Land swaps in Israel/Palestine (and a bridge for sale in Brooklyn)

409691330
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Al Thani speak to the media following a meeting with members of the Arab League. (Photo: Reuters)
 

This post is part of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.

Is it me or does the land-swap business in the Middle East strike you as political corruption in the international market place?

The Arab League presented its amended “Land Swaps for Israeli-Palestinian Peace” plan yesterday.

Who did they present it to? Vice-President Joe Biden.

Where did they present it? Washington D.C.

Who heralded their plan as a “big step” toward peace in the Middle East? Secretary of State John Kerry.

The Israeli link to Washington isn’t the only Middle East connection used to maintain power. Arab bonding with Washington is as important to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as it is to Israel.

Washington, Israel and the Arab world. Triangulation. To maintain the system everyone needs to know where the other one is.

Land-swaps allow Israel to keep its large settlements in the West Bank in exchange for some Israeli controlled desert areas or, at least, Jewish deserted areas.

At most, land-swaps mean Palestinian autonomy within an expanded Israel.

In presenting the plan, Qatar’s foreign minister emphasized that peace between Israelis and Palestinians was a “strategic choice” for the Arab states. Yes – for the Arab states. Like Israel, they depend on the economic and military protection of the United States.

Such a willing dependence has little or nothing to do with Palestinians. Land-swaps are not a strategic choice for Palestinians, assuming that Palestinians want a real state and a future to boot.

The land-swap mentality has crept into Jewish discourse. Progressive Jews are in the forefront of this innocent sounding terminology. It’s symbolic of their multi-colored kippah paternalism.

Like selling vacation property in Florida when I was a child – that turned out to be swampland. Or in New York City offering to sell unsuspecting immigrants the Brooklyn Bridge.

Swapping land in Israel/Palestine, where Israeli settlements stay in place and Palestinians receive land Israel doesn’t want, is a scam.

So why have a ceremonial presentation in Washington heralding the plan that has nowhere to go?

Perhaps it’s a reaffirmation of President Obama’s self-declared lame duck status in the Middle East. Or another brick in his library-in-waiting.

About Marc H. Ellis

Marc H. Ellis is retired Director and Professor of Jewish Studies at Baylor University and author of Future of the Prophetic: Israel's Ancient Wisdom Re-Presented.
Posted in Israel/Palestine, Occupation, US Policy in the Middle East, US Politics

{ 229 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. David Samel says:

    Thank you, Marc Ellis, for dissenting from the liberal consensus about land swaps. I think that there is an even more fundamental problem. The land swaps must be “mutually agreeable,” which superficially sounds perfectly reasonable, but in practice, is not. The status quo, while not perfect for Israelis, is certainly quite livable, as they have all the power. It is intolerable for the Palestinians, who have had to endure 46 years of foreign military control over their lives that has ranged from humiliating to cruel, sadistic and murderous. When it comes time to negotiate over the land swaps, Israelis have little incentive to be agreeable – their alternative of the status quo is just fine. But Palestinians will be desperate to come to an agreement, and will be in a much worse bargaining position. This will not be negotiation among equals. It is a recipe for failure or at best, an exceedingly unfair “mutual” agreement.

    Since Israel has illegally acquired control of the whole area, and illegally moved its citizens into the territories, it should be given an “incentive” to minimize the extent of its thievery. Rather than a 1-1 land swap of territory, there should be a 2 to 1 ratio. For every acre of WB territory it wants to incorporate into Israel, it should have to forfeit two acres to a Palestinian State. That would help considerably, if this swap plan is at all feasible, although it still would not solve the problem of swapping arable land for twice as much desert.

    But I don’t think any swap is in the cards or should be. The situation is too far gone for resolution by partition. And of course any two-state solution would not solve the problem that Palestinian citizens of Israeli can never be equal citizens in the Jewish State.

    Finally, even this extremely dubious 1-1 mutually agreeable land swap idea is flatly rejected by the Israeli government, which insists that the 1949-67 lines NOT be the starting point for negotiations. They won’t even consider, much less sign on to this fig leaf proposal.

    • ToivoS says:

      Rather than a 1-1 land swap of territory, there should be a 2 to 1 ratio.

      The land that was first mentioned in the land swaps was for Israel to give up parts of the Negev Desert for WB land containing the up land aquifers. If we go by farm prices in California (much water) for parched range land in Nevada the ratio should be closer to 100:1.

      • Good points, ToivoS.

      • piotr says:

        More precisely, it should be “equal value” swap. In any case, the magnitude of the scam is way beyond this detail, because negotiations cannot produce an agreement.

        Dubious details may hide the emptiness of the total concept. I remember hot disputes if Saddam’s chemical artillery and missiles can reach Cyprus or not, or if they can be ready to launch/fire on two hour notice or at least a day. In the hindsight, British collected thoroughly falsified intelligence and then exaggerated conclusions from the pile of shit that was not as scary as Blair government needed. While there was a dispute about the ethics involved in the exaggerations, the ethics involved in the generation of the malodorous pile of “evidence” were to depressing to mention.

        Concerning the swaps, no government of Israel will relinquish an inch without dire necessity. They will fight tooth and nail, or at least make a show of it. This is their patriotic duty as understood by the majority of their voters. As long as any show of resistance from GoI causes Washington to fold the only thing that will happen is expansion of settlements, dispossession and oppression.

        As it is, the improved peace plan is a huge success, as it achieves its principal goal, good photo-op for Qataris and others.

    • miriam6 says:

      David Samel says;
      ( He who is an OUTSIDER to the middle east ie neither is he Palestinian nor Israeli Jew)

      Offers his “advice” to recalcitrant Israelis.

      ” And of course any two-state solution would not solve the problem that Palestinian citizens of Israeli can never be equal citizens in the Jewish State.”

      So ,David given your preference for forcing a RoR and a bi-national state on Israeli Jews, lets turn the question around and ask what guarantees of EQUAL rights would those Jewish citizens have in what would THEN inevitably soon become a Arab Muslim majority state?

      • lets turn the question around

        so you can evade answering it no doubt. slick/not.

        • miriam6 says:

          Annie,

          I think it’s only right and fair to question those who preach to others.

          That when folks like Davie S or you Annie R .
          (all safe and sound in your comfy secure American homes after all)
          start lecturing and pontificating to Israelis about what THEY ought to be doing regardless of the RISKS that those prescribed ( by you two American outsiders in your safe ,cushy American homes with no familial links or stake in Israel/Palestine) actions for “peace” may involve to actual real live flesh-and-blood-Israeli’s and their future safety and existence in their OWN country?

          What paternalistic arrogance on your part to presume that you know best for either the Israeli people OR the Palestinian people!

          Personally I take against the idea that Israel as the more powerful party should be able to prevent the much weaker Palestinians from building their own state.

          But ,by the same token and logic , I also take against a VASTLY more powerful country like YOURS being allowed to force it’s will on a small country with a small population like Israel’s.

          You ought to be critiquing AMERICA’S vast GLOBAL power.

          America’s interests as a Superpower have dictated at ALL TIMES the outcomes of the I/P conflict , much more so than Israel itself.

          Maybe you could start your critique with the outrage that is Guantanamo Bay.

          Now over ONE HUNDRED inmates are on Hunger Strike.

          HALF the prisoners who have been detained illegally were cleared for release many years ago.

        • @ miriam6

          But ,by the same token and logic , I also take against a VASTLY more powerful country like YOURS being allowed to force it’s will on a small country with a small population like Israel’s.

          Oh, cry me a river! When you stop spending our tax money to subvert our government by bribing our politicians to fight your wars and protect you in the UN from sanctions, then you get to make demands on whether we get to impose our will on you – which is laughable anyway, considering you have been thwarting our will for decades.

          Oh, yeah – good deflection to Gitmo! Most of us are against Gitmo, but it is blocked by the same aforementioned politicians. I am, and I am pretty sure annie is, very much for closing down Gitmo and affording civilian trials to all its occupants for whatever crimes they are being held for.

        • Ellen says:

          Miriam6, There is a repeated theme of victimology running in your posts. Here we have it once again:

          pontificating to Israelis about what THEY ought to be doing regardless of the RISKS that those prescribed ( by you two American outsiders in your safe ,cushy American homes …

          Poor Israelis, a nuclear-armed nation, among the most developed economies in the world, and comfy Americans haranguing on the poor Zionists. Really???

          I also take against a VASTLY more powerful country like YOURS being allowed to force it’s will on a small country with a small population like Israel’s.

          Right, Israel has no will at all, is helpless and is being pushed around by the big bad Americans? Who was it that said, something like “The American’s can be pushed into any direction…” The Israeli PM, that is who.

          How many billions does the US pump into Israel? How much time does the US Congress and Senate devote to blindly pushing legislation written by the Israeli interests and institutions?

          We can debate the interests behind the phony “War on Terror” and resulting atrocities like the Iraqi invasion or Gauantanamo Bay, but that is besides the point here.

          The status quo track Israel is on is not sustainable. The legal entity of Israel may remain, but should the Zionist enterprise fail (it is inevitable that it will) will we hear that it was America’s fault? That the Zionist were let down by the super power, and are victims once again?

          Zionists cannot have it both ways: Demanding from other nations endless funds and support and responsibility for Israel, and at the same time crying victim-hood and helplessness in the face of powerful nations. Chutzpah, anyone?

          I see that Zios are already setting the stage for even more victim-hood upon the inevitable the failure of Zionism.

          One thing will be right about it though: The US will have aided in the demise of Zionism by its “eternal and unwavering support.” Just as a parent enfeebles a child well into adulthood with endless allowances and enabling.

        • Donald says:

          Miriam, your position doesn’t make any sense. I recall Chomsky in “The Fateful Triangle” took a page in his chapter on Sabra and Shatila to point out how barbaric and hypocritical many of Israel’s critics were, and also some of Israel’s allies, and I don’t mind that because it’s true. It’s true that the US has a rotten human rights record.

          But it’s absurd to talk about the people here forcing Israel to do something, and that’s what you’re really talking about, because the big bully that is the US government ISN’T ON OUR SIDE. I capitalize that because you sound so delusional on this point. It’s not a question of anti-Zionist America forcing a solution on Israel–in the real world, the one you seem to have forgotten in your little distraction, America acts as Israel’s lawyer, Israel’s supporter, we just can’t do enough for the “only democracy in the Middle East” as they continue to practice apartheid and slow motion ethnic cleansing. You’re more upset about the alleged power of people here than you are about what actually goes on. Why is that?

          In the alternate bizarro universe that you live in, where the Islamophobic America that imprisons innocent Muslims for years in a tropical gulag in Cuba tries to force Israel into a democratic one state solution, yeah, maybe you’d have a point. In this universe you sound confused. Yes, if I were an Israeli Jew I’d worry about what might happen in a one state solution dominated by Palestinians if they follow a group like Hamas, but I’d probably be more worried about what some of my own people might do, because there already is a one state solution in practice and guess who is doing the oppressing? What is there about the record of Israel that makes you think that it would be the Palestinian side that would be the chief villain in some future ostensibly democratic 1SS? The Israeli side is at least as bigoted as the worst members of Hamas, and what’s really scary is that they combine this with an utter certitude of their own victimization. Also, if a 1SS of a genuinely fair variety takes hold and then starts following apart, I strongly suspect the side with the heavier weaponry will be the ones who’ve been running the IDF–I think that if Israelis ever faced a genuine threat to their existence (as opposed to the ginned up version of a few rockets) they’d react in a way that would teach Asad a thing or two about ruthlessness.

        • Shingo says:

          Brilliant post Donald, but I suspect it will be wasted. Miriam seems to have the maturity and ability to grasp what you said of a 5 year old.

        • Hostage says:

          I think it’s only right and fair to question those who preach to others.

          You’ve been given an answer. Why should Israel be granted carte blanche to violate the terms of the minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II) after it formally declared its acceptance of those terms and conditions during the hearings on its UN membership application?

          You certainly can’t fault the UN for failing to take action to protect minority rights in Palestine, when the organization has devoted a disproportionate amount of its energies in that area. In many cases the US veto has been the only thing that has prevented the implenentation of the protections proposed by the General Assembly, OCHR, and the Human Rights Committee/Council.

          The JCPA spends a lot of time preaching to people about Zionism. The JCPA published a tract which included an essay by Eli Likovski on the “Status of the Jewish Agency and WZO”. He explained that when the Zionist Congress said “to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine, secured under public law” that they simply meant “public international law”. See page 32 of Daniel Judah Elazar, Alysa M. Dortort (editors) “Understanding the Jewish Agency: a handbook, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs*, 1984.

          Public international law represents a collection of common rules of decency that states have adopted to govern mutual relations among peoples.

          Adam Keller wrote an article which sums-up the situation:

          And thus, to go back to the question posed at the beginning of this article: Is Israel singled out, by international civil society if not (yet?) by international diplomacy? Yes, it is. Is it unfair and biased? To my view, it is not. It is but a quite fair demand upon Israel to pay at least part of a long-overdue debt, and keep their part of a contract which Israel’s Founding Fathers solemnly signed.

          Yes, there are many countries whose conduct fully deserves condemnation – but none was given such a unique privilege as the Zionist movement was given, none had made such a binding obligation in return for being given such a privilege, and which it failed to keep.

          In recent years the State of Israel has been vociferously criticized for planting settlers in the occupied territories – which it can be argued that China is also doing in Tibet; and for killing civilians in the bombings of Gaza, which it can shown that Americans and Europeans are also doing in Iraq and Afghanistan; and for lethally raiding the Gaza Aid Flotilla, for which some apologists also tried to find various precedents and parallels. Yet Israel is singled out because it, and it alone, is in obvious default of a fundamental obligation, an obligation which was the condition for Israel coming into being in the first place.

          The plan which is now on offer – and had been on offer for quite a long time – gives Israel the possibility of settling this debt on quite comfortable conditions. The West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are to be given up and become the State of Palestine, are after all little more than 22% of what was Mandatory Palestine, and by giving them up Israel would be intentionally recognized as having at last discharged its debt and kept its obligation. But continued persistence in refusing to pay the debt – continuing it until the international balance of power has fundamentally changed, some years or decades from now – might put Israel at the risk of what happens to those who fail to pay their debts: going into liquidation.

          link to israeli-occupation.org

        • Donald says:

          Thanks for the compliment Shingo–I don’t quite get Miriam. I think she really is critical of the occupation, but this blog irritates her for various reasons.

        • Shingo says:

          I don;t think Miriam is much of a mystery. She might be critical of the occupation but like so many Israeli sympathizers, she reflexively defends it.

        • Sumud says:

          Thanks for the compliment Shingo–I don’t quite get Miriam. I think she really is critical of the occupation…

          Donald ~ if it doesn’t add up, there’s a reason.

          Read her comments archive, there’s about 100 of them, and most of them are devoted to:
          1. misdirection (America did this, that and the other)
          2. faux outrage (how could you say that terrible thing)
          3. the terrible things done to jews (those nasty ol’ arabs)
          4. discouraging BDS (it didn’t work for South Africa)(you are objectifying Palestinians)

          There’s very little sympathy or solidarity with the Palestinian experience, bar a few throwaway comments. And even less criticism of the occupation; I don’t know how you got the impression she is critical of it.

          To ‘profile’ miriam I’d suggest she is a older jewish zionist unhappy that non-jews are talking about Israel’s behaviour. She is having trouble coming to terms with her recognition that Israel has stepped on it’s own IED in occupying Palestine and populating it with settlers, making the 2 state solution a practical impossibility and a single, non-zionist state inevitable.

        • miriam6 says:

          Typical lying Shingo ;

          ” She might be critical of the occupation but like so many Israeli sympathizers, she reflexively defends it.”

          Having failed to win the argument by honest means..

          You choose to attribute to me a stance on occupation I have never taken.

          You opt instead to falsely claim I have defended the occupation.

          Where is the quote from my comments in which I can be said to defend the occupation?

        • That when folks like Davie S or you Annie R .
          (all safe and sound in your comfy secure American homes after all)
          start lecturing and pontificating to Israelis about what THEY ought to be doing

          got it miriam..speaking of what you ought to be doing; just a little heads up on posting whole articles straight off the net/especially msm sites. it’s not recommended for getting your comments cleared. try blockquoting a few paragraphs and leaving a link. (iow, no more 16 paragraph copy/paste jobs)

      • American says:

        ‘So ,David given your preference for forcing a RoR and a bi-national state on Israeli Jews, lets turn the question around and ask what guarantees of EQUAL rights would those Jewish citizens have in what would THEN inevitably soon become a Arab Muslim majority state?”……miriam

        As far as I’ concerned you don’t get any guarantees…or let me put it this way…..you’ll get some guarantees ‘in writing’ but no one is going to be interested in enforcing them for you…any more than the ”guarantees’ for the Palestines in UN Res. 181, which Israel violated every one of, were enforced.
        Why should anyone be interested in ‘equal’ rights for you when you’ve spent 65 years denying other people theirs?
        The world gave you a state, gave you your so called self determination and look what you did with it……made it a supremist society and outlaw state.
        Nope, you had your shot and you blew it.

      • Hostage says:

        So ,David given your preference for forcing a RoR and a bi-national state on Israeli Jews, lets turn the question around and ask what guarantees of EQUAL rights would those Jewish citizens have in what would THEN inevitably soon become a Arab Muslim majority state?

