‘J Street’ says Jewish state ‘hangs in balance’ of failed negotiations

Israel/Palestine
on 217 Comments

A few months ago Jeremy Ben-Ami of the liberal Zionist group J Street sent out a report from Israel suggesting that 2013 is the make-or-break year for the two-state solution. That urgency is reflected in his latest note, titled “Decision Time,” which at times sounds a fatalistic note about the possible end of the Jewish state. Some excerpts:

[John Kerry] apparently intends to tell both Israelis and the Palestinians that it’s time to decide if they are serious about engaging in meaningful diplomacy to achieve a two-state solution. If not, he’ll stand down and they can both watch the status quo deteriorate toward further confrontation.

Maj. Gen. Nitzan Alon, who commands the Israeli military in the West Bank, warned last week that if Kerry’s efforts fail, we could very well see an “escalation” in unrest in the West Bank….

“If we don’t go for the two-state solution, this state will stop being a Jewish state,” [Finance Minister Yair Lapid told the Washington Post]

With the future of the state of Israel, its security and its democratic and Jewish character hanging in the balance, this is the moment for all who care to press both parties to make the compromises and sacrifices necessary to advance a solution to the conflict.

President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are offering Israel a path to a sustainable and secure future through reasonable negotiation and compromise. It’s a path that may not be available for quite some time if it isn’t taken now.

It is unclear though what Ben-Ami aims to do to rescue the Jewish state. It does not appear that he is willing to take on the US government and the established Jewish organizations. Lately, for instance, he agreed to share a stage with the head of the rightwing pro-settler group StandWithUs who then blasted him for the suggestion that the US government should pressure Israel.

J Street’s problem is that it insists on organizing inside the mainstream Jewish community, so it is constrained by that community’s very conservative understanding. For instance, liberal NY Congresswoman Nita Lowey, who is not on J Street’s team and who represents the hardcore of American Jewish political life, in the latest “Westchester Jewish Life”, repeatedly faults the Palestinians for the failure of the peace process:  

The Congresswoman delivered a strong message to President Abbas, emphasizing the urgency of reengaging in direct negotiations with Prime Minister Netanyahu now… She also criticized him directly for his incendiary speech in November 2012 at the United Nations etc.

There isn’t going to be a two-state solution because no one has successfully organized inside the Democratic Party to defeat these attitudes.

There are now 650,000 Jews, at least, east of the Green Line. And when 2013 ends without any progress toward removing them, what will J Street do? Support voting rights for Palestinians living alongside those Jews?

217 Responses

  1. hophmi
    June 25, 2013, 12:10 pm

    Why do you insist on promoting the false narrative that 650,000 Jews must be removed in order to make peace? You know it’s not remotely true.

    • Woody Tanaka
      June 25, 2013, 12:23 pm

      Yeah, I’m sure the Palestinians won’t mind having near 3/4 of a Million of the worst of the worst living in reinforced defended compounds inside the Palestinian state. (Unless, of course, you take the racist rout and insist that the Palestinians give the Jews everything they want, including this land where the squatters built their squats, in any “peace” deal…)

    • justicewillprevail
      June 25, 2013, 12:42 pm

      So your assertion is that they will happily become Palestinian citizens.

      • mondonut
        June 25, 2013, 1:36 pm

        justicewillprevail says: So your assertion is that they will happily become Palestinian citizens.
        ==============================================
        No need to. A 2SS will define a border and the vast majority will remain Israeli citizens within Israel.

      • seafoid
        June 25, 2013, 2:57 pm

        Al quds lina , habibi. The jews have to go. YESHA was a dumb idea from day 1.

      • Bumblebye
        June 25, 2013, 3:02 pm

        “remain Israeli citizens within Israel”? They’re squatting on stolen Palestinian land at the moment, OUTSIDE of Israel.

      • Woody Tanaka
        June 25, 2013, 3:22 pm

        “A 2SS will define a border and the vast majority will remain Israeli citizens within Israel.”

        So who says that the Jews get to dictate to the Palestinians what the borders of the Palestinian state is?

      • eljay
        June 25, 2013, 5:28 pm

        >> No need to. A 2SS will define a border and the vast majority will remain Israeli citizens within Israel.

        Israel already has its / Partition borders defined. The rest is Palestine. Then negotiations can begin. That’s the only just and moral 2SS.

      • mondonut
        June 25, 2013, 7:40 pm

        Woody Tanaka says: So who says that the Jews get to dictate to the Palestinians what the borders of the Palestinian state is?
        ……………………
        Nobody is saying that. If the Palestinians want a 2sss then the borders will be negotiated. BTW, I am sure that you meant to say “Israelis” there and not “Jews”.

      • mondonut
        June 25, 2013, 7:43 pm

        Bumblebye says: They’re squatting on stolen Palestinian land at the moment, OUTSIDE of Israel.
        ……………………..
        Negotiating a border will determine who is inside or out of Israel.

      • mondonut
        June 25, 2013, 11:09 pm

        eljay says: Israel already has its / Partition borders defined. The rest is Palestine. Then negotiations can begin. That’s the only just and moral 2SS.
        ————————
        The rest is not the State of Palestine, nor has it ever been. It is claimed by Palestine and Israel disputes the claim.

      • tokyobk
        June 25, 2013, 11:23 pm

        The Jews aren’t going anywhere. You’ll have to get used to it.

        The settlers must be forced to either leave or become law-abiding Palestinian citizens.

      • talknic
        June 26, 2013, 1:02 am

        @ mondonut “Negotiating a border will determine who is inside or out of Israel”

        The Israeli Government told us on May 22nd 1948 who is inside or out of Israel. link to wp.me

        The borders have not changed since being recognized as Israel asked to recognized.

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

        Negotiating a new border will determine who will be inside or outside of Israel. However, in negotiations the Palestinians have no legal obligation to forgo any of their legal rights according to the Laws, UN Charter and relative conventions Israel AGREED to uphold.

        Israel is still obliged to and in breach of the Law, the UN Charter and relevant conventions, negotiations or not.

        Israel must plea bargain its way out of its self created illegal ‘facts on the ground’ in order to circumvent the law because it cannot now after 65 years start adhering to the law, it would be sent bankrupt and have egg all over its lying face.

        Therein lies the problem and what Israel refuses to acknowledge, having already duped itself and its citizens into an intractable and illegal position.

      • mondonut
        June 26, 2013, 1:37 am

        talknic says: However, in negotiations the Palestinians have no legal obligation to forgo any of their legal rights…
        ———————————————————
        Feel free to quibble over “border” or “new border” but there is nothing that you have quoted that makes what the Palestinians claim actually theirs.

        The Palestinians are certainly not obligated to forego any of their rights (such as they are) and they certainly are not obligated to negotiate for the state they ostensibly want. They only have to if they actually want one – a interest they have yet to demonstrate.

        And Israel has no need to plea bargain their way out of anything, this fantasy you have about the Israel’s supposed weak bargaining position is ridiculous. Israel is stronger than ever and the only ones who think Israel’s original borders have any bearing on anything are those who like yourself occupy the fringe.

      • talknic
        June 26, 2013, 3:35 am

        @ mondonut
        “there is nothing that you have quoted that makes what the Palestinians claim actually theirs”

        UNSC res 476 sums it up quite nicely. I’ve quoted it often. link to wp.me You’ve not read it yet … You’ve been shown it numerous times. Preferring ignorance is a sign of a propagandist. Propagandists are inherently liars.

        “The Palestinians are certainly not obligated to forego any of their rights (such as they are) and they certainly are not obligated to negotiate for the state they ostensibly want. They only have to if they actually want one – a interest they have yet to demonstrate.

        How oxymoronic ” the state they ostensibly want” followed by “a interest they have yet to demonstrate” … Ignoring of course their more than generous offers at the UN in front of the entire world 2011 & again in 2012 which you have probably also been shown. Not bothering to read what you’re provided with is a sign of either stupidity 101 or a propagandist. Congratulations, your credentials are impeccable.

        The Palestinians already have a state, recognized by the MAJORITY of the International Comity of Nations. It gives Israel far more territory than it has ever held legal sovereignty over. Israel’s response has been to build even more illegal settlements.

        “And Israel has no need to plea bargain their way out of anything, this fantasy you have about the Israel’s supposed weak bargaining position is ridiculous.”

        So Israel has legally annexed territory beyond its recognized borders? WOW! When? Who agreed? Who has recognized these additions to Israeli sovereignty? Answer… NO ONE! Israel hasn’t even attempted legal annexation of any territory it acquired by war before becoming a UN Member state.

        “the only ones who think Israel’s original borders have any bearing on anything are those who like yourself occupy the fringe”

        No borders were altered in 1949/50. No borders were altered ’67. The pre ’67 borders are in fact the May 15th 1948 borders as Israel asked to be and was recognized by, before being admitted to the UN.

        On May 22, 1948 (UNSC S/766 ) the Israeli Govt admitted it was in military control of non-Israeli territories “outside the State of Israel”

        Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation 12 Aug 1948 States have no need to occupy their own territory.

        On the 31st Aug 1949 Israel made an official claim to non-Israeli territories. It was rebuffed link to domino.un.org

        It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. The ONLY method of legally acquiring territory is to legally annex it, which requires the agreement of those whose territory is to be annexed. Customary International Law practiced by the US since at least 1845 on the legal annexation of Texas, by a referendum of the legitimate citizens of Texas. link to tsl.state.tx.us

        The moment Israel attempts to unilaterally annex the territories acquired by war 1948-1949, the UNSC will be obliged to condemn the action. BTW the US cannot veto existing law, the UN Charter or relevant conventions emphasized, recalled or otherwise referred to in a Chapt VI resolution. At best all it can do is abstain.

      • eljay
        June 26, 2013, 7:33 am

        >> The rest is not the State of Palestine, nor has it ever been. It is claimed by Palestine and Israel disputes the claim.

        Partition proposed two states in Palestine along a set of borders. Israel accepted its share; the rest necessarily belongs to the state of Palestine.

        If the share allocated to Palestine is disputable, then Partition is disputable, which means the share allocated to Israel is also disputable.

      • mondonut
        June 26, 2013, 8:57 am

        talknic says: UNSC res 476 sums it up quite nicely.
        ===========================================
        UNSC res 476, nor anything else that you cite from your website, establishes borders for the State of Palestine. Especially your theory in which the Palestinians acquire territory “by default” simply by proving that it is currently not Israeli. And that includes your comity of nations that have recognized Palestine as a state without borders or territory beyond claims.

        As for those “generous offers”, they are nothing more than the same tiresome demands, inclusing that they be permitted to destroy the State of Israel with the RoR.

        And yes you occupy an absolute fringe position. You are delusional if you think that somehow you and your website, along with your interpretation of annexation, has the Israelis cornered. Nobody with an ounce of sense believes the Israelis are going back to their 1948 borders, and that includes the Palestinians.

      • James Canning
        June 26, 2013, 6:51 pm

        Israel was carved out of Palestine, but Palestinians did not take control of what remained after that carving-out.

      • James Canning
        June 26, 2013, 6:52 pm

        Yes, Jews in Palestine would be obliged to comply with laws of Palestine.

      • talknic
        June 26, 2013, 6:59 pm

        @ mondonut “The rest is not the State of Palestine, nor has it ever been.”

        LON Mandate FOR Palestine – first line

        Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations … etc etc link to unispal.un.org

        Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations

        ARTICLE 22.

        Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
        link to unispal.un.org

        Their status is not provisional. The ‘recognition’ of their status is.

        ” It is claimed by Palestine and Israel disputes the claim”

        The world MAJORITY says Israel is in breach of the Law, UN Charter and relevant conventions and is a threat to peace. UNSC res 476. You still haven’t bothered to read it? How does it feel to be purposefully ignorant?

      • eljay
        June 26, 2013, 7:02 pm

        >> How does it feel to be purposefully ignorant?

        It must feel…what’s the word?…ah, yes, that’s it: Zio-supremacist!

      • James Canning
        June 26, 2013, 7:06 pm

        Great post. In short, Israel occupies what remains of Palestine under British mandate. (Except for Gaza Strip)

      • Shingo
        June 26, 2013, 7:12 pm

        The Palestinians are certainly not obligated to forego any of their rights (such as they are)

        They are laid out in the Geneva Conventions so no they do not have to
        forego or negotiate them.

        They only have to if they actually want one – a interest they have yet to demonstrate.

        What you mean is, they have not given up enough of their rights and land and want one badly enough to accept the scraps Israel might be prepared to give them.

        And Israel has no need to plea bargain their way out of anything

        Yes they do. They have managed to avoid it thanks to US protection and diplomatic cover, but as Miko Peled has pointed out, the Israelis will one day have to beg for forgiveness.

        Israel is stronger than ever and the only ones who think Israel’s original borders have any bearing on anything are those who like yourself occupy the fringe.

        Israel is not stronger than eve, it is more fragile and precariously positioned than ever. That’s why Israeli and US leaders keep harping on about Israel’s crumbling legitimacy. Israel will collapse as it heads towards it’s own destruction.

        Better get used to it.

      • Woody Tanaka
        June 26, 2013, 8:31 pm

        “Nobody is saying that. If the Palestinians want a 2sss then the borders will be negotiated.”

        The border already exists — the 1967 line — and most of the world recognizes the State of Palestine already. Basically everyone but the criminals among Israel’s governing people, their and their supporters’ puppets in Washington and Washington’s lackeys around the world.

        “BTW, I am sure that you meant to say ‘Israelis’ there and not ‘Jews’.”

        Nope. 20% of all “Israelis” are innocent Palestinians who shouldn’t be tarred with the crimes that the Jewish government, Jewish soldiers and Jewish population of that country has committed. And certainly no one of good faith could consider the term “Jews” in this context as referencing anyone but the Jewish leadership of the Israeli state. If, however, it proves too much of a problem for you, I suggest you take it up with those same Jews. If they wanted to make the distinction between “Israelis” and “Jews” so strict, they wouldn’t operate a Jewish-supremacist Apartheid state, litter their flag and symbols of government with Jewish religious paraphernalia, or call themselves the “Jewish” state. You can’t blame someone for following their lead and just saying “Jews” instead of “Israelis,” can you? Especially considering how the non-Jews in that racist hell hole have been basically held as second-class serfs, or worse, since the abomination of a state was created.

