57 Responses

  1. seafoid
    January 18, 2013, 10:08 am

    Imagine if you believed that forcing women to give birth in the dust at checkpoints outside Jerusalem would bring your people closer to God.

  2. justicewillprevail
    January 18, 2013, 11:05 am

    It is a symbol of everything Israel has come to embody: a visceral hatred of the Other, to the extent that they force them to give birth in the most barbaric of surroundings, the message being “don’t procreate here, this is what we think of your babies, in the hope that some will not survive, because there is no place for them in this Jewish-only utopia”. Contempt for human life doesn’t come much baser.

  3. jahan
    January 18, 2013, 1:43 pm

    I can not read the source for this report. What are the statistics for subsequent years? Where can these be located?

    • Annie Robbins
      January 18, 2013, 2:12 pm

      jahan, if you click on the link at the top it leads you to the site which offers more options. under the headline “about visuals” click on the image matching the one above and you can more clearly read the smaller font in the poster that says “sources”. google those sources.

    • jon s
      January 18, 2013, 5:01 pm

      I won’t make excuses for any of the brutalities of the occupation, especially not for any cases of inhuman cruelty towards pregnant women. But note that the information- assuming it’s true- is eight years old. I wonder why.
      The poster itself is false: it implies that American and European women typically give birth in hospitals, while Palestinian women are typically forced to give birth at roadblocks. Thousands of Palestinian women give birth in hospitals every year, many of them in Israeli hospitals.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 19, 2013, 1:50 am

        jon, what is Thousands of Palestinian women give birth in hospitals every year, many of them in Israeli hospitals. if not an excuse for:

        Thousands of Palestinian women in isolated areas now resort to home births, or relocate to stay with relatives closer to a hospital in the weeks before they expect give birth.

        this is not 8 years old, it is now. you could make your point without prefacing it with I won’t make excuses for the brutalities of the occupation.

        and no, Thousands of Palestinian women giving birth in hospitals every year, does not excuse the thousands of Palestinian women in isolated areas resorting to home births, or relocating to stay with relatives closer to a hospital in the weeks before they expect give birth.

      • Avi_G.
        January 19, 2013, 2:47 am

        I won’t make excuses for any of the brutalities of the occupation, especially not for any cases of inhuman cruelty towards pregnant women.

        And yet that’s exactly what you go on to do. Strange how that works, isn’t it? Hummmmm.

      • justicewillprevail
        January 19, 2013, 7:24 am

        Well I would like to see your equanimity and disinterest in those women if they were Jewish and Palestinian roadblocks deliberately harassed and prevented them from reaching a hospital, so that they had to give birth at the roadside. So you would just say, oh lots of them do reach hospitals. Sure you would.
        The point is that this policy is deliberate and has existed for a long time. It is entirely unnecessary, deeply inhumane, yet considered so routine and unremarkable amongst the typical Israeli public that they don’t turn a hair. They couldn’t care less what ‘their boys’ get up to at roadblocks, because the subjects of their hate are the ‘other’.

      • jon s
        January 20, 2013, 7:52 am

        The “message” of the poster is that while American and European babies are generally born in hospitals, Palestinian babies are routinely born at roadblocks. That’s a lie.
        I’m not at all disinterested : I’m outraged by any such incident and would like to see any up-to-date information.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 20, 2013, 8:26 am

        The “message” of the poster is that while American and European babies are generally born in hospitals, Palestinian babies are routinely born at roadblocks. That’s a lie.

        The “message” of the poster is that while American and European babies are generally born in freedom, Palestinian babies are routinely born under occupation. That’s not a lie, it’s the truth.

        and because it’s the truth both the mothers and the babies face uncertainties and risks an american or european would not have to routinely endure.

        furthermore, 67 PALESTINIAN MOTHERS is printed in bolded font. even a fool knows in a population of millions this would not represent a ‘routine’ birth.