        Correction: Part of the bargain that the Zionist leadership made in order to secure their aims was the principle that their national home would be secured in accordance with the principles of public international law. Establishing an independent state on another people’s territory through illegal population transfers is not an accepted mode of exercising the right of self-determination. See “The Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations” link to un-documents.net

        The international community of states allowed a flood of foreign Zionist inmmigrants to be forced upon the Palestinian people for 25 years before the practice of colonialism was legally prohibited. See “The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” link to untreaty.un.org

        It was the Zionist leadership who opted for free association and integration with the newly created state of Palestine, not vice versa.

        what guarantees of EQUAL rights would those Jewish citizens have in what would THEN inevitably soon become a Arab Muslim majority state?

        The same ones that minorities have always had. Only the US veto has prevented their implementation. Your own propaganda organs have documented the disproportionate amount of attention devoted to the subject by the UN.

        Minority rights in Palestine were placed under UN guarantee in accordance with Chapter XI of the UN Charter. See UN General Assembly resolution 9 (i) link to un.org

        The subjects of equal constitutional rights and legal protections for minorities in Palestine were specifically addressed and placed under UN protection by a treaty on minorities contained in Chapters B and C of General Assembly resolution 181(II). link to un.org

        Those rights cannot be altered without the consent of the General Assembly. Both Israel and Palestine have provided the necessary declarations to the UN acknowledging their acceptance of that minority protection plan. The ICJ noted that it was the source of the UN’s permanent responsibility for the Question of Palestine until it is resolved in accordance with those same principles of public international law that the first Zionist Congress alluded to in their Basel platform.

        Those principles of public international law include the right of the Palestinian inhabitants to enjoy quiet possesion of their homes and lands no matter how many times a change in sovereignty occurs. They also prohibit any policy or practice of expropriation without compensation, deportation, or interference with the right of all persons to leave and return to their own country of origin.

  2. Citizen says:

    It’s a scam all right. Who do they think they are kidding? Oh, just the American masses. And they are correct. Just keep paying Israel’s bills in $ and blood, Dick & Jane. Yet, Israel is still not satisfied. The Arab countries going along with “small land swaps” that authorize Israel to keep all the major illegal settlements they want, is just an amazing sell out by the Arab state regimes dependent on USA. Obama should tell Israel in public it’s not going to get away with keeping what it grabbed in ’67 and has been expanding since then. But he won’t, the prick is already looking for a nice tribute to his peace attempts for his library, an asset for his post-POTUS speech and book income contemplated. And, oh, btw, Obama is now rewarding the Zionist hotel heiress Penny Pritzker for her vital help in getting his career towards POTUS off to a good start and keeping it well-funded: link to haaretz.com

    Of course she will get the job, and I can’t imagine what she might do with her power over the US Census….

    • Keith says:

      CITIZEN- A quote and a link.

      “You made fun of me when I suggested that President Barack Obama would nominate a confessed bank scammer, a loan-sharking mortgage predator, to his cabinet. But thar she blows!” (Greg Palast)
      link to dissidentvoice.org

  3. frankier says:

    Enough of this 2-state solution malarkey. One-state solution is the “solution”. Israel pushed it to the point of no return with the settlements expansion and now the only sustainable way forward is a democratic state with one vote for each citizen. End of story.

    Now… making it happen… that is the real challenge.

    They can go about it in two ways:

    a) the South African way -> apartheid first with lots of blood shed then a country in which reconciliation is problematic due to the enormous resentment from the blacks. Economic conditions stagnant for several decades. A uphill road to reconciliation.

    b) A new way (cannot think of any situation where this happened) –> Acceptance by the minority (the current Israeli) that they need to share the land and the benefits of a democratic state with the existing majority (the Palestinians). The easy way to reconciliation as Israel could cut its military budget from the current >4% of GDP to maybe 1% and dedicate the freed up resources to integration and reconstruction.

    Alas… I am not optimistic and I think that option a) will be the way they will go about this. Neither party (especially the current Israeli) believe that they need to do anything about this. They status quo is all right. They barely see the Palestinians and the “dirty” work is done at the fringe of their society by the IDF.

    So sad…

    • George Smith says:

      @frankier:

      1. I think SA fits (b) better than (a). Sure, there was (and is) resentment against the whites, but it’s crucial that that resentment didn’t result in expulsion or government organized reprisals. This is not to say that the single state that emerged in SA was a “solution.” Political apartheid may have given way to political democracy, but the neoliberal economic apartheid regime continues, though no longer on enforced along strict racial lines. There has been only a tiny steering of resources to “integration and reconstruction.”

      2. What made “acceptance by the minority” (the white minority in SA) possible was the establishment over ~3 decades of a highly credible government in waiting: the ANC. F.W. de Clerk’s Nationalist party had enough trust in the ANC’s commitment to reconciliation that they saw it in their interest to relinquish political power in favor of democracy.

      3. In the case of Palestine, with roughly equal numbers of oppressors (Zionists Jews) and oppressed (Palestinians), all means of coercion being with the former, it is extremely unlikely that the Zionist leadership will relinquish political power to a nationalist Palestinian government in waiting. In order to be credible in the eyes of the Zionist leadership, a government in waiting will have to be a non-nationalist coalition of Jews and Palestinians, with a central platform of equal rights for all. There is very little Jewish-Palestinian coalition building in the formal political arena today, either in the Knesset, the Palestinian Legislative Council (legislative arm of the PA) or the Palestinian National Council (legislative arm of the PLO). Coalition politics is certainly visible in civil society, however, as can be seen in the Friday demonstrations on view in “5 Broken Cameras,” or in a growing number of op-eds in Haaretz. Building on those small beginnings and bringing them into the formal political arena seems to me the most plausible pathway to democracy in Palestine.

      • Borukh says:

        You’re correct in these points, George Smith. The bottom line is that no Israeli government will agree to anything BUT a 2-state “solution”. The folks commenting about a single bi-national state, etc. are dreaming. The real problem is how to get the Netanyahu government to seriously negotiate in good faith for a 2-state that includes east Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. Most Israelis would agree to land swaps (yes, FAIR ones), but I am doubtful about their giving up eastern Jerusalem, sharing sovereignty in the Old City, Temple Mount and Kotel areas. The difficulties there were ‘solved’ by the UN Partition Plan of 1947 by making Jerusalem as a whole a UN administered area with no nation having sovereignty over it.

        • Most Israelis…. would agree to land swaps

          borukh, it’s sort of irrelevant what most israelis would agree to.

          The bottom line is that no Israeli government will agree to anything BUT a 2-state “solution”…The folks commenting about a single bi-national state, etc. are dreaming

          i think you are dreaming suggesting an israeli gov would agree to a 2 state solution. what evidence do you have? are you aware of the leak of the palestine papers?nthe israel government isn’t going to agree to give palestine any kind of sovereign state. the defacto of no 2 states is one state. it’s already functions as one state. an apartheid state but one state gov ruling over all the people. so what you’ve got to do is try making an argument how israel will release their hold over palestine. arguing israel will not agree to one state is sort of moot. they won’t agree to equal rights, but it’s a toss up whether equal rights will come before two states. both are equally as far fathomed. you’re dreaming too.

        • Shingo says:

          You’re correct in these points, George Smith. The bottom line is that no Israeli government will agree to anything BUT a 2-state “solution”.

          They won’t agree to that either.

          The folks commenting about a single bi-national state, etc. are dreaming.

          It’s always amusing to hear people making this argument when a single state is the practical reality as it exists today. No so much bi-national as apartheid mind you.

          Most Israelis, per their being extensively pplled, would agree to land swaps (yes, FAIR ones)

          No they won’t, which is why they have elected so many right wing extremists to the Israeli leadership. Not even the so called moderate, like Lapid, would entertain land swaps.

          And if they are not prepared to give up eastern Jerusalem, sharing sovereignty in the Old City, Temple Mount and Kotel areas, then clearly they are not interested in either a 2ss or fair land swaps.

          The difficulties there were ‘solved’ by the UN Partition Plan of 1947 by making Jerusalem as a whole a UN administered area with no nation having sovereignty over it.

          No, they weren’t. The Zionist leadership never accepted that arrangement and always vowed to abolish the partition anyway.

        • Borukh says:

          We’ll have to agree to differ, AR, on what “most Israelis would agree to”. Given Israel’s strengths, not even the EU (should iot come to that) will force a settlement. If there is serious negotiation (yes, this is a terrific problem with the Netanyahu gov’t) then strong support from the bulk of Jewish Israelis is crucial.

          Yes, I am aware of the “Palestine papers” from the wiki leak. Whatever you see as the de facto reality from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, the reality is the opposite. Even my country’s gov’t has an official policy that runs contrary to what Netanyahu is doing (see Web site of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, link to international.gc.ca ) And even our PM, Steven Harper, as right wing an ideologue as he is (and ‘born again’, etc) sent Netanyahu a negative reaction to his last announcement of settlement expansion.

          Bottom line – Saying that there already is one state apartheid state does not make it one state. My friends and relatives in Israel (who left war torn antisemitic and pogrom-ridden eastern Galicia in the early 1920′s for mandate Palestine and thus avoided the destruction of everyone – but one survivor – who was left in eastern Europe), even those who have generally waffled about or outright supported Bibi’s coalitions in the past, this time around are clear about what Israel must avoid. If there were a significant majority in their camp, Israel would go to the negotiating table. That much is clear for me, though I admit to it being a big “IF”…

  4. Nevada Ned says:

    Palestinians should propose land swaps, and – a crucial point – the Palestinians (not Israel) get to pick what land gets swapped for what other land. For example: Palestinians get all of Jerusalem and surroundings, and all of Tel Aviv and its suroundings, while in return Israel gets the Gaza Strip.

    Do you think John Kerry would celebrate that proposal as a bold step towards peace?

    • Nevada – - Equal value would be the key, to any land swaps. Sensible borders would obviously be a factor.

    • They should NOT propose swaps. The solution have been clear for decades (return occupied palestinian land – full stop).
      Start to talk about swaps etc, which Israel isnt interested in anyway, is to start from square 1, not wise at all.

      • Solid position, re: negotiating tactics. And of course the US demands large concession from the Palestinians while getting ZERO in return from Israel.

      • Borukh says:

        That “solution” is a non-starter, Justpassingby. You are not being realistic. Your hard line view doesn’t lead to anything but a continuation of the status quo and more bloodshed. This is why the small but important modification of the text of the Arab Peace Proposal is so important. Yes, Israel must agree that 1967 is the starting point, but not the ending point. Fair land swaps is the way to go – as has already been made clear in discussions at Camp David, Taba, etc. Israel must have an incentive to negotiate seriously and those who propose a bi-national state are dreaming. I always ask such deep thinkers how they are going to convince 6 million Jewish Israelis to go for such a ‘solution’. The real problem is how to get the Netanyahu government to seriously negotiate in good faith for a 2-state that includes east Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. Most Israelis, per their being extensively pplled, would agree to land swaps (yes, FAIR ones), but I am doubtful about their giving up eastern Jerusalem, sharing sovereignty in the Old City, Temple Mount and Kotel areas (though some very interesting ideas for doing that have been made over the years), The difficulties there were ‘solved’ by the UN Partition Plan of 1947 by making Jerusalem as a whole a UN administered area with no nation having sovereignty over it.

        • Sumud says:

          Your hard line view doesn’t lead to anything but a continuation of the status quo and more bloodshed.

          Israelis seem quite content with the status quo, and it is only just now dawning on Netanyahu that he will lose the battle when Palestinians start to fight for one-person/one-vote:

          Fear of democracy– Netanyahu calls for Palestinian deal so as to avert ‘binational state’

          Other leaders such as the Ehuds have already used the word apartheid the describe Israel, and acknowledged that Israel cannot win when the ground shifts to the one-person/one-vote debate. The glaring problem is that the bi-national state exists NOW in a de-facto sense, with a majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza having lived their entire lives under Israel’s military occupation.

          I always ask such deep thinkers how they are going to convince 6 million Jewish Israelis to go for such a ‘solution’.

          Multiple Israeli leaders can see the writing on the wall. You can’t? Maybe you need to put your “deep thinking” cap on and exercise the little grey cells yourself.

          With the occupation of Palestine and the installation of more than half a million settlers, Israel has set in motion a series of events which can’t be reversed, and which now have sufficient momentum to carry Israel right off the cliff.

          BDS will continue to grow, perhaps you think it won’t, and has no teeth? Well think that if you like, and wait and see. It took about 35 years for BDS to overcome apartheid in South Africa, and BDS in Palestine was launched 8 years ago.

          As for a doctored version of the Arab Peace Initiative – it is meaningless if Palestinians don’t accept it. History is on the Palestinian’s side, every day that passes sees more settlers installed in Palestine and more people around the world coming on board with BDS.

          You reap what you sow.

        • Borukh says:

          Yes, if you are someone who says (as you do) that there’s already one state, then yes again, there is apartheid. No question! Israel as recognized by every other country in the world, there is gross racism and discrimination, etc. Where I agree, is that if this keeps on, and the de facto seems to be more and more entrenched (which I admit is the present and past direction), then I will consider your present position to be valid. But it is not thus as yet, imo.

          As for the Palestinians not accepting the revisions to the Arab Peace Plan, I don’t think you are facxtually correct – with the exception of (and it is an important exception) Hamas. They have consistently refused to sign on.

  5. HarryLaw says:

    Natenyehu has already rejected these proposals just as Livni did in the Palestine papers, then most of the settlement blocks were offered to Israel. Erekat comments that the Jews would have: ‘The biggest Yerushalayim [employing the Hebrew word] in Jewish history.’(5)
    Likewise Qurei, in regard to the far-reaching nature of this offer and with reference to the point at which negotiations had previously broken down comments: ‘This is the first time in history that we makes such a proposition. We refused to do so in Camp David.’(6) In a stunning exchange which highlights the disparity in negotiating power between the two sides and the Israeli unwillingness to make any concessions
    Tzipi Livni, 27 July 2010
    responds: ‘We do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands, and probably it was not easy for you to think about it, but I really appreciate it.’(7) Assuming that, at the end of the day, the Americans will not say nay, Livni is able to state that even such an offer is inadequate, not meeting Israeli ‘demands’”.
    The Israelis know how weak the Arab League is, the Kings and Princes will belly crawl to the US, its embarrassing, but their crowns are at stake, they even regime change their own member states, if asked by their master.

  6. Arab leaders had always suggested off-the-record that some areas of the West Bank heavily occupied by illegal Jewish colonists, could perhaps be included in Israel, in exchange for equal value land detatched from Israel.

  7. dbroncos says:

    Israelis rejected the Arab states proposals in 2002 and they’ll reject their amended proposals in 2012. In 2002 there were some 212,722 settlers in the West Bank. Now the WB settler population exceeds 350,000. Israel’s benefactors have only rewarded, never punished, Israelis for their colonial project. If Israel’s benefactors don’t provide them with a good reason to to give it up, they won’t. That may happen some day but not in the near future, not while the peace prize winner is in office.

    • netanyahu is worried link to haaretz.com

      The fact that Kerry stood beside Qatar’s prime minister while he was reading the announcement increased Netanyahu’s aides’ suspicions toward Kerry.

      …….

      “Our position is clear: As long as Netanyahu does not say the number 1967, there’s nothing to talk about. Maybe he needs to undergo psychological therapy to utter that number,” Erekat added.

      • dbroncos says:

        The hypocrisy of all this has to run up against some hard realities for both Israel and the US before we see changes for the better. Another Arab oil embargo? Not likely.

        • peeesss says:

          By your comments[, James Canning, you are either grossly uninformed about the historic Palestine/Israel situation , naive or , a liberal Zionist {probably of Christian background, or just another {undercover} Hasbarist. Your respect for “Arab leaders” and their hypocritical utterances about their Palestinian “brothers” , your comment ” Bravo Erekat “, your belief in the US , Israel, the Arab League and the puppet Abbas and Erekat to negotiate a deal of “equal value” and “sensible” borders only betrays your naivete, ignorance and/or hasbarist tendencies. Please don’t try so hard to be “even handed’” be true to yourself.

      • Blownaway says:

        None of this theatre matters. The Palestinians can promise to name ever male born Bibi and nothing will change. Who cares if the swap is 1 for 1 or 10 to 1..its not gonna happen

        • RoHa says:

          I see a bit of positive value in this theatre. It makes it harder for Israel to pretend it is interested in a deal.

