Gideon Levy: It’s time for a ‘one person, one vote’ movement to end Israeli oppression

ActivismIsrael/Palestine
on 138 Comments

The Israeli columnist Gideon Levy has an important piece in Haaretz today calling on the Palestinians to adopt a “one person, one vote” movement to hasten the end of Israeli control over Palestinian lives. While parts of the piece read like a lecture to Palestinians, the general thrust of it is important to air. 

Levy calls on Palestinians to heed the lessons of the South African anti-apartheid movement. The dream of a Palestinian state is withering away, and so their struggle should focus on changing the nature of the Israeli system that rules over their lives.

Here’s an excerpt from the end of the column:

This world cannot remain indifferent to the basic demand of one person, one vote; no one can possibly refuse such a basic right of every human being.

Focusing on this demand will disarm Israel of all its excuses. What can it say? That the Palestinians aren’t human? That they don’t have rights like any other nation? Not every nation has a state, but every person has the right to vote. Palestinians do not have voting rights in the state that determines their fate. Theirs must be a struggle for this right without criminal violence, such as the terror of the second intifada. Such a struggle will attract international support by peoples and governments. Nobody, apart from the Israelis, could possibly oppose it. Israelis will be forced to reexamine their values, beliefs, and all the sacred truths and red lines they invented. Israelis will be forced to admit that for some time now theyhave been living in one state, but it is shadowed by a form of apartheid. Once this happens, there are only two possibilities: Either the Palestinians will succeed as Mandela did to calm people’s fears, and the all-Israeli nightmare of the one-democratic-state solution will make way for the promise of a bright future; or Israelis will finally come to their senses and hasten to withdraw from all the occupied territories and allow, at virtually the last moment, the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. There is no other just possibility for a solution of the conflict.

138 Responses

  1. seafoid
    April 25, 2013, 5:18 pm

    It’s a great piece.

    The Israelis should
    link to northernsun.com
    while they still have time to make choices

  2. sjarjour
    April 25, 2013, 5:30 pm

    I don’t think the dream of a viable Palestinian state is withering away just because no progress is being made. That’s the nature of fighting for justice. It’s a slow and gradual process. Sometimes it’s stagnant and even receding. There were many times when it seemed the possibility of abolishing slavery or ending discrimination in the United States was withering away. But change can occur in an instant. The primary issue is getting the United States to stop supporting Israel’s every move. If that happens, Israel will be forced to withdraw from the territories without a pout. If anything, the 2 state settlement has a better chance of succeeding than the 1 state settlement, for international law supports it. And I think 1 state is simply a harder sell for the public. Not a single government supports it, no one has even heard of it. And how do you even get there? There’s no real framework as far as I can tell. At least with the 2 state settlement there’s a framework.

    • Bumblebye
      April 25, 2013, 9:06 pm

      The “dream of a viable Palestinian state” is somewhere near cloud cuckoo land just about now. Given the present set of geo-political facts. “Change” is not about to happen in an instant, as it most certainly did not with either of your examples – the first was decades of activism followed by war, the second was decades of activism before some political change. How do you a) propose ending US support for Israel or b) getting Israel out of occupied Palestine “without a pout”?
      And…not a single government supports the 2ss – they pay lip service to it and then undermine it (most especially the US – see the Susan Rice thread).
      The one state solution requires a whole new constitution – no, that’s wrong, Israel never wrote a first one – actually means rewriting all the laws and ending zionism as its founding and permanent philosophy. We all know that leads to wails of “destruction of Israeeeeeel! Waaaaahhhhh!”

    • Kathleen
      April 26, 2013, 12:55 am

      One expert (Mearsheimer led the way) after the next have been saying the two state solution has been dead for a long time. The facts are on the ground..Israel keeps stealing more and more land. Apartheid is just not going to work much longer

      One state one vote.

    • SQ Debris
      April 26, 2013, 6:25 pm

      One person, one vote has been viable in Palestine since before there was an Israel. It’s been viable since the end of the Ottoman Empire. Martin Buber supported it. Zionist avoidance/denial of real democracy does’t make it a dead letter. Yes, it is scary to think of Palestinians as actual persons. No human person could support what has been done to them if they were actually people. Levy is crossing into the Land of the Reasonable with this piece and he should be applauded loud and long.

    • chrisrushlau
      April 30, 2013, 2:30 pm

      The framework needs room for the five-thousand-foot runways for the state-of-the-art Palestinian air force and the ports for its nuclear-armed submarines. The virtue of the two-state-solution is that it brings things down to concrete matters. It’s like proposing, as Rich Little did for Ronald Reagan’s inaugural ball, building a railroad to the sun to bring back solar energy. That was the last we heard of Rich Little–he added that the President regretfully announced that the choo-choo’s kept burning up. Israel is a laugh from start to finish. LOL.

  3. sjarjour
    April 25, 2013, 5:33 pm

    And Gideon remarks that there are TWO possibilities. He doesn’t reject the 2 state settlement.

    “…there are only two possibilities: Either the Palestinians will succeed as Mandela did to calm people’s fears, and the all-Israeli nightmare of the one-democratic-state solution will make way for the promise of a bright future; or Israelis will finally come to their senses and hasten to withdraw from all the occupied territories and allow, at virtually the last moment, the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. There is no other just possibility for a solution of the conflict.”

    • Shingo
      April 26, 2013, 5:43 pm

      He doesn’t reject the 2 state settlement.

      It’s not a matter of rejecting it. It’s that it is impossible.

      Either the Palestinians will succeed as Mandela did to calm people’s fears, and the all-Israeli nightmare of the one-democratic-state solution will make way for the promise of a bright future;

      This is obviously asking the Palestinians to pull off an impossible task. Mandela only had to convince the people the black population would not seek retribution. The Palestinians would have to not only make those assurances on it’s own behalf, but on behalf of all of humanity. After all, Israeli Jews have been raised to believe that all non Jews are anti Semites.

  4. mondonut
    April 25, 2013, 6:12 pm

    Focusing on this demand will disarm Israel of all its excuses. What can it say? That the Palestinians aren’t human? That they don’t have rights like any other nation? Not every nation has a state, but every person has the right to vote.

    What a red herring, sure most people have the right to vote but no nation of people have the right to vote in the elections of another country.

    Then again, what this really sounds like is a call for Israel to formally annex what the Palestinians consider their own territory. So sure, I think most of Israel would be up for that. In fact a recent poll said exactly the same.

    So for anyone who feels they might agree with this nonsense, try out this likely formula. The Israelis annex the entirety of the West Bank and make a one time offer of Israeli citizenship to anyone who wants it, thereby creating the desired one state, one person, one vote.

    Of course the non-existent RoR will not be honored, nor will Gaza be included in this offer – they can remain the eternally hostile nation of Palestine. A simple peace treaty will take down the blockade and then they can get busy with their own nation building.

    • Walid
      April 26, 2013, 2:29 am

      mondonut, what’s your reasoning behind the RoR being “nonexistent”?

      • mondonut
        April 26, 2013, 8:30 am

        Walid says: mondonut, what’s your reasoning behind the RoR being “nonexistent”?
        =========================================
        The Palestinians almost exclusively reference UNGA 194 as the source of the “right” of refugees and all of their descendants to return to Israel. And then through a series of legal contortions attempt to make a non-binding resolution into customary law. But it is not, it is neither binding nor law.

      • Walid
        April 26, 2013, 9:23 am

        One could equally argue that UNGA 181 is neither binding nor law. Which way would you want it?

      • mondonut
        April 26, 2013, 10:19 am

        Walid says: One could equally argue that UNGA 181 is neither binding nor law. Which way would you want it?
        =====================================
        I would agree, 181 is neither binding nor law. Moot point however, as it has no bearing on the existence of Israel.

      • Walid
        April 26, 2013, 11:15 am

        Neither does the unenforceability of the 194 has any bearing on the existence of the 5 million Palestinians that Zionists pretend don’t exist and will continue to exist and multiply to keep Israelis looking over their shoulders and under their beds for ever and ever and ever.

      • talknic
        April 26, 2013, 4:39 pm

        mondonut
        “181 is neither binding nor law. Moot point however, as it has no bearing on the existence of Israel”

        Bullsh*t! The final act of acceptance is UNGA res 181 being enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. Maybe they made a mistake?

        Confirmed the next morning (15th May 1948) in Israel’s plea for recognition

        “I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time”

        And that is how Israel was recognized. Thus far no one recognizes Israel beyond those boundaries. Not even the USA can link to pages.citebite.com lest it break the treaty it ratified in 1934

        Furthermore:

        Friday, 5 March 1948 Rabbi Silver stated to the UNSC

        “Nevertheless, reluctantly but loyally, we accepted the decision which appeared fair and reasonable to the United Nations”

        “We feel under the obligation to make our position unmistakably clear. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision. “

        Friday, 19 March 1948 Rabbi Silver replacing Mr. Shertok at the Council table as representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine stated

        “We are under the obligation at this time to repeat what we stated at a [262nd meeting] meeting of the Security Council last week: The decision of the General Assembly remains valid for the Jewish people. We have accepted it and we are prepared to abide by it. If the United Nations Palestine Commission is unable to carry out the mandates which were assigned to it by the General Assembly, the Jewish people of Palestine will move forward in the spirit of that resolution and will do everything which is dictated by considerations of national survival and by considerations of justice and historic rights.”

        “The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State.”

        And again:
        Security Council S/PV.271 19 March 1948 The representative of the Jewish Agency, Rabbi Silver:

        The statement that the plan proposed by the General Assembly is an integral plan which cannot succeed unless each of its parts can be carried out, is incorrect. This conception was never part of the plan. Indeed, it is contrary to the statement made by the representative of the United States during the second session of the General Assembly. The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State. Mr. Herschel Johnson, representing the United States delegation, speaking in a sub-committee of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question on 28 October 1947, stated, in discussing this very matter in connexion with economic union: “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.” link to wp.me (primary source documents linked)

        You will of course ignore the words of the Jewish Agency because they unravel your nonsense and leave you naked and wading around in elephant poo. Unless of course the official representative of the Jewish agency was LYING! Take your pick.

      • talknic
        April 26, 2013, 4:55 pm

        mondonut “The Palestinians almost exclusively reference UNGA 194 as the source of the “right” of refugees and all of their descendants..”

        Cut the bullsh*t pal! There is no RoR for lineal descendants under UNGA res 194 DEFINITION OF A “REFUGEE” UNDER PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION OF 11 DECEMBER 1948 (UNGA res 194) People must have been LIVING in the area of return. It included Jewish folk too BTW or are you claiming Jews had no right of return to Arab States? They weren’t refugees? They had no right to compensation?