        I’m outraged by any such incident and would like to see any up-to-date information.

        you have an odd way of showing that outrage by shooting the messenger but your concern is noted. wrt up-to-date information, we’ll keep you posted. a more astute reader of the poster might note the years mentioned were during the 2nd intifada. one might anticipate the same tight sadistic military control over palestinian lives during another intifada. since israel has been executing children and attacking funerals again link to mondoweiss.net
        as well as other indications they are provoking an intifada (follow links) the poster is quite timely.

        here’s a podcast you might like: link to jadaliyya.com

        “‘Born at Qalandia Checkpoint’ focuses on the impact of Israeli movement restrictions on the everyday lives of Palestinians. The phenomenon of Palestinian women forced to give birth at military checkpoints peaked during the Second Intifada (2000-05). Since then, Palestinian women in remote areas have increasingly resorted to coping strategies, such as relocation in the weeks prior to delivery or giving birth at home.

        Rather than challenge Israel’s military occupation and its associated checkpoints to address these conditions, the United Nations and other agencies have opted for a ‘humanitarian’ response in choosing to support the training of midwives. While this is a necessary measure, it should not supplant the legal and/or diplomatic challenges necessary to curtail Israeli abuses. By addressing the symptoms rather than the root cause of the problem, these agencies contribute to the normalization of Israel’s ongoing military occupation.”

        speaking of your outrage, do you know how many gates the walled city of qalandia has? or how many tens of thousands of innocent palestinians are imprisoned there under israel’s brutal military occupation of palestine?

      • MHughes976
        January 20, 2013, 9:25 am

        A member of my very extended family was recently born on the front lawn, since things happened too quickly. There were helpful paramedics and police officers around, bringing a general air of humanity and optimism. The poster’s message is that under any ‘occupation’ – under the heel of a conqueror, to be more accurate – babies are sometimes born where agents of the sovereign power obstruct rather than assist and where the mother is not helped but profoundly humiliated. The humiliation may nor may involve roadblocks but it’s always there in some degree of intensity.

      • Cliff
        January 20, 2013, 9:27 am

        thats not the message of the poster, jon s.

        the message of the poster is the outrageousness that even 1 palestinian mother is forced to give birth at a roadblock

        the message is that Israeli colonialism, apartheid, and occupation must end

        BDS!

      • eljay
        January 20, 2013, 9:55 am

        >> The “message” of the poster is that while American and European babies are generally born in hospitals, Palestinian babies are routinely born at roadblocks. That’s a lie.

        The message of the poster is that, unlike the 67 Palestinian babies born between 2000 and 2005 at check-points manned by an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State”, no American or European babies are born at check-points manned by an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State”.

        You’re offended not because it’s a lie, and not because you have comprehension issues, but because the poster reveals yet another ugly truth about Zio-supremacism and, as a hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist, you prefer to keep those ugly truths hidden.

      • jon s
        January 20, 2013, 4:34 pm

        The poster clearly implies that just as American and European babies are likely to be born in hospitals, Palestinian babies are likely to be born at roadblocks. If I saw the poster, and didn’t know better, that would be my conclusion.
        How many Palestinian babies were born at roadblocks since, say, 2010?
        And, for the same period, how many Palestinian patients were treated at Israeli hospitals?
        Eljay, if you need to resort to calling me names – I must have made a point. What makes me a “supremacist”? When did I ever advocate supremacy by any people over any other? I wonder who is “hateful”? You’re the one who seems to be full of hate.

      • eljay
        January 20, 2013, 6:14 pm

        >> The poster clearly implies that just as American and European babies are likely to be born in hospitals, Palestinian babies are likely to be born at roadblocks. If I saw the poster, and didn’t know better, that would be my conclusion.

        The poster very clearly states that between 2000 and 2005, 67 Palestinian women gave birth at check-points. There is no indication that American or European women, during that same period of time, gave birth at check-points. The conclusion one would draw is that the lives of Palestinian women – unlike the lives of American or European women – is impacted by check-points.

        Hmmm…it seems you do also have comprehension issues.

        >> Eljay, if you need to resort to calling me names – I must have made a point.

        I didn’t call you names – I identified you as a Zio-supremacist, because that’s who you are. The only point you continue to make is that you are, in fact, a Zio-supremacist.

