to be there, let alone vote?

      • mondonut
        January 23, 2013, 2:21 pm

        sardelapasti says: How about the fact that the Zionist-era “Israelis” still have no right to be there, let alone vote?
        ========================
        Off the deep end, Sardi. So the Palestinians should participate in Israeli elections but the Israelis themselves have no right to? Good job. Nailed it.

      • sardelapasti
        January 23, 2013, 9:38 pm

        “Off the deep end ”
        What deep end? Armed conquest remains entirely illegal.

        “So the Palestinians should participate in Israeli elections but the Israelis themselves have no right to?”
        Obviously, “Israelis” should ask the Palestinians for permission to be there, not only the illegally immigrated from all parts of the world but their local offspring, too. Only then can they legitimately participate in an election. And not Israelian, but Palestinian elections on the whole territory.

        ” Good job. Nailed it.”
        Effectively, it is the only fair solution. Possibly won’t happen because there is no justice in life, but the principle must be repeated lest we become too comfortable with lawyerly distortions and Zionit bullshit.

  10. yonah fredman
    January 23, 2013, 12:02 pm

    The point is valid and will become more valid once the Palestinians ask for the vote. Currently they are not asking for the vote.

    • Mooser
      January 23, 2013, 1:55 pm

      “Currently they are not asking for the vote.”

      I present to you the Rip Van Winkle of I-P issues.

      • eljay
        January 23, 2013, 7:02 pm

        >> Currently they are not asking for the vote.

        AFAIK, they are asking for peace, justice, accountability, equality, and a right to return to the homes and lands from which they were ethnically cleansed by your Zio-supremacist co-collectivists. I guess the vote would be a whole lot easier for the “Jewish State” to ignore / discard / sweep under the rug.

        >> I present to you the Rip Van Winkle of I-P issues.

        That was LOL good. Thanks, Mooser. :-)

        BTW, good thing you didn’t say “satanic”… ;-)

    • James Canning
      January 23, 2013, 6:36 pm

      Of course the Palestinians are not asking to vote in Israeli elections. They want to vote in their own elections, and without any Israeli army or police etc etc etc.

      • sardelapasti
        January 23, 2013, 9:42 pm

        Speak for yourself, Canning. There is no real representative as yet. I don’t know why you have all these densely shot posts trying to convince everyone that the Green Line is a definitive border, that recognition of a Jewish State is a done deal, that Palestinians have already forsworn their rights through legitimate representation, etc. etc. Who profits from this repetition?

      • Taxi
        January 24, 2013, 9:25 am

        “Who profits from this repetition?”

        The knowitall ego of mister canning and his millions of awe-struck followers.

      • James Canning
        January 24, 2013, 7:00 pm

        Recognition of Israel is a “done deal”? Who says that? All Arab countries agree to recognise Israel. If Israel gets out of the West Bank and Golan Heights.

      • sardelapasti
        January 26, 2013, 12:27 pm

        Canning: “Recognition of Israel is a “done deal”? Who says that?”
        You do, repeatedly, and in this message too.
        That “all Arab countries” nonsense is so typical of Zionist propaganda. All Arab countries and all other countries cannot represent the spoliated Palestinian population; worthless.

        The Palestinians have been invaded, they have been colonized, partitioned and expelled against their will and a state built on their land against their will, while they were under the boot of the Ottomans and the British. They aren’t even obliged to accept the proposed 1947 borders, let alone the Green line. The administrations imposed on them by the US in order to keep order for the Zionists are not necessarily empowered to sign away any of their rights, especially when “negotiating” with a non-negotiating enemy.
        That’s why I was wondering why and by what authority you would sign away these rights in so many posts.

  11. mondonut
    January 23, 2013, 12:04 pm

    Annie Robbins says: get back to us after israeli voters are not choosing those who rule over non israelis. you can’t have it both ways and expect others to consider israel a democracy.
    ===========================================================
    You seem to think that people living under an occupation should be extended the franchise. Is that something from the Geneva Conventions? Some UNGA resolution? Where does this lunacy spring from?

    You really, really believe that the Gazans,who militarily attack Israel on a regular basis should be allowed to elect the leaders of the country they have sworn to destroy? That makes sense to you?

    • Annie Robbins
      January 23, 2013, 12:21 pm

      i think the occupation should end. i also think people should be allowed to vote on those who run the government that rules over their lives. israel has destroyed palestine, so who are you to demonize those you allege are ‘sworn to destroy’. what a destructive hypocritical farce you represent.