        “And then through a series of legal contortions attempt to make a non-binding resolution into customary law”

        Strange…. the resolution is based on and reminds the parties of the law.

        11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible; link to unispal.un.org

      • Shingo
        April 26, 2013, 6:46 pm

        The Palestinians almost exclusively reference UNGA 194 as the source of the “right” of refugees and all of their descendants to return to Israel. And then through a series of legal contortions attempt to make a non-binding resolution into customary law. But it is not, it is neither binding nor law.

        The term right of return refers to a principle of international law, codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, giving any person the right to return to, and re-enter, his or her country of origin. This principle is sometimes reflected in special consideration in a country’s immigration laws (called “repatriation”) which facilitate or encourage the reunion of a diaspora.
        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • mondonut
        April 26, 2013, 10:10 pm

        Shingo says: The term right of return refers to a principle of international law, codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
        ================================================
        It was not International Law prior to being codified s you referenced, nor was it after – as neither of those instruments created law or provided to the Palestinians that rights that they claim.

      • mondonut
        April 26, 2013, 10:31 pm

        talknic says: Bullsh*t! The final act of acceptance is UNGA res 181 being enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. Maybe they made a mistake?
        ================================================
        Not bullshit. Nothing that you quote or cut and paste from your Quixotic website in any way makes UNGA 181 International Law, including the stated Israeli willingness (at the time) to consider it binding.

        It was and ever will be a General Assembly Resolution and nothing more. The Israelis can choose to reference or abide to it as they choose but it is still a GA resolution and nothing more. It is not law, it is not binding, and it never will be.

        It is in fact a dead letter resolution, in its day ignored by both the world powers and the Arabs, today only in use by desperate Palestinian supporters such as yourself who think they have the Israelis outsmarted.

        If it had never existed Israel still would. It did not create Israel, the Israelis did. Israel exists and will continue to, with or without it. It has no meaning.

      • Menachem
        April 27, 2013, 12:35 am

        Shingo you nailed it, thank you. Everything in that wikipedia page talks about sovereign states dictating their own immigration policies. Once there is a Palestinian state fully recognized by the international community, they too can decide who can immigrate to their new country. Hopefully they allow all the of the descendants of the Palestinians refugees from the Nakba be allowed back in to create a prosperous state.

      • RoHa
        April 27, 2013, 2:24 am

        “Hopefully they allow all the of the descendants of the Palestinians refugees from the Nakba be allowed back in to create a prosperous state.”

        However, that will not meet Israel’s moral obligations to the refugees. But perhaps, like mondonut, you deny that there are any such things as moral obligations of any kind. The inablilty of Zionists to understand morality has been well established on this site.

      • Shingo
        April 27, 2013, 2:36 am

        Shingo you nailed it, thank you. Everything in that wikipedia page talks about sovereign states dictating their own immigration policies.

        Except that refugees are not immigrants.

        Hasbara fail!!

      • Shingo
        April 27, 2013, 3:38 am

        It was not International Law prior to being codified s you referenced, nor was it after – as neither of those instruments created law or provided to the Palestinians that rights that they claim.

        False on both counts.
        link to journals.cambridge.org

        link to palint.org

      • tree
        April 27, 2013, 5:09 am

        Palestinians are not immigrants, so therefore they are not subject to immigration rules. They are the indigenous inhabitants who were ethnically cleansed from their homes and land.

      • mondonut
        April 27, 2013, 10:15 am

        Shingo says:False on both counts.
        link to journals.cambridge.org
        link to palint.org
        ======================================================
        I am not about to pay $30 to read the first article you reference and the second is complete nonsense, just another person laying down the false claim that 194 establishes rights.

      • Shingo
        April 27, 2013, 10:35 am

        I am not about to pay $30 to read the first article you reference and the second is complete nonsense

        Both articles lay out the fact that right of return is established in customary international law.

        The best you can do is pretend otherwise.

        Epic fail!

      • Menachem
        April 27, 2013, 11:42 am

        of course their is a moral obligation, ending the occupation would be a great start to fulfilling that obligation. The international community, as well as Israel, would go to great strides to ensure a Palestinian state was successful.

      • Menachem
        April 27, 2013, 11:48 am

        I am not sure I am following you Shingo, that is the wikipedia page you post on here. are you telling us it is totally irrelevant?

        refugees immigrate to the United States on a daily basis, my great grandparents were refugees, they were welcomed into the United States with opened arms.

        Hopefully when a Palestinian state is created they will do the same and welcome the Palestinian refugees (hopefully a state is created soon enough that there are still Palestinian refugees) as well as the descendants of those refugees into their new state.

      • Dutch
        April 27, 2013, 3:16 pm

        @ Menachem

        The right of return implies return to the place they were driven away from: Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, etc. Most people in Gaza were driven out of Israel, and that’s where they are justified to return to.

      • Shingo
        April 27, 2013, 4:47 pm

        I am not sure I am following you Shingo, that is the wikipedia page you post on here. are you telling us it is totally irrelevant?

        I am pretty sure you follow me perfectly well Menachem, but chose to play dumb.

        I am not sure what kind of parallel universe you reside in Menachem, but to suggest that there is any legitimacy to expelling Palestinians, before declaring a state, and then arguing that the new state has a legitimate right to deny return of those who were expelled back to their homes on the basis of immigration policy is the epitome of insanity.

        Secondly, the first sentence of my link stated very clearly that the right of return refers to a principle of international law, codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights . And try as you might, the link does not say that those expelled are also subject to country’s immigration laws as the immigration laws refer to repatriation, not refugees who were ethnically cleansed.

        refugees immigrate to the United States on a daily basis

        Noe of whom were ethnically cleansed from the United States, so your pathetic and dishonest comparison is moot.

        Hopefully when a Palestinian state is created they will do the same and welcome the Palestinian refugees

        Hopefully AFTER Israel has given them the choice between accepting compensation of right of return to their land that resides within the boundaries of Israel.

        But clearly, the last thing you want is for Israel to be held accountable.

      • Shingo
        April 27, 2013, 4:48 pm

        The international community, as well as Israel, would go to great strides to ensure a Palestinian state was successful.

        Except that Israel’s policy has always been to ensure any possible Palestinian state that emerges is not a viable one.

      • RoHa
        April 27, 2013, 10:20 pm

        “The international community, as well as Israel, would go to great strides to ensure a Palestinian state was successful.”

        Since 1947 Israel has done everything it can to ensure that no Palestinians state is ever formed.

        But Israel has a moral obligation to allow the refugees to return to the territory that is now Israel.

    • talknic
      April 26, 2013, 3:51 am

      mondonut “What a red herring, sure most people have the right to vote but no nation of people have the right to vote in the elections of another country

      I see. The Palestinians ARE a nation. You’re slipping in your elephant’s sh*t!

      BTW no country has the right to illegally acquire territory by any means ARTICLE 11

      The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure.

      ” what this really sounds like is a call for Israel to formally annex what the Palestinians consider their own territory”

      Can’t help your self can you.. It IS their own territory. Sovereign States do not militarily “occupy” their own territory. UNSC res 476 reminds Israel of BINDING law “1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem” link to wp.me

      “So sure, I think most of Israel would be up for that. In fact a recent poll said exactly the same”

      Under Customary International law legal annexation is by agreement with the legitimate citizens of the territory to be annexed (sans citizens of the Occupying Power) . Without an agreement with the citizens of the territory to be annexed your stupid poll is irrelevant twaddle.

      “The Israelis annex the entirety of the West Bank and make a one time offer of Israeli citizenship to anyone who wants it, thereby creating the desired one state, one person, one vote”

      By agreement with whom? The territory is not Israel’s to offer or take. Annexation means all citizens of the territory to be annexed become citizens of the annexing state. Israel cannot ‘offer’ limited citizenship to territories it wants to annex.

      “Of course the non-existent RoR..”

      Correction – Of course Israel will refuse to adhere to the law, again. You have been shown time and again RoR does exist. Yet you still claim it’s non existent…but only for Palestine refugees it seems.

      “nor will Gaza be included in this offer”

      It’s not an offer, it’s more THEFT!

      “A simple peace treaty will take down the blockade”

      Peace comes AFTER withdrawal. Read the Egypt / Israeli Peace treaty.

      • mondonut
        April 26, 2013, 8:23 am

        talknic says: I see. The Palestinians ARE a nation. You’re slipping in your elephant’s sh*t!
        Under Customary International law legal annexation is by agreement with the legitimate citizens of the territory to be annexed (sans citizens of the Occupying Power) . Without an agreement with the citizens of the territory to be annexed your stupid poll is irrelevant twaddle.
        ================================
        The Palestinians are a nation of people, they are not however a nation of territory. As for the rest, you need to stop reading your own website and pay attention here. This essay (which I did not write, nor do I agree with) is an explicit call for the Palestinians to accept annexation and one state, one person, one vote. So yes, this is about accepting what the Israelis appear to be in agreement with.

      • pjdude
        April 26, 2013, 3:09 pm

        No they are a nation territory( if I understand your made up terms correctly) israel just occupies it. Occupied territories still belong to their legal owners

      • Shingo
        April 26, 2013, 5:19 pm

        As for the rest, you need to stop reading your own website and pay attention here.

        You need to realize that Talknic just destroyed the talking points you introduced in your previous comment.

      • Cliff
        April 26, 2013, 6:02 pm

        They are a nation and their territory is Israel/Palestine.

        They simply lack and lacked the power to prevent Jewish colonists and thieves from ethnically cleansing them and robbing them of their homeland.

      • mondonut
        April 26, 2013, 10:37 pm

        Cliff says: They are a nation and their territory is Israel/Palestine.
        ============================================
        Inaccurate, but I will give you points for honestly stating the real goal of the Palestinians – which is the river to the sea. In the meantime, they do not have territory, they only have claims to territory. Big difference.

      • Talkback
        April 27, 2013, 8:28 am

        mondonut says: “It was and ever will be a General Assembly Resolution and nothing more.”

        I allready explained to you that human right law (including the right to return) has become customary international law. I allready explained to you that this law was reflected in the resolution, not created there. I allready explained to you that the constant reiteration of this Palestinian right in the UN made it customary, too. What is your problem? Do you really think that a country has a right to keep its rightful citizens expelled and denationalized because of their faith?

        “The Palestinians are a nation of people, they are not however a nation of territory.”