        >> What makes me a “supremacist”?

        You advocate for a supremacist “Jewish state”, a state in which Jews have more and different rights than non-Jews, a state in which non-Jews are not equal to Jews. That’s what makes you a supremacist.

        >> When did I ever advocate supremacy by any people over any other?

        Every time you advocate for Israel as a “Jewish state” rather than as a secular, democratic and egalitarian Israeli state, a state of and for all Israelis, equally.

        >> I wonder who is “hateful”? You’re the one who seems to be full of hate.

        Let’s see:
        – You are a Zio-supremacist who advocates for and defends Israel as a supremacist “Jewish state”.
        – I advocate for peace, justice, equality and accountability (among other things).

        But I’m the one who’s full of hate. That’s funny… :-)

      • justicewillprevail
        January 20, 2013, 10:04 pm

        Perhaps you would like to provide us with any evidence of a radical change in policy, since you are clinging on to an unfounded belief that somehow things have improved in the last two years (denialism). In fact, given the emboldenment of settlers and right wing fascists, they have probably worsened.

        link to newint.org

        Some choice snippets:

        “Israel has over 500 checkpoints and barriers across occupied Palestine; a journey that should take minutes can take hours. Approximately 18,000 pregnant Palestinian women each year will develop complications.”

        “According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, 10 per cent of pregnant Palestinian women were forced to endure labour or childbirth at a checkpoint between 2000 and 2007, resulting in the death of at least 35 babies and five women during the seven-year period.”

        “The Fourth Geneva Convention states that ‘expectant mothers shall be the object of particular protection and respect’. Yet, in 2009, the Committee Against Torture said it was ‘seriously concerned’ by the ‘undue delays and denial of entry’ at Israeli checkpoints of those seeking urgent medical care”

        “In March 2009, there was international outrage over a set of t-shirts commissioned by Israeli soldiers depicting a pregnant Palestinian with a target over her belly. Over the image were the words One shot – two kills.”

      • Cliff
        January 20, 2013, 10:30 pm

        jon s, you ARE a supremacist and racist. those aren’t insults, it’s the truth.

        your first reaction was typical zionist obfuscation and a form of the non-apology apology

        How many Palestinian babies were born at roadblocks since, say, 2010?

        one too many

        the point of this graphic is to illustrate Israeli colonialism and apartheid

        how many Palestinians were treated in Israel? I don’t know or care. it wouldn’t change the colonial reality and it wouldn’t negate the daily violence, abuse and murder inflicted on the Palestinians by the Israelis

        this poster demonstrates the dichotomoy and power dynamic between Israel and the Palestinian people

        got a problem with that? tough, that’s the truth

        you don’t care about anyone but your tribe. you simply advocate. you don’t think, you just react.

        your comments and those similar to your line of argumentation (oh, but 1 palestinian got some asprin at an israeli hospital/oh, but Israeli Arabs can vote/oh, but Israel dropped thousands of leaflets) are ALL designed specifically to paint a much rosier picture of the occupation, colonization and apartheid inflicted on the Palestinians by the Israelis

      • jon s
        January 22, 2013, 1:50 am

        Right, all the peoples of the world can have nation-states. A Jewish state -that’s racism. Go figure.

        Anyway, I’m going out to vote…

      • Hostage
        January 22, 2013, 2:31 am

        Right, all the peoples of the world can have nation-states. A Jewish state -that’s racism. Go figure.

        You probably just need to get out of your parent’s basement more often. The idea of the nation-state as a organizing principal in international relations has no influential advocates these days. It’s an archaic construct that’s at total odds with 21st century realities and moral values.

        Several years ago, the late Tony Judt explained that the hey-day of nation-states was back in the 19th century and that Israel is anachronism in the modern world.
        link to nybooks.com

      • Cliff
        January 22, 2013, 5:27 am

        jon s

        Right, all the peoples of the world can have nation-states. A Jewish state -that’s racism. Go figure.

        Is any individual a representative of ‘all nation-states’? Why should I have to defend the American nation-state to criticize the Jewish State?