        Anyone who needs the distinction drawn further needs to grow the hell up and stop painting himself as the eternal victim.

      • talknic
        June 26, 2013, 11:42 pm

        @James Canning

        link to www2.ohchr.org

        PART TWO: OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY

        THE GAZA STRIP

        C. Facts investigated by the Mission, factual and legal findings
        The Occupied Palestinian Territory: the Gaza Strip

        72. The Mission acknowledges that the supply of humanitarian goods, particularly foodstuffs, allowed into Gaza by Israel temporarily increased during the military operations. The level of goods allowed into Gaza before the military operations was, however, insufficient to meet the needs of the population even before hostilities started, and has again decreased since the end of the military operations. From the facts ascertained by it, the Mission believes that Israel has violated its obligation to allow free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital objects, food and clothing (article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention). The Mission also finds that Israel violated specific obligations which it has as the occupying Power and which are spelled out in the Fourth Geneva Convention, such as the duty to maintain medical and hospital establishments and services and to agree to relief schemes if the occupied territory is not well supplied.

      • Hostage
        June 27, 2013, 6:07 am

        The rest is not the State of Palestine, nor has it ever been. It is claimed by Palestine and Israel disputes the claim.

        It’s trivially easy to show that the majority of other countries have always rejected Israel’s claims and have recognized the State of Palestine within the pre-1967 borders. Try reading the text of the UN resolution that upgraded Palestine’s international status.

      • Hostage
        June 27, 2013, 7:59 am

        As for those “generous offers”, they are nothing more than the same tiresome demands, inclusing that they be permitted to destroy the State of Israel with the RoR.

        The Principle Allied Powers created the Mandated State of Palestine and had a binding treaty obligation to recognize it and protect it from aggression.

        For all of your snotty talk demeaning the right of the lawful inhabitants to either return or elect compensation instead, that might destroy political Zionism, but not the State of Israel.

        You’re simply trying to assert dominance and the right to commit serious crimes against others with absolute impunity – including massacres and enormous population transfers. But you seem oblivious to the fact that even if you are successful in establishing the law of the jungle and the existence of such a right, it would not be considered immoral or illegal to use it to destroy the Jewish state.

      • Shingo
        June 27, 2013, 8:33 am

        As for those “generous offers”, they are nothing more than the same tiresome demands, inclusing that they be permitted to destroy the State of Israel with the RoR.

        You do realize of course MN, that this stands as a frank admission that Israel had no intention of sticking to the partition plan and even before that, that the Zionist immigrants came with the intent of conquering the territory and expelling the indigenous population.

        If ROR threatens to destroy Israel, then you would have to admit that Israel’s creation was incumbent upon the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and that this had to be the agenda from the very beginning.

        Nobody with an ounce of sense believes the Israelis are going back to their 1948 borders, and that includes the Palestinians.

        They might not do so willingly, but they will eventually have to chose between that and officially becoming an apartheid state anyway.

      • Ecru
        June 27, 2013, 8:34 am

        I am sure that you meant to say “Israelis” there and not “Jews”.

        Considering the Palestinian citizens of Israel are very deliberately kept from anything even approaching power in the JEWISH state by Jews the differentiation is not needed.

      • Shingo
        June 27, 2013, 8:35 am

        It is claimed by Palestine and Israel disputes the claim.

        But no one accepts Israel’s argument, so it’s 193 against one, which tells us that Israel’s dispute carries absolute no legitimacy. That is why the US and Israel continue to work around the clock to keep this matter away from the UN the UNSC and the ICJ, ICC

      • Shingo
        June 27, 2013, 8:40 am

        UNSC res 476, nor anything else that you cite from your website, establishes borders for the State of Palestine.

        It establishes the borders for the State of Israel, so the rest is clearly Palestine.

        Especially your theory in which the Palestinians acquire territory “by default” simply by proving that it is currently not Israeli.

        They do not acquire territory “by default”. The territory they are legally entitled to is actually `100% larger than what they have agreed to settle for.

      • eljay
        June 27, 2013, 8:56 am

        >> Nobody with an ounce of sense believes the Israelis are going back to their 1948 borders …

        Justice and morality dictate that Israel should withdraw to within the Partition borders of the territory that Jews accepted and declared to be their supremacist “Jewish State”.

        But, as we know, Zio-supremacists believe in neither justice nor morality.

      • Hostage
        June 27, 2013, 9:11 am

        Israel was carved out of Palestine, but Palestinians did not take control of what remained after that carving-out.

        FYI, they held a Congress at Jericho and resolved to form a political union with Transjordan. There were Palestinian Prime Ministers, Ambassadors, and half of the lower house of the Parliament was reserved for Palestinians. That joint government was known as “Jordan” and it was recognized by the UN and the US government. Stop trying to re-write history. According to a resolution adopted in November of 1966, the West Bank of the state of Jordan, was already the target of premeditated Israeli aggression. It was Israel that lacked control.

      • Citizen
        June 27, 2013, 10:13 am

        @ mondonut

        Why don’t you address the new Israel state’s official acknowledgment of its defined borders in the correspondance talknic gave you two hot links too? You don’t see that official Israeli documentation as “facts on the ground?” If so, why not?

      • James Canning
        June 27, 2013, 2:07 pm

        Hostage – – Jordan is not Palestine.

        Did Israel scheme to steal the West Bank? Yes.

      • James Canning
        June 27, 2013, 2:15 pm

        Good argument for full UN recognition of Palestine with “1967” borders.

      • talknic
        June 27, 2013, 3:25 pm

        mondonut “UNSC res 476, nor anything else that you cite from your website, establishes borders for the State of Palestine. Especially your theory in which the Palestinians acquire territory “by default” simply by proving that it is currently not Israeli.”

        A) My website contains, verbatim, Jewish Agency and Israeli Government statements. Are you saying they LIED?

        B) Here’s one:
        ” the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel”

        Tell me it doesn’t exist, wasn’t said, isn’t true or … they lied …. go ahead

        Here’s some more: link to wp.me Tell me they don’t exist, weren’t said, aren’t true or … maybe they’re lies ….

        C) By default the oranges you haven’t yet eaten are still oranges and whatever remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine is still, by default, Palestine and the Palestinians didn’t acquire it. It was theirs. Palestine was partitioned, not Israel.

        Only the 54% part of Palestine that became the INDEPENDENT State of Israel was re-named, effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time).

        It’s the logic all post May 22nd 1948 UNSC resolutions on the Question of “Palestine” are based on, following the above May 22nd 1948 Israeli Government statement to the UNSC.

        “As for those “generous offers”, they are nothing more than the same tiresome demands”

        The Palestinians have never asked for more than their LEGAL rights under the Laws the State of Israel VOLUNTEERED to abide by.

        Must be tiresome for Israel to be reminded of its voluntary obligations to the law while it makes more and more demands that have no legal basis and stupid justifications that are entirely irrelevant to the legal status of Israeli sovereignty and its illegal actions as the Occupying Power over Arab territory

        The Palestinian offers have always given Israel more territory than legally belongs to the Jewish state and successive Israeli Governments reply by continuing to ignore the law. Building even more illegal settlements in non-Israeli territory, never offering a single compromise. Just more and more stupid demands.

        “inclusing that they be permitted to destroy the State of Israel with the RoR”

        Simple maths shows this to be complete nonsense. The Palestinian claim of RoR for Palestine refugees to the territory that became Israel ( as Israel asked to be and was recognized link to trumanlibrary.org ) is under UNGA res 194 (1948)

        The definition of refugee under UNGA res 194 does not include lineal descendants link to unispal.un.org

        It’s been 65 years. Life expectancy in 1948 was about 45 yrs. The vast majority who qualified to return to Israel as it was officially recognized, are dead.

        None fought in any war, they fled. The few that now remain are ALL over the age of rampant procreation (65 years minimum) and number only a few thousand at most

        UNGA res 194 was written 12 months before UNRWA was established. UNRWA’s mandate does not extend to RoR. It’s figure is irrelevant to UNGA res 194. It’s only Israeli propagandists who cite the scare mongering UNRWA figure

        (Q2) “Is UNRWA involved in the Middle East peace negotiations and in the discussions on a solution to the refugee issue?”
        (A2) “No. UNRWA is a humanitarian UN agency and its mandate from the UN General Assembly defines its role as one of providing services to the refugees. As such, the Agency is not involved in the political discussions on the future of the refugees.“ link to unrwa.org

        RoR to non-Israeli territory illegally acquired by war by Israel, illegally annexed by Israel and illegally settled by Israel, quite simple DOES NOT THREATEN THE STATE OF ISRAEL. It threatens the ILLEGAL Greater Israel colonization project. It threatens 65 years of illegal facts on the ground.

        ” you occupy an absolute fringe position.”

        Strange…. the majority of the UNSC/UN through their resolutions say otherwise. They’re representative of the MAJORITY of the world’s population.

        You are delusional if you think that somehow you and your website, along with your interpretation of annexation, has the Israelis cornered

        A) It’s the US custom of legal annexation, which was instrumental in the custom of annexation by self determination passing into Customary International Law.

        B) Israel has itself cornered by purposefully creating it’s illegal facts on the ground. Now entirely dependent on the oh so precious US veto vote in the UNSC, to protect it from the consequences of breaching the law and; on Palestinian generosity in negotiations to circumvent the law, by agreement.

        “Nobody with an ounce of sense believes the Israelis are going back to their 1948 borders, and that includes the Palestinians”

        Can you point out where I’ve said they should? Quote.. verbatim… thx Pajero

        Knowing where Israel’s actual borders are according to Israeli Government statements enables honest folk to then understand why UNSC resolutions are rightfully against Israel. They’re then able to see just how empty the the wholly holey olde Hasbara is, who the lying propagandists are, who is actually responsible for the mess created by illegal facts on the ground and how generous the Palestinians actually are.

      • James Canning
        June 27, 2013, 6:36 pm

        @Talknic – – Israel got out of Gaza Strip but continues effort to strange its economy.

      • Sibiriak
        June 28, 2013, 3:42 am

        Hostage:

        [hophmi]Israel was carved out of Palestine, but Palestinians did not take control of what remained after that carving-out.

        FYI, they held a Congress at Jericho and resolved to form a political union with Transjordan. There were Palestinian Prime Ministers, Ambassadors, and half of the lower house of the Parliament was reserved for Palestinians. That joint government was known as “Jordan” and it was recognized by the UN and the US government. Stop trying to re-write history.

        Did the UN recognize Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem?

        According to Wikipedia:

        Jordan’s annexation was widely regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others. Elihu Lauterpacht, an international legal expert, described it as a move that “entirely lacked legal justification.”[16]

        The annexation formed part of Jordan’s “Greater Syria Plan” expansionist policy,[17] and in response, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Syria joined Egypt in demanding Jordan’s expulsion from the Arab League.[18][19] A motion to expel Jordan from the League was prevented by the dissenting votes of Yemen and Iraq.[17] On June 12, 1950, the Arab League declared the annexation was a temporary, practical measure and that Jordan was holding the territory as a “trustee” pending a future settlement.[20][21]

        On July 27, 1953, King Hussein of Jordan announced that East Jerusalem was “the alternative capital of the Hashemite Kingdom” and would form an “integral and inseparable part” of Jordan.[22] In an address to parliament in Jerusalem in 1960, Hussein called the city the “second capital of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan”.[23]

        Only the United Kingdom formally recognized the annexation of the West Bank, de facto in the case of East Jerusalem.[24] The United States Department of State also recognized this extension of Jordanian sovereignty.[25][26] Pakistan is often claimed to have recognized Jordan’s annexation too, but this is dubious.[27][28]

        Is there anything inaccurate or misleading in that account?

        Wikipedia:

        In October 1948, King Abdullah began a series of steps in order to effect the annexation of those parts of Palestine that his army and other Arab forces had captured and held during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. He did this while the cease-fire line was settled or agreed in February 1949.

        The first step was a congress session in Amman, convened upon the initiative of the Transjordanian government, in which King Abdullah’s representatives and a large number of Palestinian refugees called for a wider Palestinian congress to declare Palestinian unity and acknowledge King Abdullah as King of Palestine.

        On 1 December 1948, a conference in Jericho called for the annexation of what was left of Palestine under the Hashemite crown in light of the reality that the remaining Palestinian territory was effectively administered by the Jordanian authority. The Conference was attended by numerous delegations including the mayors of Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah, the Arab Legion Military Governor General, military governors of all the districts, and other notables. The audience was estimated at several thousand.[3]

        Do you consider the Jericho Conference to have been an adequate representation of the will of the Palestinian people as regards to their rights to self-determination?

      • Shingo
        June 28, 2013, 4:31 am

        Is there anything inaccurate or misleading in that account?

        Yes, it’s BS. I cannot help but laugh that the Israeli propagandists who peddle this rubbish suspend their contempt for Arab opinion and suddenly decide the Arab League carries some credibility and authority to decide what is legal.

        Look up UNSC228. It condemns Israel’s attack on Jordanian territory when it bombed Hebron in 1966. The resolution passed 14-0, which means that every member of the UNSC unanimously had to agree that Hebron and the West Bank was part of Jordanian. As Hostage has pointed out a number of time, UN resolutions are bound by international law.

        So when you hear the claim that Jordan’s annexation was widely regarded as illegal , it is simply false.

      • Sibiriak
        June 28, 2013, 4:54 am

        James Canning:

        Hostage – – Jordan is not Palestine.

        Right. Jordan conspired with Israel in taking over the West Bank.

        According to historian Illan Pappe:

        King Abdullah in Jordan … with British blessing, began serious negotiations with the Jewish Agency over his partition plan of dividing Palestine between his kingdom and the Jewish state. The plan was accepted in principle by the Jewish side and implemented during the war itself, ensuring a safe annexation of eastern Palestine to Jordan in return for limited participation by the Hashemite Legion in the overall Arab war effort.

        (“A History of Modern Palestine” p. 126).