        They have been a nation of territory since 1925. Even the PLO definition includes Jews (and their paternal descendants) who lived in the territory before mandate times.

        “In the meantime, they do not have territory, they only have claims to territory. Big difference.”

        They are entitled to territory which is occupied. This is the big difference.

      • mondonut
        April 27, 2013, 10:34 am

        Talkback says: I allready explained to you that human right law (including the right to return) has become customary international law
        =======================================
        If by explanation you mean a series of bizarre claims that not even the Palestinians recognize – the sure you have “explained” it all. Constant reiteration of a resolution by a body incapable of establishing law in the first place does not create a right. Nor was Palestine a state in 1925, the British Mandate system sought to provide some measure of voting rights but was very explicit in not creating a state or self rule.

        link to opendemocracy.net

        If you wish to define the RoR as International Law to fit the Palestinian claim you need to prove it as a right in 1948 (so not Geneva) and that it pertains to descendants (good luck with that).

      • Shingo
        April 27, 2013, 10:39 am

        If by explanation you mean a series of bizarre claims that not even the Palestinians recognize

        Since when has you hasbarats every given a toss about what the Palestinians thought?

        Constant reiteration of a resolution by a body incapable of establishing law in the first place does not create a right.

        As has been explained to you, the body incapable of establishing law did not crate the law, it referenced the existing law.

        Nor was Palestine a state in 1925

        False.

        “Palestine, as mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labor the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.”
        [Pierre Orts, chairman of Mandate Commission of the League Of Nations]

        BTW. Your pathetic link is pure hasbara, as it deliberately omits the Mandate for Palestine was to create a Palestinian state, not a Jewish one. In fact, Banko struggles to hold on to the British interpretation of the Mandate, while ignoring the safeguards introduced at San Remo and the LON to protect the civil and political rights of Jews and non Jews alike.

        You must be getting tired of being so wrong so often.

      • mondonut
        April 27, 2013, 10:42 am

        pjdude says: Occupied territories still belong to their legal owners
        =========================
        I see. When exactly did the Palestinian Arabs become the legal owners?

      • mondonut
        April 27, 2013, 10:50 am

        Shingo says: As has been explained to you, the body incapable of establishing law did not crate the law, it referenced the existing law.
        ===========================================
        Then do everyone a favor and instead of referencing 194, point out where the RoR became International Law prior to 1948, and while you are at it, include where any of it applies to descendants. If you cannot do both then of what you say applies to the Palestinians.

      • Shingo
        April 27, 2013, 10:57 am

        Then do everyone a favor and instead of referencing 194, point out where the RoR became International Law prior to 1948

        Customary international law existed long before 1948 dufus. As has been explained to you, human rights law (including the right to return) is part of customary international law.

        and while you are at it, include where any of it applies to descendants.

        Prove it doesn’t.

      • mig
        April 27, 2013, 12:14 pm

        Mondonut@

        Then do everyone a favor and instead of referencing 194, point out where the RoR became International Law prior to 1948, and while you are at it, include where any of it applies to descendants. If you cannot do both then of what you say applies to the Palestinians.

        UN charter. And little friendly hint. Stop talking about thing you have no idea. Before someone makes you look total *peep*.

      • pjdude
        April 27, 2013, 3:11 pm

        Since the end of World War One when they were recognized as being the group to have sovereignty over Palestine once the British left. The moment the mandatory period ended the state of Palestine came into existence.

      • Shingo
        April 27, 2013, 4:57 pm

        When exactly did the Palestinian Arabs become the legal owners?

        When they ended up with title deeds to the land.

      • mondonut
        April 27, 2013, 11:18 pm

        Shingo says:Customary international law existed long before 1948 dufus. As has been explained to you, human rights law (including the right to return) is part of customary international law.

        …Prove it doesn’t.
        ====================================
        Good Lord. Really? Nobody is claiming that Customary international law did not exist before 1948, the question to you was if the RoR was part of it prior to 1948. As for descendants, the burden of proof is on you, you are making the claim – so prove it. Otherwise you might as well tell me to prove it does not apply to everyone’s best friend or second cousin.

      • Shingo
        April 28, 2013, 8:57 am

        the question to you was if the RoR was part of it prior to 1948.

        Obviously. I know how you hasbarats hate timelines, but Resolution 194 was passed on December 11, 1948, and seeing as it was based on Customary international law, it stands to reason that RoR was part of it prior to 1948.

        As for descendants, the burden of proof is on you, you are making the claim – so prove it.

        First of all, I didn’t make the claim, but seeing as refugee status is passed on through generations, then it also stands to reason that ROR is passed on.

      • mondonut
        April 28, 2013, 11:40 am

        Shingo says:Obviously. I know how you hasbarats hate timelines, but Resolution 194 was passed on December 11, 1948, and seeing as it was based on Customary international law, it stands to reason that RoR was part of it prior to 1948.
        =================================================
        Your claim was that 194 REFERENCED customary law, please point out what is was referencing. And you cannot prove the validity of 194 by refercing 194 itself, that makes no sense.

        And no, refugee status does not pass through generations., despite the UNRWA’s willingness to care for them. Yet another reason why the UNRWA must go.

      • mondonut
        April 28, 2013, 11:44 am

        mig says: UN charter. And little friendly hint. Stop talking about thing you have no idea. Before someone makes you look total *peep*.
        ==================================================
        I think you might have stumbled upon something the rest of the world has yet to discover. Congratulations. At the risk of looking like a peep (whatever that means), please point out which part of the UN Charter makes the RoR International Law and how it applies to descendants.

      • mondonut
        April 28, 2013, 11:46 am

        Shingo says: When they ended up with title deeds to the land.
        =========================================
        You are defining Real Estate, territory is something entirely different. Try again.

    • SQ Debris
      April 26, 2013, 6:37 pm

      “What a red herring, sure most people have the right to vote but no nation of people have the right to vote in the elections of another country.”

      No nation has a right to enforce taxation without representation, but Israel has been doing it for 46 years. People have a right to vote for the government that runs their lives, as in that grand concept “Self Determination.” Israel clearly has no plans to release the captive lands. At present it rules as many Palestinians as non-Palestinians, so the “We’ll lose our Jewish state” number is already a past tense argument. The present tense is Jamal Crow State. The red herring is the idea that the international community supports a 2SS in deed.

      • mondonut
        April 26, 2013, 10:49 pm

        SQ Debris says:
        - No nation has a right to enforce taxation without representation…
        - People have a right to vote for the government that runs their lives…
        - Israel clearly has no plans to release the captive lands…
        - At present it rules as many Palestinians as non-Palestinians…
        ================================================
        - Did you just make this up?
        - Umm, no. The Palestinians have a right to Palestinian elections.
        - They have already released Gaza, several offers for the West Bank.
        - West Bank=2.5mm, Israel=7.8mm. Not even close.

      • Shingo
        April 28, 2013, 9:01 am

        Did you just make this up?

        Don;t confuse the your ignorance of it, with making it up.

        The Palestinians have a right to Palestinian elections.

        Epic fail.

        And self determination, which means they ave a right to vote for the government that runs their lives.

        They have already released Gaza, several offers for the West Bank.

        False on both counts.

        As Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar explained in “Lords of the Land”:

        “After Israel withdrew it’s forces from Gaza, in August 2005, the ruined territory was not released for even a single day from Israel’s military grip, or from the price of the occupation that the inhabitants pay every day. Israel left behind scotched earth, devastated services, and people with nearly a present or a future. The Jewish settlements were destroyed in an ungenerous move by an unenlightened occupier, which in fact continues to control the territory and kill and harass it’s inhabitants, by means of it’s formidable military might.”

        Israel NEVER offered to release the West Bank.

        West Bank=2.5mm, Israel=7.8mm. Not even close.

        The West Bank is not 2.5mm.

  5. a blah chick
    April 25, 2013, 7:00 pm

    “Focusing on this demand will disarm Israel of all its excuses. What can it say? That the Palestinians aren’t human? That they don’t have rights like any other nation?”

    Unfortunately that is what they are saying.

  6. ToivoS
    April 25, 2013, 7:13 pm

    This is a very bold article by Levy. Surely, he must know that a one person/one vote state would lead to the loss of Israel as a Jewish state. Just as surely one person/ one vote led to the elimination of the Afrikaaner government of South Africa.

    • eljay
      April 25, 2013, 9:26 pm

      >> … a one person/one vote state would lead to the loss of Israel as a Jewish state.

      Which would be a good thing.

      Driven by their greed to have it all – a supremacist “Jewish State of Greater Israel” – Zio-supremacists risk losing it all. What hateful and immoral fools they be.

      • Walid
        April 26, 2013, 3:50 am

        The Zionists would be in safer hands among a Palestinian majority than among the few end-timer financial backers that have a much darker end-purpose for the Jews. If anyone really wants all the Jews in one convenient place for a vile reason, it’s the Christian-Zionists.

  7. yourstruly
    April 25, 2013, 7:15 pm

    bds, which palestinian society has called for, is the nonviolent movement that can force israel to rethink its doomsday strategy, but not until the squeeze on israel tightens will it consider one person, one vote.

  8. yonah fredman
    April 25, 2013, 7:43 pm

    Because of opposition from Abbas and Hamas (and of course Israel and the United States) it will take years before this step will be taken, but it seems to be the next logical step.

  9. Taxi
    April 25, 2013, 11:44 pm

    If Gideon really wanted to solve the Palestinian problem, he would pack up his bags and give up living like a ‘liberal’ colonialist on someone else’ land.

    No respect whatsoever for ANYTHING the land thieves say, polite or belligerent they may be .

    Plainly: israel has NO RIGHT to exist in the first place. Not morally, not even legally.

    Just get the eff outta town with your 1 person/1 vote mister Levy!

    Justice means for israelis to let go BOTH hands off historic Palestine, not just only one hand.

    • Walid
      April 26, 2013, 2:06 am

      Hey, Taxi, that would have also been my initial reaction but Levy is an avid campaigner for the RoR of the 5 million Palestinians and that makes him one of the good guys. I’d rather see him stay in Israel and continue trying to stir up the dulled consciences of Israelis.

      Part of his lecture in Ottawa a couple of years back:

      I have never seen an occupation in which the occupier feels so good about himself and in which he also poses as the victim.

      Israel is occupation addicted. It wants more real estate. Israel holds 3.5 million Palestinians against their will in conditions that you cannot imagine and there is no way Israel will move without pressure or a push from the outside.