        I don’t. I simply live here by accident of birth. I had nothing to do with the destruction of the indigenous American peoples. That’s reality, not rhetoric.

        Israel’s colonial project is still on-going and the indigenous Palestinian Arabs are still around in large enough numbers that you have to occupy and oppress them while Jews by virtue of being Jewish are allowed to STEAL their land and resources.

        Jewish nationalism is not benign. Manifest Destiny is not benign. American colonialism exists still in different forms. I do not support either and in 2013, it’s pathetic that you still utilize this argument to disassemble.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 22, 2013, 6:53 am

        “Right,all the peoples of the world can have nation-states. A Jewish state -that’s racism. Go figure.”

        Yes because nowhere else in the world is this nation-state built by stealing the land from a people, who are then excluded from the state.

      • MRW
        January 22, 2013, 7:28 am

        @jon S,

        Or you could Shlomo Sand’s books. He explains the 19th C character of a nation-state in them. You can even read them in Hebrew.

      • eljay
        January 22, 2013, 8:20 am

        >> Right, all the peoples of the world can have nation-states. A Jewish state -that’s racism. Go figure.

        I prefer to call it supremacism. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

        Y’know, you continue to claim that you’re not a supremacist, and that you advocate for Israel as a democracy in which all citizens have equal rights.

        Setting aside for a moment the fact that you approve of the immorality and injustice of giving to all Jews in the world (and their descendants) the right to migrate to and colonize Israel while simultaneously denying to the original inhabitants (and their descendants) of that region the right to return to the homes and lands from which they were ethnically cleansed by Jews, I would appreciate it if you would answer these two questions:

        1. Should the size of the non-Jewish demographic in Israel be in any way prevented from exceeding the size of the Jewish demographic in Israel?
        YES / NO

        2. If the size of the non-Jewish demographic in Israel were to exceed the size of the Jewish demographic in Israel, should the non-Jewish demographic be prevented from democratically modifying any existing legislation or enacting any new legislation which improves or strengthens the secular, democratic and egalitarian nature of Israel as a state of and for all its citizens, equally?
        YES / NO

        If you can honestly answer “no” to both questions, I will no longer refer to you as a Zio-supremacist.

        Thank you.

      • eljay
        January 22, 2013, 9:37 am

        Minor correction: ” … giving to all Jews in the world (and their descendants) the right to migrate to and colonize Israel … “

      • jon s
        January 22, 2013, 9:57 am

        Hostage,
        I don’t know what planet you live on. Most of the states in the world today are nation-states. As a matter of fact since the collapse of Communism and the dissolution of the USSR, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, the number of nation-states has actually increased. In the near future we may see the establishment of independent nation-states in Scotland and Catalonia. So much for “anachronism”.
        My parents, of blessed memory, are long gone. Your mention of them was uncalled-for , a cheap shot.

      • jon s
        January 22, 2013, 10:01 am

        MRW,
        I’ve read them.

      • jon s
        January 22, 2013, 10:12 am

        Eljay,
        As you can imagine, I don’t agree with your narrative.
        If you’ve read my past posts you know that I strongly support two states: both peoples have equal rights, including the right to self-determination, in states of their own. Self-determination means just that, the right to determine, democratically, the system of government, and the definition of the state’s character. So my answer to your questions is “no”.

      • Mooser
        January 22, 2013, 12:18 pm

        “Right, all the peoples of the world can have nation-states. A Jewish state -that’s racism. Go figure.”

        Exactly, jon s. For whatever reason (like maybe, not being able to deliver what they promised) the Zionists decided to organise the Jewish State with, and around racism. That’s the way you treat the holiest ground in the Jewish religion? Feh!

        Oh well, I don’t know why I get all famischt. I’ve already seen someone blame God rather than blame Zionism, after that nothing should surprise me.

      • jon s
        January 22, 2013, 2:38 pm

        Cliff
        “One Palestinian got an aspirin…” – What can I say? Get on a plane, land in Israel, walk into any hospital, see for yourself…

      • eljay
        January 22, 2013, 6:39 pm

        >> jon s: … my answer to your questions is “no”.