      • yrn
        January 23, 2013, 1:35 pm

        I love this comment section……..
        when did Israel Annex Gaza….. So Is Hania some kind of a Joke for the Palestinians, as they voted him for what, or you think that Israel will promote Hamas as a elected Party, as if not, whom should they vote for…..
        Do the US give permission to the millions of illegal Mexicans to vote…….
        Where else dose any country in the world give permission to someone who has not a citizenship to vote…..
        I asked you yesterday a lot of questions too, but I found out that the questions were deleted…..????
        Is this going to be the next Agenda in Mondowiess after the wishful thinking that the right in Israel will take over collapsed ???

      • Annie Robbins
        January 23, 2013, 2:13 pm

        I asked you yesterday a lot of questions too, but I found out that the questions were deleted…..????

        hi yrn, as a staff member i have access to the trash pile. there are no comments of yours in there from yesterday and i went back as far as the 18th. perhaps you have an alternate name you post under or else you are not telling the truth. on a related matter, there do appear to be some comments from team zio that got trashed yesterday due to nakba denial (a banning offense btw). just saying. one might consider upgrading the framing of questions if they are not cutting moderation mustard, it probably means they are in violation of our comment policy.

        I love this comment section……..
        when did Israel Annex Gaza…..

        i have no requirement to respond to you, especially wrt allegations i never made. ciao

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 23, 2013, 2:37 pm

        “when did Israel Annex Gaza”

        Well, yarn, when the Gazans are free to do as they please, like all the people’s of the world, and your the stench of zionism is washed from their land, then your question might merit response.

        “Do the US give permission to the millions of illegal Mexicans to vote…….”

        When the US took over and occupied Northern Mexico after the Mexican war, those Mexicans living there were given the right to vote. So your shitty little country is more racist than pre-Civil War USA.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 23, 2013, 2:37 pm

        “Apartheid-panic…”

        Yup. That’s the flip side of their genocide-envy.

      • yrn
        January 23, 2013, 3:21 pm

        And you never answered my Question…….
        “when did Israel Annex Gaza” ????

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 23, 2013, 3:41 pm

        “And you never answered my Question…….
        ‘when did Israel Annex Gaza’ ????”

        You seriously need it answered, yarn? Okay. Fine. 1967.

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2013, 4:06 pm

        “I asked you yesterday a lot of questions too, but I found out that the questions were deleted…..????”

        Speaking strictly as a commenter, yrn, there are two things you should keep in mind:
        1) It can take a while for a comment to be moderated. Yes, it could take up to a day. Don’t like it? Send money.
        2) Because one comment is moderated, don’t think every follow-up comment will be moderated just as quickly. There are other commenters, other threads, and they all have to be moderated.
        3) While you are waiting for a comment to be printed, you’ll have plenty of time to read other posts in Mondoweiss, and further inform yourself on the situation. And go ahead, yrn, steal my jokes if you want, and welcome to ‘em. Nobody in Israel has heard them yet. You’ll knock ‘em dead.

      • yrn
        January 23, 2013, 4:39 pm

        I am glad you answered this question, So you say that Israel Annexed Gaza in 1967 and made it a part of Israel and the population in Gaza became Israeli Citizens .
        Can You provide ONE link or ONE quote that or ONE line to backup your illusion ??? or we will have mooser to explain what “Annex” means in the 21 century……….

        So to facts of History……beginning in June 1967, following the Six-Day War, Gaza Strip remained under Israeli military administration, During that time, the military was responsible for the maintenance of civil facilities and services.

        Israel implemented its Disengagement Plan in August–September 2005, withdrawing its civilian and military presence from the Gaza Strip.

      • Newclench
        January 23, 2013, 8:03 pm

        Um…. Israel never annexed Gaza. It did annex the Golan and East Jerusalem. FWIW.

      • Bumblebye
        January 23, 2013, 9:13 pm

        Of course Israel ‘annexed’ the West Bank and Gaza – without passing itself another illegal law.
        Israel passed “laws” which are considered illegal by the rest of the world, stealing Golan from Syria, and East Jerusalem along with a huge chunk of the West Bank (the wider “municipality”) from the future Palestinian state. And of course, it continues to contort and twist the law to ensure that its Jewish nationals can continue to steal with impunity from Palestinians anywhere, and that there is no redress whether they live within the Green Line or not. How many Palestinians within the Green Line have been able to get redress for the theft of their homes, lands, businesses since 48? Or has Israel created or abused old laws that enable it to nullify (in Israelis eyes) Palestinian rights of ownership – like it’s doing now in the West Bank?

      • sardelapasti
        January 23, 2013, 9:46 pm

        “Israel never annexed Gaza. ”

        It annexed all occupied territories the moment it refused to evacuate them instanter on at the first demand. That is how it works. As Macy’s says, you broke it you bought it. No use inventing some town hall state and pretending it is in charge.