        • Blownaway says:

          Who is left that doesn’t know its all a charade? The real charade is that everyone knows but pretends anyway…

        • Borukh says:

          And that is precisely why it is important. It will be very very difficult for Israel to sustain credibility or for Obama et al. to support an Israeli hard line and still claim to be “interested in a deal” if the Israeli government rejects the modified Arab Peace Proposal. I think Erekat’s retort about Netanyahu uttering “1967″ was brilliant! I also think the tide is turning more and more among ‘ordinary’ Americans (Canadians, Brits, etc.) away from favouring Israel’s intransigency and asking the critical question of their leadership – But why not? Ach, maybe I’m being too naive…

  8. giladg says:

    Once again we have the Arab selective memory at work. And we are not going to let you get away with it Mr. Ellis.
    The 1947 Partition Plan allocated most of the good fertile land plus almost all of the underground water aquifers, plus most of the physical high ground, to the Palestinians. Not only this, but the 1947 Partition Plan gave Jews no outside access to Jerusalem, not even the Jewish areas, and had the most sensitive areas in Jerusalem marked as under international control. In the plan Jerusalem was to be completely surrounded by Palestinian controlled territory. The Palestinians rejected this plan. Yes Mr. Ellis, and what do want from the Jews? I know what you want and I don’t expect, or want an answer from you. Not until you hold the Palestinians responsible for past mistakes. The 1947 Partition Plan allocated most of the unworkable land, the Negev Desert, the mosquito infested swamp land in Northern Galilee and few other bits and pieces to the Jews. So please don’t come and preach here that Israel is ready to swap land that it does not want. The Palestinians should rejoice and these types of offers and opportunities based on the huge mistakes they have made in the past, mistakes that no one has demanded they address and own. And whilst you are going about thinking what I am saying here Mr. Ellis, I suggest you seriously encourage your Palestinian friends to not waste another 50 years and come out now and acknowledge and accept that Israel needs to be the nation state of the Jewish people. But I know what is going to happen. You and your friends are going to continue to ignore this and the world is going to let you off the hook. And therefor real peace will never happen. And another thing Mr. Ellis, in 1947 there were no settlements on the West Bank. And another thing Mr. Ellis, up until 1967 there were no settlements on the West Bank. And this did not stop the Arab and Muslim, and the Palestinians, from waging war on the Jewish people. And now you say that settlements are the major stumbling block to peace? No Sir, you cannot fool us with your lies and/or distortions.

    • Donald says:

      “And another thing Mr. Ellis, up until 1967 there were no settlements on the West Bank. And this did not stop the Arab and Muslim, and the Palestinians, from waging war on the Jewish people. And now you say that settlements are the major stumbling block to peace? ”

      You guys are utterly clueless. Nothing sinks in. Ever hear of the term “Nakba”? Do you have any idea how stupid it sounds to talk as though the Palestinians had no grievances against Israel until 1967? Or how bigoted it is? And when Palestinians do fight against the Israelis for reasons that any normal human being ought to be able to understand, you term it “waging war on the Jewish people”. Yeah, sure, only anti-semites object to being forced out of their own land.

      By the way, you forgot to mention that the UN partition plan gave 55 percent to the Jewish state, and that even within those border nearly half the residents were Palestinians.

    • David Samel says:

      giladg, thank you and whoever else is included in your “we” and “us” for setting the record straight. In the nick of time, I might add, because I was just about to believe Ellis’s “Arab selective memory” and his lies and distortions. I guess I’ll believe yours instead.

    • valency says:

      Once again we have the Arab selective memory at work. And we are not going to let you get away with it Mr. Ellis.

      Once again, it’s the Zionists with the “selective memory.” As you well know, the Zionists quite openly declared their rejection of partition and their intentions not to abide by it. The Palestinians were therefore wise in their decision to fight the Zionists, who had the obvious intention to reject partition, conquer the whole of greater Israel, and drive the Palestinians out:

      “As early as 1938, David Ben-Gurion declared: “After we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine”. In 1948, Menachem Begin said, “The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognised. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever”.”

      link to begincenterdiary.blogspot.com.au

      Thanks for reminding me what weasily liars Zionists are.

    • pjdude says:

      The rejection of the illegal partition plan wasn’t a mistake for 2 reasons the first being the zionists intended to wage a war of conquest no matter what and secondly they had zero obligation to submit to an attack on their sovereignty to give up part of their territory to a group that flat out stated that it had no intimation of try to peacefully coexist. That you paint it as a mistake only goes to show the sense of entitlement zionists have.

    • Shingo says:

      The 1947 Partition Plan allocated most of the good fertile land plus almost all of the underground water aquifers, plus most of the physical high ground, to the Palestinians

      False. The exact opposite is true.

      Not only this, but the 1947 Partition Plan gave Jews no outside access to Jerusalem, not even the Jewish areas, and had the most sensitive areas in Jerusalem marked as under international control

      So what? It didn’t give Jerusalem to the Arabs either.

      Not until you hold the Palestinians responsible for past mistakes.

      But you don’t want the Zionists to be hep accountable for their actual crimes.

      The 1947 Partition Plan allocated most of the unworkable land, the Negev Desert, the mosquito infested swamp land in Northern Galilee and few other bits and pieces to the Jews.

      And the most valuable territory along the coast too. Of course, you are forgetting that Jews only owned 7% of the land, while the Palestinians owned well over 50%, and yes, the Jews were given 56%.

      That’s still not good enough for you nut jobs.

      The Palestinians should rejoice and these types of offers and opportunities based on the huge mistakes they have made in the past

      Rejoice over what? The land belongs to the Palestinians, not Israel. The Israelis have proven time and time again they are not prepared to return what they stole.

      I suggest you seriously encourage your Palestinian friends to not waste another 50 years and come out now and acknowledge and accept that Israel needs to be the nation state of the Jewish people.

      Why? Since when has Israel ever cared about what he Palestinians thought or believed? This is just stonewalling and a way to claim entitlement to land that it has no right to. Who gives a crap what Israel wants to call itself?

      And therefor real peace will never happen.

      Israel doesn’t want peace. If the Palestinians did acknowledge and accept that Israel needs to be the nation state of the Jewish people, Israelis leaders would simply come up with another more absurd pre condition to making peace.

      No doubt the next demand would be to acknowledge Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the Jewish state.

      And another thing Mr. Ellis, in 1947 there were no settlements on the West Bank.

      Actually there were. The territory between the 1948 border and he armistice line was in the West Bank and Israel build all over it between 1948 and 1967.

      It you who is distorting and lying. You need new talking points.

    • RoHa says:

      “Not until you hold the Palestinians responsible for past mistakes.”

      I think their main mistake was to reject the Peel plan. They should have accepted it on the conditions (a) that the rest of Palestine was given full independence before the British left the Jewish state, and (b) that the Jewish state was demilitarized. Then, once the British left, treated the Jewish state the way India treated Goa.

    • Blownaway says:

      Funny usually people with a point of view like Giladg aren’t one staters…

    • talknic says:

      @ giladg “The 1947 Partition Plan allocated most of the good fertile land …..”

      True or not, it’s irrelevant. The Jewish Agency agreed to the plan, considered it binding & stated they were not dependent on the Arabs agreeing to the plan.

      Friday, 5 March 1948 statement to the UNSC “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…. ”

      Friday, 19 March 1948 statement to the UNSC
      “The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State.”

      Friday 19 March 1948 statement to the UNSC
      “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.” link to wp.me

      The Jewish People’s Council and Zionist Movement declared a state “on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly” link to pages.citebite.com

      The Provisional Israeli Government pleaded for recognition on that plan and was recognized as the State of Israel on that plan. link to trumanlibrary.org

      No territories have ever been legally annexed to Israel, it’s actual legal borders are still those of the partition plan. The 1949 Armistice Agreements specifically did not change any borders. Nor did the two Peace Agreements with Egypt and Jordan.

      “.. the 1947 Partition Plan gave Jews no outside access to Jerusalem, not even the Jewish areas, and had the most sensitive areas in Jerusalem marked as under international control”

      Weird notion …

      8. Freedom of transit and visit; control of residents. Subject to considerations of security, and of economic welfare as determined by the Governor under the directions of the Trusteeship Council, freedom of entry into, and residence within, the borders of the City shall be guaranteed for the residents or citizens of the Arab and Jewish States. Immigration into, and residence within, the borders of the city for nationals of other States shall be controlled by the Governor under the directions of the Trusteeship Council.

      9. Relations with the Arab and Jewish States. Representatives of the Arab and Jewish States shall be accredited to the Governor of the City and charged with the protection of the interests of their States and nationals in connexion with the international administration of the City.

      “In the plan Jerusalem was to be completely surrounded by Palestinian controlled territory”

      So what? See previous guarantee

      “The Palestinians rejected this plan”

      Irrelevant. The Jewish Agency accepted it as binding and recognized the fact that one state was not dependent on the other party agreeing. “independence” means not being dependent on another party. There was no ‘agreement’ clause, no provision to co-sign. No declaration of independence in the world bears the co-signature of any other party. Israel drew its own line in the sand and has failed to adhere to its boundaries.

      Furthermore… The Palestinians had no say in formulating the plan, in accepting or rejecting the plan. Would you have agreed to have GIVEN away more than half of what was promised you as a state ( link to pages.citebite.com ) without having a say in the matter?

      And … by the time the Mandate expired (necessary for either territory to be ‘independent’, before they could be declared ‘independent’), Jewish forces were already in control of territory slated for the Arab state, so it became impossible for the Arabs to declare sovereign ‘independence’, their territory was not and is still not ‘independent’ of the control of Jewish/Israeli forces.

      “… what do want from the Jews? “

      “Jews”? Israelis. Conflation is a typical deception employed by cheats and liars. What people want from Israel is for it to get out of non-Israeli territory. Quite simple really, adhere to the law.

      “The 1947 Partition Plan allocated most of the unworkable land … few other bits and pieces to the Jews”

      The maritime plain, with large tracts of sandy or sandy-loam soils intersected with considerable areas of heavy land, is very fertile and includes the citrus belt. The inland plains, such as Esdraelon and the Huleh, are heavy alluvium and well suited to grain. British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine. Volume I – pages 309 – 388

      ” don’t come and preach here that Israel is ready to swap land that it does not want”

      OK… Israel is only willing to swap non-Israeli territory for non-Israeli territory so that Israel can keep non-Israeli territory. So, can you tell us what land, other than non-Israeli territory, will Israel swap?

      “The Palestinians should rejoice and these types of offers and opportunities based on the huge mistakes they have made in the past, mistakes that no one has demanded they address and own”

      Swap Palestinian territory for Palestinian territory so that Israel can keep Palestinian territory Israel has illegally acquired link to pages.citebite.com and the Palestinians should be rejoicing? Your arrogance has no bounds

      “… accept that Israel needs to be the nation state of the Jewish people

      Irrelevant. States plead for recognition. The concept of demanding recognition has no basis in law.

      “International Law does not require a state to recognize another state; it is a matter for the judgment of each state whether an entity merits recognition as a state. In reaching this judgment, the United States has traditionally looked of the establishment of certain facts. The United States has also taken into account whether the entity in question has attracted the recognition of the International community of states.” link to tinyurl.com

      There are numerous UN Member states who do not recognize other UN Member States.

      “And another thing Mr. Ellis, in 1947 there were no settlements on the West Bank”

      The only thing you’ve said with a speck of truth in it. But there were hundreds of illegal settlements elsewhere in non-Israeli territory. Occupation began in 1948 according to the Israeli Govt at the time. link to wp.me

      “… you cannot fool us with your lies and/or distortions”

      You’re deceiving yourself

      • valency says:

        The only thing to add, was, as I mentioned above, the Jewish agency’s “acceptance” of the plan was always provisional; both sides knew that the intention of the Zionists was to annex the whole of Eretz Israel as soon as they were strong enough to wrest it from the existing owners. Thus the zionists always planned to “reject” the plan after “accepting it”; the internal debate between, say, Ben Gurion and Begin, was about the fear that accepting partition might mean it become a permanent partition instead of a temporary stepping stone to redeeming the whole land.

        • talknic says:

          valency

          UNGA res 181 was officially and finally accepted by its inclusion without any official reservation, in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. It is incontestable.

        • valency says:

          I understand. I am simply saying that the Zionists were utterly unconcerned with abiding by the “legalities” of the partition, according to their own statements, both public and private, and never had any intention of allowing UNGA 181 to be binding, even if 181 could be said to be valid (The Arab league took the position that the UN charter contains nothing authorizing it do declare new states or partition existing ones, so the whole process was ultra vires, an arguably correct position. At the time the UN was merely a forum for the great powers to carve up the spoils of the postwar map anyway — the need for consent of the Palestinian leadership was not considered).

        • Hostage says:

          I am simply saying that the Zionists were utterly unconcerned with abiding by the “legalities” of the partition, according to their own statements, both public and private, and never had any intention of allowing UNGA 181 to be binding, even if 181 could be said to be valid

          I would agree that a private concensus was reached among the Zionists to violate the terms of the UN resolution, but that was not their stated public position on the quesstion.

          Moshe Shertok was the head of the Jewish Agency Political Department, the first Foreign Minister of the State of Israel, and its second Prime Minister. He stated his opinion regarding the “binding force” of resolution 181 on April 27, 1948 after the US had proposed a temporary trusteeship:

          “With regard to the status of Assembly resolutions in international law, it was admitted that any which touched the national sovereignty of the Members of the United Nations were mere recommendations and not binding. However, the Palestine resolution was essentially different for it concerned the future of a territory subject to an international trust. Only the United Nations as a whole was competent to determine the future of the territory, and its decision, therefore, had a binding force.

          –U.N. Doc. A/C. 1/SR. 127, P. 7 (27 April 1948) cited in An International Law Analysis Of The Major United Nations Resolutions Concerning The Palestine Question

          The Government of Israel delivered another lecture on the subject of the legal status of the resolution to the United Nations on the 7th of July 1948:

          “On behalf of the Provisional Government of Israel, I have the honor to offer the following observations on the suggestions presented by you under cover of your letter of June 27 as a possible basis for discussion in discharge of your task to ‘promote a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine’.
          “1. The Provisional Government of Israel noted with surprise that your suggestions appear to ignore the resolution of the General Assembly of 29 November 1947, which remains the only internationally valid adjudication on the question of the future government of Palestine.

          See UN Document S/870: Letter Dated 7 July 1948 From The Representative Of The Provisional Government Of Israel To The Secretary-General Containing Israel’s Reply To The United Nations Mediator’s Suggestions (Document S/863) link to unispal.un.org

    • Hostage says:

      The 1947 Partition Plan allocated most of the good fertile land plus almost all of the underground water aquifers, plus most of the physical high ground, to the Palestinians.

      LOL! The UN adopted a plan that was formulated by the Jewish Agency. Go argue with them about their taste in real estate. The Palestinian Arabs didn’t even participate in the sub-committee process of either the UNSCOP or the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee with regard to the plans for partition.

      FYI, Prof. Yossi Katz explained that the Jewish Agency spent a decade working on its own partition plan. He wrote that the same people who developed the Agency’s plan were assigned to work with the UNSCOP subcommittee and the Ad Hoc Commitee. When the Jewish Agency rejected the UNSCOP plan and demanded territorial revisions, the General Assembly obliged them. A hastily convened Ad Hoc Committee added the entire Negev to the territory outlined in the UNSCOP proposal. Katz noted that, for the most part, the details of the final UN plan matched those proposed in the Jewish Agency plan. See Yossi Katz, “Partner to Partition: The Jewish Agency’s Partition Plan in the Mandate Era”, Routledge, 1998, starting on page 163.

      Not only this, but the 1947 Partition Plan gave Jews no outside access to Jerusalem

      LOL! The UN resolution stipulated that Jerusalem would be directly administered by the UN Organization and that freedom of transit and worship at the Holy sites would be 1) guaranteed to all, in line with the criteria for termination of the mandate regime set forth in Article 28 of the Palestine Mandate itself; and 2) protected by the constitutions of the two new states as a preliminary to granting them their independence:

      In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the [religious community] rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, . . .

      link to avalon.law.yale.edu

      FYI, the Israeli government isn’t even allowing the outside world access to Jerusalem or the Holy sites these days, unless travelers agree to furnish its security apparatchiks permission to access to their private email accounts.

      The UN resolution simply retained the pre-existing international status and provided for international administration of Jerusalem. The text of the UN resolution is available online. Israel is, and always has, obstructed the implementation of the Corpus Separatum and the constitutionally guaranteed right of free transit to the Holy sites:

      B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE

      The Constitutions of the States shall embody Chapters 1 and 2 of the Declaration provided for in section C below and include, inter alia, provisions for:

      Guaranteeing to all persons equal and non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association;

      Preserving freedom of transit and visit for all residents and citizens of the other State in Palestine and the City of Jerusalem, subject to considerations of national security, provided that each State shall control residence within its borders.

      link to yale.edu

      So go argue with your own government.

      Yes Mr. Ellis, and what do want from the Jews?

      To finally behave like a “civilized people” in their relations with persons of other faiths and ethnic groups?

      Here is commentary on Article 28 of the Palestine Mandate from Colonial Secretary Ormsby-Gore to the League of Nations Permanent Mandate Commission:

      As I understand the mandate, the Palestine mandate is an A mandate. The essence of that is that it marks a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territory to become an independent self-governing State. Indeed, the articles of the mandate make it clear that that is so. It is true that in the final article–Article 28–it is stated that, when that day comes and the mandate is terminated, perpetual provision must be made for the care of the Holy Places and particularly the Christian Holy Places, which neither the Moslem majority nor the Jewish minority, nor yet a Judeo-Moslem commonwealth is, in the opinion of the world, capable of protecting. It is the clear intention of those who framed the mandate that there ought to be permanent provision for this end.

      link to unispal.un.org

      Wisdom is truly justified by all of her children.

  9. The hypocrite Arab League that havent done a iota to end the occupation of Palestine. Now, lead by Qatar, the supporter of Syrian terror-rebels meet with the occupation-appeaser – Mr Kerry to decide the future of palestinians.