        Thank you for your reply. So, just to confirm – because I really don’t want to misunderstand what you’ve written – in addition to full equality for all Israelis in a democratic Israel, you believe that:

        1. The size of the non-Jewish demographic in Israel should not, in any way, be prevented from exceeding the size of the Jewish demographic in Israel.

        2. Should the size of the non-Jewish demographic in Israel exceed the size of the Jewish demographic in Israel, the non-Jewish demographic must not be prevented from democratically modifying any existing legislation or enacting any new legislation which improves or strengthens the secular, democratic and egalitarian nature of Israel as a state of and for all its citizens, equally.

        I’m very happy to read this. Aside from your support for the immoral and unjust “right of return” for Jews only (and perhaps a questionable stand on the final sovereignty status and borders of a new Palestine – I’m not 100% certain of where you stand on those issues), we appear to agree that democracy and equality are more important than supremacism.

        Thank you.

      • jon s
        January 23, 2013, 1:07 am

        Eljay,
        You’re assuming where I stand on the right of return, an issue which I didn’t mention on this thread. I don’t oppose the Palestinian RoR, as long as it’s implemented in the context of the Palestinian State. In other words the Palestinian refugees who so wish will return to Palestine, to the Palestinian State established in the two state solution.
        The borders should be based on the pre-1967 lines, any alterations – to be negotiated.

      • Shmuel
        January 23, 2013, 2:14 am

        I don’t oppose the Palestinian RoR, as long as it’s implemented in the context of the Palestinian State.

        That’s a rather dishonest way of putting it, jon. In matter of fact, you oppose the Palestinian right of return (as defined by UNGA Res. 194 and its subsequent reaffirmations, and by the Palestinians themselves), and suggest that it be replaced by something else entirely – that would, in any case, be up to a sovereign Palestinian state to decide, without any need for “concessions” or “permission” from Israeli Jews.

        Unlike the Zionist concept of “return”, which is national and necessarily disconnected from specific property, homes, villages, regions, etc., the Palestinian right of return is an individual human right that cannot be satisfied by repatriation to some part of a national territory.

        As you clearly oppose the Palestinian right of return, where do you stand on the questions of Israeli acceptance of responsibility for the Nakba (and subsequent ethnic cleansings) and compensation?

      • thankgodimatheist
        January 23, 2013, 4:16 am

        “I don’t oppose the Palestinian RoR, as long as it’s implemented in the context of the Palestinian State. In other words the Palestinian refugees who so wish will return to Palestine, to the Palestinian State established in the two state solution.”
        Sir is too kind for not objecting to their return to somewhere else but what about ROR to where they came from, Israel? Obviously you oppose it..Funny you don’t realise the ridicule behind your statement.

      • Hostage
        January 23, 2013, 5:48 am

        I don’t oppose the Palestinian RoR, as long as it’s implemented in the context of the Palestinian State.

        I don’t oppose the right of any refugee to live wherever they want in their State of Palestine. But that doesn’t address the right of refugees from the territory of Israel to return to their country of origin.

        where do you stand on the questions of Israeli acceptance of responsibility for the Nakba (and subsequent ethnic cleansings) and compensation?

        Even if a refugee chooses to move to the new state of Palestine, that would not have any bearing on existing claims for compensation.

      • eljay
        January 23, 2013, 6:52 am

        >> You’re assuming where I stand on the right of return … I don’t oppose the Palestinian RoR, as long … the Palestinian refugees who so wish will return to … the Palestinian State established in the two state solution.

        In other words, I assumed correctly when I said in my earlier post: ” … you approve of … giving to all Jews in the world (and their descendants) the right to migrate to Israel while simultaneously denying to the original inhabitants (and their descendants) of that region the right to return to the homes and lands from which they were ethnically cleansed … ”

        >> The borders should be based on the pre-1967 lines, any alterations – to be negotiated.