      • yrn
        January 24, 2013, 3:22 am

        Newclench
        Thank you for raising it up, as your comment takes out the air from all this nonsense.
        Yes Israel did annex the Golan and East Jerusalem…….. those who live in those area’s got an ISRAELI CITIZENSHIP and they can VOTE. as they are Israeli citizens.
        All other area’s in the West Bank and Gaza were never Annexed……

      • yrn
        January 24, 2013, 3:31 am

        Bumblebye
        Of course Israel ‘annexed’ the West Bank and Gaza…….
        Send evidence…… you can claim what ever you want as your Agenda is clear.
        without evidence its just nonsense.

      • Hostage
        January 24, 2013, 3:45 am

        So to facts of History……beginning in June 1967, following the Six-Day War, Gaza Strip remained under Israeli military administration, During that time, the military was responsible for the maintenance of civil facilities and services.

        Well the only thing that distinguishes occupation from annexation is that occupation under the Geneva Conventions deprives the occupied Power of neither its statehood nor its sovereignty. But Israel did both and implanted settlers too, while refusing to apply all of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions on a de jure basis. It extended the jurisdiction of its civilian Supreme Court and exercised in personam jurisdiction over its citizens in Gaza under the terms of its municipal laws. Most legal scholars viewed the situation as a flagrant violation of international law tantamount to de facto or “anticipated” annexation.

      • yrn
        January 24, 2013, 7:34 am

        “But Israel did both and implanted settlers too”……. What are you talking about, How many settlers are now in Gaza ZERO how many Jews live in Gaza today ZERO………
        Israel implemented its Disengagement Plan in August–September 2005, withdrawing its civilian and military presence from the Gaza Strip.

        Israel has no connection to Gaza today…….. Guess you want Israel back there, to have an argument………

        As you are talking about Geneva Convention and the U.N. here is some history for you
        “United Nations position
        Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General, commended on August 18, 2005[59] what he called Israeli Prime Minister Sharon’s “courageous decision” to carry through with the painful process of disengagement,”
        “Ibrahim Gambari, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, told the Security Council on August 24, 2005
        Israel has demonstrated that it has the requisite maturity to do what would be required and the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) has demonstrated their ability to discharge their mission with carefully calibrated restraint.”

      • JeffB
        January 24, 2013, 7:41 am

        @sardelapasti

        No that is not how it works. A country annexes territory when it actually annexes it. Refusing to leave is just a long term occupation. That’s why Russia didn’t annex East Germany even though it created a whole system to join East Germany to it and permanently stationed troops on its soil.

      • JeffB
        January 24, 2013, 8:49 am

        @Woody

        So your shitty little country is more racist than pre-Civil War USA.

        Colorado became a state in 1875. It was a territory before that.
        Utah 1896
        Arizona 1912
        New Mexico 1912

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 24, 2013, 9:21 am

        “I am glad you answered this question, So you say that Israel Annexed Gaza in 1967 and made it a part of Israel and the population in Gaza became Israeli Citizens .”

        It was a de facto annexation that exists to this day, as you’ve turned Gaza into a modern-day Warsaw ghetto. You zionists didn’t make them citizens, but hold them in apartheid conditions.

      • James Canning
        January 24, 2013, 2:30 pm

        Israel purports to have “annexed” the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem.

      • yrn
        January 24, 2013, 4:31 pm

        You “Anti Zionist” just throw words into the air.
        Israel Never Annexed Gaza !
        While I give you evidence, you just play with words.
        If you want a debate, bring some proof……..

      • Hostage
        January 24, 2013, 9:12 pm

        What are you talking about, How many settlers are now in Gaza ZERO how many Jews live in Gaza today ZERO………

        I’m talking about crimes that have been documented by UN, HRW, AI and other international fact finding missions, UN Special Rapporteurs, and the UN OCHA oPt for which no statutory limitations apply: “grave breaches” enumerated in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims; and Crimes against humanity like “eviction by armed attack or occupation and inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid”. See the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and CrimesAgainst Humanity link to www1.umn.edu

        Israel implemented its Disengagement Plan in August–September 2005, withdrawing its civilian and military presence from the Gaza Strip.

        Israel has continued to commit daily breaches of International Humanitarian Law against the civilian population of Palestine on the territory of Gaza ever since the so-called withdrawal.