      The Israelis are deeply convinced that seven billion people in the world are wrong and that five million Israelis are right. It is a society that is losing its connection with reality. How can they feel so good about themselves? The explanation is simple. Israelis care about human rights, laws, values and morality but they have come to a simple conclusion. Palestinians are not human beings. Palestinians are not human, therefore there is no problem and that allows Israel to continue the occupation. And the Israeli media also tries to convince their readers that Palestinians are not humans.

      What has happened to Israel in the last 10 years? People have fallen into a coma, into a state of apathy. In 1982 thousands of Israelis were in the streets to protest against the (Israeli-assisted) massacres in the Shatilla refugee camp in Lebanon. That protest would never happen today. There is no left. There is no peace camp.

      I don’t think that the necessary change will come from within Israel. The only hope for it is to come from outside but that is problematic. Israel is isolated and this would have been the time to put an end to the occupation but the main power outside is the U.S. When Obama was elected there was a feeling of hopefulness but a year and half later there is nothing new under the sun and nothing really different between the two presidents (Bush and Obama). The U.S. position has been very disappointing and Canada usually follows the U.S. automatically. In Europe there is a big difference between public opinion and the opinion of the leaders.

      … There is something wrong here that started in 1948 [when Palestinians were forced from their land and homes]. That 1948 attitude has never changed but anyone who thinks we can forget 1948 just does not understand. Israel has to take responsibility for what happened in 1948. We have to admit that we devastated the Palestinians and we have to take responsibility. No Israeli leader has ever done that.

      We have to compensate the Palestinians and help them where they are and we have to help others to come back. Years of brainwashing in Israel have made the Palestinian refugee issue a taboo. I do not fear the repatriation of refugees. We have absorbed a million Russians in the past 10 years and half of them were not even Jewish. Yet Palestinians who grew up here cannot have the same right. And not all of the five million refugees would want to come back. If we had courageous leadership or pressure from the bottom up, we could change but we don’t have that.

      link to dennisgruending.ca

      • Taxi
        April 26, 2013, 2:44 am

        Walid,
        You can be for the RoR and NOT be living as a euro settler in occupied Palestine.

        Sorry but I’m sick to death of listening to ‘moderate and liberal’ zionists.

        Hypocrites!

      • Walid
        April 26, 2013, 3:22 am

        Taxi, I’m more into the repatriation or the voluntary resettlement of the 5 million Palestinians than into the expulsion of the 5 million Israelis. It’s as Levy said about not all Palestinians would be wanting to return, but they should all be compensated for what was stolen from them and those wishing to return should be welcomed. If Palestinians would get the justice due to them, I wouldn’t have any problems with Jews remaining in Israel. When Israelis accept the fact that the rest of the world’s Jews don’t all want to move to Israel, it would be easier for them to begin accepting that the land is still big enough let Palestinians return to what is their rightful land.

      • Inanna
        April 26, 2013, 7:32 am

        Not compensation Walid. Full return of all their homes, lands, furniture and furnishings, books, businesses, factories, bank accounts and so on. With interest, back payments for rent etc.

      • Walid
        April 26, 2013, 9:04 am

        Inanna, compensation and indemnities meant for those not wishing to return as well as for those that would return but whose properties no longer exist for them to return to. I’m thinking of the 500 villages that were dynamited or bulldozed. The Zionists took great care to wipe their tracks but the Palestinians haven’t lost sight of what’s owed to them.

        Interesting comparative charts on 1947 and 2006 agriculture in Palestine, Israel and Lebanon:

        link to palestineremembered.com

      • SQ Debris
        April 26, 2013, 6:49 pm

        A democratic Israel from the Med to the Jordan would quickly pass legislation for RoR. My guess is that the xenophobes that moved to Israel to avoid living in a diverse society would hit the road. If they are going to have to live in a non-ethno-supremacist country they’ll probably want to do it somewhere that isn’t peopled by the folks they’ve been crapping on for the last century. As for the people who were born in Israel – Thai, Jewish, Russian; it’s hard to imagine a new Palestinian majority polity denying people who were born in Palestine the right to live there.

      • goldmarx
        April 30, 2013, 1:17 pm

        SQ Debris: “As for the people who were born in Israel – Thai, Jewish, Russian; it’s hard to imagine a new Palestinian majority polity denying people who were born in Palestine the right to live there.”

        Why is it hard to imagine? Is there some inherent goodness in a “new Palestinian majority polity”?

    • yrn
      April 26, 2013, 4:08 am

      Looks like Taxi is the only one that has the guts to say, what this blog is all about.
      All other are just too chicken to speak up.
      “israel has NO RIGHT to exist in the first place. Not morally, not even legally.

      Just get the eff outta town with your 1 person/1 vote mister Levy!”

      If this is the picture.
      We will all know what is Mondowiess Agenda and react according.

      • Walid
        April 26, 2013, 5:14 am

        yrn, I get the feeling that this blog is completely the opposite of what you are advancing as it’s much more about Israel than about Palestinians. Most Jews on this blog are of good will and are trying to save Israel from itself. Not much of anything else is dicussed here.

      • Ecru
        April 26, 2013, 6:01 am

        So you extrapolate from ONE person’s views the views of everyone posting on Mondoweiss irrespective of whether anyone else has said anything similar or not. Interesting. Let’s try an experiment then shall we?

        “Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created,”

        “…God should strike them with a plague, them and these Palestinians…”

        From sermons of one time Israeli Chief Rabbi, Ovadia Yosef openly expressing ideas of ethnic superiority and calling for genocide.

        So ALL Jews actually think this, every last one, those that don’t say so openly only lack the courage of the “good” Rabbi? And any who say differently are only hiding the truth behind “justified falsehood?”

        Go on, scream anti-semitism, you know you want to.

      • Taxi
        April 26, 2013, 8:38 am

        Ecru,
        LOL don’t go indadvertedly comparing me to that bearded jewish fanatic Rabbi Ovadia! LOL! Too funny!!

        Through acts of aggression and war, UNILATERALLY declaring your statehood while the map was still being drawn by the UN does not make for a “legal” state! Read link posted by Citizen on another thread:
        link to alanhart.net
        Maybe Hostage would like to expound on the legalities of establishing a state. By world consent or UNILATERALLY by force – which is legal?

        European Khazars claiming ancestry in the holy lands and ethnically cleansing and mass-murdering in the name of this bogus claim is NOT “morally” acceptable. No where damn NEAR acceptable!!!!!

        Thin-skinned ziobots like yen have only the “anti-Semite” card to play and I ain’t gonna care what they think, say or do in the face of the facts.

        Little do these dastardly zios know what mondoweiss is about for all the ziocotton self-stuffed between their ears. Little do they know that if this were 1939, Mondoweiss would be in the front lines of waring against the bastard hitler!

        Little do zionists know that it’s 2013 and the Palestinians aren’t the Germans and they’re hated and fought against, whatever religion they may be, because of their sick colonial mindset and fascism.

        keeps your socks on people, when I say israel has no right to exist either legally or morally, I mean and I ain’t shy to say it because I’m holding the hands of both justice and fact.

      • Ecru
        April 29, 2013, 3:59 pm

        @ Taxi

        Sorry, didn’t mean to imply a comparison, it’s just the “good Rabbi” is such a wonderful example of Zionist bigotry and supremacist ideology.

      • eljay
        April 26, 2013, 7:20 am

        Looks like Taxi is the only one that has the guts to say, what this blog is all about.
        All other are just too chicken to speak up.
        “israel has NO RIGHT to exist in the first place. Not morally, not even legally.

        IMO, Israel does have a right to exist as a secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all of its citizen, equally.

        Despite your most fervent, Zio-supremacist desires, Israel does not have a right to exist as an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State”, and it does not have a right to engage in terrorism, ethnic cleansing or a 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder.

      • Cliff
        April 26, 2013, 7:20 am

        true believers like yrn are always looking to spam the anti-semitism button

        what are you going to do, write an angry letter to the board of directors of the Internet and withdraw your funding, yrn?

      • Donald
        April 26, 2013, 8:29 am

        “Looks like Taxi is the only one that has the guts to say, what this blog is all about.
        All other are just too chicken to speak up.”

        Ecru answered this. The truth is you badly want to believe this is the case, because then you think you don’t have to face up to the immorality of your own side. It doesn’t work that way–even if everyone here became your mirror image, you wouldn’t look any prettier. We’d just look uglier.

        The problem with both Taxi’s position and yours is that human rights issues are not a zero sum game. You don’t end oppression and ethnic cleansing with more acts of oppression and ethnic cleansing aimed in the other direction.

        One of my problems with treating all Israelis as “Euro settlers” is that many of them were born there. It’s their home. Their problem is that they don’t acknowledge the rights of the people displaced.

      • Taxi
        April 26, 2013, 8:57 am

        I don’t believe any court in any country would allow the stolen loot to be passed on to the criminal’s children. So why are we making exceptions for the zionists? Their grandfathers’, their ancestral homes are in Europe and Europe is still there, last I checked the Atlas.

        Victim’s rights FIRST!!!!

        No exceptions.

      • yrn
        April 26, 2013, 11:34 am

        Donald
        “The problem with both Taxi’s position and yours”……
        You keep with the same attitude here, You know what is my position???
        Did I mention it in the comment, if yes lets hear it (quote)
        But as usual you know better then the Israelis and the Palestinians, what’s their position.
        You fit with the crowd, I am not surprised.
        At list Taxi has the guts and dignity to say his opinion, while you as all the others, just go round and round without saying anything.

      • Taxi
        April 26, 2013, 12:15 pm

        Donald,
        Since when is it “ethnic cleansing” to evict an illegal squatter?

        Get real people – stop making exceptions to the zionist state.

        If the Bahamas ethnically cleansed New York and built settlements there, ya think New Yorkers are gonna give away a chunk of New York to the invaders when all is said and done?

        I don’t think so in a million years. And a majority of the world would agree with their stance.

        What is allowed New Yorkers therefore is allowed to Palestinians in my book.

      • Menachem
        April 27, 2013, 12:12 am

        All Jews in Israel are European Taxi? Do you forget about the 800,000 who were forced out and/or “persuaded” to leave Arab countries? They will not be welcomed back with open arms.

      • Taxi
        April 27, 2013, 1:08 am

        You didn’t use the quote marks, Menachem, so obviously you’ve (willingly) misrepresented my point.

        Where are your grandfathers from, Menachem? An Arab country? Sorry but I don’t believe for a second you give a flying foofoo about Arab jews. It’s nothing short of despicable cynicism for ashkanazim to use Arab jews against other Arabs. And nothing short of profound, remorseless ungratefulness for Arab jews to go against their Arab brothers and sisters, be they Arab moslem or Arab christians. But such indeed is the diabolical effect of zionism on its practitioners.