        IMO, the borders should be based on 1947 Partition lines, any alterations – to be negotiated. Anything else rewards Israel for its conquest…and further reduces the size of the Palestine to which you generously permit the Palestinians who were cleansed from 1947 Israel to return.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 23, 2013, 10:34 am

        “I don’t oppose the Palestinian RoR, as long as it’s implemented in the context of the Palestinian State.”

        Then you do oppose the right of return, because the right of return is the right of a refugee to return to the place from which he was driven so long as he agrees to live in peace with his neighbor. You want to impliment an apartheid separation and call it justice, which is consistent with your vile, gutter philosophy of zionism.

      • jon s
        January 23, 2013, 2:25 pm

        Shmuel,
        You seem to be saying, in effect, that we need to accept the radical Palestinian position, period. I happen to think that negotiation, concessions and compromise (by both sides) are not dirty words.
        Implementing the RoR in the Palestinian state is a reasonable and practical option. You accuse me of dishonesty, but it seems to me that demanding the RoR to their actual former homes inside Israel , without admitting that that’s a euphemism for the destruction of Israel – there’s the dishonesty.

      • Shmuel
        January 23, 2013, 3:02 pm

        You seem to be saying, in effect, that we need to accept the radical Palestinian position, period.

        Not really – although I do consider the right of return, as understood by the UNGA and the refugees themselves, to be a moral, legal and pragmatic imperative.

        The thrust of my comment was that you do not in fact accept RoR, and so it is dishonest to state that you do – redefining the concept to the point of emptying it of all meaning. If you reject Palestinian RoR (as do the vast majority of Jewish Israelis), please say so, instead of playing semantic games.

        it seems to me that demanding the RoR to their actual former homes inside Israel , without admitting that that’s a euphemism for the destruction of Israel – there’s the dishonesty.

        The expression “destruction of Israel” is also dishonest in this context, as advocating the RoR implies no such thing. What it does imply is an end to ethnocracy, apartheid and ethnic cleansing. I would call that “constructive” rather than “destructive”, but to each his own.

      • eljay
        January 23, 2013, 3:03 pm

        >> … it seems to me that demanding the RoR to their actual former homes inside Israel , without admitting that that’s a euphemism for the destruction of Israel – there’s the dishonesty.

        1. The RoR of Palestinians to their former homes and lands (with the option of compensation in lieu) is a moral obligation, not merely a pleasantry.
        2. Not all Palestinians refugees were cleansed from within Partition-borders Israel, so not all Palestinian refugees would be entitled to return to Partition-borders Israel.
        3. Of those who would be entitled to return to Partition-borders Israel, some (many? most?) might opt for compensation in lieu, and settle in Palestine instead.
        4. Conflating the destruction of supremacist “Jewish State” with the destruction of the state of Israel is pure fear-mongering. RoR may very well result in the former – a good thing, IMO – but no one can claim to know for certain that it will result in the latter.

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2013, 3:25 pm

        “The idea of the nation-state as a organizing principal in international relations has no influential advocates these days. It’s an archaic construct that’s at total odds with 21st century realities and moral values.”

        But they gave it to us for half off! We grabbed it at one of theose “Going out of Business, Old Ideologies 50% off” sales. You don’t think on us it looks good?

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2013, 3:31 pm

        “Even if a refugee chooses to move to the new state of Palestine, that would not have any bearing on existing claims for compensation.”

        Ouch! That could get expensive, couldn’t it? Not even to mention the cost of adjudicating and administering. Oh well, Israel has experience with Holocaust compensation claims. I’m sure they can mange it.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 23, 2013, 3:32 pm

        “…but it seems to me that demanding the RoR to their actual former homes inside Israel , without admitting that that’s a euphemism for the destruction of Israel – there’s the dishonesty.”

        Nonsense. The right of return is a personal right that also has the purpose of demonstrating a refusal to abide by ethnic cleansing.

        What is dishonest is the zionist pretense that the refusal to permit the return of the Palestinian refugees is anything other than the plea for the world to agree that ethnic cleansing acceptable when Jews are the perpetrators.