    Remember, this is the same Qatar regime that have expanded its ties with Israel.

    “A representative of Qatar’s royal family, Prince Khalifa al-Thani, is expected to visit Israel in November in a bid to promote cooperation..”

    link to israelifrontline.com

  10. Unless the land to be swapped is specified this is meaningless theater. A bit of land swapping has been in the cards since forever but unless the details are addressed it is meaningless. And by details I mean the fate of particular settlements, like Ariel, Ma’ale Adunim Gush Etzion and so forth. Simply agreeing that, in principle, in a future deal to be struck at an unspecified point, some land swaps could happen is just giving Kerry something he can sell to the media as a ‘success’ on his trip. I have no doubt both Israel and the Arab governments are humoring him since he is a powerful man and sending him home as a failure, with nothing to present the media, might make him angry in the future. Besides, it is so vague it costs nobody anything until actual details are on the table.

  11. gingershot says:

    The entire Palestinian Diaspora needs a say in this – it’s not for some Quisling like Abbas to decide. At least Fayyad is gone at this point

    Abbas is Chief of the ‘Manhattan Indians’ looking for his box of trinkets

    [According to tradition, The Dutchman Minuit purchased the island of Manhattan from Native Americans on May 24, 1626 for goods to the value of 60 Dutch guilders, which in the 19th century was estimated to be the equivalent of $24 (or $1000 USD in 2006).]

  12. ivri says:

    The “Palestinian issue” was always merely an instrument vs. Israel from the Arab world`s point of view. What have changed are the political and military interests. While before Israel was the arch-target, pro-US Arab countries now look around and see that their friends are Israel`s and foes – likewise (e.g. and prominently the US in the former group and in the latter mainly: Iran, Hezbollah within Lebanon and the neo-Ottoman hegemonic ambitions of Turkey – just split from its alliance with Israel). Moreover, for some countries, e.g. Jordan, Israel has even turned into an insurance policy. This is all in a nutshell but it still tells the main story – a regional re-configuration and a goals` re-prioritization in the Arab world. This is what history evolution is about and Europe, for instance, have had a lot of that in just its recent history).

    • You are fully correct. They (the sunni gulf regimes) do this due their power amibitions in the middle east against shia parties.

    • talknic says:

      ivri “The “Palestinian issue” was always merely an instrument vs. Israel from the Arab world`s point of view”

      Odd. The Arabs have sought from the outset, the legal right of self determination for the people of Palestine (inclusive of Palestinian Jews) via the LoN covenant and then the UN Charter.

      ” the neo-Ottoman hegemonic ambitions of Turkey”

      Please elucidate..

      ” for some countries, e.g. Jordan, Israel has even turned into an insurance policy”

      Jordan bears at great expense the burden of refugees created by Israel’s refusal to even allow RoR to non-Israeli territories under Israel occupation. Some insurance policy.

  13. Les says:

    We know the coerced transfer of Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany gave Europe the peace it sought. In any case when the US media talks about peace in Israel/Palestine it actually means getting Israel a bigger piece. How could that be unfair?

  14. Shingo says:

    Netenyahu has already snubbed the plan anyway
    link to thenational.ae

  15. RJL says:

    Surely Gilad isn’t the only guy submitting a cogent argument against Mr. Ellis? Are the gatekeepers to MDW land very busy avoiding any truthful rhetoric that would send Ellis’s warped ideas out the window? To Israel, there is NO such thing as useless land. They wouldn’t mind swapping some arab towns near the armistice lines in exchange for keeping settlement towns, but the people in the arab towns don’t want to become part of Palestine. No, they’d rather continue loving to hate Israel, instead of hating to love being Palestinian. You know as well as I do, Mr.Ellis, that many East Jerusalem arabs/Palestinians are buying in neighborhoods that they assume will remain a part of Israel. As for you trying to incriminate many Jews simply because we feel for our fellow Jews living in Israel, and are concerned with their welfare and safety-something which until your chevrah came along was the norm for thousands of years-I think you haven’t a clue how much damage and anti-semitism you are responsible for. You, not us. Will the gatekeepers let this one thru? Maybe not, but I hope you at least read it.

    • Shingo says:

      Surely Gilad isn’t the only guy submitting a cogent argument against Mr. Ellis

      He’s not doing that either, so who do you suggest does?

      To Israel, there is NO such thing as useless land.

      Very true. What doesn’t serve as arable can serve as a means to launch a war. Of course,Israel did build all the illegal settlements on the most valuable land in the West Bank to keep the Palestinians from getting it.

      but the people in the arab towns don’t want to become part of Palestine.

      According to what report?

      You know as well as I do, Mr.Ellis, that many East Jerusalem arabs/Palestinians are buying in neighborhoods that they assume will remain a part of Israel.

      Yes, how dare those dastedly Palestinian buy land within Palestinian territory. I mean, that peace deal is only around the corner and the Palestinian state should emerge any day now right Gilad?

      I think you haven’t a clue how much damage and anti-semitism you are responsible for

      Funny. Hertzl considered anti-semitism to be a valuable asset and necessary to creating the state of Israel. Which just goes to prove that Zionism is the enemy of the Jewish people.

      • Sumud says:

        Funny. Hertzl considered anti-semitism to be a valuable asset and necessary to creating the state of Israel. Which just goes to prove that Zionism is the enemy of the Jewish people.

        And then there was the fact that zionists and nazis had the same end goal: jews out of Europe (with obviously different methods to get there – before some ziobot makes some ridiculous accusation). Which explains the zionist negotiation with nazis to end the jewish anti-nazi boycott in exchange for a deal to get jews out of Germany in 1933, the Transfer Agreement.

        • Hostage says:

          Which explains the zionist negotiation with nazis to end the jewish anti-nazi boycott in exchange for a deal to get jews out of Germany in 1933, the Transfer Agreement.

          Correction: The Haavara Agreement wasn’t about escaping from Germany with your life. It was only about enabling wealthy Jews to escape from Germany to Palestine with all of their money. Poor Jews and Jews wishing to emigrate to other countries could only take small sums of money with them under the terms of the German foreign currency control laws.

          The Haavara Agreement and Circular 54/1933 of the Reich Ministry of Finance, August 28, 1933 stipulated that, in cases where the German Emigration Advisory Office confirmed on behalf of a wealthy Jew that “further sums of money were necessary and adequate for the purpose of starting a new life in Palestine” that such a person could be granted an additional excess sum in any amount on condition that it was paid at the Reichsbank into the Special Jewish Trust Account.

          If an individual didn’t have a sum in excess of the 1,000 Palestinian pounds required to obtain a “capitalist” immigrant certificate from the British mandatory authorities, the Haavara agreement was completely irrelevant in the first place.

    • Naftush says:

      They are doing more than “buying into” Jerusalem neighborhoods. They’re building apartment towers. Better a residential culture totally foreign to them than the slightest possibility of being transferred to PA rule.

      • than the slightest possibility of being transferred to PA rule.

        you mean the slightest possibility of forfeiting jerusalem? you betcha!

  16. Taxi says:

    Peace talks with israelis are rubbish! We all know that zionists will NEVER give up an inch of the (stolen) holy land: ’48 partition line, ’67 borders or whatnot!

    Only Palestinian jews truly belong in Palestine. Any righteous and common-sense practitioner can easily see this.

    The coming war will make the rest of the motley israelis understand this loud and clear. There will be just about enough suitcases in tel aviv shopping malls to accommodate colonialists ashkanazim demand. Buy early, is my advice to non-Palestinian israelis.

    • yrn says:

      Taxi
      I totally agree with you

      • Taxi says:

        Thanks yrn – you just lowered my real estate value.

      • Donald says:

        “Taxi
        I totally agree with you”

        Troll alert.

        • yrn says:

          Donald
          “Troll Alert”?
          what taxi mentioned is a basic fundamental argument, that is known and accepted for many years.
          And I totally agree with his point, as many Palestinians wants Israelis out and if you think its trolling, you are totally wrong and don’t have any idea regarding what many Palestinians think.

    • Taxi- Let me see if I get this right? Non ashkenazi Jews are hereby recognized as Palestinian Jews, and all Ashkenazi Jews are hereby declared colonialists? Is this your definition?

      • Taxi says:

        The only jews in the holy lands who are NOT colonialists are Palestinian jews. Other Arab, Iranian, and euro jews are colonialists – and that includes you and your family mister yonah.

        • Taxi- Define Palestinian Jew. According to the PLO charter, the caduc charter, but the original charter, Jews who can demonstrate their roots previous to the Mandate were considered Palestinian Jews. But now it seems according to you, that if they are Ashkenazi Jews then even if their roots are pre 1917 or 1920, then they will have to move when your rules are enforced. Please clarify, Miss Taxi.

        • MHughes976 says:

          The definition of a Palestinian Jew should follow the definition of a Palestinian, which should be the same regardless of race and should mirror the definition of, say, a Belgian. You are an X-ian if you live in country X rightfully, ie your family has lived there peaceably for a generation or two, not owing its presence to identifiable acts of violence or illegality, or else you have arrived by a legitimate immigration process or else you are there as the result, at least in part, of a peaceful agreement between formerly contending parties.

        • Yes, Palestinians living in Palestine could be Muslims. Or Greek Othodox. Or Roman Catholic. Or Buddhist.

          Israelis living in Israel could be Jews, Or Muslims. Or Roman Catholics. Etc.

        • miriam6 says:

          Miss Taxi pronounces loudly :
          The only jews in the holy lands who are NOT colonialists are Palestinian jews. Other Arab, Iranian, and euro jews are colonialists – and that includes you and your family mister yonah.”

          Well, of course Taxi you would know all about European Colonial interlopers settlers – as a white American YOU yourself are descended from such stock.

          Maybe descended from early WHITE euro settlers like these:

          link to news.bbc.co.uk

          A story about early Americans possible predilection for human flesh.

          What about the Ethiopian Jews Taxi?

          You didn’t mention them in your plans to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Jews.

          Also, what about the non Jewish African Refugees?

          The Sudanese and those from Eritrea?

          AND there’s the Filipino’s…

        • Well, of course Taxi you would know all about European Colonial interlopers settlers – as a white American YOU yourself are descended from such stock.

          source?

        • Shingo says:

          Maybe descended from early WHITE euro settlers like these:

          Serioisly Miriam, you consistently come up with the most childish arguments. Are we to assume that anyone who doesn’t practice human sacrifice or ritual child abuse or slaughter lambs at Passover is not Jewish?

          What about the Ethiopian Jews Taxi?

          As their name suggests, they’re from Ethiopia.

        • @ miriam6

          What about the Ethiopian Jews Taxi?

          You didn’t mention them in your plans to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Jews.

          Rather stupid of you to take that tack, considering Israel is well on its way to doing that itself with forced sterilization and coercion to leave.

          link to mondoweiss.net

        • Taxi says:

          yonah fredman,

          Are you so dense that you need to ask?

          @ miriam (who is of the same density as yonah)
          Since the turn of the 20th century, zionism has directly killed hundreds of thousands more people than cannibalism, so really I’m gonna have to review the scale of evil between them – and I’d say it ain’t gonna look good for zionism at all nosiree Bob. Besides the FACT that you know NOTHING about me WOTSOEVER! So like when your vindictive self attempts to smear me cuz you got no VALID ARGUMENT to present, I’ll have to return the favor and invent you and your “stock” as descendants of pathological child molesters, or cannibals. There. See how that works when you don’t stick to the FACTS!

          At bothaya I’ll repeat: THE ONLY LEGITIMATE OCCUPIERS OF THE HOLY LAND ARE PALESTINIANS, WHATEVER THEIR RELIGION MAY BE.

          Now put that in yer pipe and inhale real deep – slim chance you might just get it.

        • Hostage says:

          Israelis living in Israel could be Jews, Or Muslims. Or Roman Catholics. Etc.

          They certainly could be, but that is not the current state of affairs under the applicable laws. In HCJ 630/70 Tamarin v. State of Israel [1970] IsrSC 26 P.D. I, 197, Israeli Supreme Court President Shimon Agranat ruled that

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

        • uh oh, lil ms miriam just got skewered by ms taxi.

        • miriam6 says:

          “Well, of course Taxi you would know all about European Colonial interlopers settlers – as a white American YOU yourself are descended from such stock.

          source?”

          It’s what’s known as a logical deduction from known facts ; lil miss annie.

          I assume Taxi is white because- whaddaya know ! most Americans are WHITE!

          This is so because WHITE EUROPEAN SETTLERS i.e yours and lil’ miss Taxi’s antecedents’ ROBBED, BEAT AND STOLE! from the rightful owners of “America”-

          The Native Americans!

          BTW, Taxi will NEVER make a tikka kebab out of me.

          She is just TOO slow to catch up with me.

        • It’s what’s known as a logical deduction from known facts

          ‘logic’ miriam style. okaaaay. i’d say you’re doing a fairly impressive job of skewering yourself all on your lil lonesome.

        • Donald says:

          “The only jews in the holy lands who are NOT colonialists are Palestinian jews. Other Arab, Iranian, and euro jews are colonialists – and that includes you and your family mister yonah.”

          If you’re born in a country you’re a native–all this crap about one’s right to live or not live in a given land based on the ethnicity or behavior of your ancestors is precisely what is wrong with the Zionist side of the equation. It’s no better if employed by the other side.

          Some of us Americans are interested in the I/P conflict because we don’t want the US endorsing one side in some stupid ugly ethnic conflict that has roots in 19th century racial theories. We like to think we’re supporting equal rights for everyone regardless of their ethnicity, religion, or whatever bad things their parents or grandparents or great grandparents or relatives or co-religionists have done. If it’s just choosing sides between two warring tribes, why should anyone else care?

        • Let’s be clear, Taxi. When you or your ilk are in charge, you will implement the policy of shipping all Jews out of Palestine. You will make some exceptions, but you won’t tell us which exceptions you will make except to draw general rules. You will not be the bureaucrat in charge, but you will be on the Commission drawing up the rules that the bureaucrats will execute and there’s no use in getting specific at this time.

        • Lil Miss annie robbins playing cheerleader, again.

        • Taxi says:

          Yeah right slug0, us “white” American goy are real slowwwwwww uhuh.

          Deary, you will never know for sure if I’m euro-white or alien-green, but go ahead miss miriam, tell us what your brain-shaped crystal ball says about my shoe-size too. I’m sure your info is verifiable, your logic is stellar and your answer is gonna be 100% accurate, right?

          LOL I’m sorry I shouldn’t even be responding to your deluded, illogical assertions.

          Your modus operandom: when in doubt, consult the crystal ball.

          Pagan!

        • Donald – - Why should anyone else care? Perhaps one might reflect on the trillions of dollars squandered on the idiotic Iraq War, as part of a scheme to “protect” Israel. “The road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad”, was the chant of many of those who set up the illegal invasion of Iraq.

        • Taxi says:

          You just absolutely REFUSE to get it, don’t you, Donald?

          You think the children of occupiers have the same rights to the land as the children of the indigenous occupied. You consider this civilized, progressive, liberal?

          Well I don’t see YOU giving up half your house for nobody – actually I can’t see you giving up half your house because the squatters had a baby in your basement either.

          We’ve discussed this very topic before – go find it in the archives if you can bare the tedium.

        • American says:

          “We like to think we’re supporting equal rights for everyone regardless of their ethnicity, religion, or whatever bad things their parents or grandparents or great grandparents or relatives or co-religionists have done. “….Donald

          I agree ….but then that knocks out some comparisons people like to make about colonist vs US native Indians and our unpaid debt to them…as well as other past precedents like what native born Germans are still paying for 1940′s German injustices or the post WWII deportation of Germans who had left Germany for other countries back into Germany.
          Israelis call it “justice’ or “owed” when even natives of lands who weren’t involved with Hitler, like the US , compensate them for the injustice.
          In reality the ‘collective’ innocent or not, pays for the states crimes.
          The natives of Israel should not escape that either….they can “pay and stay” ….but it’s not justice for Palestines and it’s not the enormous justice Jews got if Israelis get off Scott free.
          There is also the passage of time–if in the 1600′s native Americans had a system of ‘deeds’ then under today’s property laws they would have a way to reclaim land.
          There is always the question of how far back can we go?.. and if we can’t go back all the way to 1600′s that does mean we should not go back to 1900′s either?
          In 1948 and before Palestine’s did have a recorded deed system…many have those deeds today …but Israel ‘made up’ it’s own laws of seizure and took their property and allows no ‘mechanism’ for them to even present their deeds….totally illegal except in rogue countries.
          Lots of Israelis are living on stolen property…property that in court any where except Israel the law would demand be turned over to the original and rightful owner, the first holder of a deed to that property….no matter ‘how much time had passed’……this is property law in every modern nation in the world….this is why no one in the universe will finance property without a ‘title’ search whether it’s in the US or the Sudan.
          So my opinion on equal rights or the rights of born there is they are going to have to accept that equal rights means they accept ‘equal rights’ —-by paying for or having their government either pay for them the rightful owners of the property they live on or turn it back over to the rightful owners.
          Until then the born there of immigrants aren’t asking for equal they’re asking for ‘ exceptions” in rights.