        Palestine now [after the war] became a new geo-political entity, or rather three entities. Two, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were ill-defined, the first fully annexed to Jordan, but WITHOUT THE POPULATION’S CONSENT OR ENTHUSIASM; the second in limbo under military rule, its inhabitants prevented from entering Egypt proper. The third entity was Israel, bent on Judaizing every part of Palestine, and building a new living organism, the Jewish community of Israel.

        ( “A History of Modern Palestine”, p. 140, emphasis added).

      • Hostage
        June 28, 2013, 6:53 am

        Hostage – – Jordan is not Palestine.

        I certainly agree that Jordan doesn’t contain all of Arab Palestine, but arguing that it’s not Palestine is analogous to arguing that Texas, but not Oklahoma, is in the Red River Valley or that one of them isn’t in the USA. For years Jordan claimed sovereignty over all of Palestine, including Gaza. Israel engaged in US-UN backed negotiations with Jordan over a corridor between the West Bank and Gaza on that basis.

        The ICJ noted the armistice and treaty agreements between Israel and Jordan regarding the Holy places in the City of Jerusalem (para 129) and advised that the Court considers that those undertakings remain valid.

        The State of Palestine and the government of Jordan signed a treaty agreement a few weeks ago that explicitly applies Jordanian municipal law to the Muslim and Christian Holy sites in Jerusalem. FYI, that agreement confirms the reach of Jordan’s jurisdiction into the West Bank for the purposes of the application of the Rome Statute. So yes, damn it, Jordan is still Palestine. link to en.lpj.org

        For its own part Jordan has a peace treaty with Israel which explicitly stated that the international boundary was without prejudice to the status of the territory that came under Israeli military government control in 1967. That included the entire West Bank and Gaza.

        So, as far as I can tell, Jordan (or Transjordan) has always been included in a LoN mandate, a federal union, or a confederation with Arab Palestine.

        When Transjordan tried to join the UN in 1946, its application was rejected by the President of the Security Council on the grounds that it was still part of the Mandate for Palestine that had not been legally terminated in accordance with the provisions of the applicable resolution of the Council of the LoN. A fews days before the UN General Assembly partitioned Palestine, its Ad Hoc Committee was still debating the question of how much Transjordanian territory it should include in the Jewish State.

        So the termination of the Palestine Mandate via resolution 181(II) certainly applied to Transjordan. The treaty between Palestine and Jordan cited above recounts the on-going legal relationships that have existed since that time. I noted above that “Jordan” had Palestinian Prime Ministers, Ambassadors, and lawmakers throughout much of its history.

      • Hostage
        June 28, 2013, 7:44 am

        Did the UN recognize Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem?

        The principle of self-determination renders the UN’s opinion of the Jericho Congress a moot question. But to answer your question, it sounds like the Wikipedia article is repeating groundless Zionist hasbara.

        Of course the UN recognized the political union between the East and West Banks of Jordan. All of the members of the Security Council, including the P5, explicitly recognized the West Bank as “Jordanian territory” on one or more occasions and voted to admit Jordan as a full member state. The General Assembly accepted the credentials of the Kingdom of Jordan without question or exception. Acceptance of diplomatic credentials is a legal form of recognition. See for example § 204 of the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States.

        Both organs accepted correspondence from Jordan asking that incidents in the West Bank or East Jerusalem be placed on their agendas and accepted representation by the Jordanian delegates during the sessions that took-up those matters.

        By way of comparison here is a General Assembly credentials committee resolution which explicitly states that Israel’s credentials do not apply to any of the Occupied Palestinian territory – and another which stipulates that pending full membership, the representative of Palestine does not need to present credentials. See A/58/L.48, 15 December 2003; General Assembly 58/292, 17 May 2004.

        *The signing of the resolution of the Arab Palestinian Congress at Jericho was the culmination of a series of earlier requests made by the Palestinian Arabs through conferences attended by the elected Mayors of major West Bank towns and villages (Hebron, Ramallah, Al-Beereh, Jenin, Nablus, Tulkarm, Qalqilya and Anabta), as well as leading religious clerics (Muslims and Christians alike), and a multiplicity of notables, tribal leaders, activists, college presidents, the Chief Shariaa Judge, and the Mufti of Jerusalem Saed-Ideen Al-Alami.
        *Following these conferences, King Abdullah approved a constitutional amendment to expand the membership of the Jordanian Parliament to include elected representatives from all the West Bank constituencies. Elections for the expanded Parliament were held on 11 April 1950 and a new Parliament was elected with half of its members elected from the West Bank. The new Jordanian Parliament ratified the union between the two Banks of the Jordan. See for example Para 2.19 of the written statement of Jordan to the International Court of Justice in the Wall case: link to icj-cij.org
        Here is some evidence that the UN and the permanent members of the Security Council recognized Jordanian/Palestinian sovereignty over the West Bank:
        *The US and the UK recognized the union between the two peoples and “Jordanian” sovereignty over the territory. See Jordan and Israel (GOVERNMENT DECISION) HC Deb 27 April 1950 vol 474 cc1137-41 and “Memorandum of Conversation, between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Mr. Abdel Monem Rifai, Counselor, Jordan Legation in Washington, June 5, 1950″ which documents the US recognition of the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan in Foreign relations of the United States, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), Page 921
        *The Security Council adopted Resolution 228 (1966) in which the Council observed that, “the grave Israeli Military action which took place in the southern Hebron area [of the West Bank] on 13 November 1966… constituted a large scale and carefully planned military action on the territory of Jordan by the armed forces of Israel” . . . See the written statement of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” submitted to the International Court of Justice, para 2.21, page 19 of 229 link to icj-cij.org
        *In a letter to David Ben-Gurion published by Reuters on 9 January 1968, French President De Gaulle explained that he was convinced that Israel had ignored his warnings and overstepped the bounds of moderation by taking possession of Jerusalem, and so much Jordanian and Syrian territory by force of arms. See Text of de Gaulle’s Answer to Letter From Ben-Gurion link to select.nytimes.com
        *During the 5th Emergency Session of the General Assembly the representative of the Soviet Union, Mr. Kosygin, repeatedly asserted that the West Bank was Jordanian territory. See A/PV.1526 of 19 June 1967. link to un.org

        Most publicists agree that recognition by one of the great powers is sufficient to establish international personality of any entity. Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank was recognized and accepted by all of them.

      • Hostage
        June 28, 2013, 9:12 am

        Is there anything inaccurate or misleading in that account?

        Yes the notion that the non-Palestinian members of the Arab League held a veto that could overturn a plebiscite conducted by the population of the former Arab territories of the Palestine Mandate was, and still is, contrary to their established right of self-determination.

        The very same Arab states who argued in favor of the termination of the mandate on the grounds that the inhabitants were ready for self-government rushed to impose an Arab League trusteeship on them after they had been emancipated by the United Nations. There was no basis for a that in international law.

        Once again, the notion that the people of Palestine or their officials who served as Jordanian Prime Ministers, Ambassadors, Members of Parliament, or in their own military were “occupiers”, subject to the Hague rules or the Geneva Conventions, is simply absurd.

      • Sibiriak
        June 28, 2013, 9:28 am

        Hostage:

        The very same Arab states who argued in favor of the termination of the mandate on the grounds that the inhabitants were ready for self-government rushed to impose an Arab League trusteeship on them after they had been emancipated by the United Nations. There was no basis for a that in international law.

        Yes. Why was it that an independent Palestinian state could not have been created right then and there in the remaining portions of mandatory Palestine?

        Are you saying that there was a valid Palestinian exercise of self-determination whereby they chose to forgo independence in favor of annexation by Jordan (West Bank and East Jerusalem)?

        If not, what was the legal justification for that annexation?

      • ziusudra
        June 28, 2013, 11:49 am

        Greetings mondonut,
        – Israel is stronger than ever……. –
        Pssst, mondonut.
        Before Adolf started building up, in the 30s, even being broke in the 20s,
        France was considered to have the strongest military.
        They fell in days in 1940!
        The warmonger Great Britain got the daylights bombed out of them!
        Your ‘store bought’ Military won’t be able to protect your people!
        Iran only needs 3 Missiles; one for Tel Aviv; one for Golem Gurion Airport & one for the main shipping dock! Tel Aviv has 400K with only 30K bunker capacity! Nitanjahu has some ‘splaining to do.
        The roman empire controlled 60 mill. People in their empire for 800yrs.’ on
        foot’ with only a standing army of 120K! Your military couldn’t march thro’ Syria to say nothing of Teheran! Since 48, you ne’er fought a 3 or 6 month conflict straight! Syria has held out 2 yrs! Dream on.
        ziusudra

      • James Canning
        June 28, 2013, 2:17 pm

        @Hostage – – I assume you are aware that King Hussein made his deal with Israel in order to prevent Jordan from becoming Palestine.

        Some fanatical “supporters” of Israel want to destroy Jordan.

      • Hostage
        June 28, 2013, 5:15 pm

        @Hostage – – I assume you are aware that King Hussein made his deal with Israel in order to prevent Jordan from becoming Palestine.

        I assume you’ve been listening to way too much hasbara. You don’t prevent Arab Palestine from becoming a state by holding a Congress there that publicly declares you the new head of State (i.e. “the King of Arab Palestine”). See the article on the “Jericho Declaration” in the Palestine Post, December 14th, 1948, page 1

        Abdullah actually issued a proclamation which retained the laws in effect during the mandate and assumed all of the powers reserved for the King, Privy Council, and High Commissioner under the former regime.

        FYI, in the the case of Monarchs, the principle of sovereignty is not abstracted. It’s also true that Monarchs don’t need to “annex” any territory if the inhabitants have already declared it a part of their sovereign jurisdiction. A few weeks after the Congress, on 24 January 1949 the name of Transjordan was officially changed to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to reflect the new joint legal status. link to books.google.com

        That was a year before the newly elected Parliament ratified the steps that had already been taken by the King.

      • Hostage
        June 28, 2013, 5:48 pm

        Yes. Why was it that an independent Palestinian state could not have been created right then and there in the remaining portions of mandatory Palestine?

        That’s exactly what did happen. The Congress declared Abdullah the King of Arab Palestine in December of 1948. He issued a proclamation that retained the Palestinian laws that were in effect during the mandate and assumed the powers reserved for the King, Privy Council, and High Commissioner. The steps to establish a constitutional union were completed more than a month later, and they were ratified a year later by the newly elected Parliament.

        So there was the establishment of an independent state and it was subsequently incorporated in a union with another existing state. Those are both valid modes of exercising the right of self determination according to the UN Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

        FYI, the Secretary General’s report to the Ad Hoc Committee noted that the new Arab state would not be able to pay for its essential public services without redistribution of revenues derived from the ports, Arab businesses, and Arab agricultural lands located in the Jewish State. So resolution 181(II) allowed the UN Palestine Commission to implement the plan for the regional Economic Union without the consent of the parties concerned. Since they were at war, and the Commission had been relieved of its duties, the new UN Mediator proposed that the former Arab portions of the Mandate form a union instead.

        The very same Polish delegation that refused to accept Transjordan’s application to the Security Council on the grounds that it was still part of the Palestine mandate, objected to the Palestine Conciliation Commission that the UN no longer had any jurisdiction to implement such a plan, since the territories had been emancipated from the mandate and had the right to decide for themselves – and that’s exactly what happened.

      • James Canning
        June 28, 2013, 7:03 pm

        @Hostage – – When King Hussein made his deal with Israel, his intention was to enable an independent State of Palestine to appear.
        Hussein did not want Jordan converted into Palestine.

      • Walid
        June 29, 2013, 12:15 am

        “Of course the UN recognized the political union between the East and West Banks of Jordan. ”

        Yes it did, but not immediately after the annexation. Same with the Arab League that debated expelling Jordan and that kept it in the doghouse for 2 years and finally accepted it on the pretext that it would be a temporary trusteeship sort of an annexation until the conflict with Israel could be resolved. When the annexation happened, it was with the consent of most Palestinians that had accepted the Jordanian king as their king with only Britain and Iraq actually recognizing the annexation. The other Palestinians allied with Egypt rather than Jordan were in Gaza. Egypt and the other Arabs finally accepted it on the condition that Jordan quits its fast-accelerating rapprochement with Israel. The annexation had been agreed to by Jordan and the Zionists before the 48 war broke out but Jordan pulled a fast one when it also took East Jerusalem, which was not in the agreement.

      • Sibiriak
        June 29, 2013, 7:23 am

        @Hostage
        I’m not trying to make any polemical argument, just trying to understand the history here. And if I question the justness or legality of the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, that in no way implies that I accept any Israeli claims regarding Occupied Palestinian Territory.

        You write:

        …there was the establishment of an independent state and it was subsequently incorporated in a union with another existing state. Those are both valid modes of exercising the right of self determination.

        I’m having trouble accepting your characterization of Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem as the genuine expression of Palestinian self-determination.

        From the historical accounts I have read, a de facto “independent state” in the West Bank was never created. The Jericho conference was just one part of a sequence of events that had begun much earlier which was actually designed and orchestrated to DENY the possibility of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank.

        Avi Shlaim in “Collusion across the Jordan’ p. 139 writes:

        It is hardly an exaggeration to say that [British Foreign Minister Bevin] colluded directly with the Transjordanians and indirectly with the Jews to ABORT THE BIRTH OF A PALESTINIAN ARAB STATE.

        (emphasis added)

        Samih K. Farsoun, Naseer Aruri.” Palestine and the Palestinians: A Social and Political History “(p. 100):

        Further compromising the Palestinian cause internationally and its leadership regionally were the machinations of the ambitious Amir Abdullah (son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca), ruler of Transjordan. After World War II, he had set his sights on reuniting and ruling greater Syria (which had been under the control of Vichy France) with the backing of the British.

        In return, he supported British policy (especially the Peel Commission’s recommendation of partition) on Palestine and secretly colluded across the Jordan River with the Zionist leadership for the partition of Palestine.103

        As a participant in Arab League deliberations and decisions on the Palestine question, the Transjordanian government of Amir Abdullah was able to undermine both Palestinian and Arab efforts to save the country.