      • jon s
        January 23, 2013, 4:17 pm

        Eljay,
        My turn to ask you a question: do I understand correctly from your previous post that you accept the principle of partition? Two states, as recommended by the UN in 1947?
        If you accept the principle, as I do, then the drawing of the precise borders becomes a practical, political , issue , to be worked out between the sides.

      • Hostage
        January 23, 2013, 4:18 pm

        I happen to think that negotiation, concessions and compromise (by both sides) are not dirty words.
        Implementing the RoR in the Palestinian state is a reasonable and practical option.

        But Israel doesn’t even have a proper role to play in any transactions that take place between Palestinian refugees and the government of the State of Palestine. So what negotiation, concessions, compromise, or implementation can you possibly have in mind in that regard? You only accept RoR in a context that’s none of your business?

      • tree
        January 23, 2013, 4:41 pm

        Jon, the “principle of Partition” that you claim to accept included the right of the inhabitants of either partitioned state to be full citizens of that state regardless of their religion or ethnicity. Therefore, the RoR is completely in line with the UN Partition Plan, since the ethnically cleansed Palestinians who inhabited the area claimed by Israel were entitled to full citizenship there under the UN Partition Plan.

        You like to portray yourself as accepting the principle but you clearly only accept a “Jewish State” which is allowed to ethnically cleanse non-Jews without proper legal or political remedy.

        Here’s the Plan, verbatim, from the UN site:

        link to domino.un.org

        Try reading Chapters 2 and 3 in particular. In opposing the RoR you are in opposition to the clearly defined principles of the UN 1947 Partition Plan.

      • tree
        January 23, 2013, 4:52 pm

        If you accept the principle, as I do, then the drawing of the precise borders becomes a practical, political , issue , to be worked out between the sides.

        Since Israel did not negotiate its borders but rather obtained them through aggression, do you admit that Israel did not accept the “principle” in 1947 that you now claim to “accept”? Do you consider Israel to be wrong in not accepting that principle, including the right of all inhabitants of either partitioned state to full citizenship in the state in which they lived? Either way, why is it now morally incumbent upon Palestinians to negotiate with their occupiers exactly how much more of their truncated and occupied territory they must give up to Israel? And why must they violate the principles of the Partition Plan by waving away the RoR in return for Israel’s acquiescence in forming a bantustan on a fraction of the original “Arab State”?

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2013, 5:24 pm

        “You probably just need to get out of your parent’s basement more often.” Hostage

        “My parents, of blessed memory, are long gone. Your mention of them was uncalled-for , a cheap shot.” “jon s”

        Wait a minute, “jon s”, let me check something…. Yes the “Zionist over-sensitivity” thread is still active.

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2013, 5:40 pm

        “The expression “destruction of Israel” is also dishonest in this context”

        Very much so. If Palestinian Right of Return destroys Israel, it will only be because the Zionists decided to destroy it rather than have their regime pass. So basically, you’re threatening to burn down your own house if “Arabs” have to live there, too, on terms of equality.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 23, 2013, 6:10 pm

        we need to accept the radical Palestinian position, period. I happen to think that negotiation, concessions and compromise (by both sides) are not dirty words.

        what’s your definition of radical? american values? no one here thinks they’re dirty jon, it’s just useless for a bald man to visit the barber shop for anything other than clean shave or to have his beard clipped.

        and as your humping the ‘destruction’ hasbara, and your dishonest “admit” lingo, obviously ending SA apartheid didn’t destroy the state. all you’ve got is empty words jon, backed by nothing. we’ve been listening to this same lingo for waaay too long. and speaking of euphemisms, the reference to ‘parents basement’ has nothing to do with your parents.

        link to urbandictionary.com

        but your ‘sensitivity’ is noted.

      • eljay
        January 23, 2013, 6:20 pm

        >> My turn to ask you a question:

        Please do.

        >> … do I understand correctly from your previous post that you accept the principle of partition? Two states, as recommended by the UN in 1947?

        That is correct. I believe that two states should exist, each of which should be the state of and for all of its people, equally.

        >> If you accept the principle, as I do, then the drawing of the precise borders becomes a practical, political , issue , to be worked out between the sides.