        • Citizen says:

          While it’s true that America was established on the backs of the natives, who did not have a western legal theory of land ownership, that cannot be said when later, the Jews dispossessed the Palestinians in the following near mid-century. And it’s also a fact that the white settlers took the natives’ land in America before WW1 and WW2, that is, before any international law protected anyone from land seizures by military might. Israel declared itself a state AFTER WW2, and AFTER the Nuremberg Trials and Toyko Trials. Israel is therefore, subject to all the limits on any sovereign state’s power that were won by the death and maiming of millions in those two wars. Israel is an aberration in the sense that it does not recognize international law (except when it uses the UN to claim it’s legitimacy.).

        • miriam6 says:

          Cloak and dagger says;
          “Rather stupid of you to take that tack, considering Israel is well on its way to doing that itself with forced sterilization and coercion to leave.”
          Oh how wrong you are C&D!
          Thanks for taking the bait anyway..
          To begin with you need to ask yourself ONE SIMPLE question C&D.
          It requires you to use some LOGICAL thinking now ( Not a great resource for you) so take do take a minute to get your brain in gear.
          WHY ON EARTH would the state of Israel sterilize Ethiopians when Israel has over the years now made such an effort to bring them to Israel?
          How stupid of YOU!
          BTW
          —————————————
          According to the doctor in charge of the medical programme in Ethiopia, ‘injectable contraceptives are the most desired throughout [Ethiopia]. They are easy, culturally preferred, and offer the ability to be on birth control without a woman informing her husband, which is an issue here.’
          —————————————-
          For a more nuanced view of that investigative TV journalism story turned outright dishonest SMEAR of Israel, do read on C&D:
          *******************************
          “Is Israel sterilising Ethiopians? Err, no”
          “The wild claims being made about Israel’s birth-control policies show that facts never get in the way of Israel-bashing.”
          *******************************

          “In December last year, an Israeli TV documentary suggested that the administration of birth-control injections to Ethiopian Jews in Israel could be a reason why there has been a sharp decline in birthrates among that community.
          When Israeli broadsheet Haaretz reported, at the end of January, that an Israeli government official had acknowledged ‘the practice’ of injecting Ethiopian Jews with long-acting contraceptive Depo-Provera, the news reached the international press and, of course, the Twittersphere. But the story quickly became distorted, turning, as one Israeli writer put it, ‘from a scoop to a smear’.
          Israel has been likened to Apartheid-era South Africa and has even been accused of practising eugenics. International mainstream and fringe media have claimed that Israel has forced birth control on Ethiopians. Others went as far as to claim that Israel was sterilising Ethiopians, a particularly sinister accusation.
          Perhaps it was Haaretz’s unfortunate use of the word ‘practice’ which misled some commentators. The official cited in that paper’s report did not say that Israel has a systematic fertility-control programme among Ethiopian Jews, or that it is mandatory for Ethiopian women to use birth control. The official only acknowledged that Depo-Provera has been administered within that community.

          …con’t..

          link to -spiked-online.com
          Nathalie Rothschild is an international correspondent for spiked. Visit her personal website here. Follow her on Twitter @n_rothschild.

          link to algemeiner.com

          link to spiked-online.com

        • miriam6 says:

          The above comment by me is in reply to c&d’s comment about the issue of Ethiopian Jews and the Israel contraception story.

          It is in reply to Cloak and Dagger’s comment

          HE said on may 4th at 9.40pm;

          “Rather stupid of you to take that tack, considering Israel is well on its way to doing that itself with forced sterilization and coercion to leave.”

          Cloak and dagger brought the subject into the discussion.

          On both occasions I used reply function button to make clear my comment was in reply to Cloak & Dagger’s comment.

        • Shingo says:

          Let’s be clear, Taxi. When you or your ilk are in charge, you will implement the policy of shipping all Jews out of Palestine.

          Stop projecting Israel’s policies into Palestine Yonah. As others have said, the reason you people are so afraid of a 2ss or a 1ss is that you fear the Palestinians will behave as badly towards Jews as Jews have towards Palestinians. The Palestinian leadership has already said that Jews who wish to live within the border of the Palestinian stat can apply for citizenship.

        • yonah fredman says:
          May 5, 2013 at 1:03 pm

          “Lil Miss annie robbins playing cheerleader, again.”

          Squatter “yonah” playing insufferable Jew-victim, again.

        • miriam6 says:
          May 5, 2013 at 5:08 am

          “BTW, Taxi will NEVER make a tikka kebab out of me.

          She is just TOO slow to catch up with me.”

          Please get it right:

          Taxi would NEVER make a tikka kebab out of you because you’re so full of your own Zionist induced crap that to do so would pose a serious health and safety risk.

        • Shingo says:

          For a more nuanced view of that investigative TV journalism story turned outright dishonest SMEAR of Israel, do read on C&D:

          Thanks for the pathetic hasbara link Miriam, but the apologetics from your completely overlooks the fact the women were administered the contraceptive either through coercion or though deceit.

          It’s not Israel bashing when it’s true Miriam. Now grow up or go to and troll another blog and stop wasting everyone’s time with your meandering diatribes.

          Israel has been likened to Apartheid-era South Africa and has even been accused of practising eugenics

          Of course it has. Israel in a blatantly apartheid state. Even Barak went so far as to admit Israel would become one in the absence of a 2ss, which means it is already apartheid now.

          And yes, Israel’s sordid history of eugenics is well established. Jabotinsky, Weizmann, Herzl, Ruppin, and Ben Gurion ridiculed ordinary Jews in the Diaspora and used derogatory terms to describe them, like Yid, eunuchs, Orientals, & etc. These were “Zionist people” who claimed they were inventing a “new Jew” and they even attempted to employ eugenics in pursuit of their goals.

          Palestine.link to tau.ac.il

        • Citizen says:

          Why would any objective person not take algemeiner.com content with a BIG bag of salt?

        • Citizen says:

          @ Shingo
          Yep. It’s all documented beyond dispute. Miriam has a problem. She doesn’t want to face reality when it comes to Israel, and what Israel has done, and why it has said it had done it ideologically.

  17. Netanyahu, Likud, Revisionist Zionism and (no) land swaps

    Revisionist Zionism is a nationalist faction within the Zionist movement. It is the founding ideology of the non-religious right in Israel. Revisionism is the precursor of today’s Likud Party. Revisionist groups conducted campaigns of violence against the British authorities in Palestine to drive them out and establish a Jewish state.

    The violence in 1947 was perpetrated by the Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist organisation headed by Menachem Begin, a Polish refugee. The violence manifested itself in Begin’s terrorist bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 91 people including many civilians.

    The Likud party, founded by Begin and now headed by Binyamin Netanyahu, is today’s political heir to the Irgun, the charter of which demands a Greater Israel by the forced clearance (i.e. ethnic cleansing) of all Arabs from their lands in the Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem. There will be no land swaps.

    These are the antecedents and agenda of Netanyahu’s Likud party that is the recipient of such massive US aid and arms, demanded from Congress by the Israel lobby at the expense of the American taxpayer.

    Among EU trading partners, the least democratic is the state of Israel that is still allowed to trade with Europe but which has the largest undeclared nuclear weapon capability in the world. It is the profits from EU trade that allow Israel to thumb it’s nose at the UN.

    Without this trade with the EU and its funding from the US lobby, Netanyahu’s government would be forced to repatriate all the illegal settlers back to their homes in Israel and there would by now have been a viable, working Palestinian state for the five million indigenous Arabs, dispossessed by the establishment of the Israeli state in 1948 and which is the continuing focus of instability throughout the Middle East.

    • Citizen says:

      “Without this trade with the EU and its funding from the US lobby, Netanyahu’s government would be forced to repatriate all the illegal settlers back to their homes in Israel and there would by now have been a viable, working Palestinian state for the five million indigenous Arabs, dispossessed by the establishment of the Israeli state in 1948 and which is the continuing focus of instability throughout the Middle East.”

      You forgot Germany’s reparations, which include Germany’s gifting of 5 nuclear bomb capable submarines. These submarines give Israel the ability to nuke anywhere across the globe, including the USA if it does not toe or fund the hasbara line.

    • Citizen says:

      @ anthonybellchambers
      For you truth-seekers, especially the non-jewish ones, who have landed here, on MW, you need to spend the time to check out the full historical context anthonybellchambers merely touches upon:

      link to archive.org

  18. Taxi says:

    Church of Scotland questions israel’s right to exist:
    “The report is entitled “The Promised Land” and concludes that Christians should reject the idea that Jews have an exclusive claim to the Land of Israel. It also opposes using the Bible to “settle contemporary conflicts over land.””
    link to jewishpress.com

    • talknic says:

      Taxi “Church of Scotland questions israel’s right to exist”

      It’s the usual crappolla spouted by liars for the Jewish state. Israel has every right to exist within it’s borders, this is quite clear in the church statement:

      In the context of the present situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory we remain committed to the following principles, previously set out and agreed by theGeneral Assembly (the years indicate Deliverances passed which back up these points):

      That the current situation is characterised by an inequality in power and therefore reconciliation can only be possible if the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the blockade of Gaza, are ended. (2001, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2011, 2012)

      The Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank are illegal under International Law.The Church of Scotland, individuals and civil organisations should urge the UK government and the international community as a matter of urgency to put pressure on Israel to cease from the expansion of these settlements. (2003, 2006, 2011)

      The Church of Scotland must remain in dialogue and fellowship with ecumenical partners to support concerns for justice and peace. (2002, 2006, 2011, 2012)

      That the Church of Scotland should do nothing to promote the viability of the illegal settlements on Palestinian land. (2006, 2011, 2012)

      The Church of Scotland should support projects which prioritise peace-building, poverty alleviation and the Palestinian economy. (2006, 2011, 2012)

      That human rights of all peoples should be respected but this should include the right of return and/ or compensation for Palestinian refugees. (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2012)

      That negotiations between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority about peace with justice must resume at the earliest opportunity and the Church of Scotland should continue to put political pressure on all parties to commence such negotiations, and asking all parties to recognise the inequality in power which characterises this situation. (2007, 2009, 2012)

      That there are safe rights of access to the sacred sites for the main religions in the area. (2006,2007)
      Proposed Deliverance:

      Refute claims that scripture offers any peoples a privileged claim for possession of a particular territory.

      Note that the current situation is characterised by an inequality in power and therefore reconciliation can only be possible if the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the blockade of Gaza, are ended, and on that basis encourage all parties and the international community to renew peace negotiations.

      Instruct the C&S Council to publicise resources to encourage wide discussion of the report The Inheritance of Abraham and its concluding principles.

      Encourage the appropriate committees in Presbyteries to consider the report
      The Inheritance of Abraham and bring it to the notice of their Presbytery.

      Urge the UK Government and the European Union to do all that is within their power to ensure that human rights are respected in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

      Urge the UK Government and the European Union to do all that is within their power to ensure that international law is upheld in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

      Urge the UK Government and the European Union to use pressure to stop further expansion of Israeli settlements in the Occupied West Bank.

      link to scribd.com

      • Taxi says:

        Yeah talknic, the headline belongs to zionists suffering from their usual hysteria.

        This is probably what they’re really freaking out about:
        “The report is entitled “The Promised Land” and concludes that Christians should reject the idea that Jews have an exclusive claim to the Land of Israel. It also opposes using the Bible to “settle contemporary conflicts over land.””

        • talknic says:

          Quite rightly. A state is a legal entity without religion. One of the rules the Jewish People’s Council and the Zionist Movement agreed to adhere to in declaring the State of Israel.

          As of 00:01 15th May 1948 (ME time) “the State of Israel” is responsible, Jewish state or not.

        • MHughes976 says:

          If there is no exclusive Jewish claim of any kind then there is no right to maintain a specifically Jewish State in any area at all, since the Jewish nature of any state would reflect an claim that was exclusive, ie attributed rights to Jewish people not shared with others. This applies just as much to the 48 and to the 67 territories, as taxi perceives. Maybe the CofS is reluctant to draw out the logical conclusions from what it says. They’re still way ahead of the CofE, my lot, whose position is wretched, marked mainly by silence.

        • Citizen says:

          I just called Hagee; he’s on the case. He’s just winding up his program to take the nickels and dimes of his poor Christian tent followers and give them to poor old very wrinkled and toothless Russian Jews left in the former USSR, especially in Russia, as shown on US TV regularly.

  19. The sentiments expressed by the Church of Scotland are the inevitable reaction to decades of Israeli government deceit and arrogance in offering financial inducements to its citizens to leave their homes in order to settle on Arab land that has been stolen by expropriation.

    Now is the time for the European Union to make a stand and to abrogate the EU-Israel Association Agreement that affords Israel free access to European markets. It is this agreement that gives Israel the economic clout to commit these criminal acts of land theft. The agreement should be cancelled, as a matter of urgency.

    • Great post, Anthonybellchambers. “Matter of urgency”, most definitely.

    • Sumud says:

      The agreement should be cancelled, as a matter of urgency.

      Boot them out of the upcoming Eurovision song contest too.

      It may seem like a minor point but might start to ram home to the Israelis – like the sporting boycott did to South Africa – that the world says NO to their behaviour.

  20. Citizen says:

    I hope folks here, especially my fellow Americans, realize that our campuses are not exactly fountains of awareness, and knowledge about anything in the Middle East. Here’s a few curb side interviews with our campus youth to show you the level of awareness–brought to you by the Zionist organization StandWithUS, and accompanied by text telling the viewer to find out the facts by going to its web site: link to youtube.com!

    • Daniel Rich says:

      @ Citizen,

      Q: …that our campuses are not exactly fountains of awareness, and knowledge about anything in the Middle East.

      R: Very true. However, in all honesty, I have to admit that the Jewish part of my email inbox is way more organized/efficient than the Arab side could ever dream of [being]. Look at what those powerhouses of democracy [Qatar/Saudi Arabia] are actively doing to enhance and defend the Palestinians plight… What? They’re too busy in Syria right now?

      I’m convinced that zionism will ultimately be/come Israel’s undoing, but credit’s due where credit’s due, zionists are incredibly well organized.

      • Citizen says:

        @ Daniel Rich
        I don’t disagree. If U looked at the US campus youth interviewed in the video I linked to I’m sure U noticed the interviewee’s were not Jewish.
        And of course, the Palestinian American community in the US does not have the ready big cash the “pro-Israel” community has here. Nobody I’ve ever met in the USA or read from anywhere ever said Qatar or Saudi Arabia were democracies, so what’s your point there? Further, Saudi Arabia and Qatar pay through the nose in oil and cash for anything they get from the US. It’s totally arms length deals with the US government. OTOH, Israel lives off free stuff from US taxpayers and is protected from accountability at the UN by the US veto in the UN SC.

  21. Inanna says:

    There’s no fear that this will happen. It’ll go the way of the 2002 Arab League Plan. But it’s a way for the Arabs to make nice with the US and be nice little subservient allies who appear to want to do the right thing. And then the Arab unelected leaders will use it as an excuse to further normalise relations with Israel since there “appears” to be progress in the peace process. The Qatari Emir has already announced a visit there in November and he refuses to shut down the Israeli trade office in Qatar which basically functions as an Israeli embassy.

    As for Palestinian agency – why is anyone under the impression that the Arab leaders or the US care any more about Palestinians than Israel does?

    • Taxi says:

      A ‘collaborator’ Arab and not a ‘resistance’ Arab, the Qatari Emir and his Saudiesque mini-me country: paymasters for thousands of Black Flag mercenaries in Syria.

    • Inanna – - You seem to be unaware of close relations between Emir of Qatar, and Hamas.

      • Inanna says:

        I’m aware of the relationship. It doesn’t mean sh*t. As can be seen when another Qatari lackey (ie Egypt) has been busy destroying the tunnels that are the lifeblood of Gaza right under Hamas’ nose.

      • Taxi says:

        james,
        You seem to be unaware of how much wet Qatari PR you’ve willingly swallowed.

        • Taxi – - You clearly have little understanding of what the reality of the matter is.

          Qatar’s emir told Charlie Rose that one reason the Israel/Palestine problem has been so difficult to resolve, is that every time some agreement is reached on one point of another, the progress is thrown into the rubbish bin and things start again from square one. (Paraphrase.)
          Qatar has give steady support to Hamas. Full stop.

        • thrown into the rubbish bin and things start again from square one. (Paraphrase.)

          by whom? the pa steps outta line they get their wrists slapped, by US/IS.

        • Shingo says:

          Qatar’s emir told Charlie Rose that one reason the Israel/Palestine problem has been so difficult to resolve, is that every time some agreement is reached on one point of another, the progress is thrown into the rubbish bin and things start again from square one.

          Actually, it’s much worse than that. Israel insists that the previous starting point is no longer acceptable.

          Let me demonstrate the Israeli has historically approached “land swaps”.

          The Taba agreement of September 1995 had Israel agreeing to a progressive withdrawal from Areas A, B, and C, with the IDF redeployment out of **all** those areas due by October 1997.

          But in Jan 1997 the settlers made their grab for Hebron, ergo, Israel couldn’t possibly withdraw from Hebron i.e. Rabin reneged on his deal.

          Netanyahu replaced Peres, and at Wyre River in Oct 1998 (i.e. a year past the deadline)he insisted that the deal be “renegotiated”, splitting the second step of the Taba agreement into two phases.