        While an expanded Jewish state was forcibly created beyond the area allotted to the Jewish community in the United Nations partition plan, A PALESTINIAN ARAB STATE WAS NOT CREATED WITHIN THE UN-DEFINED BOUNDARIES OF THE PALESTINIAN ARAB STATE. East-central Palestine came under Transjordanian control and was later annexed as the West Bank of the expanded kingdom of Jordan. The Gaza Strip came under Egyptian military control. Hundreds of thousands of Arab Palestinians became refugees in the parts of Palestine under Arab control and in neighboring Arab countries. Palestine thus ceased to exist.

        (emphasis added)
        .

        Rashid Khalidi, “The Iron Cage”:

        King ‘Abdullah of Transjordan, was no friend of the mufti’s, and had coveted a role in Palestine at least since the 1937 Peel Commission, which recommended that the part of Palestine which was not to become a Jewish state or remain under British control be attached to his domain.

        Expansion of his power was ‘Abdullah’s idée fixe at this stage, and the idea of doing so westward across the Jordan animated his secret diplomacy with both Britain and the Jewish Agency, with whose leaders he met repeatedly.27

        This meant that ‘Abdullah, Britain, the new state of Israel, and the United States and the Soviet Union, notwithstanding all the many differences between them, in effect shared one objective in Palestine: PREVENTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PALESTINIAN ARAB STATE that had been called for by the partition plan.

        (emphasis added)

        The Jericho conference was orchestrated by King ‘Abdullah with the sole aim of realizing his state-expansionist desires.

        Rashid Khalidi, “The Iron Cage”:

        This new post-1948 world first manifested itself in the struggle over who would “represent” the Palestinians. King ‘Abdullah immediately acted to further his own dynastic and nation-state interests, his army having retained the largest part of Palestine that had not been incorporated into the new state of Israel.

        He organized a conference at Jericho in the Jordan River Valley in December 1948, INVITING PRO-HASHEMITE NOTABLES FROM ACROSS THE WEST BANK, WHO MADE A “DEMAND” FOR THE UNIFICATION OF THE REGION WITH TRANSJORDAN.

        (emphasis added)

        According to historian Ilan Pappe:

        …the West Bank [was] annexed to Jordan, but WITHOUT THE POPULATION’S CONSENT or enthusiasm…

        Rashid Khalidi, “The Iron Cage”:

        When Jordanian troops took control of the eastern part of Jerusalem during the 1948 war, al-Nashashibi was named military governor of the city by Amir (later King) ‘Abdullah of Transjordan. Al-Nashashibi’s supporters and allies thereafter voted at a special congress convened in Jericho by Amir ‘Abdullah in December 1948 for the incorporation of the West Bank into what became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Many of them were thereupon absorbed into the new Jordanian administration. By contrast, in areas under Jordanian control the mufti’s followers were disarmed and many were proscribed and hunted by the Arab Legion beginning on May 15, 1948.

        So, according to Avi Shlaim, Samih K. Farsoun, Naseer Aruri, Rashid Khalidi, Ilan Pappe et al., the “special congress” at Jericho orchestrated by King ‘Abdullah was simply a step in King Abdullah’s machinations to annex the West Bank and East Jerusalem—it was never set up as a means for the Palestinian people to exercise their right to self-determination, and it never resulted in the creation of a de facto independent Arab Palestinian state in the West Bank.

      • Hostage
        June 30, 2013, 8:35 am

        Right. Jordan conspired with Israel in taking over the West Bank. According to historian Illan Pappe:

        The problem with Illan Pappe’s account is that he doesn’t present all of the evidence that the UN, the Mandatory, and the Palestinians all wanted Abdullah to do exactly what he did. King Abdullah had received hundreds of requests from Palestinian notables to protect their territory from Jewish militias after the British withdrew. Historian Eugene Rogan says that petitions, from nearly every town and village in Palestine, are preserved in “The Hashemite Documents: The Papers of Abdullah bin al-Husayn, volume V: Palestine 1948 (Amman 1995)”. See Chapter 5, Jordan and 1948, in “The war for Palestine: rewriting the history of 1948″, By Eugene L. Rogan, and Avi Shlaim, Cambridge University Press, 2001

        Pappe’ and others have overlooked the fact that the UN partition plan called for the British authorities to progressively withdraw and turn the territory over to Jewish and Arab provisional governments. The plan also explicitly called for the use an Arab militia to “maintain internal order and to prevent frontier clashes.” That’s one of the roles that Churchill assigned to Abdullah and the Arab Legion after the Cairo Conference – and one that its units garrisoned in places like Gaza and Rafah had been fulfilling ever since the 1930s. The Arab Legion also put Abdullah in charge of the forces it provided to defend the territory allocated to the Arab State.

        More to the point, both the members of the UN Security Council and the British Cabinet were fully aware of the modus vivendi between Abdullah and the Jewish Agency to maintain order and prevent border clashes. They were all in favor of the plan. FYI, the US, UK, and other members of the Security Council had publicly stated that they would never agree to turn over the territory to a provisional government led by former war time enemies, including the exiled Mufti of Jerusalem. The Arab Legion also refused to treat the Mufti or the Arab Higher Committee as the representatives of the Palestinian people. Unlike King Abdullah, the AHC and Egypt didn’t organize regional congresses of their constituents, grant the inhabitants the franchise or other essential rights, and didn’t conduct a national plebiscite to elect parliamentary representatives from all of their constituencies.

      • Walid
        June 30, 2013, 10:17 am

        “the “special congress” at Jericho orchestrated by King ‘Abdullah was simply a step in King Abdullah’s machinations to annex the West Bank and East Jerusalem—it was never set up as a means for the Palestinian people to exercise their right to self-determination, and it never resulted in the creation of a de facto independent Arab Palestinian state in the West Bank.”

        For what it’s worth, nothing has really changed all these years and neither the Israelis nor its neighbours are keen on seen the birth of a Palestinian state. They never were. Go back to the 1919 aborted agreement between Weizmann and the Hachemite Faisal and it will give you an idea of what was planned for the Palestinians. Go back to the negotiations of a decade or so later to transfer the Galilee Palistinians to Iraq in exchange for cash and it would give you an even darker picture of what was in store for them.

      • Hostage
        June 30, 2013, 10:36 am

        Right. Jordan conspired with Israel in taking over the West Bank.

        According to historian Illan Pappe: . . . the first fully annexed to Jordan, but WITHOUT THE POPULATION’S CONSENT OR ENTHUSIASM

        I’m familiar with the victim propaganda. But it’s still a fact, the population of Palestine had petitioned Abdullah to occupy the territory and to maintain law and order (i.e. govern the region) in the first place.

        It’s simply silly to suggest that they either preferred Ben Gurion or a regime of foreign martial law to hold him and the IDF at bay over full citizenship with equal rights in a new Arab State.

        A majority of their local elected leaders and heads of civil society organizations did participate in one or more of the regional conventions and the Congress at Jericho. A majority of the population of the West Bank participated in the national plebiscite and their elected representatives ratified the Act of Union.

        The plan was accepted in principle by the Jewish side and implemented during the war itself, ensuring a safe annexation of eastern Palestine to Jordan in return for limited participation by the Hashemite Legion in the overall Arab war effort.

        That’s wrong on every point.

        Every LoN resolution, Mandatory Blue Ribbon Commission report, including the Anglo-American Commission had envisioned an eventual union between Transjordan and the Arab portions of western Palestine.
        The mere hint of future Transjordanian independence had resulted in the adoption of resolutions expressing outrage in the US House and Senate, and a statement from Secretary of State Byrnes that the UN would have to decide the status of Transjordan when it addressed the question of Palestine as a whole. See for example link to jta.org

        The British Mandatory government funded, organized, commanded, trained, and equipped the Arab Legion. Foreign Minister Biven had ruled out any operations by the Arab Legion in the territory of the proposed Jewish State during discussions with Lt. General Glubb and the Prime Minister of Transjordan in February of 1948. It would have amounted to an unauthorized attempt by the mandatory to alter the UN plan by force if Bevin hadn’t imposed those restrictions.

        I don’t know where Pappe got his military training, but trying to secure all of the territory of the proposed Arab State with a force the size and composition (i.e. no air force) of the rather small 9,000-man Arab Legion would have been like pouring the proverbial package of Kool-Aid in the ocean.

        That fact was driven home by Lt. General Glubb’s account of the discussions with Foreign Minister Biven. Abdullah’s forces were only going to secure some of the territory adjacent to Transjordan, while leaving the job of defending Arab territory in the Galilee, and the coastal strip to other Arab forces. I’ll post an extract separately that mentions all of that, including the many petitions Abdullah had received from Palestinians.

      • Hostage
        June 30, 2013, 10:46 am

        P.S. Here is a portion of the text from Glubb’s “a Soldier With The Arabs, Harper, 1957, pages 63-66:

        Taufiq Pasha explained the reason for his request for an interview, while I translated for him, sentence by sentence. The British mandate for Palestine, he said, was about to come to an end. The Jews had prepared a government which would be able to assume power as soon as the mandate was terminated on May 15th. But the Palestine Arabs had made no preparations to govern themselves. They had no leaders in the country capable of organizing an administration.

        In the same way, the Jews had prepared a police force from the Jewish members of the Palestine Police. But, what was more important still, the Jews had an army in the form of the Hagana. The Arabs had no armed forces, and no means of creating an army. Consequently, Taufiq Pasha explained, if the situation were left as it was, one of two things would happen. Either the Jews would neglect the United Nations partition plan and would seize the whole of Palestine up to the River Jordan; or else the Mufti would return and endeavour to make himself ruler of Arab Palestine. Neither of these alternatives would suit either Britain or Trans-Jordan. The Mufti was the bitterest enemy of Britain and had spent the war with Hitler in Berlin. He was also an irreconcilable enemy of Transjordan and considered himself to be the personal rival of King Abdulla.

        During recent weeks, King Abdulla and the government of Trans-Jordan had received, and were still receiving, many requests and petitions from Palestine Arab notables. In all these communications, the Palestinians begged for the help and protection of the Arab Legion as soon as the British forces withdrew. The Transjordan government accordingly proposed to send the Arab Legion across the Jordan when the British mandate ended, and to occupy that part of Palestine awarded to the Arabs which was contiguous with the frontier of TransJordan.

        I can to this day almost see Mr. Bevin sitting at his table in that splendid room. When I had finished my translation thus far, he interrupted Taufiq Pasha’s statement by saying: “ It seems the obvious thing to do.” I reminded Taufiq Pasha, speaking in Arabic, that the Arab Legion could not occupy the Gaza area or upper Galilee, which had also been allotted to the Arabs. Taufiq Pasha accordingly made a statement to that effect, which I duly translated into English.

        “It seems the obvious thing to do,” repeated Mr. Bevin, “but do not go and invade the areas allotted to the Jews.”

        “We should not have the forces to do so, even if we so desired,” replied the Jordan Prime Minister. He then continued his statement by pointing out that the Anglo-Transjordan treaty made it incumbent on the two contracting parties to consult one another whenever a critical situation threatened to arise. It was in accordance with this paragraph of the treaty that he had explained the intentions of the Transjordan government to the British Foreign Secretary.

        Mr. Bevin thanked Taufiq Pasha for his frank exposition of the position of Transjordan, and expressed his agreement with the plans put forward.

        The bottom line is that Transjordan simply didn’t have a force of sufficient size to do anything more than it did. In any case, it was obliged to use the Arab militias under its control to avoid border clashes in accordance with the terms of the UN plan and the treaty agreement with the British mandatory government authorities, and cabinet officers like Foreign Secretary Bevin. None of that had anything to do with the legendary double-cross.

      • talknic
        June 30, 2013, 11:07 am

        Sibiriak “Why was it that an independent Palestinian state could not have been created right then and there in the remaining portions of mandatory Palestine?

        A) It wasn’t Mandatory Palestine after midnight May 14th 1948 (me time)
        “On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired”

        B) They’d’ve forgone huge chunks of their rightful territories. Whatever remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,” quite simply wasn’t Israeli. And none of it has ever been legally acquired by Israel

        C) There was no legal obligation on them nor would it have been wise to declare less than was their right. Or to even declare at all… One cannot be forced to declare independence. They could have formed two states had they wished. Independence is unilateral by nature. No one else’s business

        Are you saying that there was a valid Palestinian exercise of self-determination whereby they chose to forgo independence in favor of annexation by Jordan (West Bank and East Jerusalem)?

        Why not? Living under the rule of military occupation has its disadvantages. Better to be under the protection of a High Contracting Power, albeit temporarily. Part of a UN Member State from 1955 – 1967. And as a part of a High Contracting Power, the GC’s most certainly applied. Quite simple and logical. Just brush away the Hasbara propaganda bulldust

        “If not, what was the legal justification for that annexation?

        Self determination link to jcpa.org.il A delegation requested it. The Arab League demanded it be as a temporary trustee link to pages.citebite.com

        There is no UNSC resolution condemning the Jordanian annexation, it complied with Chapt XI. Unlike the Israeli attempt to unilaterally annex East Jerusalem link to domino.un.org Just one of EIGHT reminders of binding International Law, UN Charter (binding) relevant binding conventions

      • Hostage
        June 30, 2013, 11:53 am

        @Hostage – – When King Hussein made his deal with Israel, his intention was to enable an independent State of Palestine to appear.
        Hussein did not want Jordan converted into Palestine.

        No, Arafat and Hussein only worked out a qualified disengagement. It was based upon the understanding that the Hashemites remained the custodians of the Holy places in Jerusalem and the proposition that there would be a confederation between the two states. That situation and the continuity of Jordanian claims are reflected in the recent treaty between the states of Palestine and Jordan. link to en.lpj.org

    • seafoid
      June 25, 2013, 3:28 pm

      You know, hoph, you are right. It is not about 1967. It is about 1948. That is what yesha did . It brought everything back to the original sin.

      • hophmi
        June 25, 2013, 3:50 pm

        It didn’t, because there was no “original sin” that would justify dismantling a state today.

        I recognize most here have a vested interest in making the two-state solution seem impossible so that they can advocate a one-state solution.