        Israel has no connection to Gaza today

        You are very poorly informed. The IDF is imposing an illegal blockade against Gaza without permission from the UN Security Council. That blockade entails attacks against fishermen in Palestine’s coastal waters. IDF soldiers have killed Palestinian farmers and other lawful inhabitants inside a so-called buffer zone that the IDF has arbitrarily established on the territory of Palestine. Israel has imposed restrictions on movement and travel between Gaza and the West Bank that violate basic human rights. Israel has carried out illegal and extrajudicial killings in Gaza and deliberately destroyed civilian infrastructure in Gaza.

        As you are talking about Geneva Convention and the U.N. here is some history for you “United Nations position Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General, commended . . .

        Well here’s a few reports from Annan’s watch for you:

        Secretary General Kofi Annan also filed a 1,000 page dossier with the ICJ and a written statement detailing Israel’s flagrant violations of the UN Charter, international humanitarian laws, and human rights conventions:
        link to icj-cij.org
        link to icj-cij.org

        *In 1998 the CERD panel of experts forwarded a report through Annan to the General Assembly which said that the status of the Jewish settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention which, as noted in the Committee’s General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries; and that there was a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law. CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998 link to unispal.un.org

        *In 2000 the UN Commission on Human Rights forwarded a report through Kofi Annan to the General Assembly and Security Council on “widespread, systematic and gross violations of human rights perpetrated by the Israeli occupying Power, in particular mass killings and collective punishments, such as demolition of houses and closure of the Palestinian territories, measures which constitute war crimes, flagrant violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity.” See E/CN.4/RES/S-5/1 19 October 2000 link to unispal.un.org

        *The report of the high-level fact-finding mission to Beit Hanoun established under Council resolution S-3/1 (A/HRC/9/26), concluded that Israel deliberately carried out shelling with “disproportionate and reckless disregard for Palestinian civilian life, contrary to the requirements of international humanitarian law” and that the mission “must conclude that there is a possibility that the shelling of Beit Hanoun constituted a war crime as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court”.
        link to un.org

        Special Rapporteur for human rights in the Occupied Territories, Prof. John Dugard’s report covering the last year of Annan’s term as Secretary General said:

        Persons responsible for committing war crimes by the firing of shells and rockets into civilian areas without any apparent military advantage should be apprehended or prosecuted. This applies to Palestinians who fire Qassam rockets into Israel; and more so to members of the IDF who have committed such crimes on a much greater scale. While individual criminal accountability is important, the responsibility of the State of Israel for the violation of peremptory norms of international law in its actions against the Palestinian people should not be overlooked.

        — A/HRC/4/17, 29 January 2007 link to unispal.un.org

    • Woody Tanaka
      January 23, 2013, 12:58 pm

      “You seem to think that people living under an occupation should be extended the franchise.”

      When a racist occupation lasts for two generations, any decent human would believe it necessary if the racists don’t end their occupation.

      “You really, really believe that the Gazans,who militarily attack Israel on a regular basis should be allowed to elect the leaders of the country they have sworn to destroy?”

      If the zionists aren’t prepared to end their occupation (embargo/blockade/Warsaw-Ghetto-ization, whatever you want to call it) then, yes.

    • Mooser
      January 23, 2013, 1:52 pm

      “Is that something from the Geneva Conventions?”

      Mondonut! Ixnay on the Nevagena Onventionconix, you savvy? You don’t want to bring that up. I don’t mind a fair fight, but if there’s a slaughter I’ll have to avert my eyes.

    • Hostage
      January 23, 2013, 2:45 pm

      You seem to think that people living under an occupation should be extended the franchise. Is that something from the Geneva Conventions?

      Yes, don’t you remember all of those people in Iraq and Afghanistan voting and then dipping their fingers in ink? The customary international law reflected in Article 43 and 48 of the 4th Hague Convention of 1907 and Article 64 of the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 require the Occupying power to respect, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country and to maintain the status quo ante (i.e. as it was before) in the occupied territory as far as is practically possible. In any event the occupied country’s criminal courts must continue to operate and the occupying power is required to allow elections to be conducted in order to maintain the orderly government of the territory.

      The ICRC explains: This makes sense. The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law. This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered temporary by international law. The international law of belligerent occupation must therefore be understood as meaning that the occupying power exercises provisional and temporary control over foreign territory.
      It follows from this that measures taken by the occupying authorities should avoid far-reaching changes in the existing order. The law therefore ensures that central administrative functions continue uninterrupted in the interests of the population. The population will not be unduly disturbed by foreign control if day-to-day matters continue to be dealt with by familiar administrative offices and public officials. Lastly, the occupied territory’s own judges are best placed to enforce the law.

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2013, 3:49 pm

        Can I open my eyes again now?

        I hope nobody comes along flogging the Mandate now. I can’t stand to see my equine cousins beaten, even after they’ve expired.