          He then only carried out the first phase, meaning that the second phase of the second step of the three-step Taba agreement wasn’t carried out i.e. Netanyahu reneged not only on Taba but also on the renegotiated deal (Wyre River)

          Ehud Barak then replaced Netanyahu, and at Sharm el-Sheikh in 1999 he balked at carrying out phase two of step two. He (and I kid you not) insisted on renegotiating Netanyahu’s re-negotiated deal, leading to a situation where the second phase of the two-phase step-two was split into two, making it a two-step, two-phase, three-step process.

          Barak then carried out Step One of Phase Two of Step Two of the three-step Taba Agreement.

          But he then refused to carry out Step Two i.e. he reneged on the Sharm el-Sheikh renegotiation of the Wyre River renegotiation of the deal that had been negotiated at Taba.

          And people wonder why Abbas won’t drop his “preconditions” and simply Go Into The Tent And Negotiate A Deal…..

          The above tells you why i.e. “negotiated a deal” with the Israelis is pointless unless there is some evidence that the Israelis are negotiating in good faith.

          There is zero evidence that Netanyahu will negotiate in good faith, and mucho evidence that under those circumstances an Israeli PM will simply renege on any such deal.

          So. What. Is. The. Point. Of. Negotiating?

        • Taxi says:

          Right you are james canning – of course between Charlie Rose and the Emir of Qatar (whose name you haven’t used once cuz you haven’t bothered to look it up!) all truths and facts stream and deluge the world.

          Go get outta town and take your brainwash solution widya! You’re a perfect example of how ‘little knowledge is dangerous’.

          Oil-Arabs, or collaborator Arabs as I prefer to call them, have paid so much lip-service to the Palestinian cause they got no lips left!

  22. Taxi says:

    I gotta say I just love the wallpaper in the foto’s background.

    I should like to photoshop the picture and remove the two-legged uglies in the foreground.

  23. mondonut says:

    Ha!

    The so-called new Arab initiative is rejected by our people, by our nation and no one can accept it,” Haniyeh says in speech to hundreds of worshipers in a Gaza mosque, adding that outsiders cannot decide Palestinians’ fate.

    • Shingo says:

      Haniyeh says in speech to hundreds of worshipers in a Gaza mosque, adding that outsiders cannot decide Palestinians’ fate.

      Hamas have long maintained that the a solution cannot be imposed on the Palestinians. This is no different, but they have said they would accept it if the Palestinians did.

      Still, it’s ironic how similar Likud and Hamas are repeatedly shown to be.

    • @ mondonut
      Good! It shows that they are not fooled by this scam.

    • talknic says:

      @ m’donut
      “Ha!”? Think you have a prize?

      The Arab States have only made a suggestion in the face of Israel’s refusal to adhere to the law or put forward any meaningful peace plan.

      The Palestinians can agree to it being the basis of negotiations or not. It’s called self determination, the very notion the Arabs based their legal arguments on for almost 100 years.

      Within the framework suggested by the Arab states or not, Israel still will have to negotiate with the Palestinians because negotiations are the only legal way out of the legal, financial and moral quagmire in which successive Israeli Governments have purposefully entrapped it’s citizens and purposefully prevented Palestinian statehood for 65 years by occupying “territory outside the State of Israel” link to pages.citebite.com

      The law says the only borders Israel has are those it was recognized under, before it made any legal claims on “territory outside the State of Israel”. Claims which were rebuffed link to wp.me
      The law should still be upheld negotiations or not.
      There is no legal obligation on the Palestinians to forgo their any of their legal rights in negotiations.

      There is no legal reason why the negotiations should not be based on the Israeli Government proclaimed UNGA defined boundaries, under which Israel gained recognition as an independent state link to wp.me

      There’s no legal recognition what so ever of Israel beyond those boundaries.

      The Palestinian offer of 2011 and 2012 were incredibly generous and forgiving link to pages.citebite.com

      Israel stupidly rejected peace again and belligerently responded with more illegal settlements, more lies, more self deception, more dispossession of no-Jews from land in non-Israeli territory, more slaughter. In humans such behavior is usually regarded as being the reserve of the criminally insane.

    • The so-called new Arab initiative

      why should the palestinians be the ones giving an extra inch at this juncture? it’s ridiculous. israel has done nothing but expand. everyone knows every time even the suggestion of retreat be on plaestine’s part israel jumps on it as if it’s a done deal and forges ahead demanding more concessions. what a farce.

      • mondonut says:

        Annie Robbins says: why should the palestinians be the ones giving an extra inch at this juncture?
        ====================================================
        Why are the Arab Palestinians unable to agree with the “Arab” initiative? Why would the Arab League present a plan without the support of the Palestinians? Why was nearly every commenter on this essay focusing on supposed Israeli intransigence when the Palestinians themselves wanted nothing to do with it?

        • Why are the Arab Palestinians unable to agree with the “Arab” initiative?

          what’s with the quote marks? why not just ask ‘Why are the Palestinians unable to agree with the Arab initiative?’

          what does the arabness of palestinians have to do with their rejection of the changes? are you implying because they are arab they should agree with any arab plan? seriously, this is nuts, and racist. what is i said to you Why are the Jewish Israelis unable to agree with the “Jewish” j street plan? or the “jewish” jvp plan?

          Why would the Arab League present a plan without the support of the Palestinians?

          probably because kerry was there and there was some sort of quid pro quo. someone agreed to play along. for all i know it had something to do with other stuff, like syria. i have no idea.

          Why was nearly every commenter on this essay focusing on supposed Israeli intransigence when the Palestinians themselves wanted nothing to do with it?

          big duh. because israeli intransigence and refusal to quit settlement expansion/land grab is the very reason there’s been not only no progress but the continual worsening of the situation. their boot is on palestine’s neck. have you read Fayyad warns Obama: ‘A state of leftovers is not going to do it’ link to mondoweiss.net

          He thinks the United States, now trying to conjure direct negotiations through osmosis rather than any new ideas, should ask Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a straightforward question: What do you mean by a Palestinian state?

          there is no point in palestine agreeing to more concessions at this juncture. they’ve put their foot down and rightly so. settlement freeze or forget about it. israel is digging a hole for itself and the one state solution will be all that’s possible ever. and eventually everyone will have equal rights within that state inevitably, if there’s no other state. so palestinians do not have more to loose at this juncture, it’s all a farce. so any ‘concessions’ over what they don’t even have is just meaningless wordsmithing, an attempt to work around their completely reasonable demand of demanding a freeze. and israel would not even issue a proposal as requested by the quartet back in 2011. they won’t even issue anything resembling a proposal. so why should any palestinians consider dickering with their earlier proposal they already put forth? there was no reciprocity at the time by israel. why?

          this is a no-brainer and you’re being obtuse. israel should cough up some kind of proposal (which they willnot do because they have no intention of agreeing to any sovereign palestinian state) and freeze settlement growth obviously.

        • mondonut – - You can be confident that the 56 or 57 Muslim countries that endorsed the 2002 Saudi peace plan, thought the Palestinians would accept it. And I think they were correct in believing this.

        • Cliff says:

          @mondonut

          You say:

          Why are the Arab Palestinians unable to agree with the “Arab” initiative? Why would the Arab League present a plan without the support of the Palestinians? Why was nearly every commenter on this essay focusing on supposed Israeli intransigence when the Palestinians themselves wanted nothing to do with it?

          Palestinians did not draw up this plan. Palestinian agency did not draw up this plan.

          A very SMALL number of ‘Arabs’ with vested political interests did.

        • Citizen says:

          @ mondonut
          Why should the Arab (no quotes–why the quotes?) Palestinians agree to giving up anything at this juncture? Why is Kerry proposing that they do? He’s suppose to be a balanced, honest broker. I imagine those Arab states’ regimes are merely sucking up to USA with their initiative for the same reason they always do, to get powerful military stuff from USA to stay in power against their own suffering, respective people–and to keep USA out of their hair. The reason folks here at MW were focusing on Israeli intransigence is that it immediately came to for from Israel, even though Israel was not being asked to give up anything at this point. But Palestinians are being asked to give up stuff.

          Nobody can change the fact, regardless if the Palestinians have a state, or a country, or even a collective, or nationally recognized identity, they have been forced to give up much, beginning with the Nakba, and continuing down to the daily land-grabbing and illegal Israeli settlements, those “facts on the ground.”
          Thou shalt not steal.
          Thou shalt not murder.
          It’s not the Jews, but the people now generally and collectively known as the Palestinians, if any, who’ve been in the “disputed” land “since time immemorial.”

          The USA is on the wrong side of this conflict, and it’s very apparent to everybody in the world’s street but the ignorant Americans. They can thank their own government and mainstream media for this situation.

        • mondonut says:

          Annie Robbins says:
          what does the arabness of palestinians have to do with their rejection of the changes?Everything. An Arab proposal from the Arab League presented on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs should at least have the support of the Palestinian Arabs.

          … because israeli intransigence …
          That’s the funny part, as the Hamas quotes prove the Palestinians are intransigent even towards their supposed friends.

          … Fayyad warns Obama: ‘A state of leftovers is not going to do it’ Poor attitude, they should decide they want a state more than they want to do harm to Israel

          ... there is no point in palestine agreeing to more concessions at this juncture. What concessions? They have not made any.

          … their completely reasonable demand of demanding a freeze. If the Palestinians want a freeze within areas they ultimately fully control (largely true as it is), they should say so. Asking for a freeze over areas the Israelis have no intention of relinquishing (Jerusalem) is a request for a major Israeli concession, if they want something like that – sit down and negotiate it.

          israel should cough up some kind of proposal …Why should they do that without negotiations? The Palestinians know full well the Israelis are not going to grant a RoR or give up the entirety of EastJerusalem, have the Palestinians ever been willing to work within those parameters?

        • it was israel that has never accepted it james. they wouldn’t accept this new one anyway, so why bother. they should put on paper what they would accept, which they won’t do.

        • Cliff says:

          have the Palestinians ever been willing to work within those parameters?

          Why should they?

          The Palestine Papers leak demonstrated already how unreasonable the Israelis are.

          You’re saying that all of Jerusalem should be Israel’s?

          All of Israel’s demands are unreasonable. A greedy and powerful thief dictating to the victim what his demands are.

          And being part of the greedy thief, you naturally see no problem with it.

        • there is no point in palestine agreeing to more concessions at this juncture. What concessions? They have not made any.

          of course they have. link to mondoweiss.net

          Here is the back story. After Palestinians put in their bid for statehood at the UN, on September 23 the Quartet issued a request for information from both Palestinians and Israelis. The Quartet’s deadline for the proposals is fast approaching: January 26th.

          On November 14th Palestinian Authority President Abbas turned over proposals for Palestinian state borders and security arrangements to the Quartet “as a demonstration of flexibility and to garner the support of the international community. Abbas also committed to suspending any unilateral steps at the UN until January 26.”

          the proposal was chock full of concessions. plus, when the palestine papers came out it was completely evident the palestinians had made concession after concession. they were turned down at every juncture. you can’t erase away the past just because it makes israel look like the crimianls they are.

          … Fayyad warns Obama: ‘A state of leftovers is not going to do it’ Poor attitude, they should decide they want a state more than they want to do harm to Israel

          more bs sadistic hasbara. what whining victim oppressors, bemoaning the status of their own foot on the neck of palestinians.

          If the Palestinians want a freeze within areas they ultimately fully control (largely true as it is)

          earth to nut, there’s an occupation. palestinians don’t have control over anything, full or otherwise.

          Asking for a freeze over areas the Israelis have no intention of relinquishing (Jerusalem) is a request for a major Israeli concession, if they want something like that – sit down and negotiate it.

          you know perfectly well the expansion is not limited to jerusalem. if the israelis have no intention of relinquishing land what’s to negotiate? palestinian concessions? and you wonder why they reject the ‘new arab initiative’? lol

          israel should cough up some kind of proposal …Why should they do that without negotiations?

          because they are looking at continued global isolation and the inevitable bds that will follow. or are you under the illusion they can keep this up indefinitely sans any blowback. you must know this will implode eventually.

        • Yes, Annie. Israel foolishly failed to accept the 2002 Saudi peace plan (with some tweaks).

        • Shingo says:

          Why are the Arab Palestinians unable to agree with the “Arab” initiative?

          Why te Israelis unable to agree to a US initiative?

        • Shingo says:

          An Arab proposal from the Arab League presented on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs should at least have the support of the Palestinian Arabs.

          It should have been endorsed by the Palestinians before being proposed if the Arab League presented on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs. The US never puts forward a plan without getting Israel to OK it first.

          That’s the funny part, as the Hamas quotes prove the Palestinians are intransigent even towards their supposed friends.

          Wrong. Hamas and the Palestinians accepted the previous plan, which Israel also rejected. The Arab League were not elected to represent the Palestinians – they are a bunch of US puppet dictators.

          Poor attitude, they should decide they want a state more than they want to do harm to Israel

          A poor attitude is a country that stands of violation of international law and countless UN resolutions. Conversely Israel should decide they want a peace more than they want to steal land.

          What concessions? They have not made any.

          Only if you ignore the 22% of Palestine they gave up claims to in 1993.

          If the Palestinians want a freeze within areas they ultimately fully control (largely true as it is), they should say so.

          Nice piece of blatant dishonesty on your part. Everyone knows that the Palestinians don’t ultimately fully control any part of Palestine.

          Asking for a freeze over areas the Israelis have no intention of relinquishing (Jerusalem) is a request for a major Israeli concession

          No it’s not, because Israel ha no legal claim to East Jerusalem. But the fact that Israelis have no intention of relinquishing Jerusalem does indeed show a very poor attitude.

          Why should they do that without negotiations?

          Because all negotiations needs to have a starting point. Israel refuses to come up with a proposal because they have no intention of reaching a political settlement.

          Israeli politics has moved so far to the right that any political leader who puts forward a proposal that isn’t completely insane, sadistic, and unworkable with mean the death of that leaders’s political career.

        • RoHa says:

          ” What concessions? They have not made any.”

          Aside from 78% of their homeland.

        • Sumud says:

          What concessions? They have not made any.

          Roha has said it best below, they gave up 78% of their homeland.

          War in 1948 was not inevitable, it was driven by zionist greed. The bulk of zionist casualties were incurred outside the Israelis partition while they were undertaking offensive action. The rest is hasbara.

          I would not be for giving up the most valuable parts of the remaining 22% if I were Palestinian.

          Asking for a freeze over areas the Israelis have no intention of relinquishing (Jerusalem) is a request for a major Israeli concession, if they want something like that – sit down and negotiate it.

          You obviously do not understand very basic concepts.

          Negotiations are based on what each party is legally entitled to, not what they want. A concession is when one party agrees to give up something to which they are legally entitled. A foot stamping tantrum by Israel, “i want it waaaaaaaaaaaaa”, does not create a legal entitlement to Palestinian property and neither does belligerent military occupation.

          I challenge you to name one concession Israel has offered in any negotiation with Palestinians, EVER.

          israel should cough up some kind of proposal …

          Why should they do that without negotiations? The Palestinians know full well the Israelis are not going to grant a RoR or give up the entirety of EastJerusalem, have the Palestinians ever been willing to work within those parameters?

          How about self interest? History will shortly consign Israel to the dustbin unless withdrawal from Palestine occurs. A tipping point is close. Short of killing every Palestinian, Israel cannot combat the idea of one-person/one-vote. If they do embark on a holocaust that will also be the end of Israel.

          I can’t see Israelis withdrawal personally, so one state it is.

        • Hostage says:

          Why would the Arab League present a plan without the support of the Palestinians?

          FYI, the Arab initiative applies to the Golan Heights and the DMZs near Lake Kinneret too. The latter were governed by the Israeli-Syrian Armistice agreement. Any land swaps involving those occupied Arab territories wouldn’t necessarily be subject to Palestinian consent.

        • Naftush says:

          My guess: the folks here are fighting a different war, one that’s against one party and not for the other. The targets are Israel, Zionism, and the national group behind both; the fodder is the Palestinian Arab public. Repeatedly they push for policies more radical than those accepted by the Palestinian Arab mainstream, reject moves by Israeli and Palestinian Arab entities that promote coexistence, urge intransigence on the part of all opponents of Israel and Zionism, and thrill vicariously in what they think is the inevitability of a war that Israel is ostensibly sure to lose.

        • Hostage says:

          My guess: the folks here are fighting a different war, one that’s against one party and not for the other. The targets are Israel, Zionism, and the national group behind both;

          My guess is that you are a troll who has never read the anti-war commentary that most of “the folks” here post on a routine basis. I suspect that you are opposed to equal human rights and constitutional guarantees of equality for Palestinians and simply use the shop-worn Zionist device of suggesting the existence of latent anti-semitism as camoflage for your own racist agenda.

          I’ve noted on more than one occasion that it’s a waste of time to discuss individual war crimes, while overlooking the fact that planning and perpetrating a war is a crime, in and of itself, according to the principles of international law contained in Article 6 of the Nuremburg Charter.

          I don’t advocate the use of force to settle political differences. Like almost everyone else here, I only support the principle that Palestinians should enjoy all of the same legal rights and priveleges as those enjoyed by their Jewish neighbors. Why don’t you explain to us why the State of Israel is afraid of adopting a constitution that guaratees all of its citizens equal rights and protections? See MKs debate protection of ‘equality’ in future constitution: Religious MKs reject inclusion of ensurance of equality, saying it would contradict Judaism. link to haaretz.com

        • Shingo says:

          The targets are Israel, Zionism, and the national group behind both

          Why not? Like fascism and apartheid, and all the nasty “isms” that have come and gone, repugnant ideologies like Zionism should be challenged.