      • Elliot
        June 25, 2013, 11:04 pm

        Hophmi –
        You don’t get to shut down the conversation by accusing those who disagree with you that they are biased. Even if you throw in that you are biased the other way, you still don’t get to stop the conversation.

      • seafoid
        June 26, 2013, 12:38 am

        You are so naive. Israel cannot be the end state. It is in permanent crisis because of 1948. The original sin. Declaring a state didn’t change anything. The status quo cannot be set in stone.

      • talknic
        June 26, 2013, 10:29 am

        seafoid “You are so naive”

        LOL. Na. Hophmi is a propagandist. Inherently dishonest, a liar, a cheat and a denialist.

        No matter how much evidence you might show the likes of Hophmi, it won’t make an iota of difference. It’s not in a propagandists brief to understand or be better informed.

        What Hop does here is afford an opportunity to show honest folk just how idiotic and empty Israel propaganda is.

      • hophmi
        June 26, 2013, 10:48 am

        “Hophmi is a propagandist. Inherently dishonest, a liar, a cheat and a denialist.”

        See comment policy, No. 4.

        No matter what you tell talknic about the real world, he’ll ignore the fact that the international consensus for more than four decades has been recognition of Israel’s sovereignty in the pre-1967 borders, not the borders set by partition plan, which was roundly and categorically rejected by the Arabs, who followed that rejection with an invasion to try and invalidate it.

        I truly feel bad for Palestinians who people like talknic in their corner, telling them nonsense like this that isn’t taken seriously on the world stage. We have our share of those too, but at least we’re not perpetually suffering for it like the Palestinians are.

      • eljay
        June 26, 2013, 11:07 am

        >> I recognize most here have a vested interest in making the two-state solution seem impossible so that they can advocate a one-state solution.

        “Most here” may “have a vested interest in making the two-state solution seem impossible”, but it is the greed and immorality of Zio-supremacists – and the injustices they continue to perpetrate – that will ultimately make the two-state solution actually impossible.

      • James Canning
        June 26, 2013, 2:33 pm

        Seafoid – – ALL Arab countries say Israel within 1967 borders can be the “end state”. Question is whether the stupidity of the US Congress calls this into question.

      • Woody Tanaka
        June 26, 2013, 8:32 pm

        “It didn’t, because there was no “original sin” that would justify dismantling a state today.”

        Zionism — the invasion of Palestine by an alien people with the intent of stealing it from its rightful owners, the Palestinians — is the original sin.

      • seafoid
        June 27, 2013, 12:53 am
      • talknic
        June 27, 2013, 7:54 am

        hophmi “See comment policy, No. 4″

        Uh huh.

        4. No personal attacks. We encourage spirited, passionate debate, but if you have to resort to vicious personal attack, you’re not advancing the discussion. Stay on the issues.

        Nothing there preventing one from being truthful about propaganda and propagandists. People such as yourself, who purposefully ignore, time and again, irrefutable evidence, are propagandists. The subject over all is inherently about propaganda. E.g., “There are now 650,000 Jews, at least, east of the Green Line. ” There because they believe Israeli propaganda. “Israel has no borders with Palestine”, is propaganda. “The settlements aren’t illegal”, is propaganda. “Israeli concessions”, is propaganda. “Israel doesn’t occupy”, is propaganda. All Israel has and all you have, is tired, worn out, completely disproven, propaganda.

        ” the fact that the international consensus for more than four decades has been recognition of Israel’s sovereignty in the pre-1967 borders, not the borders set by partition plan”

        Give an official example of this alleged recognition … thx .. You can… yes?

        The pre-1967 borders are the same as the UNGA Partition Plan boundaries Israel pleaded to be recognized by! The 1949 Armistices specifically did not change any territorial borders.

        The partition plan accepted by the Jewish Agency as binding outlined the boundaries Israel pleaded to be recognized by and by which it was recognized some 11 minutes later.

        Russia 17 May 1948 Letter from Mr. Molotov stated: “Confirming receipt of your telegram of May 16, in which you inform the Government of the USSR of the proclamation, on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947, of the creation in Palestine of the independent State of Israel and make re-quest for the recognition of the State of Israel and its provisional government by the USSR. I inform yon in this letter that the Govern-ment of the USSR has decided to recognize officially the Stale of Israel and its Provisional Government.”

        Australia 28 January 1949 “… on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947…”

        New Zealand 29 January 1949 “It is the understanding of the New Zealand Government that the settlement of boundaries and other outstanding questions will be effected in accordance with the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 11 December 1948.”

        Nothing between May 15th 1948 and the present day has actually changed any borders. At best Armistice Demarcation and Cease Fire Lines have been redrawn, none of which changed any borders.

        “which was roundly and categorically rejected by the Arabs”

        Irrelevant. There was no provision for co-signing, nor could there have been as the plan was for independent states. One was not dependent on the other

        If it isn’t relevant because the Arabs rejected it, why was it enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel some 6 months later?

        Answer: Israel could not have joined the UN unless the Jewish state was declared “as envisioned in this plan”

        ” who followed that rejection with an invasion to try and invalidate it”

        The Israeli Govt tells us they invaded “Palestine”. Not Israel. No UNSC resolutions condemn the Arab States for attempting to protect Arab territory from Israeli forces “outside the state of Israel” .

        No UNSC resolutions call for peace in Israel. They do call for “peace in Palestine”, long after Israel was declared independent of Palestine. The 1948 war was fought in territory “outside the State of Israel”

        “I truly feel bad for Palestinians who people like talknic in their corner, telling them nonsense”

        Uphhhh. See comment policy, No. 4 . You have provided no evidence that my posts are nonsense.

        Meanwhile, you’re claiming the Jewish Agency and the Israeli Government statements referenced above on which I base my argument, the ones you keep purposefully ignoring, are nonsense?

    • Dutch
      June 25, 2013, 5:22 pm

      Well, see it this way: the Palestinians don’t want them in their country. Is that enough reason for you? And you know what? They insist. So yes, 650.000 Jews will have to be removed by the chicken army. See how that goes.

      Besides, as Seafoid pointed out: Al-Quds li-na, sadiqi.

      • tokyobk
        June 25, 2013, 11:28 pm

        No, that is not a good enough reason.

        And by the way, the Palestinians will lose the nationalism fight every time.

        One or two states means one or two states with minority rights for everyone.

      • Ecru
        June 26, 2013, 4:58 pm

        @ Tokyobk

        No, that is not a good enough reason.

        It seems to be a good enough reason when it’s Jews kicking people out. Why not for the Palestinians?

      • hophmi
        June 25, 2013, 11:49 pm

        What are your assumptions? Most of the 650,000 settlers would become part of Israel in land swaps. Most of the rest would leave voluntarily.

      • FreddyV
        June 26, 2013, 2:25 am

        See Hophmi, here’s where I agree with Finkelstein. The 650,000 settlers could be given a choice to stay in the new state of Palestine, or to return to Israel. As Finkelstein points out, most will go, some will kick and scream, then go rather than be left with the ‘crazy Arabs’. Then you’ll be left with a few thousand religious nuts.

      • hophmi
        June 26, 2013, 3:40 am

        I’m saying the same thing Finkelstein is. Most will leave.

      • seafoid
        June 26, 2013, 10:52 am

        As Dayan said “Treat them like dogs. Those who want to can leave”

      • talknic
        June 26, 2013, 11:01 am

        @ hophmi says: June 26, 2013 at 3:40 am

        I’m saying the same thing Finkelstein is. Most will leave

        Uh huh. So what’s this from June 25, 2013 at 11:49 pm?

        hophmi says: June 25, 2013 at 11:49 pm

        “Most of the 650,000 settlers would become part of Israel in land swaps. Most of the rest would leave voluntarily”

        That ol’ ziocaine sure f&*ks the brain!

      • hophmi
        June 26, 2013, 11:30 am

        Is there something wrong with you, talknic?

        Most of the 650,000 will be absorbed through landswaps. That will leave about 100,000 to 150,000 left to deal with. Most of those people will leave voluntarily.

        Does that spell it out for you?

      • James Canning
        June 26, 2013, 2:10 pm

        Hoppy – – Most Jews would leave Palestine, with “1967” borders?

      • James Canning
        June 26, 2013, 2:19 pm

        FreddyV – – Palestine might benefit from having thousands of Jews. Key thing is 1967 border.

      • talknic
        June 27, 2013, 8:04 am

        hophmi “Is there something wrong with you, talknic?”

        I’m citing you, verbatim

        “Most of the 650,000 will be absorbed through landswaps. That will leave about 100,000 to 150,000 left to deal with. Most of those people will leave voluntarily.”

        Quite different from your second take agreeing with Finkelstein “The 650,000 settlers could be given a choice to stay in the new state of Palestine, or to return to Israel

        “Does that spell it out for you?

        What it spells out is that you think swapping Palestinian land for Palestinian land so that Israel can keep Palestinian land is somehow equitable.

      • Hostage
        June 27, 2013, 8:20 am

        Most of the 650,000 will be absorbed through landswaps. . . . Does that spell it out for you?

        Yeah that means you think the prohibition against the acquisition of territory by war should be waived to make an exception for Israel. So it’s just a matter of time until our descendants will have to allow a few hundred million Arabs to return the favor. We’re already paying interest on the trillions of debt we’ve racked-up fighting the blowback on that ignorant policy.

      • Ecru
        June 27, 2013, 8:40 am

        @ Hophmi

        So most of those 650,000 land thieves who just happen to be sitting on top of the major Palestinian aquifers and the most productive land would be the ones Israel swapped marginal and dry land for. Oh yes, such a great deal for the Palestinians that.

      • Shingo
        June 27, 2013, 8:52 am

        Oh yes, such a great deal for the Palestinians that.

        It’s worse than that. The territory they captured was strategically chosen to ensure no viable Palestinian state could ever emerge.

        This is indeed pragmatism on Israel’s part, but not pragmatism for the sake of peace.

        Lawrence of Cyberia explains this superbly.

        Have you noticed how remarkably consistent that figure is, that successive Israeli PMs insist on annexing from the West Bank? Barak insists on 6 – 8 per cent. Sharon wanted 8 per cent. Now Olmert wants 7.3 per cent. If Israeli governments are willing to give up more than 90 per cent of the West Bank (less the Jordan Valley, less East Jerusalem) for a Palestinian state, what is that last 6 – 8 per cent that they can’t let go of? It seems such a small amount to stall on, if you’re already offering 93 per cent.

        The answer of course is that the percentages themselves are not significant. It’s not so important that Israel wants to keep 6 – 8 per cent, what is significant is where that 6 – 8 per cent is, and what purpose does it serve Israel to hold on to it. Look back to what I wrote under point one of this post, about how the unchanging Israeli plan for the West Bank over the last 40 years is to control the West bank by cutting off the Palestinians from Jerusalem, from the outside world, from their arable and water resources, and from each other. That is where the significance of the last 6 – 8 per cent lies.

        Even after removing Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley from the equation, Barak, Olmert and Sharon know that the implementation of that plan – cutting off West Bank Palestinians from Jerusalem, from meaningful access to the West bank acquifer and arable land, from a land border with Jordan, and cutting them off from each other by Israeli territorial “fingers” that break Palestine into non- or barely-contiguous islands – still requires the annexation of about 6 to 8 per cent of what remains. That carefully chosen 6 to 8 per cent of the West Bank is the difference between a viable Palestine and an impoverished and chronically-dependent “Palestine”.

        That explains how I knew the essential elements of the Olmert peace plan, as soon as I read the story he leaked to an Israeli paper about making a remarkably generous offer to the Palestinians that requires the annexation of “only” that same-old-same-old 6 – 8 per cent of the West Bank.

        It also explains why the differences between the two negotiating teams are much more intractable than they sound. Seven per cent of the West Bank is only a small amount. You’d think that with one per cent here, and one per cent there, you could soon bridge the gap. But for Israel, that last seven-or-so per cent isn’t really about acreage, it’s the key to making its entire strategy for the West Bank work. That seven per cent (plus Jerusalem, plus the Jordan Valley) is the minimum Israel needs to keep the nominally “independent” Palestinians under its control. Offering 93 per cent to the Palestinians is as much as Israel can offer without finally giving up control over them and finally allowing a genuinely independent, sovereign and viable Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories. So the gap that has to be bridged is not a matter of small territorial percentages, but the huge gap in the Israeli mindset that still thinks the purpose of negotiations with the PLO is to find new ways to configure Israeli control over the Palestinians, rather than to renounce the unsuccessful and bloody attempt to control them, and allow them a self-determination, independence and sovereignty that is in every way equal to what Israelis demand for themselves.
        link to lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com

      • James Canning
        June 27, 2013, 2:05 pm

        Great argument for “1967” borders. None of this nonsense about hithering and thithering all over the West Bank. Jews on wrong side of border? Too bad.

    • Hostage
      June 26, 2013, 11:48 am

      Why do you insist on promoting the false narrative that 650,000 Jews must be removed in order to make peace? You know it’s not remotely true.

      Just the other day you were arguing that Meron only meant there would be temporary military camps that would somehow be used on “the land we are settling”.

      In Gaza Coast Regional Council v Knesset of Israel, the Supreme Court observed (para.29):

      The Government clarifies that, also on its merits, the decision to evacuate settlements was legal, let alone after it was promulgated in Knesset’s legislation.  This emanates from the fact that the evacuated territory is held under belligerent occupation which is temporary in nature, as well as the settlements that were established on its basis.

      Similarly, in Mara’abe v Prime Minister of Israel, the Court ruled “The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation” (opinion of President Barak, para.14: similarly Morar v IDF Commander in Judea and Samaria, opinion of Justice Beinisch, para.12), and in Matar v Commander of the IDF in Gaza that “The Gaza Strip is under the belligerent occupation of IDF” (cited in Mara’abe, para.18). See Iain Scobbie, Justice Levy’s legal tinsel – EJIL: Talk! link to ejiltalk.org

      The Israeli Supreme Court also noted that the settlers are considered enemy belligerents, not protected persons under the terms of the applicable laws and conventions. So trying to maintain a belligerent territorial claim on their behalf, in many cases against the claims of the rightful and displaced property owners, would prolong the conflict according to the terms of article 6 of the 4th Geneva Convention. You know, that rule on right of return/repatriation.