        Besides, why would any Arab country allow the return of its native jews at this point of the game? There’s damn good reason to question the ‘loyalties’ of Arab jews who’ve been brainwashed by ashkanazim zionism.

      • Shingo
        April 27, 2013, 2:57 am

        Do you forget about the 800,000 who were forced out and/or “persuaded” to leave Arab countries?

        Did no one tell you that the phony 800,000 figure was invented by WOJAC in the 70′s and that the whole notion of Jewish refugees was rejected by the Mizrahi community in Israel?

        800,000 refers to all the Jews that left Arab states, most of whom migrated to Israel of their own accord.

        They will not be welcomed back with open arms.

        Nine have asked to return.

      • Walid
        April 27, 2013, 3:53 am

        With exception to Egypt, most of those Jews you are talking about were persuaded to leave by the Zionists. To be welcomed back, they would have to be deprogrammed of their adopted Zionist ideology.

      • MRW
        April 27, 2013, 6:02 am

        Do you forget about the 800,000 who were forced out and/or “persuaded” to leave Arab countries?

        There is no evidence of that. You’re making it up.

      • Menachem
        April 27, 2013, 11:54 am

        wow, that is some vile stuff Taxi. If the Arab countries won’t allow these Jews back, where are they going to go Taxi? You advocated for their removal, if they don’t have a place to go afterwards, that is starting to sound a lot like genocide to me.

      • Menachem
        April 27, 2013, 11:55 am

        no evidence MRW? what you said is no different than Nakba or Holocaust denial.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        April 27, 2013, 11:56 am

        “Persuaded” by such means as the distribution of fabricated anti-Semitic leaflets and exploding bombs in Jewish cafes. This was done in both Egypt and Iraq. The beans were spilled by some of those who participated in the Zionist anti-Jewish terror campaign.

      • Menachem
        April 27, 2013, 11:57 am

        it was rejected by 9 Mizrahi Jews, you are getting confused Shingo. Saying these Jews left voluntarily is no different than saying the Palestinians left voluntarily on the behest of the Arab rulers.

      • Taxi
        April 27, 2013, 12:38 pm

        You sure you know the definition of ‘genocide’, menachem?

        Like Walid said above: “To be welcomed back, they would have to be deprogrammed of their adopted Zionist ideology.”

        My suggestion is, seeing you care so much about the future plight of Arab jews and all that, why don’t you help them organize for the dismantlement of the colonial state of israel? Peace will surely come if there was no colonial occupation in the region and because of the rigorous assistance of Arab jews to this end, their good reputations with their respective countryfolk will undoubtedly be restored.

        But I ain’t holding my breath – I get the sense that you don’t really care about Arab jews and I know you would consider my proposition “vile”. Mehhh. By now, I’m expecting you to miss and misrepresent every point I make.

      • MHughes976
        April 27, 2013, 12:46 pm

        People who are expelled or induced by a terrorist campaign, true flag or false flag, to leave their homes, do, Jewish or English or Lunar, have a right to return – ie to the restoration of the old social contract – and so do their descendants unless and until they, original refugees or descendants, enter a new social contract elsewhere, ie accept a new loyalty. There can accommodations for dual citizens etc., but not so generous as to make the new country seem not to acquire the genuine loyalty of the new citizen. How else can the idea of mutual social obligation be interpreted?
        I would ask the members of a UK family of Palestinian descent to be as committed to this Kingdom as I am and thus to accept that their connection with Palestine must be eroded over time. I would say, consistently I think, that the descendants of Jewish Iraqis forced out in 1948 cannot claim Iraqi citizenship by right if they have made their social contract in Israel. But they retain their right to property that was stolen or arbitrarily seized, so Iraqi governments would have to give them some protection. Again, how else can the idea of mutual obligation be interpreted without racism?

      • MRW
        April 27, 2013, 1:29 pm

        no evidence MRW? what you said is no different than Nakba or Holocaust denial.

        The total population of Jews in Israel was less than that, and that number included all the war refugees from Europe. Hostage debunked this two years ago with documents. Look up his archives.

      • Donald
        April 27, 2013, 1:47 pm

        “I don’t believe any court in any country would allow the stolen loot to be passed on to the criminal’s children”

        You live in America, right? How much of this country was stolen? Most of it.

        Anyway, there’s two different issues–some or many or most Israelis might be living on land actually stolen from individual Palestinians, and no, they don’t have the right to it. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to live in the country they were born in. People aren’t responsible for the crimes of their ancestors–they’re responsible for their own crimes.

      • Donald
        April 27, 2013, 1:51 pm

        “You keep with the same attitude here, You know what is my position???
        Did I mention it in the comment, if yes lets hear it (quote)”

        You lumped everyone at this blog into the same category and you did it again to me, after I explicitly stated my position, that approaching human rights issues as a zero sum game is wrong. So I think it’s safe to say you’re either incapable of understanding variations among those who criticize Israel, or you do this insincerely.

      • Walid
        April 27, 2013, 2:38 pm

        As Shingo said above, the 800,000 figure was invented by WOJAC to goose-up the numbers needed to offset against eventual claims by the expelled Palestinians. As an example of Israel’s funny and phony numbers, at Tunisia’s independence from France 8 years after Israel was created, 110,000 Jews were given the option to emigrate to France or to Israel and half of them opted for French citizenship but Israel still counts all Tunisian Jews as having been expelled. In fact, none of them were expelled. 20 years after the creation of Israel, there were still 10,000 Jews in Tunisia.

        In Lebanon, the number of Jews actually began increasing after the creation of Israel and kept increasing during the following 27 years until the civil war of 1975 when Christians, Muslims and Jews emigrated for better economic opportunities elesewhere.

        Actual expulsions happened only in Egypt (after the Lavon, after Suez of ’56, after Israeli invasion of ’67)

      • tree
        April 27, 2013, 2:52 pm

        The Arab countries have already gone on record as willing to accept any Arab Jew who wishes to return. This was done decades ago, at the request of the PLO, which asked the Arab governments to issue such statements.

        Morocco for one is actively encouraging its Jews to return.

        link to aljadid.com

        link to jweekly.com

        Some of the difficulty in such a return is caused by the endogamous nature of many Jews groups. Without a large enough population in residence to begin with, further immigration is difficult to obtain, because of worries about a lack of community and lack of enough suitable marriage partners. Of course, the Arab antagonism to the violence that Israel, which claims to represent all Jews, dishes out to Palestinians and Arabs in general, is another obstacle that has to be overcome.

      • Ecru
        April 27, 2013, 3:28 pm

        @Mhughes976

        I would ask the members of a UK family of Palestinian descent to be as committed to this Kingdom as I am and thus to accept that their connection with Palestine must be eroded over time.

        Just curious. Would you ask the same of a UK family of Jewish descent? That they must accept that their connection to Palestine (2000 years old as opposed to a Palestinians 60) must be eroded over time?

      • Shingo
        April 27, 2013, 4:51 pm

        If the Arab countries won’t allow these Jews back, where are they going to go Taxi?

        What do yo mean where are they going to go ? Are they not living in Israel as Israeli citizens? After all, the reason they left the Arab countries was to make Alyah.

        You advocated for their removal, if they don’t have a place to go afterwards, that is starting to sound a lot like genocide to me.

        It sounds to me like you are admitting that Israel therefore has already committed genocide.

      • Shingo
        April 27, 2013, 4:52 pm

        what you said is no different than Nakba or Holocaust denial.

        Not at all. The Mizrahi Jewish community of Israel, who were supposed to be the ones involved, reject being labelled refugees.

        Are they also guilty of Holocaust denial.

      • Shingo
        April 27, 2013, 4:57 pm

        it was rejected by 9 Mizrahi Jews

        False . it was rejected by the entire Mizrahi community. You are lying Manachem.

        “… The WOJAC (The World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries) figure who came up with the idea of “Jewish refugees” was Yaakov Meron, head of the Justice Ministry’s Arab legal affairs department. Meron propounded the most radical thesis ever devised concerning the history of Jews in Arab lands. He claimed Jews were expelled from Arab countries under policies enacted in concert with Palestinian leaders – and he termed these policies “ethnic cleansing.” Vehemently opposing the dramatic Zionist narrative, Meron claimed that Zionism had relied on romantic, borrowed phrases (“Magic Carpet,” “Operation Ezra and Nehemiah”) in the description of Mizrahi immigration waves to conceal the “fact” that Jewish migration was the result of “Arab expulsion policy.” In a bid to complete the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews, WOJAC publicists claimed that the Mizrahi immigrants lived in refugee camps in Israel during the 1950s (i.e., ma’abarot or transit camps), just like the Palestinian refugees.

        The organization’s claims infuriated many Mizrahi Israelis who defined themselves as Zionists. As early as 1975, at the time of WOJAC’s formation, Knesset speaker Yisrael Yeshayahu declared: “We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations.”

        Shlomo Hillel, a government minister and an active Zionist in Iraq, adamantly opposed the analogy: “I don’t regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.”

        And…

        “… Any reasonable person, Zionist or non-Zionist, must acknowledge that the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews is unfounded. Palestinian refugees did not want to leave Palestine. Many Palestinian communities were destroyed in 1948, and some 700,000 Palestinians were expelled, or fled, from the borders of historic Palestine. Those who left did not do so of their own volition.

        In contrast, Jews from Arab lands came to this country under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations. Some came of their own free will; others arrived against their will. Some lived comfortably and securely in Arab lands; others suffered from fear and oppression.”
        [Yehouda Shenhav is a professor at Tel Aviv University]

        Saying these Jews left voluntarily is no different than saying the Palestinians left voluntarily on the behest of the Arab rulers.

        Wrong. The Mizrahi Jews themselves have said they left voluntarily.

        Shlomo Hillel, a government minister and an active Zionist in Iraq, adamantly opposed the analogy: “I don’t regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.”

      • miriam6
        April 27, 2013, 9:08 pm

        “And yes deary, it is my fight cuz I SAY SO! I choose MY “fight” – I, me, I choose for ME, never you, NEVER! And there’s sweet eff ay you can do about it.”

        ( Gosh, notice the number of times you used the word “ME” and “I “–amazing!!)

        Do you recognise your own words Taxi?

        From a comment you made to me 2 weeks ago?

        So what gives YOU the right to question other commenters’ on the origin of their declared interests?