          Repeatedly they push for policies more radical than those accepted by the Palestinian Arab mainstream

          You often hear this absurd argument without any evidence provided. Of course, when you hear about Palestinian Arab mainstream, hasbara trolls usually mean people like Abbas who are on the Washington payroll. Of course , people like yourself don’t even bat an eyelid over Israeli extremism.

          urge intransigence on the part of all opponents of Israel and Zionism

          While you yourself defend Israel’s far graver and more extreme intransigence, and flouting of international law.

        • mondonut says:
          Everything. An Arab proposal from the Arab League presented on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs should at least have the support of the Palestinian Arabs.This “support of the Palestinian Arabs” you’re crapping on about, should it have been provided after the last, or before the next racist price-tag/house demolition/internal checkpoint/carpet bombing?

          … That’s the funny part, as the Hamas quotes prove the Palestinians are intransigent even towards their supposed friends.
          It’s only “funny” if you’re a racist.

          …Poor attitude, they should decide they want a state more than they want to do harm to Israel…Poor judgement, Israel is a settler colonial state which never has and never will reach critical mass and is a goner, either way, so enjoy your racist Jew-supremacist paradise while you still can.

          … What concessions? They have not made any.
          What further concessions do you seek from those you continue to dehumanize and oppress?

          … If the Palestinians want a freeze within areas they ultimately fully control (largely true as it is), they should say so. Asking for a freeze over areas the Israelis have no intention of relinquishing (Jerusalem) is a request for a major Israeli concession, if they want something like that – sit down and negotiate it… The Palestinians won’t be ethnically cleansing themselves, so enjoy your settler colonial state while it lasts.

          …Why should they do that without negotiations? The Palestinians know full well the Israelis are not going to grant a RoR or give up the entirety of EastJerusalem, have the Palestinians ever been willing to work within those parameters?Settler colonial entities cannot be “negotiated” with.

      • I agree it was unfair for John Kerry to demand that the Arab peace plan of 2002 be tweaked, in favor of Israel, without asking anything whatever from Israel in return.

        We, of course, can thank the Israel lobby for this unfairness.

        Apparently, 140 members of the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans, are Jews. Interesting piece on this fact at takimag.com.

    • Bumblebye says:

      Donut, how many Palestinian negotiators were in in on this plan? Is the answer zero?

      It’s like the English speaking world, excluding New Zealand, decided that NZ has to give up either the North or South island, once the sh*t hits the fan, to give displaced Israelis a new place where they can “self-determine”. What self-respecting New Zealander would be up for that?? Up sticks, abandon homes and businesses, move to the other island, on the say so of a bunch of foreigners who speak the same lingo, by and large follow the same faiths, so they’re the same, right? They can speak for each other wherever they are, yeah? The people of the world aren’t necessarily as dumb as you’d obviously wish them to be.

  24. Actually land swaps is not just an idea, it was included in Abbas’s counter offer to Olmert. As far as fertile territory compared to desert territory I accept the complaint, but certainly if there is to be a two state solution at this time, one would expect Abbas’s offer to be the starting point (as Olmert’s would be the starting point for the Israeli stance). Anything else would be starting from scratch. Little will come of this because Netanyahu does not accept Olmert’s position as his starting position. And Hamas does not accept Abbas’s position as valid. Marc Ellis has come out in favor of Netanyahu and Hamas and against Abbas and Olmert.

    Ellis seems to be opposed to a two state solution, so land swaps are in the category of kal v’chomer. If one is opposed to a two state solution, so much more so, if it requires land swaps to accomplish the solution.

    (On the worthlessness of land swaps in question: The land to be given for the connecting road between Gaza and the West Bank is not worthless. Its value is not fertility but the fact that it would connect Gaza and the West Bank.)

    • Hostage says:

      Actually land swaps is not just an idea, it was included in Abbas’s counter offer to Olmert.

      Correction: The Israelis and the USA introduced the idea of “rectifying the jagged armistice lines” from the very beginning of the occupation in 1967.

      Both countries have subsequently employed that idea as a pretext to circumvent the UN Charter prohibitions against the unilateral use of force, including Israel’s on-going military occupation and repeated attempts to annex territory acquired by the 1967 war.

      The US government was almost immediately aware that the Israelis were deliberately violating both the intent and content of resolution 242. All of the declassified materials on the subject are a matter of public record now, since the State Department archives on the pre-war discussions and UN resolution 242 negotiations were published in 2004. For example, the full text of “Foreign Relations Of The United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis And War, 1967″ is available online: link to history.state.gov

      Here is a link to a 1967 White House memo in which Walt Rostow advised President Johnson, that Secretary Rusk had explained to Foreign Minister Eban that US support for language about secure permanent frontiers does NOT mean the US supports any territorial changes.

      Here is another link to a 1968 telegram in which Secretary of State Rusk said the US government had advised the Israeli Foreign Ministry that it viewed the establishment of civilian settlements in the occupied territories as a violation of the principles contained in Security Council resolution 242 and article 49 of the Geneva Convention.

      Rusk wrote:

      There was much bickering over whether that resolution should say from “the” territories or from “all” territories. In the French version, which is equally authentic, it says withdrawal de territory, with de meaning “the.” We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be “rationalized”; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties. We also wanted to leave open demilitarization measures in the Sinai and the Golan Heights and take a fresh look at the old city of Jerusalem. But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war. On that point we and the Israelis to this day remain sharply divided. This situation could lead to real trouble in the future. Although every President since Harry Truman has committed the United States to the security and independence of Israel, I’m not aware of any commitment the United States has made to assist Israel in retaining territories seized in the Six-Day War.

      – See Rusk “As I Saw It”, Dean and Richard Rusk, W.W. Norton, 1990, ISBN 0393026507, page 389

      • Hostage – - And let us remember Lyndon Johnson’s gigantic blunder in failing to back the British in their UN effort to get Israel out of all territories occupied during the JUne 1967 war, asap.

  25. Hostage says:

    Is it me or does the land-swap business in the Middle East strike you as political corruption in the international market place?

    No, the father of modern Israeli Zionism claimed it was a pointless exercise decades ago:

    If it were possible (and I doubt this) to discuss Palestine with the Arabs of Baghdad and Mecca as if it were some kind of small, immaterial borderland, then Palestine would still remain for the Palestinians not a borderland, but their birthplace, the center and basis of their own national existence. Therefore it would be necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs, which is the same condition that exists now.

    – Vladimir Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs), 1923, link to danielpipes.org

    Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, rejected a revised Middle East peace initiative put forward by the Arab League, saying outsiders could not decide the fate of the Palestinians.
    link to ynetnews.com

  26. RJL says:

    How nice that the Church of Scotland, which owns a nice property overlooking Yam Kinneret, supports a Jewish state within the 67 lines. Would they be interested in negotiating with the Palestinian leaders, especially Haniyeh? And Jews have no “special” claim to the Holy Land? Why do you accept the moslem religious claim to Palestine? This isn’t a battle over land as much as a battle of “good” and “bad”. And we “privileged” Jews are supposedly on the wrong side of the law, are we? Just imagine if all of you educated people who question the Mandate, the article of the League of Nations establishing the mandate as a protected homeland for the Jewish people, the San Remo conference which confirmed this, were to question the legality of Jordan, Iraq, and Syria? They all came into existence at the same time as the Mandate for a Jewish homeland. What makes them legal, and a Jewish state not? Just because you wish it so? As far as all that talk of Jewish resistance by the Irgun, how about reading about all the assassinations and pogroms run by the Mufti and his followers long before the Jews got their self defense forces together, like starting in the early 1920s? No, that doesn’t count. They even killed many of their own arabs who differed in their outlook. Just read “From Time Immemorial.” It’s all there.

    • Citizen says:

      The book From Time Immemorial is rubbish. It was exposed as a fraud by several critics, including Norman Finkelstein (whose exposé is included in Blaming the Victims, edited by Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens.
      Finkelstein is discussed in Noam Chomsky’s The Fate of an Honest Intellectual (an excerpt from his 2002 book Understanding Power). Here are some quotes from that article:

      “From Time Immemorial … was a big scholarly-looking book with lots of footnotes, which purported to show that the Palestinians were all recent immigrants … And it was very popular — it got literally hundreds of rave reviews, and no negative reviews: the Washington Post, the New York Times, everybody was just raving about it. Here was this book which proved that there were really no Palestinians! Of course, the implicit message was, if Israel kicks them all out there’s no moral issue, because they’re just recent immigrants who came in because the Jews had built up the country. … That was the big intellectual hit for that year: Saul Bellow, Barbara Tuchman, everybody was talking about it as the greatest thing since chocolate cake. Well, one graduate student at Princeton, a guy named Norman Finkelstein, started reading through the book. He was interested in the history of Zionism, and as he read the book he was kind of surprised by some of the things it said. He’s a very careful student, and he started checking the references — and it turned out that the whole thing was a hoax, it was completely faked: probably it had been put together by some intelligence agency …
      Finkelstein’s very persistent: he took a summer off and sat in the New York Public Library, where he went through every single reference in the book — and he found a record of fraud that you cannot believe. Well, the New York intellectual community is a pretty small place, and pretty soon everybody knew about this, everybody knew the book was a fraud …”

      As soon as the book appeared, it was just demolished, it was blown out of the water. Every major journal, the Times Literary Supplement, the London Review, the Observer, everybody had a review saying, this doesn’t even reach the level of nonsense, of idiocy. …

      Anyhow, by that point the American intellectual community realized that the Peters book was an embarrassment, and it sort of disappeared — nobody talks about it anymore.

      Except, that is, for Zionists who post rave reviews about it and swear by it.

      For a lengthy discussion of the criticisms of Joan Peters’ book see Paul Blair’s six-part article published in 2002 beginning at link to capmag.com. Blair writes in his Conclusion:
      “From Time Immemorial is work of propaganda, with all the bad connotations that term carries. Peters’ case rests upon distortion and fabrication. Time and again, she misconstrues sources in a tendentious manner. She cribs uncritically from partisan works. She conceals crucial calculations, and draws hard conclusions from tenuous evidence. She speculates wildly and without ground. She exaggerates figures and selects numbers to suit her thesis. She adduces evidence that in no way supports her claims, sometimes even omitting “inconvenient” portions of the citation. She invents contradictions in sources she wishes to discredit by quoting them out of context. She “forgets” undesirable numbers in her calculations. She ignores sources that cast doubt on her conclusions, even when she herself uses those sources for other purposes. She makes baseless insinuations and misleading claims. …”

      • Naftush says:

        Joan Peters asked questions and proposed answers. Her critics attack the answers. The questions remain.

        • she also lied a lot.

        • Cliff says:

          Joan Peters wrote lies and was called out on it.

          If you have the same lies to tell, then tell them instead of alluding to them.

        • Sumud says:

          Joan Peters asked questions and proposed answers.

          Joan Peters isn’t dead. Why has she gone completely AWOL? Why doesn’t she reappear to answer her critics? Because she knows Finkelstein would demolish her in a second.

          I doubt she even wrote the book.

        • RoHa says:

          @ Naftush

          Peter’s thesis is that the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs migrated into Palestine at about the same time as the European Jews were migrating into Palestine. Assuming, for one giddy moment, that this is true.

          Would that not give the Arab immigrants the same rights to the land as the Jewish immigrants?

          What right would one set of immigrants have to drive out another set?

      • RoHa says:

        We should not forget that, following Finkelstein, Israeli Historian Yehoshua Porath (a Likud and Netanyahu supporter!) described the book as “sheer rubbish”.

    • Ellen says:

      The is no Muslim claim to Palestine. You make that up. There is just a claim and human right by a people who have lived there as a society for centuries and centuries.

      Only Zionists use Bible story claims and primitive propaganda (like the Peters piece of work) to destroy, deny a people and take their homes.

    • Shingo says:

      And Jews have no “special” claim to the Holy Land? Why do you accept the moslem religious claim to Palestine?

      No one is arguing that Palestinians right to Palestine is based on religion. It’s based on universal rights like property and human rights and rights to self determination.

      This isn’t a battle over land as much as a battle of “good” and “bad”.

      Yes, you hasbarats want so badly to pretend this has nothing to so with land, even though Israel’s founders stated very blatantly that it was indeed about land and only land. Ze’ev Jabotinsky stated in a letter to one of his Revisionist colleagues in the United States dated November 1939:

      “There is no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews of Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 29)

      Israel Zangwill, who had visited Palestine in 1897 and came face-to-face with the demographic reality, stated :

      “Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ….. [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us.”
      (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7- 10, and Righteous Victims, p. 140)

      In October 1882, Validimir Dubnow, one of the earliest Zionist pioneers in Palestine, wrote to his brother articulating the ultimate goals of the Zionist movement:

      “The ultimate goal . . . is, in time, to take over the Land of Israel and to restore to the Jews the political independence they have been deprived of for these two thousand years. . . . The Jews will yet arise and, arms in hand (if need be), declare that they are the masters of their ancient homeland.”
      (Righteous Victims, p. 49)

      So time and time again, we have the Zionist founders stating that the land must be conquered by force of arms.

      Just imagine if all of you educated people who question the Mandate, the article of the League of Nations establishing the mandate as a protected homeland for the Jewish people, the San Remo conference which confirmed this, were to question the legality of Jordan, Iraq, and Syria?

      No one is questioning the Mandate. The problem is that you are ignorant of what it stated. The Mandate mentioned nothing about creating a Jewish state. The word homeland appears nowhere in the Mandate or San Remo. There was no Mandate for a Jewish homeland.

      On the other hand, the Mandates for Jordan, Iraq, and Syria were very explicit.

      That’s what makes them legal under the Mandate, and not Israel.

      how about reading about all the assassinations and pogroms run by the Mufti and his followers long before the Jews got their self defense forces together

      Tell us about all the assassinations and pogroms run by the Mufti . There weren’t even a handful. In fact, he was exile from Palestine in 1937 and never returned,

      And as Citizen has pointed out “From Time Immemorial” was exposed as a fraud. Not even Daniel Pipes will touch it.

    • Shingo says:

      ? And Jews have no “special” claim to the Holy Land?

      No they don’t.

      As Hostage has posted before, the Principle Allied Powers decided there were no bases for a legal entitlement, so Lord Balfour suggested that some polite words about the “historical connection” of the Jewish people be added to the Mandate instead.

      The travaux préparatoires of the British Foreign Office Committee that was tasked with drafting the Mandate reveal that the Allies did not consider the historical connection as a basis for any Jewish claim:

      “It was agreed that they had no claim, whatever might be done for them on sentimental grounds; further that all that was necessary was to make room for Zionists in Palestine, not that they should turn “it”, that is the whole country, into their home.
      – See PRO FO 371/5245, cited in Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict, George Brazziler, 1972, pages 99-100

      The General Assembly resolution 181 not only excluded the bulk of Judea and Samaria from the Jewish state, it prohibited the inhabitants of the Jewish state from obtaining citizenship and moving there:

      no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State.
      — United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, November 29, 1947, Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations

      And to make the “special claim”argument even more flimsy, apparently on Thursday 25th April, the BBC was due to screen a documentary called ‘Jerusalem: An Archaeological Mystery Story’ (BBC Four, 9pm).

      The documentary calls into question the alleged scale of the Jewish exodus from Jerusalem in 70AD, on which the basis of ‘right of return’ is founded.
      link to ymlp.com

    • eljay says:

      >> And Jews have no “special” claim to the Holy Land? Why do you accept the moslem religious claim to Palestine?

      Jews have no special claim to the “Holy Land”; neither do Muslims. The only people who have a special claim to Palestine are the inhabitants of that land who were terrorized and ethnically cleansed from it so that an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” could be on it.

    • Hostage says:

      Just imagine if all of you educated people who question the Mandate, the article of the League of Nations establishing the mandate as a protected homeland for the Jewish people, the San Remo conference which confirmed this, were to question the legality of Jordan, Iraq, and Syria?

      We’ve already debunked those Zionist propaganda talking points a number of times. From the very outset, the Israeli government and the Israeli Supreme Court have formally rejected the Mandate and San Remo homeland hasbara as valid bases for any legal claims. See for example CApp 41/49 Simshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory LTD. v. Attorney-General (1950), link to elyon1.court.gov.il

      It should have come as no surprise, when the government of Israel dismissed those claims (again) and tossed the settlers out of the Gaza Strip and Kadim, Ganim, Homesh, and Sa-Nur. See HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al. (cited in HCJ 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel; and HCJ 2056/04 Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel) link to elyon1.court.gov.il & link to elyon1.court.gov.il

      If you need get up to speed on the actual historical record, just search my comment archives using your own terms: “homeland”, “San Remo”, “Syria”, “Jordan”, & etc. and stop making such a fool out of yourself. No “educated person” will ever take you seriously if you keep spouting delusional nonsense and propaganda.

      • Shingo says:

        No “educated person” will ever take you seriously if you keep spouting delusional nonsense and propaganda.

        Seriously Hostage, has anyone taken this guy seriously? He doesn’t even seem interested in being taken seriously.