      • Avi_G.
        January 23, 2013, 4:12 pm

        Moonut is going to regret ever bringing up the Geneva Conventions.

      • mondonut
        January 23, 2013, 4:31 pm

        Hostage says: Yes, don’t you remember all of those people in Iraq and Afghanistan voting and then dipping their fingers in ink?
        ===========================================
        Of course, but they were not voting in the national election of those who militarily occupied them (the USA), they were voting in their own elections. So there is no correlation here, as this is a call for the Palestinians to vote in BOTH their own and the Israeli elections. Assuming of course that the Palestinian leadership will ever permit actual elections again.

      • talknic
        January 24, 2013, 1:48 am

        mondonut “..but they were not voting in the national election of those who militarily occupied them (the USA), they were voting in their own elections.”

        Exactly. The US/Occupying Powers enabled Iraqi elections to take place in ALL Iraqi territory, for ALL Iraqis. The US /Occupying Powers didn’t illegally annex any Iraqi territory or illegally settle or illegally institute their own civil laws or illegally hold their own elections in any Iraqi territory.

        Where as Israel has for 64 years instituted its own civil laws in territories “outside the State of Israel” and conducted Israeli elections in territory illegally acquired by war (UNSC res 242) and illegally annexed (UNSC res 252 & EIGHT reminders) and illegally settled (UNSC res 446), “outside the State of Israel”

  12. Chu
    January 23, 2013, 12:28 pm

    That graphic says a lot. It makes me think of slaves
    in society that are at the back of the bus. They are
    the ones whose land and homes have been stolen and
    have no say about it. What a vibrant democracy
    Israel is. No, A beacon of light…

  13. mondonut
    January 23, 2013, 12:33 pm

    Annie Robbins says: i also think people should be allowed to vote on those who run the government that rules over their lives.
    ====================================================
    I do not recall you making much noise about the lack of Palestinian elections. But if you truly think that an entity such as Gaza should be allowed to vote in the elections of those they make war with, then there is nothing left to discuss. You are beyond the hope of reason.

    • Annie Robbins
      January 23, 2013, 3:26 pm

      I do not recall you making much noise about the lack of Palestinian elections.

      link to mondoweiss.net

      link to mondoweiss.net

      there’s more where that came from. start digging:

      link to mondoweiss.net

      • mondonut
        January 23, 2013, 4:20 pm

        Annie Robbins says: there’s more where that came from. start digging:
        ========================
        That’s strange. I thought you would provide links to where you were actually chastising the Palestinians for not holding elections. But you did not.

  14. Mndwss
    January 23, 2013, 1:07 pm

    Why is this article so offencive to: yrn, Newclench, JeffB, hophmi, mondonut and yonah fredman?

    To much truth for them?

    On some articles where Israel is committing war crimes, they do not comment at all.

    But here it seems they are in panic.

    Apartheid-panic…

    • mondonut
      January 23, 2013, 4:35 pm

      Mndwss says:Why is this article so offencive to: yrn, Newclench, JeffB, hophmi, mondonut and yonah fredman?
      =======================================
      FYI, my first attempt at replying went down the memory hole, but suffice to say that I do not find this offensive, I find it XXXXXXX.

      And again, if you want to provide the Palestinians with elections, tell them to engage in their own.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 23, 2013, 7:03 pm

        if you want to provide the Palestinians with elections, tell them to engage in their own.

        and israel won’t hand pick, kidnap, arrest or kill all their candidates either! wow , elections are so much fun under occupation! let’s play pretend democracy!

      • JeffB
        January 23, 2013, 7:29 pm

        @Annnie
        Of course they won’t. They will kidnap, kill and arrest enemies of the state of Israel. The same way that America would kidnap, kill and arrest Al-Qaeda and Taliban members even if they were running / held office in Yemen, Afghanistan, Mali, Pakistan…

        The Israelis are fine with Palestinians picking whatever officials they want who aren’t interested in meaningfully challenging Israel. If they do, then they get treated as enemies of the state. That’s how wars work.

      • Mayhem
        January 24, 2013, 12:31 am

        With the exception of the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, and recently Mauritania, democratic elections throughout the Arab World are generally viewed as compromised, due to outright vote rigging, intimidation of opposition parties, and severe restraints on civil liberties and political dissent.

        @Annie, is that the kind of democracy you are inadvertently encouraging – the ‘pretend democracy’ that the Arab Spring has been all about?