      • hophmi
        June 26, 2013, 1:09 pm

        “Just the other day you were arguing that Meron only meant there would be temporary military camps that would somehow be used on ‘the land we are settling’.”

        You may think it’s clever to bring Meron’s 1967 opinion on settlement into this discussion, or to make irrelevant legal arguments. You seem to love to show off here.

        We’re talking about the pragmatics of a two-state solution, not about a court case. The pragmatic approach, which is the approach of the entire diplomatic community, including, now, the Arab League, is that land swaps are a part of the calculus.

      • Sibiriak
        June 27, 2013, 7:27 am

        hophmi :

        … The pragmatic approach, which is the approach of the entire diplomatic community, including, now, the Arab League, is that land swaps are a part of the calculus.

        Yes, ’67 borders plus land swaps, Israeli annexation of large settlement blocks, a limited, largely symbolic “right of return” with compensation, Jerusalem shared etc.–the outlines of a 2SS have been known for a long time. The problem is creating enough pressure on Israel to force acceptance of such a solution.

      • James Canning
        June 27, 2013, 2:18 pm

        I agree, Sibiriak. How to arrange for sufficient pressure on Israel, so that Israel acts in its own best interests. And gets out of WB.

  2. seafoid
    June 25, 2013, 12:15 pm

    “Jewish character hanging in the balance”

    Israel hasn’t had a “Jewish character” for a long time.
    Nihilism isn’t one of the 10 commandments.

  3. eljay
    June 25, 2013, 12:58 pm

    >> “If we don’t go for the two-state solution, this state will stop being a Jewish state,” [Finance Minister Yair Lapid told the Washington Post]…

    Even with a two-state solution, Israel must stop being a supremacist “Jewish State” and must become a secular, democratic and egalitarian Israeli state – a state of and for all its Israeli citizens, equally.

  4. W.Jones
    June 25, 2013, 1:00 pm

    Excellent question in your tagline, Phil, about what will happen if the Two State Solution is not considered possible. At a recent talk by a person from the Israel Forum at a progressive forum on the conflict, the speaker said that the settlements could continue and maybe it will not be “realistic” to remove them, at which point it will have to be possible to look for a “creative solution”. The host did not pass on my question about what that could be.

    Of course, they could just continue their line and say we have to take steps to make it a possibility again, remove some settlements, etc. Of course as you point out, the State’s liberal supporters have a real philosophical problem here.

    I just think that based on their practically weak opposition to the State’s confiscation of the West Bank it’s going to be a long time before their primary loyalty to the Project vastly changes.

    Proposing negative measures would weaken the Project, so they aren’t interested in it. And their lack of interest must also be a reflection of whatever weak reaction they will have to the Two State Solution becoming “unrealistic.” In fact, in line with the “creative” thinking of the Israel Forum, the Liberal supporters of the system could start taking the line that Palestinian independence is not “realistic”, so they oppose Palestinian freedom, just as J Street opposed the Palestinian bid for UN membership.

    So in the end they could become “unwilling” cargo on the ship of the “changing reality”. In fact, you could probably trace the contradiction between their liberal principles and “reality” all the way back to their silence over the Nakba and up to their continued rejection of the refugees’ Right of Return.

    • Philip Weiss
      June 25, 2013, 2:56 pm

      Thanks W can you tell me where that forum was? I’m curious to hear that admission on the part of the speaker. That category of admission interests me….

      • hophmi
        June 25, 2013, 3:20 pm

        I assume the speaker was talking about land swaps, which would maintain most of the settlements. You’re talking about moving between 100 and 150,000 people in most of these plans.

      • Woody Tanaka
        June 25, 2013, 6:54 pm

        “I assume the speaker was talking about land swaps”

        Who said the Palestinians would agree to land swaps? Since the idea of the Jews who are occupying Palestine permitting any Palestinian state on Palestinian land is a fantasy, why shouldn’t the Palestinians insist on the 1967 line or, in the alternative, demand 1S1p1V?

      • hophmi
        June 25, 2013, 11:57 pm

        “Who said the Palestinians would agree to land swaps?”

        Abbas, the Arab League, and virtually every diplomat involved in negotiations for the past fifteen years.

      • talknic
        June 26, 2013, 1:13 am

        @ hophmi “I assume the speaker was talking about land swaps, which would maintain most of the settlements.”

        So called ‘swapping’ non-Israeli territory with the Palestinians for non-Israeli territory so Israel can keep non-Israeli territory, is theft.

        ” You’re talking about moving between 100 and 150,000 people in most of these plans.”

        Go cry to the Zionist Movement and successive Israeli Governments who’ve duped Israeli citizens into believing a fallacy

        BTW The number is in fact far larger …. link to wp.me

      • hophmi
        June 26, 2013, 10:50 am

        “Go cry to the Zionist Movement and successive Israeli Governments who’ve duped Israeli citizens into believing a fallacy”

        Talknic, the Palestinians are the ones suffering, and they are suffering because of Western extremists like you. The Zionists aren’t suffering. We got our state. It’s flourishing.

      • Ecru
        June 26, 2013, 5:07 pm

        Well Israel sure doesn’t have problems moving or expelling hundreds of thousands of non-Jews about so why is there suddenly a problem when it comes to moving Jews? Couldn’t be because it’s one rule for Jews another for everyone else could it?

      • Woody Tanaka
        June 26, 2013, 8:34 pm

        “Abbas, the Arab League, and virtually every diplomat involved in negotiations for the past fifteen years.”

        They also insist that the Israeli Jews stop stealing Palestinian land, and that hasn’t happened. And who says that they’ll agree to land the land swaps you identify? What if they merely agree to swap the land around the Wailing Wall?

      • Hostage
        June 27, 2013, 5:50 am

        Abbas, the Arab League, and virtually every diplomat involved in negotiations for the past fifteen years.

        Yes and all of them demand that the pre-1967 lines be used as the baseline and that any deviations be mutually agreed upon. That’s obviously been rejected by every Israeli leader for the past 15 years.

      • Ecru
        June 27, 2013, 8:43 am

        …the Palestinians are the ones suffering, and they are suffering because of Western extremists like you.

        Ask any actual Palestinian hophmi and they’ll tell you they’re suffering because of inhuman Jewish supremacists like you.

      • seafoid
        June 27, 2013, 10:28 am

        hoph

        What if they decide to drop the 2 state charade and ask for equal rights?

      • talknic
        June 27, 2013, 12:38 pm

        hophmi “Talknic, the Palestinians are the ones suffering, and they are suffering because of Western extremists like you”

        It’s extremism to cite the Law, the UN Charter, the Jewish Agency, the Israel Government and their un-kept commitments. Wow!!! Do you wear your shoes on the wrong feet too?

        Say, is it extremism to hold a people under occupation, illegally acquire, illegally annex and illegally settle their territory, while lying to your own citizens?

        “The Zionists aren’t suffering. We got our state. It’s flourishing”

        Gloat away Hophmi. Your Zionist Israel is flourishing in stolen territories, based on lies, US handouts and the precious but entirely hypocritical US veto vote in the UNSC.

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

        ARTICLE 11

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

        Ratified by the US 1934

        And Israel isn’t just for vile Zionist thieves Hophmi. Some of us would rather our JEWISH homeland state adhere to the law, be happy with all the territory were GIVEN.

        Your Zionism certainly doesn’t reflect the basic tenets of Judaism. Your Zionist Israel is in breach of Laws, UN Charter and relative Conventions in large part adopted by the UN because of what happened to Jewish folk under the Nazis. Odd for a JEWISH state don’t you think?

      • Woody Tanaka
        June 28, 2013, 10:21 am

        “the Palestinians are the ones suffering, and they are suffering because of Western extremists like you. ”

        No, they’re suffering because you zionists are an evil force in the world as a result of your adherence to your twisted ideology and you’ve conspired to steal their land, murder their children and destroy their lives. You are responsible, no one else.

      • W.Jones
        June 25, 2013, 6:10 pm

        Phil,

        The speaker was David Halperin, Director of the Israel Policy Forum. A short biography says it is

        an organization of pro-Israel advocates supporting pragmatic policies to mitigate and ultimately resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a two-state solution. Prior to joining IPF in 2004, David was a reporter for the English Edition of Ha’aretz newspaper in Israel.

        Mr. Halperin opposed the continued building of the settlements and that they make the Two State Solution extremely difficult. He said that if they continue despite our opposition, then a “creative solution” will have to be found. However, he did not explain what he meant by that.

      • W.Jones
        June 25, 2013, 6:28 pm

        Dear Phil,

        Although the statement by Halperin was recent, this YNET article is similar:

        US, Israel seek ‘creative’ solution for settlements
        Israeli officials say working with US to allow limited settlement construction after freeze ends
        Associated Press
        Published: 08.24.10, 10:22 / Israel News
        Israeli officials confirmed Monday that the government is in quiet talks with the United States in search of a “creative” solution that will allow at least some limited construction to take place after Israel’s 10-month moratorium ends on Sept. 26.

        link to ynetnews.com
        In this context, the “creative solution” to continued settlement building when the US and Liberal Zionists oppose continued building is the Israeli government’s agreement to limit or slow the building, in return for the continuation of the “peace process”.

        That would fit what within Halperin was saying, although he did not specify what creative solution to continued building that hurt the 2SS he himself had in mind.

  5. American
    June 25, 2013, 1:17 pm

    I see only two outcomes re Israel.

    Israel will continue it’s theft of all Palestine, herding as many Palestines as possible into smaller and smaller areas, encouraging more of them to become refugees in other countries a la 1948, killing off as many as they can with occasional 7 day and 30 day Cast Lead attacks …..until they have it all.

    Or someone will stop them..unlikely since no one has so far.

    BUT ….the ‘*decider* on Israel’s eventual fate is that Israel will not stop at Palestine. Their success at swallowing up Palestine with no world interference will only stoke their hubris more and there will be more Iran, Syria, etc,etc type domination efforts by Israel.
    AND somewhere along that road they will get snuffed out in some region wide conflagration they created.

    We’re getting a little preview of how this scenario would unfold with the other world military and nuke superpower, Russia and the other world economic superpower, China making a stand on their own interest in the ME in opposition to Isr America dominance.

    What we really need to understand is that Palestine would not be the end of the Israel problem…..Isr would continue to be a problem for the ME and the world.

    • W.Jones
      June 25, 2013, 6:45 pm

      After a few hundred years the colonial Crusader states dissolved after lack of Western interest and continuous attacks from the neighbors. The Crusaders’ population there didn’t really go away though, but rather merged with the Lebanese. Granted, conditions in the Middle East are different today than they were then.

      • James Canning
        June 26, 2013, 7:23 pm

        W.Jones – – Many Syrians apparently have Crusader descent too.

        Over time, the Christians in the Crusader states would mingle with Muslims, mate with Muslims, etc etc, then when a new batch of overly enthusiastic religious zealots arrived in the Levant, they would turn things upside-down.

  6. John Douglas
    June 25, 2013, 1:51 pm

    It’s been clear since at least the 1970s that (in 1970s terms) if Israel annexes the West Bank it will self-destruct. So now the options are: 1. one Jewish oppressive state, or 2. one non-Jewish democratic state, or 3. two states, one of which is Jewish, or 4. make the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza so miserable that they will, to borrow a phrase, “self-deport”, leaving one Jewish democratic state.
    In the 1970s, during a discussion of this in a college I worked at, one colleague said, “Well maybe they’ll have to expell the Palestinians into Jordan.” Could it be possible that some Israelis believe there is this 5th option?

    • quirx
      June 25, 2013, 3:53 pm

      Unfortunately, from the many comments on center-right and right Israeli online press comments, a great many fervently want the 5th option. Their opinions on what to do with all those ‘arabs’ (their lower-case) or ‘so-called palestinians’ or ‘pals’ are not necessarily based on religion but more of a fanatical nationalism with the old Zionist myths mixed together. It’s truly amazing to see so many people who are so incredibly heartless, hateful. What is also interesting is how candid they are when discussing amongst themselves in comments on articles. There is no coy answer to direct questions, no sugar-coating, no treacle, no diplo-speak: just throw those disgusting animals off a cliff, herd them to Jordan (they maintain this is actually Palestine), kill them all or some other horrible fate. And there is quite an amount of enthusiasm for the more violent possibilities.

    • W.Jones
      June 25, 2013, 6:46 pm

      Yes some do, and obviously your colleague was an example.

    • FreddyV
      June 26, 2013, 2:57 am

      Most Christian Zionists refer to Jordan as the state for Palestinians and can’t understand why they don’t just move there. Obviously, this way of thinking involves removing humanity from the equation and identifying the actors in this situation as collectives, which can be moved around like chess pieces.

      • James Canning
        June 26, 2013, 2:18 pm

        Good points, FreddyV. Jordan is not Palestine, no matter how many millions of deluded Christian Zionists would like this to obtain.

  7. yourstruly
    June 25, 2013, 1:54 pm

    The general public couldn’t care less about what sort of solution to the Palestine/Israel conflict, so long as it doesn’t seriously inconvenience them. Same can be said about approaches to global warming, universal health care and improving conditions in our prisons. What the public increasingly worries about, however, is these endless wars, a fear that warmaker-in-chief President Obama plays upon on the rare occasions in which he attempts to dim rather than enhance the chorus for war. Which is why it’s difficult for me to understand why the justice for Palestine movement doesn’t zero in on the matter of U.S. support for Israel (along with the role that Israel Firsters play in securing the so-called special relationship) being the main reason “they” (the Arab/Islamic world) hates us, and how said support for Israel endangers not only American troops in the Middle East and Central Asia, but the rest of us here in the homeland. Yes, MW covers this topic, but, seems to me, without sufficiently hammering away at Israel Firster complicity in the threat that this intransigent U.S.-Israel axis poses to our nation and the world. Letting Israel-Firsters off the hook is like putting our own necks in the noose.

    • quirx
      June 25, 2013, 4:06 pm

      Letting Israel-Firsters off the hook is like putting our own necks in the noose.