        Taxi – you were the one advocating the ethnic cleansing of Israeli Jews .

        NO- ONE else said it.

        YOU did.

        Therefore it is perfectly reasonable that when others question your enthusiasm for ethnic cleansing it does become YOUR responsibility to say WHERE you think they ought to go.

        Your problem is YOU advocated ethnic cleansing of Israel’s’ Jews.

        Then you found that virtually all other commenters on this thread found it a distasteful idea.

        Since then you have been desperately back-pedalling, accusing others, in your attempt to excuse the inexcusable.

      • RoHa
        April 28, 2013, 12:37 am

        “They will not be welcomed back with open arms.”

        They left after Israel had forced out the Palestinian refugees, and under the shadow that Israel cast upon the term “Jew”. If Israel had not been created, the Arab Jews would be still an important part of Arab society.

        Let Israel welcome back the Palestinians with open arms first.

      • Taxi
        April 28, 2013, 4:17 am

        Miriam says: ‘ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME! I ME am the victim here! ME! ME! ME! Never YOU! NEVER!’

        Eat your heart out in golders green – you’ve got NO POWER over what people have to say about the evils crimes of israeli occupation.

        And to Donald,
        Dude, a european colony called israel was FORCED upon a region against the will of the WHOLE region. How is that legal or moral? Also, very hasbara 101 of you to use the bogus Native American Indian equivalence.

        Personally, I will never accept israel’s right to exist in the first place. Unlike you, I will never accept brushing the question of the Nakba under the rotten rug of time, just so that the offsprings of racist colonials (racist colonials themselves) can enjoy the loot of the Nakba’s despicable crimes.

        Did you hear that miss miriam? No backtracking from ME whatsoever! I’ll repeat: israel has no right to exist, either morally or legally.

      • Taxi
        April 28, 2013, 4:52 am

        Ecru,

        Your 2000 years versus 60 is utter bogus rubbish. Read Shlomo Sand’s ‘The Invention of the Jewish People’.

        Or you can get his gist from watching him here:

      • Donald
        April 28, 2013, 8:44 am

        “Also, very hasbara 101 of you to use the bogus Native American Indian equivalence.”

        Which demonstrates the sheer moral idiocy of the hasbarists–they take an analogy that destroys their own moral position and think it validates it. I first heard the Native American analogy from Finkelstein in one of his books (actually, I think Chomsky used it first, but I can’t recall exactly where). Finkelstein was pointing out that both Israel and the US are examples of white settler colonialist states. At some point in the past several years the hasbarists started using the old American crime as a justification for their crimes–I first saw Benny Morris doing this in his infamous interview several years ago. Now the racism and chutzpah of the hasbarists has born fruit–we now have pro-Palestinian people running away from an analogy that exposes the basic immorality of the case for Israel as a Jewish state.

        The analogy breaks down in one respect–Native Americans are no longer forced to live on reservations. They have the right of return. I am cynical enough to suspect that if there were 300 million Native Americans holed up on 22 percent of the US, forced to stay there, quite a few white Americans would have opposed their right of return. But the demographics are different and so white racists don’t find a Native American ROR quite so threatening.

        So that “bogus Native American equivalence” as you put it is a comparison of how people of white European descent stole land and ethnically cleansed the original inhabitants in both America and Israel. The analogy actually even holds in the way that some white Americans used to respond to criticism of our crimes–they’d say “Do you think we should give the land back to the Indians and move back to Europe?” People like that think that human rights issues are a zero sum game. That’s what hasbarists think–that’s why they use the Native American analogy–they’re so stupid they can’t imagine how one could favor equal rights and peace for everyone. Ideology does that to otherwise intelligent people. If you can’t see that, perhaps it’s because the Native American analogy is inconvenient for your own position.

      • Taxi
        April 28, 2013, 10:02 am

        Donald,

        I can’t be bothered to demonstrate to you how…. just go, go re-read your first reference to the Native American question – very unfocused.

        Liberal zionists who wave the banner of “human rights” to protect the new generation of zionists from ‘reparations and full justice’, protect them at the expense of the victim’s justice, are walking around with one blinker off and one blinker over the other eye.

        That’s why I got no intellectual respect for their point of view.

        Donald you’re also riding your usual self-appointed high horse again with your “People like that think that human rights issues are a zero sum game”.

        Ridiculous and pompous!

        Determinator much?

      • miriam6
        April 28, 2013, 11:32 am

        You ought to follow your own logic then Taxing personality.
        You are American.
        You were born in a land in which GENOCIDE took place in order that your family could live there.
        YOU are someone who has BENEFITED all your life from land thievery on the GREATEST SCALE EVER.
        Nobody will accept your hypocritical nonsense until you put your money where your mouth is and renounce YOUR American citizenship like your fellow ex- American Ken o’ Keefe did.
        You are just a HYPOCRITE.
        You ought to GO BACK to wherever YOUR family originated .
        What right did White America , the usurper of Native American land EVER have to EXIST?
        Same applies to Annie R, Phil Weiss , Alex Kane , Ira G, Miss Deger, all from EUROPE.
        They ought to go back to THEIR European home.
        Leave the folks of African descent, Native American descent and Latin ( especially the MEXICANS ) descent to live in PEACE .
        Without nasty white liberal colonists hypocrites like you Taxi.
        JUSTICE means for all white Europeans to let go BOTH hands off the land of the NATIVE American people

      • miriam6
        April 28, 2013, 12:32 pm

        Roha
        Once again you are repeating the same old tired anti Israel propaganda.

        “They left after Israel had forced out the Palestinian refugees, and under the shadow that Israel cast upon the term “Jew”. If Israel had not been created, the Arab Jews would be still an important part of Arab society.”

        It is NOT the case that ALL Mizrahim “left”

        That’s like saying The Palestinians simply “left”.

        If this is the case that the Arabs “welcome” minorities can you explain the disappearance of the Greek community in Egypt?

        How do you explain why so many Coptic Christians have “Left” Egypt?

        Can you explain why virtually ALL refugees from Iraq are Christian?

        Can you explain why Libyans Jews who SUPPORTED the anti-Gadhafi forces are forbidden to re-settle in Libya?

        Why are Lebanese Jews forced to hide their Jewish religion?

        If Israel welcomed back all Palestinian refugees — how given the evidence of how the majority Muslim Population DOESN’T get along with minorities how long do you imagine the Jews in Israel would remain there?

        The Mizrahim were beaten and robbed of their homes in Arab countries.

        Their treatment in Arab countries is NOT dependent on whether or not Israel exists.

        1) Expulsion by any other name is just as illegal.

        Massad emphasizes “the fact that Arab Jews were not expelled from any Arab country.”
        True, no Arab country explicitly issued a decree along the lines of “All Jews are herewith banned, never to return, upon penalty of death.”
        Since the Israeli government never issued a formal declaration of expulsion, does that mean the Palestinians were never expelled?
        Expulsion can occur under coercive circumstances. Governments can “encourage” people to leave by freezing their bank accounts, forbidding them from most forms of employment, banning them from education institutions, etc. Expulsion from society precedes expulsion beyond the state’s geographic borders. In the course of my research on Arab Jewish identity, moreover, I did meet Egyptian Jews who were, even according to Massad’s definition, expelled. They were told they had 24 hours to leave the country and leave they did. So yes, Arab Jews were expelled.
        Not only were they expelled, but their expulsion was recognized by Palestinian leadership. While Massad broadcasts the PLO’s past proposal for Arab countries to welcome home their Arab Jews, he neglects to mention that at least one PLO member dared to criticize Arab states for uprooting their Jewish communities. In May 1975 in An-Nahar, for example, PLO member Sabri Jiryis lambasted Arab countries for expelling the Jews “in a most ugly fashion, and after confiscating their possessions or taking control thereof at the lowest price.” Foretelling the current campaign, Jiryis added that “clearly, Israel will raise the question in all serious negotiations that may in time be conducted over the rights of the Palestinians.”

        2) Lynching is not “harassment.”
        Massad lightly acknowledges that in some Arab countries, Jews ”suffered from harassment by the authorities or even from segments of society at large.” He does not discuss the forms of discrimination that were systemic and enshrined in legal systems, in places like Yemen; and he fails to mention the many instances in which Jews were attacked and killed for being Jewish. Furthermore, he is unable to concede that violence against Jews, which waxed and waned over the centuries, was never fully absent and predated the establishment of Israel.
        The 1800s witnessed a multitude of attacks against Jews in Aleppo, Damascus, Beirut, Dayr al-Qamar, Jaffa, Jerusalem, Cairo, Mansura, Alexandria, Port Said, and Damanhur. The 1900s were even more frightful, the most notable massacre occurring in 1941 in Baghdad: 175 Jews killed and nearly 1000 injured. These attacks were historically traumatizing events for communities that had considered themselves (and had been considered) integral to the fabric of Arab society. In Egypt, the ostensible focus of Massad’s case, Jews were harassed, attacked without recourse to justice and were even made to disappear, as archives from the International Committee of the Red Cross indicate.

        3) States are responsible for protecting their citizens.

        Nowhere does Massad seriously raise the question of responsibility of Arab states for protecting their citizens. Yes, he brings up Nassar and faults him for not doing enough, but excuses him on the grounds that “this is not the same as expelling a population or deporting it.” Yet by the time Nasser assumed power, most of the Yemeni and Iraqi Jews, and many Moroccan, Syrian and Egyptian Jews, had already left/been forced to leave (depending on whom you ask). Massad avoids accounting for the failure of Arab governments to protect their populations—whether dhimmis or citizens—even though the Arab League had forewarned the United Nations that they would not be held responsible for protecting Arab Jews following the creation of Israel.

        4) Most Egyptian Jews were stateless as a result of Egyptian law.

        Massad claims that “a substantial percentage of the Jews in Egypt were not legally Egyptian, as they did not carry Egyptian nationality and many did not even speak Arabic and carried European passports (Italian, Russian, British and French), a fact that intensified the perception in some popular quarters that they were not loyal to the country. This of course was not the case with the old Egyptian Arab Jewish community (especially the Qarra’in Jews) whose lives were eclipsed by the large and powerful Ashkenazi and Sephardi families who arrived in Egypt in the 19th and early 20th century.”
        First, the figures:
        As a result of Egypt’s 1929 Nationality Law, more than 90% of Egyptian Jews were denied citizenship, regardless of how many generations they had lived in Egypt. In the 1940s, roughly one quarter of Jews held foreign passports, less than one quarter held Egyptian citizenship and the remainder were stateless. Given Massad’s passion for the plight of the Palestinians, many of whom are stateless themselves, his insistence on citizenship as the key marker of legitimacy for Egyptian Jewish identity is ironic.