      • eljay
        January 24, 2013, 8:00 am

        >> … They will kidnap, kill and arrest enemies of the state of Israel. The same way that America would kidnap, kill and arrest Al-Qaeda and Taliban members even if they were running / held office in Yemen, Afghanistan, Mali, Pakistan…
        >> The Israelis are fine with Palestinians picking whatever officials they want who aren’t interested in meaningfully challenging Israel. If they do, then they get treated as enemies of the state. That’s how wars work.

        Interesting. When “we” pick officials who are interested in challenging sovereign nations, we call it “democracy”. When “they” pick officials who are interested in challenging sovereign nations, JeffB calls it “war”.

        I suppose invasion, occupation, devastation and torture are also more noble when “we” do it.

      • James Canning
        January 24, 2013, 2:16 pm

        Tunisia?

      • Annie Robbins
        January 24, 2013, 5:21 pm

        is that the kind of democracy you are inadvertently encouraging

        mayhem, if you’d like to engage me about what you posit i am inadvertently encouraging please choose something i wrote and not something copied from wikipedia.
        thanks

      • Mayhem
        January 25, 2013, 2:31 am

        @annie, my point is that what you strive for by the dismantling of Israel would achieve the same undemocratic mayhem (sic) that is prevalent across the Arab world.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 25, 2013, 2:41 am

        @mayhem, and my point is if you want to engage me cite/quote me directly. i will not be answering to your hypothetical strawmen.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 25, 2013, 2:53 am

        The Israelis are fine with Palestinians picking whatever officials they want who aren’t interested in meaningfully challenging Israel. If they do, then they get treated as enemies of the state. That’s how wars work.

        our newbie perfectly describes the kind of ‘democracy’ offered to palestinians. i wonder how israelis would feel about palestinians choosing their politicians?

        The Palestinians are fine with Israelis picking whatever officials they want who aren’t interested in meaningfully challenging Palestine. If they do, then they get treated as enemies of the state. That’s how wars work.

        democracy! jeff-occupation style, so cool!

      • Hostage
        January 25, 2013, 5:10 am

        @annie, my point is that what you strive for by the dismantling of Israel would achieve the same undemocratic mayhem (sic) that is prevalent across the Arab world.

        That’s a non-sequitur, since Palestine was excluded from the set of Arab countries with questionable plebiscites that you cited: With the exception of the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, and recently Mauritania, democratic elections throughout the Arab World are generally viewed as compromised

      • RoHa
        January 23, 2013, 8:24 pm

        “And again, if you want to provide the Palestinians with elections, tell them to engage in their own.”

        Since the territory is ultimately controlled by the Israeli government, elections which do not choose that government are of limited value.

    • Newclench
      January 23, 2013, 8:11 pm

      Mndwss, it’s not so offensive. I disagree with the emphasis on ‘voter disenfranchisement’ as opposed to ‘occupation that must end.’
      We live in a time of story wars, and some folks are changing the story of ‘Palestinians under occupation deserve to be free and living under Palestinian sovereignty’ into another story where ‘all of Palestinian is indivisible, Israelis and Palestinians should be citizens in the same entity with equal rights.’
      I prefer the first story because I think it is a more effective frame for the goal of Palestinians living without being dominated by Israelis.

      Using nifty turns of phrase to make your point instead of actually making your point is a way to win an argument without having to have it. Supporters of occupation do this. Everyone does it. It’s reasonable to poke holes in it.
      It is not offensive, just…. propagandish. Unhelpful.

      • James Canning
        January 24, 2013, 5:03 pm

        Newclench – – It does seem reasonable to believe Jews would keep control of the courts, security services, army, police etc etc etc etc, in a “unitary” state.

      • Mooser
        January 24, 2013, 5:35 pm

        “Newclench – – It does seem reasonable to believe Jews would keep control of the courts, security services, army, police etc etc etc etc, in a “unitary” state.”

        In any kind of unitary state run on democratic principles, that is not possible. First of all, a great many of them will be facing indictments and suits, and may very well end up convicted.

        Look, there’s no way around it, Canning, any solution which really brings about a unitary state will bring about accounting and responsibility for the criminal actions of individuals and agencies of the Zionist regime against Palestinians as individuals or as classes. So having the same people keep control of the courts “security services” army, police, is probably not possible.

      • JeffB
        January 24, 2013, 9:57 pm

        @Mooser —

        Evan assuming Israel under any conceivable would ever agree to a situation which allowed for suits and moreover allowed for them to be one sided (i.e. Palestinian leaders wouldn’t be liable for terrorism) and even allowing for the fact that most israeli politicians are middle class and thus not interest to sue…

        If we assume that 60% of Isratin’s population are Palestinians that still means 40% are Jews. If we assume something like a 12 person jury with 9 being required to convict, even if you assume about 1/8 Israelis will convict you can only win those cases about 5% of the time. The Palestinians are never going to get that sort of compensation.