      I see this as a major problem or a chink in the chain. To point attention to the Firsters, it automatically enters dangerous territory as one is intimating or saying outright that those with dual loyalty/dual citizenship may or actually do things (or advocate for things/policies/actions) that are against the interests of the US on behalf of what they think is good for Israel (in order of priority). This of course makes assimilated Jews extremely nervous and Jabba Foxman and Dershameini start slavering and foaming about ‘anti-Semitic tropes’ and whatnot attacking like mad dogs left and right, and characters defamed, careers ruined, etc.

      But what can be done to bring this issue front and center, where it belongs without the mad dogs leaping to attention and action? I think it will take assimilated Jews to reach a critical mass and stand up and say “Not in My Name!” Neturae Kartai does this but it is off-putting to see the black hats demonstrating, as they seem so culturally foreign and Americans cannot identify with them, so they are ignored.

      But I liked very much the posters/adverts put up around town during the AIPAC conference, as well as some other very public efforts (weren’t there billboards in WA state or somewhere like that?) that really show -or at least plant the seed- that not all Jews are warmongering, bigoted, racist, crazed ethno-supremacist Zionist nationalistic maniacs.

      Perhaps when more and more assimilated Jews direct efforts and funds into activities like that, more Americans will start to wonder about AIPAC and the ADL, and as importantly, why their representatives and senators are so subservient and obsequious to Israel and Israel-lobby demands.

    • American
      June 25, 2013, 5:45 pm

      ”Yes, MW covers this topic, but, seems to me, without sufficiently hammering away at Israel Firster complicity in the threat that this intransigent U.S.-Israel axis poses to our nation and the world. Letting Israel-Firsters off the hook is like putting our own necks in the noose.”……yourstruly

      It has been hammered at on MW……not quite as hard as some of us hammer at it and pound the I-Firsters with the traitor word. MW being Jewish centered is a little skittish about that I think due to fear of collective blame fallout on the Jews and Anti-S and so forth in the Isr ssue. Understandable I suppose, even though I dont think the fear of some violent reprisal against the Jewish collective is a valid fear in the US.
      I am all for calling them out as traitors, think it is the most powerful word we can use against them.
      But you have to name the non Jewish traitors in the Israel thing too…in many ways they are even worse, doing it purely for the political money and their own sleazy careers.

      • yourstruly
        June 25, 2013, 8:09 pm

        @ American

        Yes, they are traitors and at every opportunity should be branded as such. As for skittishness about doing so, for the reason you mention, our calling I-F’ers out for the traitors they are will make it easier for people (of all religions, races & classes) to join in, with the intent of reaching the tipping point within a year or two. Considering how many Americans are on the fence on P/I, that seems a reasonable goal. And even if that’s all we accomplish, it will lead to pressure on our government to sever the damn special relationship, without which the zionist entity (not its people) will be past tense, oh happy day. What’s more, for two reasons an anti-Jewish pogrom won’t happen, the first being that the many Americans of the Jewish persuasion involved in the “brand them for the traitors they are” campaign will discredit said accusation; and the second is that these traitors come in so many varieties – Jewish, Christian, Black, White, Atherist, name it, such that it’ll be impossible to put the blame on Jews only.

      • American
        June 26, 2013, 1:22 am

        @ yourstruely

        I see the Israel treason as the ‘flag ship” of US corruption so to speak… because it involves the betrayal of our national interest to a ‘foreign entity.
        And I also see attacking ‘Traitors’ on Israel as a way into fighting
        the corruption that made this treason ‘possible’ to begin with.

        Cause here is where we’re at:

        6 Mind-Blowing Stats on How 1 Percent of the 1 Percent Now Dominate Our Elections
        —By Andy Kroll
        link to motherjones.com

        Here’s a statistic that should jolt you awake like black coffee with three
        shots of espresso dropped in: In the 2012 election cycle, 28 percent of all
        disclosed donations—that’s $1.68 billion—came from just 31,385 people. Think of them as the 1 percenters of the 1 percent, the elite of the elite, the
        wealthiest of the wealthy.

        That’s the blockbuster finding in an eye-popping new report by the Sunlight
        Foundation, a nonpartisan transparency advocate. The report’s author, Lee
        Drutman, calls the 1 percent of the 1 percent “an elite class that
        increasingly serves as the gatekeepers of public office in the United
        States.” This rarefied club of donors, Drutman found, worked in high-ranking
        corporate positions (often in finance or law). They’re clustered in New York
        City and Washington, DC. Most are men. You might’ve heard of some of them:
        casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Texas
        waste tycoon Harold Simmons, Hollywood executive Jeffrey Katzenberg.

        Those are a few of the takeaways from Sunlight’s report. Here are six more
        statistics (including charts) giving you what you need to know about the
        wealthy donors who dominate the political money game—and the lawmakers who
        rely on them.

        (1) The median donation from the 1 percent of the 1 percent was $26,584. As the chart below shows, that’s more than half the median family income in America.

        Economic Policy Institute
        (2) The 28.1 percent of total money from the 1 percent of the 1 percent is
        the most in modern history. It was 21.8 percent in 2006, and 20.5 percent in
        2010.

        Sunlight Foundation
        (3) Megadonors are very partisan. Four out of five
        1-percent-of-the-1-percent donors gave all of their money to one party or
        the other.

        Sunlight Foundation
        (4) Every single member of the House or Senate who won an election in 2012
        received money from the 1 percent of the 1 percent.

        (6) For the 2012 elections, winning House members raised on average $1.64
        million, or about $2,250 per day, during the two-year cycle. The average
        winning senator raised even more: $10.3 million, or $14,125 per day.

        (6) Of the 435 House members elected last year, 372—more than 85
        percent—received more from the 1 percent of the 1 percent than they did from
        every single small donor combined.

        Sunlight Foundation
        So what are we to make of the rise of the 1 percent of the 1 percent?
        Drutman makes a point similar to what I reported in my recent profile of
        Democratic kingmaker Jeffrey Katzenberg: We’re living in an era when
        megadonors exert control over who runs for office, who gets elected, and
        what politicians say and do. “And in an era of unlimited campaign
        contributions,” Drutman writes, “the power of the 1 percent of the 1 percent
        only stands to grow with each passing year.”

        I can not think of any accusation as potent as traitor to a politican..or one that would rouse the public against them more. It’s the only thing we have left to instill any fear of the American public in them.

      • James Canning
        June 26, 2013, 2:37 pm

        And 140 of richest 400 Americans are Jews. Many of whom use links to Israel to increase their wealth and power in the US.

      • Citizen
        June 27, 2013, 11:07 am

        @ American
        “But you have to name the non Jewish traitors in the Israel thing too…in many ways they are even worse, doing it purely for the political money and their own sleazy careers.”
        Wouldn’t that include nearly all of Congress, and, e.g., both Clintons and Obama? No matter who is voted in or out of Congress, the result is always the same in matters pertaining to Israel.

        One tactic is if someone could effectively get Dick and Jane to read that website with the interactive map of the US by state, and you can click on your state, then your local community, and there’s your community’s annual direct dollars to Israel–coupled with the stats on what financial aid that could provide locally to you and your neighbors. Then orchestrate an email/phone contact to your local state and federal reps; requesting the official to explain why this taxpayer cash is going to Israel, and is not spent to help local welfare.

        I imagine most US congress critters may secretly resent the power of AIPAC over them, but their job requires them to “bring home the bacon” to their state constituency, so they barter for AIPAC support by trading off both local and more especially the national American interest. It’s a win-win for political operatives, and the only total losers are your average Dicks and Janes.

      • yourstruly
        June 28, 2013, 9:20 pm

        excellent suggestion, especially because it’s practical and doable.

  8. yonah fredman
    June 25, 2013, 2:13 pm

    Regarding the number of settlers east of the green line: I hardly think Naftali Bennett is the most dependable authority on that number. He has his own interests in inflating the number. I would think that there are other organizations whose number are more accurate. But is accuracy the goal of Mondoweiss? I think not.

    • Cliff
      June 25, 2013, 3:07 pm

      Actually the Mondoweiss has it right.

      Here’s The Guardian:

      link to guardian.co.uk

      The number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank grew by more than 15,000 in the past year to reach a total that exceeds 350,000 for the first time and has almost doubled in the past 12 years.

      [...]There are an additional 300,000 Jews living in settlements across the pre-1967 border in East Jerusalem, the pro-government and mass-circulation newspaper Israel Hayom reported.

      350K + 300K = 650K.

      Hence you’re wrong, as usual.

    • hophmi
      June 25, 2013, 3:08 pm

      “I would think that there are other organizations whose number are more accurate. But is accuracy the goal of Mondoweiss?”

      Mondoweiss is dedicated to presenting the two-state solution as either impossible because of Israeli settlements or racist because it regards the idea of two states for two peoples as racists. Therefore, it has a polemical interest in making it seem practically impossible.

      • David Samel
        June 25, 2013, 6:40 pm

        hophmi and yonah, two years ago, Netanyahu (in an apparent conspiracy with mondoweiss???) put the number at 650,000. link to mondoweiss.net A few months later, there was an Israeli estimate of 722,000. link to mondoweiss.net
        One would think that the GOI would have reasonably accurate census figures but I’ve not seen any.

      • Dutch
        June 25, 2013, 6:56 pm

        If I remember well Netanyahu himself mentioned the 650.000 number in between the standing ovations in DC. The 722.000 was based on research by Israel Hayom as being the accurate number per Jan. 1, 2013.

        By the way, Israeli politicians, among them Netanyahu, openly say they’re speeding up to reach 1 million asap.

      • Philip Weiss
        June 25, 2013, 10:19 pm

        But David, do you think it is irresponsible for me to throw off 650,000? Is there a conservative figure I should use so as to attempt to be more persuasive to reasonable folks who are put off by tendentious activist types?

      • David Samel
        June 25, 2013, 11:45 pm

        Phil, I don’t think it’s the slightest bit unreasonable to use that figure, but Norman Finkelstein would disagree. When I used a range of 500,000 – 750,000 based upon the most conservative figures I have seen (500,000), Netanyahu’s estimate (650,000), and Israel Hayom’s (722,000), he accused me of “immaculate ignorance” and use of a “preposterous” figure. He thinks you have to go with 500,000 because that somehow makes the 2ss more salvageable. Whatever. I did not click on your link, but apparently it is to Naftali Bennett’s estimate, which Yonah finds objectionable and intended by you to overestimate the number. Of course, Bennett is generally an unreliable source, but his figure of 650,000 is well within the reasonable range. If even Alan Dershowitz says 2+2=4, that doesn’t mean it should be doubted.

        I still find it absurd that there are no official GOI statistics readily available. We know how many people live in Des Moines and Connecticut; does Israel deliberately refuse to distinguish between Green Line Israelis, E. Jerusalem settlers, and West bank settlers? Is the number of settlers kept secret so that officials can underestimate it, or overestimate it, however it suits their purpose at that particular time?

      • hophmi
        June 26, 2013, 12:00 am

        I don’t take issue with the 650,000 figure. I take issue with the claim that all of them must be “removed” for the two-state solution to be successful. That’s simply untrue.

      • Hostage
        June 26, 2013, 3:04 pm

        I don’t take issue with the 650,000 figure. I take issue with the claim that all of them must be “removed” for the two-state solution to be successful. That’s simply untrue.

        Please educate us Hophmi. Why didn’t the government of Israel allow some of the “temporary” settlements to remain when it withdrew from the Sinai and Gaza?

        Why do so many Israeli cabinet officials pretend that these West Bank settlements are irreversible facts on the ground that prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state? FYI, Danny “Making the Land of Israel Whole” Danon just staged a palace coup that put him in charge of the Likud party organs – and he doesn’t even pretend to offer swaps for settlements, equal rights, or the return of refugees – just complete annexation of the West Bank. — link to nytimes.com

        What are we missing?

      • hophmi
        June 26, 2013, 3:58 pm

        “Please educate us Hophmi. Why didn’t the government of Israel allow some of the “temporary” settlements to remain when it withdrew from the Sinai and Gaza?

        OK, I see we’re playing games here. I’m explaining to you the pragmatics of the two-state solution in terms of the number of settlers that will ultimately be affected, and you’re not interested in hearing that.

        I’m familiar with Danny Danon and Naftali Bennett, thanks. I’m sure you’re familiar with the hardliners on your side. When we define each other by our hardliners, we help them, not the Palestinians.

        Note again: I’m arguing pragmatics. You’re spouting your usual political polemic. I’m not sure who you think you’re helping by doing that, other than your own ego.

        I think it’s easy enough to understand that in the cases of both Sinai and Gaza, the geographical and numerical challenges were different. You were dealing with a few thousand people, and with far-flung settlements that were easy to uproot. In the case of the West Bank, you’re dealing with communities that abut Green Line Israel and number in the hundred thousands.

        Gaza and Sinai are, however, proof that settlements can be uprooted, and that, in most cases, compensation will be enough to get people to leave voluntarily. The obvious solution, since uprooting 650,000 people is both impractical and unnecessary, is to leave as many of them where they are as we can, alter the borders accordingly, and for the 100-150,000 that are left, to give them financial incentives to leave, and for the 10 or 20 thousand that choose to remain, either give them the option of becoming Palestinian citizens or remove them as the IDF did in Gaza and Sinai.

      • James Canning
        June 26, 2013, 6:48 pm

        Didn’t Egypt want all Israelis out of the Sinai?

        Israeli army was not keen on Jews remaining in Gaza Strip.

      • Hostage
        June 27, 2013, 8:34 am

        Note again: I’m arguing pragmatics.

        That’s what the lawyers for the Gaza Coast Regional Council argued to the Israeli Supreme Court. You still didn’t answer the legal question: Why didn’t the government of Israel or the High Court just allow the inhabitants of the “temporary” settlements in Gaza and the Sinai to remain where they were and become Palestinian or Egyptian citizens or offer-up some swaps? The truth is that the government of Israel has never treated the idea as the grand and pragmatic solution that you’re leading us to believe.

      • Shingo
        June 27, 2013, 8:37 am

        I’m explaining to you the pragmatics of the two-state solution in terms of the number of settlers that will ultimately be affected, and you’re not interested in hearing that.