      • Great post, Hostage. Purpose of Mandate for Palestine was to prepare the people of Palestine for independence. NOT to displace them with an imported population from Europe.

      • Borukh says:

        The direction of the mandate on the ground was to admit the many applicants fleeing European anti-Semitism. Entry visas (controlled by the Brits, who had responsibility for the mandate under the supervision of the League and later the UN) were restricted every time the Palestinian Arabs rioted.

        Whatever the injustices (and there were many) heaped on the Arab Palestinians (my grandparents et al. were Jewish Palestinians with Palestinian id’s and passports, etc. by the way), this petite histoire is a reality for many.

        The present Arab Peace initiative is for me a most welcome reversal of what happened 60 years ago and holds out a real promise for peace, it’s the Jews who are screwing up!

  27. Is making Israel into the 4th most powerful, nuclear weapons state in the world, the most misguided military miscalculation in history?

    As the state of Israel refuses to be a party to any of the international nuclear or chemical weapons, non-proliferation treaties, there is consequently no certainty regarding the actual number of weapons of mass destruction it secretly possesses. However, reliable global sources estimate that its number of nuclear warheads to be between 200 and 400.

    What also know that it will soon possess a 5th nuclear- armed, German- built submarine that will give it both first and second strike capability anywhere in the world.

    Israel, that is not subject to IAEA inspection and is the only undeclared nuclear-armed state that stands outside any reporting or international control agreements that exist for the continuance of global peace, is now estimated to possess more weapons of mass destruction than any European state, including both Britain and France who are, of course, both signatories.

    This potential threat to world peace exists because of the powerful, unelected Israel lobby that directs US government foreign policy in the Middle East through its ‘contributions’ to the US Congress. The payments themselves are a matter of public record as is the legislation that aids, arms and funds the Israeli state at the expense of the taxpayer.

    What is not on public record is the rationale for this most dangerous transfer of military power to the government of a small state in the most unstable region of the globe. An incongruous political entity that has to face the problem of being a hated cuckoo in an ancient Muslim nest.

    The status quo is that America’s client state is now beyond the control of its own controller, making us all at risk from the fallout of a nuclear war that could damage our world for ever.

    The only answer now is to apply trade sanctions that will force the state of Israel to renounce its nuclear and chemical weapons programs and agree to a ME Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the immediate future. The EU should take the initiative and suspend the Association Agreement that affords the Israeli government free access to European markets for bilateral trade. That would immediately force Israel’s hand to decommission its weapons of mass destruction and mark the start of a process that would lead to peace.

  28. Excellent points. American public should demand that Israel be pressured to sign NPT and get rid of its nukes.

  29. Blank State says:

    “The only answer now is to apply trade sanctions that will force the state of Israel to renounce its nuclear and chemical weapons programs and agree to a ME Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the immediate future”

    Optimism such as the above is sheer idiocy. Why advance a “solution” that one realizes is nothing but a fantasy?

    • Naftush says:

      For the same reason that Kahanists fantasize about obliterating the current generation’s seed of Amalek, as they term the Palestinian Arabs. It’s so much easier than advancing real solutions.

    • Blank – - What is “fantasy” about the effort of many coutries, to achieve a nuke’free zone in the Middle East?

      • Citizen says:

        @ James Canning
        Can’t you read? Blank spelled it out. It’s utter fantasy to work for a nuke free Middle East so long as those workers do not tackle the hard fact that Israel has a nuclear bomb stockpile, and won’t join the NNPT, and the US and its allies pretend they don’t know if Israel has such a stockpile, and the NNPT members don’t point out in public that Israel is the big, constantly threatening bump in the road towards a nuke non-profileration Middle East.

        • Citizen – - Saudi Arabia has pushed for a nuke-free zone in the Middle East. How much credit do the Saudi get for this effort? None?

          I fully accept that the Israel lobby prevents the US from acting in the best interests of the American people on this issue. Need to go to other countries.

      • Blank State says:

        “Blank – – What is “fantasy” about the effort of many coutries, to achieve a nuke’free zone in the Middle East?”

        Well, the facts as we know them, and history, speak for themselves. You blunder forth with a pipedream, and expect to be taken seriously? Tell me, James. do you honestly forward the premise that the political will exists in Washington DC do act in the manner you describe? Or perhaps you entertain the absurd notion that such a scenario as you describe can take place without the United States signing on?

        Fact is, James, Israel has virtually guaranteed that the middle east will NEVER be a “nuke free zone” by its own actions, threats, and indimidations. The LOGICAL response to Israel’s threats to its nieghbors, its historical expansion, and it’s repeated war crimes and invasions against neighboring countries is to seek nuclear parity to establish an actual balance of power. Certainly, if I was a citizen of Iran or Iraq I would consider it the RESPONSIBILITY of my nation’s leaders to seek a military capability that was on a par with Israel’s. Considering Israel’s clandestine past and present actions concerning its sizable nuclear arsenal, it is obvious they cannot be trusted with such a destructive power unless it is countered by a neutralizing force, such as a nuclear armed Iran. Ironically, Iran’s development of a nuclear arsenal may be the factor that deters the eventuality of nuclear weapons being used in the middle east. But to people like you, “nuclear free” apparently translates to “only Israel has nukes” in the middle east, because if you think they are going to give up thier nukes, you’re even more delusional than I imagined.

        So, uh, tell me James, considering Isreal’s treatment of the Palestinians, its false flag operations, its gargantuan and organized propaganda machine, its threats, its willingness to attack its neighbors, and its history of using white phosphorous and cluster munitions against civilian non-combatants…….

        You think they’ll think twice about incinerating a few million Muslims in a nuclear fireball if they can create the rationale for doing so? PARTICULARLY if it means acquiring yet more acreage?

        • Blank – - Yes, US ability to act, and pressure Israel, is largely compromised by Israel lobby. But polls show many if not most Israelis would back the nuke-free zone. Israel is strongest conventional power in ME, in offensive stirke capability. Ergo, no need for nukes.

  30. huge blast in outskirts of damascus. israel bombed syria.

    link to uk.reuters.com

    all over twitter. link to aljazeera.com

    couldn’t hit iran so they’re getting their rocks off on syria. shame.

      • ritzl, israel only confirmed their friday strike. they’ve not confirmed this one, just happened a few hrs ago.

        AP: link to news.yahoo.com

        BEIRUT (AP) — The Syrian state news agency SANA, citing initial reports, said early Sunday that Israeli missiles struck a military research center near the capital Damascus.
        If confirmed, it would be the second Israeli strike on targets in Syria in three days, signaling a sharp escalation of Israel’s involvement in Syria’s bloody civil war.

        President Barack Obama said Saturday, before the latest incident, that it was up to Israel to confirm or deny any strikes, but that the U.S. coordinates very closely with Israel.
        “The Israelis, justifiably, have to guard against the transfer of advanced weaponry to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah,” Obama told the Spanish-language TV station Telemundo.

        • ritzl says:

          @Annie Three words… Hegemony, Hegemony, Hegemony. A perpetually destabilized Syria is an Israeli objective, imho, as not one but two uncontested, militarily (from Syria) or politically (from your cite) Israeli airstrikes into sovereign Syrian territory in one week show to be the case.

          It’s so, I don’t know, exhausting, to track what this deliberate and perpetual destabilization means for US interventionist advocacy and what that, in turn, means for some mother’s son in Kansas, US, who’s off to join up.

          I’m really, really tired of the circular totality of it all.

        • Ritzl – - Israel came fairly close to a peace deal with Syria in 2008. Fly in oitnment was Israel’s effort to keep all the water from the Golan Heights, inside the watershed for Sea of Galilee. And all fish in that sea. And the shoreline.

        • Israel came fairly close

          or so would were led to believe.

          Fly in oitnment was Israel’s effort to keep all the water from the Golan Heights

          don’t you mean elephant in the room? isn’t it irrelevant anyway? fairly close to a peace deal is like having a carrot dangled before your eyes for decades. if you’re hungry it’s no different than having no access to food. or being thirsty with a glass of water across the room while you’re chained to the opposite wall.

          And all fish in that sea. And the shoreline.

          lol, you crack me up.

    • Shingo says:

      huge blast in outskirts of damascus. israel bombed syria.

      Here’s a fascinating take on the attack from Tony Carlucci.

      Israeli Airstrikes Signal Western Desperation in Syria
      link to informationclearinghouse.info

      Larry Wilkerson also agrees, saying that this is the result of the ineptitude of Israel’s leadership.

    • Taxi says:

      They bombed ‘ Mount Qassioun’, the most strategically important rebel/terrorist foothold outside of Damascus, the LAST ONE they control. They bombed to help the terrorist mercenaries in Syria, NOT to strike at a Syrian weapons convoy headed for Hizbollah with “game-changing” weapons. The hizb already has the “game-changing” weapons, thank you very much.

      Yes the rebels are losing so desperately, so badly they are now receiving DIRECT help from israel – under the false claim of hitting at the hizb.

      “This is the end, my only friend” should be sung in unison at the mercenaries in Syria:
      link to vimeo.com

      Will Bashar react to this bombing? Yes, in his own good time – he and others most certainly will.

      • thanks for the soundtrack taxi.

        NOT to strike at a Syrian weapons convoy headed for Hizbollah with “game-changing” weapons.

        this is just their excuse for intervening, imho. last time israel denied hitting the factory. killed a few people, claimed they only hit a convoy traveling to lebanon. yada etc.

        btw, i’m reading tweets saying regime is on it’s ‘last legs’. they were saying that 2 years ago.

        assad
        centipede
        many legs.

      • ritzl says:

        @Taxi But, But, But, it had to have been “new” weapons bound for hizb, “Also Sprach” the Israelis.

        But can you clarify this?

        They bombed ‘ Mount Qassioun’, the most strategically important rebel/terrorist foothold outside of Damascus, the LAST ONE they control.

        They, I take it, is Israel, but why would they bomb a rebel foothold?

        Syria, to me, is a mish mash of competing and shifting deadly interests. Any insights?

        • Taxi says:

          The mercenaries are surrounded by the Syrian army on Mount Qassioun – israel bombed an army checkpoint road to create a small gap, a puny gateway for the mercenaries to escape through. But most of the mercenaries ain’t gonna be leaving Syria alive – you can bet on that.

          Bashar is winningwinningwinning!

          And israel is freakingoutfreakingoutfreakingout!

          So freaked out in fact that they’ve illegally flown their fighter jets HUNDREDS of times over south Lebanon this past week: hours and hours of jet noise-pollution day and night. And I should know this: I’ve been frigging hearing them!

          Normally they send maybe one or two illegal incursions into Lebanese airspace, once or twice a week and only for a few minutes – just to remind the Lebanese folks that they still intend to kill them. Of course the civilians in south lebanon are so used to the sound of israeli jets that they pay no attention to them whatsoever – carry on with what they’re doing like the jets didn’t even exist.

          I should like to know how many israelis would run to their lux shelters at the sound of a Lebanese jet overhead.

        • ritzl says:

          Thanks, Taxi.

        • ritzl says:

          So Israel is overtly supporting the [al-Quaida, "Islamic extremist" "terrorists-who-wish-us[Israel]-harm-should-they-win-the-civil-war” “rebels?” Curious. #sarcasm.

          And yeah, the Israelis can sure dish it out…

        • Taxi says:

          Inside a week, it’s cost us, the American tax payer, mucho millions in fuel for israeli jet to pin-prick the Syrian Army.

        • Taxi says:

          … Meanwhile, Bashar, comfortable with his eventual victory, has been making rare public appearances.
          “Also Saturday, Assad made his second public appearance in a week in the capital Damascus. Syrian state TV said Assad, who rarely appears in public, visited a Damascus campus, and footage showed him being thronged by a large crowd. The report said Assad inaugurated a statue dedicated to “martyrs” from Syrian universities who died in the country’s uprising and civil war.”
          link to news.yahoo.com

          LOL, so much hubris in this article (guess who wrote it?!), but nevertheless….

        • taxi, that article got refreshed a few hrs later

          link to news.yahoo.com

          basically same article and graphic, but 2nd airstrike in 3 days, vs 2nd in 4 months.

        • Taxi says:

          annie,
          Propaganda is a flexible plastic, right?!

          The strike was against a Syrian Army road-block guarding a temp Syrian Army amo depo. The strike was designed to kneecap and confuse the Syrian army while the mercenaries trapped inside Mount Qassioun attempted to free themselves up from the Syrian Army’s choke-hold.

          It is utter rubbish for israel to claim that Iranian “game-changing” weapons headed for hizbollah were targeted and struck. Just think about it: why would the Iranians transport such ‘valuable and important’ weapons through a war-torn Syria when it can easily fly them into Beirut airport, which is how they transport weapons to hizbollah anyway? Duh – let’s ask CNN!

          Because the target was military, Syria is reading it as an israeli “declaration of war”. What they will do about it remains to be seen. The Syrian Army’s hammer and anvil have been cold for years but this is no longer the case.

          Between now and early June, when Putin meets Obama to discuss Syria, there will be intensifying dramas between the two sides: Syria & friends versus israel/USA/Saudi Arabia/Qatar and their alqaida/mercenary friends. Obama and Putin need as much leeway for negotiations as they possibly can, so both leaders will approve of missions that they think will afford them the upper hand in the eventual discussions/negotiations in June.

          I wouldn’t be surprised if a very limited mini war broke out between israel and several of it’s neighbors before the June meeting.

        • Taxi- I understand the geostrategic reasons for backing Syria, because it is against Israel. But democratically, isn’t an Allawite government, absolutely anti democratic? Isn’t part of the claim against Israel is that it is not democratic? Unless democracy is not part of your shtick.

        • taxi, i do think this indicates what many people have known for a long time. the syrian army are ahead of the game and the opposition has been loosing steam. plus, the chemical weapons scare is not feasible, coming from assad. he’s the one who called for the UN investigation. hence, israel took a swing, hopeful to give the opps a boost. it won’t work. hopefully it’s not an opening where they plan on getting more actively involved.

        • Citizen says:

          @ yonah fredman
          What’s your point? The US has not made Syria the number one beneficiary of US foreign aid in all of US history. And Syria is not a member of the agency for the top economic powers in the world, as Israel is. And no American has ever claimed that Syria is democratic. Again, what’s your point?

        • Taxi says:

          yonah,

          Right from the onset of the troubles in Syria, Bashar offered the early (legitimate) street protestors a functioning democracy – it wasn’t just a verbal offer, he actually signed a decree to this effect. But soon as his offer was made public, mercenaries swiftly started flooding into Syria, mixing with legitimate protestors, agitating, planting bombs in crowds and causing death on the streets that led to sectarian strife. Now why would israel, America, Saudi Arabia and Qatar (with Turkey, UK and France in their shadow) not want democracy in Syria?

          This is NOT about democracy, yohan. It’s bigger than that.

        • Taxi says:

          Expect the worst from the zionists, annie. They’re that desperate now, hence their erratic, violent outburst and stale old excuses for breaking international laws – again. Turning the tables in mid chess game cuz you’re losing is an old zionist tactic. They’re betting on savage war saving them again. And they’ve got big shot backers on their side. But didn’t they do the same to Lebanon back in ’82? Attacked the Lebanese when they were in the middle of a civil war – and with pretty much the same big shot backers supporting these crimes of aggression then too? Only difference this time round, is the looming presence of Russia and China over the terrain of israel’s present conflict.

          Let’s wait and see what Putin’s office will have to say about it all. Let’s see what Xi Jinping’s statements will be. One thing’s for certain, there’s a sudden jolt in the region’s air, a palpable and twitching impatience with israel.

          Will Bashar’s sponsors give him the green light to strike back, just like israel got its green light to attack from its sponsors? The next forty eight hours will give us, if not an answer, then at least a solid clue or two.

        • Taxi- Until now I did not believe even supporters of Assad took his offer of a functioning democracy as real. But now, here you are, telling me that it was a real offer. BTW can you tell me the date this offer was made or a link to this offer.

        • it was all over the news. he set a date for new elections. it wasn’t a secret.

        • Shingo says:

          Taxi- I understand the geostrategic reasons for backing Syria, because it is against Israel.

          No. the geostrategic reasons for backing Syria is because the US and Israel want to destroy Syria and the GCC want to break Syria up into tiny pieces. The US and Israel’s main interest in going after Syria is to weaken Iran.

          But democratically, isn’t an Allawite government, absolutely anti democratic?

          Sure, just like Israel is anti democratic as the ruling force in Palestine.

        • Hostage says:

          But democratically, isn’t an Allawite government, absolutely anti democratic?

          The Baath party is not Allawite. You are using a propaganda talking point about the ethnicity of the Syrian head of state to imply that all of the members of the Syrian Congress are Allawites. Can you cite some evidence to support that assertion?

        • RoHa says:

          Why is it so hard to spell “lose” and “losing”?

        • yonah – - Syria tried to make peace with Israel numerous times over the past several decades. Most recent effort: 2008.

        • annie robbins- this credulity vis a vis Assad and “new” elections, (as in when were there “old” elections in a totalitarian country?), ruins your credibility regarding any realistic assessment of Palestine, Israel, Syria, Lebanon or Egypt. If you buy Assad’s goods, you have no eye for false goods and your analysis is below mediocre.

  31. And let’s remember that the Baath party in Iraq had more Shia than Sunnis. Though Sunnis had most of the highest-level positions.