        The precise borders are the borders delineated by the UN, and accepted by Israel. If Israel wishes to keep some portion of what it has stolen outside of those borders, I agree completely that the re-drawing of those borders becomes a practical, political, issue, to be worked out between the sides.

      • eljay
        January 24, 2013, 7:44 am

        >> jon s: … do I understand correctly from your previous post that you accept the principle of partition? Two states, as recommended by the UN in 1947?
        >> eljay: That is correct.

        To correct/clarify: I do not accept that the U.N. had a right to partition Palestine against the will of the inhabitants of that region.

        I do, however, accept:
        – that Palestine was partitioned;
        – that the state of Israel currently exists and that the state of Palestine should exist alongside it;
        – that both states should be secular, democratic and egalitarian states of and for their respective citizens, equally; and
        – that Partition borders must be respected, with any alterations arising through negotiations and not through conquest.

  4. American
    January 18, 2013, 2:47 pm

    More bad news—or good news depending on how you look at it. In one way, more of these crazies in the Israeli government might be good…..they could bring the Israel problem to a head and force the world to finally deal with it. Obviously Israel’s past and current craziness hasn’t been severe enough for the world to actually ‘do’ anything about it except go tisk, tisk. If Caroline Glick approves this crowd you can be sure they are certifiably insane.

    The heart of Israel: The Second Zionist Revolution
    By Bernie Quigley – 01/18/13 08:24 AM ET

    “It makes no difference who is sitting on the throne,” Moshe Feiglin writes from Jerusalem this week in his commentary on Torah. “What really matters is where the heart of the nation resides.” Feiglin is writing about how Pharaoh sees the great power he is, a power telling him he is god the river, and god the creator of all that is, as it disintegrates around him and the world awaken again from the wreckage with Aaron and Moses. It is a fully appropriate reading for this week as Israelis prepare to go to the polls. The creations of Pharaoh appear on the verge of falling into the river, and Israel on the verge of finding its heart.

    Two men, Moshe Feiglin and Naftali Bennett, enter the Knesset this week and their rise has already changed the trajectory of Israel. The influential Israeli columnist Caroline Glick reports:

    “Next week we’re going to vote and it is already clear that Israel is in the midst of the Second Zionist Revolution. The first Zionist revolution was a socialist revolution. The second Zionist revolution is Jewish. Israel is coming into its own. Judaism is flourishing, changing, living and breathing here like it never has anywhere since the destruction of the Second Commonwealth. The secular left has been eclipsed by the Jewish right. I don’t call it the religious right because that is too limiting. What’s happening isn’t just about religion, it’s about everything, and that is why non-observant hipsters in Tel Aviv are voting for the Jewish Home party. Non-observant and observant Jews are joining forces and the anti-religious are being left behind.”

    Read more: link to thehill.com

    • Woody Tanaka
      January 18, 2013, 4:30 pm

      “Next week we’re going to vote and it is already clear that Israel is in the midst of the Second Zionist Revolution. The first Zionist revolution was a socialist revolution. The second Zionist revolution is Jewish.”

      So zionism constitutes this latest nationalist revolution which folowed the socialist one. So is israel now officially a National Socialist country? Or does it merely play one on TV?

    • justicewillprevail
      January 19, 2013, 7:28 am

      This ‘second’ Zionist revolution is familiar to anybody who has studied history. It is more commonly called fascism.

  5. W.Jones
    January 18, 2013, 5:44 pm

    Thanks for your reporting, once again, Mondoweiss.

  6. Stephen Shenfield
    January 18, 2013, 7:13 pm

    We’ve all heard about the checkpoints, but it might be worth explaining what all the other “obstacles to movement” are. Many roads leading into and out of villages are blocked by ditches and mounds of earth. Agile youngsters can jump the ditches and scramble round the mounds, but vehicles cannot get through and older people are effectively confined to their villages. If villagers clear the mounds and fill in the ditches, the army comes back and restores them. I saw photos of these blocked roads in some book; I can’t remember the source info.

Leave a Reply