        Mind you even if a binational state were imposed somehow I don’t think remotely this peaceful. Rather the person suing wouldn’t live long enough for their to be a trial. The binational system would be tied up tight by both sides to render it completely ineffectual and the societies would use gang style violence to resolve issues.

      • Newclench
        January 25, 2013, 12:52 am

        Mooser, your scenario seems outlandish. In most post conflict societies, from South Africa to the Balkans to post dictatorship Latin America to post Socialist Eastern Europe, the longed for ‘day of judgement’ never really happens that way. After all, everyone still has to live together.

        Which isn’t to say a complete uprooting of the old order never happens. Witness Cambodia, Zimbabwe, East Timor, and that old standby, Algeria.

      • Hostage
        January 25, 2013, 4:05 am

        Mooser, your scenario seems outlandish. In most post conflict societies, from South Africa to the Balkans to post dictatorship Latin America to post Socialist Eastern Europe, the longed for ‘day of judgement’ never really happens that way. After all, everyone still has to live together.

        The first UN treaty that required the establishment of a criminal tribunal was the Apartheid Convention. South Africa narrowly avoided the fate of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and etc. Slobodan Milošević , Charles Taylor, or Radovan Karadžić probably wouldn’t agree that the ‘day of judgment’ never really happens.

        It’s also untrue that the people of the former Yugoslavia are still “living together” in the same state. In fact it was the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY that broke the news to Milošević that Croatia was an independent State that was no longer subject to Serbian jurisdiction. See The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic – Case No. IT-02-54-T, Rule 98 bis test – Deportation, forcible transfer and cross border transfer – Definition of a State – Aiding and abetting genocide and complicity in genocide link to icty.org

      • James Canning
        January 25, 2013, 2:01 pm

        @Mooser – – The Arab leaders who backed the 2002 Saudi peace plan saw no chance Jews in Israel would ever relinquish control of the state power apparatus. ZERO chance, as a practical matter.

      • Mooser
        January 25, 2013, 4:12 pm

        “the longed for ‘day of judgement’ never really happens that way.”

        Absolutely right, Newclench. It’ll be a long, drawn-out process. Oh, probably nobody will get hung, but an awful lot of people will have to make an accounting, and take responsibility. I wouldn’t worry, the amount of people who will end up in prison or deported will probably be small. I’m sure most will pay their own way out. And the amount of money owed the Palestinians? No doubt chump change for the Jewish State. They’ll pay it and say, “keep the change”.

      • Mooser
        January 25, 2013, 4:16 pm

        “The Arab leaders who backed the 2002 Saudi peace plan saw no chance Jews in Israel…”

        Yes, if there’s one thing “Arab leaders” are noted for, it’s informed farsightedness, coupled with disinterestedness..

      • Hostage
        January 26, 2013, 11:35 am

        If we assume that 60% of Isratin’s population are Palestinians that still means 40% are Jews. If we assume something like a 12 person jury with 9 being required to convict, even if you assume about 1/8 Israelis will convict you can only win those cases about 5% of the time.

        The Rome Statute doesn’t provide for jury trials, but it nonetheless addresses victim compensation. Even the US government has adopted mechanisms, like the Indian Claims Statutes, that don’t require a jury to award statutory damages or compensation. Many countries including the government of South Africa have pursued tort claims against corporations in foreign courts, including our own US federal courts.

        Why do think the Palestinian majority behave any differently if it were granted jurisdiction? That’s the real reason the settlers insist on Israel annexing the settlement blocks, instead of Palestine, under the terms of any final agreement.

      • Citizen
        January 26, 2013, 2:20 pm

        @ Mooser
        Funny, I thought “Jewish leaders” in America had a patent on that.

  15. James Canning
    January 23, 2013, 2:02 pm

    Do we have figures on voting by eligible Christian and Muslim “Palestinians”, in Israel itself?

  16. James Canning
    January 23, 2013, 2:04 pm

    Don’t polls show that most Palestinians in the West Bank do not want to be part of Israel?

    • tree
      January 23, 2013, 4:11 pm

      Don’t polls show that most Palestinians in the West Bank do not want to be part of Israel?

      Then they should be allowed to vote to end their occupation by Israel and Israel should abide by that vote. As long as the are controlled by Israel and Israeli law, then they have a right to have a say on how they are governed (or whether they are governed at all) by Israel, and that right should be implemented and respected. Otherwise Israel is an apartheid and ethnocratic state, and not a democratic one.