        5) Arab Jews are entitled to compensation from their respective states.

        Massad predictably asserts that “it is the Palestinians who are owed compensation for their stolen property by all the Jewish colonial settlers who have been living on it for some six decades, including Arab Jews.” They are. But why should this negate the proposition that Iraqi Jews, whose assets were frozen by the Iraqi government, be owed compensation from the Iraqi government or an international fund? According to Massad’s logic, it is because Iraqi Jews were never expelled, and because “the Zionists” sufficiently agitated Iraqi Jews’ position in society to cause them to leave. Even if they left “by choice,” however, most Iraqi and other Arab Jews were unable to legally exit their country with little more with than a suitcase per person and petty cash. Once gone, Arab countries did in fact settle Palestinians and their own citizens in ‘abandoned’ Jewish property. Jobbar, Damascus, and Aleppo are but a few examples.
        Compensation is as old an issue as the refugee problem, dating back to negotiations between David Ben Gurion and Nuri Al Said. Decades later, compensation was discussed in the Camp David negotiations. Historical references to compensation propose Israel (or an international fund) paying for Palestinian losses, and Arab states (or an international fund) paying for Arab Jewish loses. Instead, Massad remains fixated on a zero-sum scenario of legitimacy, where only one group is entitled to receive compensation.
        In sum, Massad’s article does a disservice to both Palestinians and Arab Jews by dismissing the role of the state in fomenting violence, and by legitimizing a state’s use of violence against non-citizens within its borders. More nuance would not only have been more historically accurate and intellectually honest, but would have better served the interests of Palestinians and Arab Jews alike.

        l
        link to blogs.timesofisrael.com

      • MHughes976
        April 28, 2013, 2:11 pm

        I absolutely would ask that of any Jewish family in the UK. I think that the idea of a right of return to another country after generations of peaceful citizenship in the UK – the idea that produced the dreaded Declaration in 1917 – was and is preposterous. At the time majority Jewish opinion in the UK probably thought so too.

      • Ecru
        April 29, 2013, 3:57 pm

        @ Taxi

        Yeah I know about the Khazar hypothesis, and about the recent genetics work but I’m also familiar with the archaeology (actually more familiar) and I’m afraid I have (to an extent) disagree with Sands’ contentions.

        Yes Jews did promulgate at various times, yes there’s a mix in the genetics (but less than would usually be expected, probably due to endogamy. The limited genetic variability is in fact one reason Jews have been studied so much especially for things like the Founders Effect) BUT so far archaeologically, as far as these things can be ascertained, I’m just not sure whether the Khazar conversion was of the population at large or limited to the elite. If it was just an elite conversion did this then spread throughout the Khazars as Christianity did in Anglo Saxon England or was it always an elite only thing and how long did this “Judiazation” last? Was it a permanent conversion or was it a temporary solution to a particular set of circumstances? I’m just not convinced about Sands’ argument. It’s just too neat and my experience of archaeology makes “neat” suspicious.

        However that’s by the by. The 2000 year claim is what Zionists use, whether it’s true or not is really not important because the claim itself is just so patently absurd (and even if it is true – it still fails to mention most modern Jews would be descendants of those who left WILLINGLY not because they were, according to the myth, forced). It’s as if a Munsterman could claim a house in Belgium because the Belgae came from there originally. Utterly and completely ridiculous.

      • Ecru
        April 29, 2013, 4:03 pm

        “People aren’t responsible for the crimes of their ancestors–they’re responsible for their own crimes.”

        I agree but I do have a question. Colonist X takes a house from Native Y and then Colonist X dies and passes the house to his child, Native Y dies and passes title to the house to his child.

        To whom does the house belong?

      • eljay
        April 29, 2013, 8:22 pm

        >> Once again you are repeating the same old tired anti Israel propaganda. … The Mizrahim were beaten and robbed of their homes in Arab countries. Their treatment in Arab countries is NOT dependent on whether or not Israel exists.

        Their treatment in Arab countries demands nothing less than justice and accountability. It does not excuse:
        - Jewish terrorism against Palestinians;
        - the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes and lands;
        - the creation of an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine; and
        - a 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder.

        But I guess one cannot expect Zio-supremacists to understand such things when they’re so busy spouting the tired same old tired pro-Israel propaganda.

      • RoHa
        April 29, 2013, 9:05 pm

        ‘It is NOT the case that ALL Mizrahim “left” That’s like saying The Palestinians simply “left”.’

        If they didn’t leave, they are still there. Same for the Palestinians. Saying they left does not imply anything about the reasons they left.

        “If this is the case that the Arabs “welcome” minorities”

        I didn’t say the Arabs welcome minorities.

        “can you explain the disappearance of the Greek community in Egypt?”

        Why was there a Greek community in Egypt? If they lived there permanently, they should have become Egyptians.

        “If Israel welcomed back all Palestinian refugees — how given the evidence of how the majority Muslim Population DOESN’T get along with minorities how long do you imagine the Jews in Israel would remain there?”

        Depends on how good they are at reconciliation. By their actions they have built up an awful lot of hatred, and they would have to overcome that. But on current population figures, the Jews would not be a small minority, and they would have a lot of political and economic power. It would be far better for the Israelis to start the reconciliation process now rather than perpetuate the current injustice. The difficulty of reconciliation is no excuse.

        “Can you explain why Libyans Jews who SUPPORTED the anti-Gadhafi forces are forbidden to re-settle in Libya?

        Why are Lebanese Jews forced to hide their Jewish religion?”

        When Israel keeps claiming that all Jews belong to Israel, and uses them as secret agents, it is difficult to trust Jews.

        “Their treatment in Arab countries is NOT dependent on whether or not Israel exists.”

        The fact remains that the major movement of Arab Jews from Arab countries occured after Israel was created.

      • Taxi
        April 29, 2013, 11:23 pm

        Get outta town miriam with your stupid Native Indian Analogy – hasbara 101! Debunked at least 100 times here on MW – check archives!

        You don’t even know where I was born so stfu your argument is completely baseless and moot!

        Besides, you are one of the LAST people on earth to care about injustice – especially native American Indian justice! I doubt very much you’ve even met a native American Indian – unlike me who galavanted around Arizona and California with Sitting Bull’s grandson – ya baby!

        Zionists are vain bastards who think they knowitall when they only know a single one thing: they are committed to covering up the evil crimes and terrorism of israel and its occupations. Even though you live somewhere between golders green and finchley (london, UK), I’m pretty sure you’d be more likely to join the idf than the British armed forces if push comes to shove and UK went to war with israel.

        Quit it with your ‘gotcha Taxi’ silly games – so puerile! No substance. You can run after me, but you’ll NEVER catch up dear!

      • talknic
        April 30, 2013, 2:04 am

        @ miriam6

        Uh huh. Lemme see. You want America left to the natives. So all American Jews will be leaving… right?

        Let’s say for example it’s done though… Israel will then suddenly adhere to the law after 65 years ignoring it? AMAZING!! Israel will adhere to its obligations to the UN Charter? WOW!!!

        BTW The US is no longer a colonizing nation. They swore off the habit way back in the mid1800′s when they legally annexed Mexican territories by consensus with Mexican citizens of Texas. Likewise Hawaii, Alaska, annexed by agreement! In 1934 the US ratified the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

        “ARTICLE 1 The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory”

        ARTICLE 11

        The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure.

        Meanwhile, Israel is STILL COLONIZING!

        Like all propagandists attempting to justify Israeli intransigence, your Hasbara has huge gaping holes.

      • talknic
        April 30, 2013, 8:35 am

        “where only one group is entitled to receive compensation”

        Only one group are still refugees. People who take up citizenship in a country other than that of return no longer have any refugee rights. They’re no longer refugees.

        Only one group is still being dispossessed.

        Only one state is being told it must, according to the Laws, UN Charter & conventions, withdraw from other folks’ territory.

      • miriam6
        April 30, 2013, 12:10 pm

        No you Americans simply colonise others by other means , nowadays.

        By planting your military bases all over the globe.

        Such as America’s decades long ILLEGAL under international law embargo
        on Cuba.

        Like all propagandists attempting to justify American/ anti Israel intransigence, your anti Israel Hasbara has huge gaping holes.

      • goldmarx
        April 30, 2013, 2:09 pm

        There are a number of articles on the web, critiquing both Sand and the geneticist Elhaik, which support Ecru’s suspicion of ‘neat’ archaeology.

        As geneticist Razib Khan wrote in August 2012 on the Discover website, in his critique of Elhaik (and by extension, Sand) entitled “Ashkenazi Jews are probably not descended from the Khazars”: “Romania and Hungary are referred to as Slavic nations which were targets of migration by Khazars fleeing the collapse of their polity. Neither of these nations were then, or are now, Slavic. In general I have to say that the historical framework of the paper is very skeletal, verging on incoherent (at least to me).”

        Khan also finds Elhaik’s use of the Armenians as a genetic proxy for the Khazar’s dubious because the Armenians were not a Caucasian people during the time of the Khazars but only much later, when they were chased there by the Turks bent on exterminating them.

        Khan states that since the Khazars were Turkic, “they would have had substantial proportions of East Asian ancestry”. However, even Elhaik did not report significant East Asian genetic markers among Jews.

        Linguist Asya Pereltsvaig, critiquing Elhaik in GeoCurrents, points to the latter’s ignorance of Yiddish: specifically to the idea that Yiddish, the language of Central and Eastern European Jews, “began as a Slavic language that was re-lexified to High German at an early date”. “The preponderance of Germanic words in Yiddish is clear from the page from the Shemot Devarim, a Yiddish-Hebrew-Latin-German dictionary and thesaurus, published by Elia Levita in 1542…. The theory that Yiddish is a Slavic language was originally proposed by Paul Wexler in his 1993 book The Ashkenazic Jews: A Slavo-Turkic People in Search of a Jewish Identity, a sequel of sorts to his 1990 book in which he argues that Modern Hebrew too is a Slavic language, re-lexified to Biblical Hebrew… what about this idea that Yiddish is really a Slavic language?

        First, it seems odd that a Turkic people who moved to Europe via Romania and Hungary would somehow acquire a Slavic language on the way. No traces of Turkic, Romance, or Uralic linguistic influences have ever been identified in Yiddish. Second, no clear cases have been described in which a language changes most or all of its vocabulary drawing on that of another language. If such a transformation were to happen, the old form of the language and the new one would be mutually incomprehensible, so it is hardly likely that either its speakers or linguists would use the same label for it, as if it were the same language. Many instances of language shift have been attested, but they are always described as a shift from one language to another, not a switch from one form of a language to a mutually incomprehensible one.”

        Most of us who speak Yiddish and have studied it know that the oldest words in Yiddish are from the Medieval High German (along with some French), as documented by Max Weinreich in “The History of the Yiddish Language.” Most of its words are from German. But more important than vocabulary is the grammar – the grammar is entirely German, not at all Slavic or Turkic.

  10. talknic
    April 26, 2013, 12:17 am

    Let’s say for example that there was ‘one state one vote’ and that state was Israel. Once established and recognized, it would be irrevocable unless it was decided by majority consensus (self determination) to cede in part or entirely to another power.

    A sovereign state can basically do whatever it likes within its boundaries as long as it doesn’t threaten peace in the region. Given Israel’s ghastly behaviour thus far, what is to stop it from passing a barrage of laws designed to drive non-Jews out?

    “Israelis will be forced to reexamine their values, beliefs, and all the sacred truths and red lines they invented. Israelis will be forced to admit ..”

    “forced” by what or who? It will take about two generations to cleanse Israel of all the bullsh*te it has feed its civilians and the world. As we can see from the likes of hophmi and co, they’re not able to admit ANYTHING! You show them irrefutable proof of Israel’s acceptance of UNGA res 181 from the words of the Jewish Agency at the UNSC and they simply ignore it and keep posting the same rubbish over and over. So while we’re waiting for the bullsh*t to subside expect a lot of bloodshed.

  11. Blownaway
    April 26, 2013, 12:23 am

    This movement is already anticipated in the US and Europe. They will protect Israeli apartheid by explaining that it’s different in Israel. They cant give Palestinians citizenship because it would be the end of Israel..even if it was by their choice

  12. Walid
    April 26, 2013, 2:54 am

    Whichever way its cultist ideology steers it, the evil state will eventually disintegrate. Until then, it will continue on glued together by its pretended existential fear. Yesterday the bogeyman was Saddam, today it’s Iran and tomorrow maybe Martians; anything to continue stealing the land.

  13. Shmuel
    April 26, 2013, 3:38 am

    tomorrow maybe Martians

    As everyone knows, Mars is full of Fascists.

    • Walid
      April 26, 2013, 3:56 am

      Didn’t understand a word, but still found it very funny.

    • MRW
      April 26, 2013, 4:06 am

      As everyone knows, Mars is full of Fascists

      lol. Yeah, I watched it.

  14. jon s
    April 26, 2013, 3:50 am

    And the moon is full of Nazis:

  15. Justpassingby
    April 26, 2013, 7:18 am

    “While parts of the piece read like a lecture to Palestinians”

    I think many of them need it to be frank.

    • gamal
      April 26, 2013, 11:40 am

      “I think many of them need it to be frank.”

      don’t we all?

      and why “many” of them, what do you mean?

  16. yourstruly
    April 26, 2013, 1:50 pm

    after israel’s delegitimization won’t it be up to palestinians to decide whether or not the jewish colonizers can remain in palestine as well as what would be expected of those who choose to stay? that’s what happened in mozambique almost a half century ago; after the liberation war was won there the 300,000 portuguese settlers were told that they’d have to choose between becoming mozambicans or returning to portugal, one or the other but not both. as it turned out well over 90% opted to return to portugal. shouldn’t be a problem for many israelis since a significant percentage of them carry 2nd passports & could take the next flight out. those without a 2nd passport would have to arrange to emigrate elsewhere. pressure could be put on nations that had unconditionally supported the zionist entity (particularly the u.s., great britain, germany, canada & france) to take in israelis who had nowhere else to go. this sure would test whether their oft professed concern for jews was real or not.

  17. Carllarc
    April 26, 2013, 2:55 pm

    Israel, like the South African apartheid state, is not going to act on its/their own. The commitment of the US to Israel, diplomatically, financially, and militarily, no matter what Israel does to the Palestinians, will always maintain the balance of power in Israel’s favor.

    Palestine must be proactive to seek the single secular state of 1p1v. The way for this is to GRANT dual citizenship to Israeli Palestinians and even to the Israeli colonists of the so-called ‘settlements’ — thus, making the 1s1v scenario happen.

  18. a blah chick
    April 26, 2013, 7:43 pm

    People, people, it’s very simple.

    Israel needs to stay Jewish because that is how the Ashkenazi elite stays in power.

    It’s not about surviving or protecting Jewish culture or traditions. (If that were the case why do they raise pigs there or let Jews boink gentiles?) It’s about power, pure and simple. And anyone, including Jews can be sacrificed on the alter of power. Remember how they cut benefits to the Holocaust survivors? Even they can get screwed if it means the elites can stay in power.

  19. iResistDe4iAm
    April 27, 2013, 11:39 am

    “Of no less importance was the dissidents’ unity. The Palestinians, so far, have failed on that score” ~ Gideon Levy

    Mr Levy must have slept through the civil war between the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and the ANC. Of course the IFP was led by Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi, the chief collaborator and leader of KwaZulu bantustan (the Mahmoud Abbas of South African apartheid).

  20. Stephen Shenfield
    April 27, 2013, 11:50 am

    The position that Levy is advocating — to demand “either a real state separate from Israel or the right to vote in a single state” — makes a lot of sense. It puts the ball firmly where it belongs — with Israel as the stronger party. But there are a few problems.

    For one thing, I cannot recall any other case of a campaign to demand “either A or B” — can anyone? It would be hard to maintain a balance: in practice the emphasis would tend to be either on A or on B. “We demand either A or B” does not make a very effective slogan.

    As so much diplomatic capital has already been invested in the 2SS, it might be best to leave the main emphasis there while introducing the subtext that a 1SS could also be acceptable.

    A lot of care needs to be taken in defining both A and B because both are vulnerable to co-option. Let us suppose that under huge pressure Israel concedes on territory and withdraws settlers and military forces from the whole of the West Bank and also agrees to share Jerusalem, but still holds firm on less salient though vital issues like control of borders, air space and aquifers. If the West Bank is turned into a second and bigger Gaza, would that constitute a real state?

    The right to vote can also be co-opted by extending to the whole of the joint state the two-level system of citizenship that currently exists within the 1948 borders. That is, all resident Palestinians would become “Palestinian citizens of Israel” and be allowed a measure of influence on matters that the Zionists do not regard as essential, but basic laws would be entrenched to exclude non-Jews from decision making in certain areas considered vital to “the Jewish character of the state” — immigration, land etc. This is the idea being promoted by some Likudniks — with the conscious intention, I suspect, of providing Israel with a fallback strategy in case it comes under irresistible pressure from an “anti-apartheid” movement.

    • W.Jones
      April 27, 2013, 6:58 pm

      Conservative commenter Kristol said in a debate with J. Ben Ami practically that the current situation is fine. He did not say it was perfect, but basically that it was good.
      He is basically reflecting the attitude of the community in power there, and their powerful supporters here. Why would they change a situation they like when they are in overwhelming control?

    • Peter in SF
      April 28, 2013, 8:00 am

      I cannot recall any other case of a campaign to demand “either A or B” — can anyone? It would be hard to maintain a balance: in practice the emphasis would tend to be either on A or on B. “We demand either A or B” does not make a very effective slogan.

      It’s been done before. “Equality or independence” was the main slogan of the winning Liberal Party under the leadership of Daniel Johnson during the Quebec provincial election campaign of 1966. The idea was that they were going to approach the federal government with a demand for equality between French and English within the Canadian confederation, and if that failed, Quebec would pursue independence outside of Canada.

      • Walid
        April 28, 2013, 9:05 am

        Peter, Daniel Johnson was leader of l’Union nationale that beat the Liberals in 1966. His threats of independence were not much more than a bluff. The “Quiet Revolution” movement had really started with the Liberals under Jean Lesage whose slogan was “maitres chez nous”. The whole movement was toned down by the late 70s that sought “Souveraineté” but with “Association” with the rest of Canada. Although the separatists won the provincial elections last fall, the debate on whether to separate from the Canadian confederation or not is still ongoing.

      • Peter in SF
        April 28, 2013, 4:19 pm

        Walid, sorry for getting the party wrong. Dumb of me; I don’t think the Quebec Liberal Party has ever announced explicitly that it would consider independence. I was just answering Stephen Shenfield’s question about whether there has been a campaign anywhere demanding “either A or B”. If we look back at the Quebec slogan “equality or independence” and where that got from the point of view of the people who espoused the slogan 47 years later: they would probably say neither has been achieved (official bilingualism at the federal level not enough to count as “equality”, and some transfers of powers certainly not enough to count as “independence”). So there may be lessons for Palestinians about adopting this kind of rhetorical approach.

  21. MHughes976
    April 27, 2013, 12:03 pm

    The basic duty of every sovereign power (common sense; well formulated by Locke) is to enfranchise all those subject to its sovereignty, with some exceptions. Israel is a system where the sovereign, reigning from river to sea, restricts the franchise in order to concentrate power in the hands of the Jewish minority. How can this be defended, asks Levy. The appeal is to one of the recognised exceptions: resident aliens need not be enfranchised. The Palestinians are resident aliens, since this is land where only Jewish people have a birthright, so if Palestinians are actually enfranchised it is a favour, not an obligation. The same principle of Jewish birthright stands in the way of partition, or 2ss: the idea that non-Jewish people have a right even to some of the land in question is a negation of Zionism – well, there could be some flexibility about the definition of ‘the land’, but not much. The main reason why the 2ss doesn’t happen is that it negates Zionism and that once Zionism is negated there is no reason – is there? – to support privilege for Jewish people in any form, such as exclusive rights over a portion of the territory. Some people think that partition amounts to rough justice, whereas for the likes of taxi and me it’s rough and tough but not just.
    Which is not to say that it won’t happen. I think all this talk of real possibilities in the past that don’t exist in the present is metaphysical and very dubious. But to me any semblance of 2ss would only be a semblance or a pretence, a step either to the golden future of human rights for all – Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Antartican – or to the division of the territory into enclaves which will be cleared slowly of non-birthrighters.
    Blah chick’s remarks are very interesting but I don’t feel encouraged by them! Israel seems to be like Sparta, with the various middle – on her analysis non-Ashkenazi – groups regard the helots as detestable foreigners and cling to the arrogant overlords in the grip of that old existential fear.
    O mi God, mi God, how can this terrible situation continue?

Leave a Reply