      • JeffB
        January 23, 2013, 7:30 pm

        America didn’t cease to be a democratic state when it occupied Iraq. I’m sure roughly 0% of the Iraqis wanted us there. A state is democratic based on how its citizen choose their leaders, not based on how it treats enemies.

      • Hostage
        January 24, 2013, 6:07 am

        America didn’t cease to be a democratic state when it occupied Iraq

        The system of government in the Union of South Africa was irrelevant in determining if it was guilty of illegally occupying the neighboring state of Namibia and whether or not its policies and practices in that territory constituted a crime of apartheid.

      • JeffB
        January 24, 2013, 7:37 am

        We are discussing apartheid not illegal occupation. The UN has been unequivocal that they consider Israel’s occupation illegal. In so far as one cares what the UN — a long time enemy of Israel — thinks Israel is breaking their laws on occupation.

      • yrn
        January 24, 2013, 7:44 am

        Good Question,….. why Didn’t the US allow 33,000,000 Iraqi’s to Vote……..
        When they occupied Iraq……..????

        And How About Vietnam…..????

      • Hostage
        January 26, 2013, 8:45 am

        In so far as one cares what the UN — a long time enemy of Israel — thinks Israel is breaking their laws on occupation.

        Neither the ICRC nor the Swiss government, acting as the depositary of the Geneva Conventions, serve any UN function or purpose. The Hague and Geneva Conventions on International Humanitarian Law (IHL) were never UN treaties. FYI, an international “Reconvened Diplomatic Conference of The High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions” issued a declaration which said the Israeli settlements and other aspects of the Occupation are illegal.
        link to icrc.org

        Since each of those countries could exercise universal jurisdiction on its own behalf over the crimes committed by the responsible Israel officials, you would need to go argue with them. In any event, most of them are ICC members states and have created a Court that can exercise its jurisdiction by special agreement on the territory of any state.

      • Cliff
        January 26, 2013, 10:55 am

        yrn

        is the US stealing Iraqi land and building Christian only colonies?

        no

        Israel is occupying and colonizing Palestinian land for nearly 50 years, building Jewish only colonies

      • Cliff
        January 26, 2013, 10:58 am

        so JeffB

        do you value the UN’s opinion?

        or NGOs like HRW, AI, B’Tselem, etc.?

        If you don’t, then I assume you value the IDF’s opinion or the GOI or the American congress and other similar views.

        There’s no point in talking to a Zionist who disregards international law and humanitarian law.

      • Cliff
        January 26, 2013, 10:59 am

        JeffB

        America is not colonizing Iraq

        the Israeli/Zionist occupation of Historic Palestine is not simply an occupation

        it is colonization and apartheid

        There is no comparison to America’s occupation of Iraq

        There are no Jewish only colonies in Iraq with Iraqis losing land home and water to Jewish Zionist colonists

      • JeffB
        January 26, 2013, 11:45 am

        @Hostage —

        Neither the ICRC nor the Swiss government, acting as the depositary of the Geneva Conventions, serve any UN function or purpose.

        You are absolutely correct. I forgot about that. I stand corrected.

      • James Canning
        January 26, 2013, 2:07 pm

        And one might add that the ISRAEL LOBBY cares very much what the UN does and says. Why would that Lobby insist on puishing the UN, when it takes a stand in support of the basic rights of the Palestinians, if it did not matter?

      • James Canning
        January 26, 2013, 2:15 pm

        Is the UN doing Israel a favor, by demanding an end to the occupation of the West Bank?

      • Bumblebye
        January 23, 2013, 7:55 pm

        Maybe they should also vote to apply huge taxes on their occupiers, to take account of the land stolen since 67. the resources stolen, the deprivation of use, etc. And while they’re at it, the same for all lands, resources and properties from which the rightful owners are banished since 47/48 and have not received compensation! They may not get their dues, but the move would have symbolic effect.

      • American
        January 26, 2013, 1:44 pm

        Don’t polls show that most Palestinians in the West Bank do not want to be part of Israel?……James

        “Then they should be allowed to vote to end their occupation by Israel and Israel should abide by that vote”…tree

        I don’t think so….their voting in Israel elections could be construed to imply that by voting Palestines in the WB accept Israel’s sovereignty there.

      • tree
        January 29, 2013, 3:50 pm

        American,

        when I said they should be allowed to vote to end their occupation, I meant in Palestinian elections. If they don’t want to be governed by Israel then they should be allowed to vote to end their own occupation and Israel should be obliged to respect that vote and leave.

  17. bpm
    January 24, 2013, 10:46 am

    And then, of course, there is the fact that there is no party of Palestinians advocating for Palestinians in the election. It would be like slaves having to choose which master to support — a master who nonetheless supports slavery.

Leave a Reply