        A pragmatist does not look at a corpse that has been dead for a decade and decide it can be revived through CPR.

      • Citizen
        June 27, 2013, 11:12 am

        hophmi says he knows of other organizations with more accurate numbes, but he does not name or give examples of his blanket statement. Juvenile hasbara.

      • Citizen
        June 27, 2013, 11:37 am

        @ hophmi

        Israel has no claim to squaters rights. There’s never been any disuse of Palestinian land by the Palestinians. Being terrorized off your land, or booted off by an invading army, or now, by Israeli settlers in the OT, is no legal basis of claim as a squatter. There’s never been any adverse possession because there’s been no implied consent to abandon. That’s why the Palestinians keep the key to their old home door, even after it was destroyed and stolen decades ago.

        The doctrine of adverse possession discourages disuse of property. According to the doctrine, if property was voluntarily abandoned, and someone else “squatted” on it for a number of years, the squatter could gain control over the land. If the squatter abandons the property for a period, or if the rightful owner effectively removes the squatter’s access even temporarily during the statutory period, or gives his permission, the squatter loses the benefit of that possession. If that squatter later retakes possession of the property, that squatter must, in order to acquire title, remain on the property for a full statutory period after the date on which the squatter retook possession. However, one squatter may pass along continuous possession to another squatter, known as “tacking”, until the adverse possession period is complete. In the United States, squatting laws vary from state to state and city to city.

      • eljay
        June 25, 2013, 6:48 pm

        >> Mondoweiss is dedicated to presenting the two-state solution as either impossible because of Israeli settlements …

        That’s because Israeli settlements – that is, colonization outside of Israel’s / Partition borders – make a viable Palestinian state essentially impossible. No mystery here.

        >> … or racist because it regards the idea of two states for two peoples as racists.

        That’s because for Zio-supremacists, two states for two people does not imply Israel for Israelis and Palestine for Palestinians, it implies supremacist “Jewish State” for Jews and Palestine for everyone else. No mystery here either.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 25, 2013, 7:30 pm

        Therefore, it has a polemical interest in making it seem practically impossible.

        it has a polemical interest in making a 2ss seem possible, wouldn’t you say? after decades of the ‘negotiations’ one doesn’t need a polemical interest to mention the emperor has no clothes.

      • seafoid
        June 26, 2013, 12:46 am

        “Making it seem practically impossible”. Go read the Palestine papers. Livni admitted this has been Israeli policy for a very long time.

      • James Canning
        June 26, 2013, 2:34 pm

        Seafroid – – Heart of the scam is to convince people Israel CANNOT get out of the West Bank. When of course it can.

    • Philip Munger
      June 25, 2013, 3:19 pm

      What do you think the most reliable estimate of the number of Israelis living on the Palestinian side of the Green Line (including East Jerusalem) is?

      • yonah fredman
        June 25, 2013, 4:50 pm

        I do not have an estimate regarding the number of settlers living over the green line. I was merely commenting on the fact that as his link Phil Weiss did not use official Israeli figures or Yisrael Hayom, or the Guardian but the words of Naftali Bennett.

      • tree
        June 25, 2013, 9:48 pm

        I was merely commenting on the fact that as his link Phil Weiss did not use official Israeli figures or Yisrael Hayom…

        Followed closely by you “merely commenting” that MW has no interest in accuracy, even though, according to GOI figures AND Yisrael Hayom,
        650,000 was an accurate number from a few years ago and that 722,000 is the number as of January 2013. You could have looked this up yourself if you were sincerely worried about the accuracy. You didn’t. You weren’t.

      • seafoid
        June 26, 2013, 12:30 am

        Fredman applies standard bot operating procedure. Focus on a trivial point and beat it to death, thereby derailing the discussion.

    • yonah fredman
      June 25, 2013, 8:08 pm

      “But is communication the goal of Mondoweiss?” was what I really want to talk about. About a thread from two days ago where Phil labeled Peace Now as in favor of segregation because of a press release that spoke of mainstream Israelis when the poll was only referring to Israeli Jews. In that case communication with the choir and the converted was what Phil’s rhetoric was all about. No one picked up on it there and so I picked on Phil’s link here regarding the numbers. I have no preconception what the numbers are, but certainly I wouldn’t quote Naftali Bennett, but I understand that a blog references its own articles so that people stay on the website rather than go to the guardian.

      But I think that communication was sorely lacking in the line by Phil regarding Peace Now and if communication is not the goal of a journalist, then he stops being a journalist. Activism and journalism can coexist, except when they can’t and the use of such rhetoric is for a poet or an activist and not for a journalist.

      • Elliot
        June 25, 2013, 11:21 pm

        Phil’s headlines are indeed pointed but the pretense of ‘balance’ and objectivity in the MSM are also slanted in a particular direction.
        Anyway, uncovering hidden biases in seemingly fair publications is serious journalism.
        What’s the problem with that?

      • Citizen
        June 27, 2013, 11:47 am

        Elliot
        I had the same thought. Phil merely pointed out that nobody asked the 20% of Israeli citizens who are not Jewish.

      • tree
        June 25, 2013, 11:49 pm

        But I think that communication was sorely lacking in the line by Phil regarding Peace Now and if communication is not the goal of a journalist, then he stops being a journalist.

        Somehow I get the idea that you think that “communication” means delivering news in a way that is acceptable to you and your sensibilities, or to Israeli defenders and their sensibilities. But if your sensibilities, or their sensibilities, are so off with what is just or right, or even off with reality, then polite “communication” with their sensibilities is not a viable means to get through to your or to them.

        Maybe you should consider the listening part of communication as well. Are you listening to what’s being said for its content or are you merely listening for an excuse to stop listening? Are you living up your part of the “communication” agreement, or are you simply trying to lay blame elsewhere?

      • Citizen
        June 27, 2013, 11:54 am

        @ tree
        Or, as Judge Judy always says, “Put on your listening ears.”

  9. Tzombo
    June 25, 2013, 2:21 pm

    “And when 2013 ends without any progress toward removing them, what will J Street do?”

    Tell everyone that in 2014 it is make or break for the two-state solution.

  10. chet
    June 25, 2013, 2:32 pm

    hophmi – “…the false narrative that 650,000 Jews must be removed in order to make peace”

    Without wishing to be confrontational – would you mind expanding on your assertion by speculating as to how the 650,000 settlers could peacefully co-exist in a state controlled by Palestinians

    • hophmi
      June 25, 2013, 3:06 pm

      Chet: A two-state solution will involve land swaps to incorporate the vast majority of settlers, who live close to the Green Line. So you’re talking about 100,000 or 150,000, depending on the plan, but certainly not 650,000. Saying that a two-state solution involves moving 650,000 people is just not accurate. It’s meant to make the two-state solution seem impossible. It’s certainly not easy, but it’s not impossible.

      • seafoid
        June 25, 2013, 3:58 pm

        Hoph

        The mess is bigger than the capacity of Jews like you to influence how it is resolved.

        Your hopes for the green line settlements are as deluded as Palestinians hoping to go back to Jaffa.

        You won’t get the settlers in Israel because the whole point of YESHA was to deny the Palestinians a state. So there won’t be a Palestinian state. But there won’t be a Jewish state either.

        Well done

      • libra
        June 25, 2013, 4:28 pm

        My goodness, it’s The Witty Plan Redux.

        Well done hophmi, you’ve become our new Witty.

      • Donald
        June 26, 2013, 1:01 pm

        “My goodness, it’s The Witty Plan Redux.

        Well done hophmi, you’ve become our new Witty.”

        I’m not sure that’s right. If I recall correctly, Witty objected strenuously to the notion that any Jew should be moved–it brought back historical memories or something like that. It was heinous, inhumane, ethnic cleansing, etc…

        But in his defense, I think he was willing to say that they would have to become citizens of the Palestinian state. Not sure, but I think so.

      • hophmi
        June 26, 2013, 1:11 pm

        “But in his defense, I think he was willing to say that they would have to become citizens of the Palestinian state. Not sure, but I think so.”

        If they choose to stay, they should definitely become citizens of a Palestinian state.

        I don’t know why the view I expressed, which is the view of virtually the entire diplomatic community, should be denigrated.

        You may think shouting at the plan makes you more right. It doesn’t.

      • Hostage
        June 27, 2013, 8:08 am

        I don’t know why the view I expressed, which is the view of virtually the entire diplomatic community, should be denigrated.

        Because you and the diplomatic community only use it as a debating point to maintain the status quo of apartheid dummy.

      • Shingo
        June 27, 2013, 8:28 am

        I don’t know why the view I expressed, which is the view of virtually the entire diplomatic community, should be denigrated.

        The entire diplomatic community only represents about 5% of the UN.

      • James Canning
        June 27, 2013, 6:33 pm

        Independent Palestine might well develop a vibrant economy drawing in Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and others.

      • ritzl
        June 25, 2013, 5:47 pm

        @hophmi It’s certainly not easy, …

        There were ‘only’ 8500 settlers in Gaza in 2005 and see what their removal entailed.

        link to guardian.co.uk

        A national crisis. And that was from land that Israel didn’t particularly covet and strategically would lead to enhanced settlement/focus on what it did covet (i.e. was NOT in the national interest).

        Multiply that crisis by 20x and there is no way Israel is going to remove any of the “only” 100K-150K (“tops” for any Dr. Strangelove fans) settlers from the WB. Heck, just the fact that a good portion of even the libzios that post here insist on calling the WB/Palestine J&S should tell you that.

        Using aggregate numbers is lazy/wishful/ostrich-like.

        Case in point: There are “only” about 9K settlers in the Jordan Valley. The JV is absolutely critical to a viable Palestinian State. The JV is also something Israel has never considered ceding, even in the most “generous” of its offers. It’s both (from the Israeli PoV) a security non-negotiable, and a flagship “Brand Israel” agricultural exporter. Do you really think that with that amount of strategic importance (where Gaza had none) Israel will ever give back the JV?
        Nope.

        OK, 9K down and 141K to go. Discuss. E-1, the Adumin block and that particular geographically divisive finger (working westward from the JV through Mishor Adumin to Ma’ale Adumin) in both states’ strategic needs would be a good starting point. What? “Only” about 50K in that bloc, as well as a boatload of Israel’s dirty industry. Again, critical. Again, evacuations are not going to happen.

        OK. 59K down. 91K to go…

        So, in lieu of the physical and nationally cathartic evacuations (with the resulting Jew on Jew violence for all the world to see), and in order for your vision for a 2SS to come to fruition, do you propose that the JV and Admunin blocs simply become unprotected (i.e. horrors! subject to Palestinian law and gasp! equal rights in a Palestinian state)? Could you stomach that? Could any Israeli, right or left?

        Israelis sure didn’t vote like they could “stomach” it this last election.

        Time’s up on the two-state outcome.

      • tree
        June 25, 2013, 9:55 pm

        Thanks, ritzl for the Dr. Strangelove reference. One of my favorites.

        “I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed!! No more than 10-20 million killed…tops…depending on the breaks!”

      • Elliot
        June 25, 2013, 11:27 pm

        Thanks, Ritzl.
        Excellent demolition job!

      • hophmi
        June 26, 2013, 12:03 am

        You make too much out of Gaza. The vast majority of Gazan settlers left voluntarily.

      • Sibiriak
        June 26, 2013, 2:29 am

        Ritzl:

        Multiply that crisis by 20x and there is no way Israel is going to remove any of the “only” 100K-150K (“tops” for any Dr. Strangelove fans) settlers from the WB

        Multiply that crisis by 10,000x and there is no way Israel is ever going to accept 1SS.

        ANY near-term solution would require massive force (political, economic, legal, military etc.) applied to Israel to IMPOSE a new reality.

      • talknic
        June 26, 2013, 2:30 am

        hophmi “The vast majority of Gazan settlers left voluntarily

        They were compensated and contrary to the Israeli propaganda, were paid paid not to destroy the remaining greenhouses

        Israeli Settlers Demolish Greenhouses and Gaza Jobs
        JERUSALEM, July 14 – About half the greenhouses in the Israeli settlements in Gaza have already been dismantled by their owners, who have given up waiting to see if the government was going to come up with extra payment as an inducement to leave them behind, say senior officials working on the coordination of this summer’s Israeli pullout from Gaza.

        Under international pressure to save what is left for Palestinian economic development, Israeli and international officials are working on a plan to pay settlers to hand over the remaining greenhouses and a dairy to Palestinians, to preserve jobs and production. These businesses provide thousands of jobs to Gazans.

        Of the roughly 1,000 acres of agricultural land that were under greenhouses in the 21 Israeli settlements in Gaza, only 500 acres remain – creating significant doubts that the greenhouses could be handed over to the Palestinians as “a living business,” the goal cited by the Israeli coordinator of the pullout, Eival Giladi. link to tinyurl.com

        NB: the date of the report – Published: July 15, 2005
        Dis engagement took place August 2005

        BTW where did all that asbestos go???

      • seafoid
        June 26, 2013, 3:14 am

        Great post Ritzl. Of course the Hebron Jews are all going to leave quietly.
        It will be like the siege of the Golden Temple. They’ll probably hole up in the Ibrahimi Mosque.

      • hophmi
        June 26, 2013, 3:38 am

        Yes talknic, of course they were compensated. So what? Do you think they shouldn’t be? These people had their entire lives there. The point is that what you saw on TV was not the IDF attempting to remove 8000 people. It was the government attempting to remove the few diehards who didn’t leave beforehand.

        In fact, 3000 of the greenhouses were purchased by American Jewish donors for the Palestinians, and the Palestinians looted and destroyed them.

        link to nbcnews.com

      • seafoid
        June 26, 2013, 5:14 am

        hophmi “The vast majority of Gazan settlers left voluntarily”

        Most of the Gaza settlers were shafted by Israel. They have very high rates of depression and marriage breakdown. At the end of the day they were just dumb pawns of the powerful.
        Netzarim was supposed to be forever. Ma’ale Adumim is supposed to be forever too.

      • James Canning
        June 26, 2013, 2:21 pm

        Sibiriak – – The international community needs to make clear, day after day if necessary, that planting Jews in the West Bank does not change the borders of Palestine.

      • andrew r
        June 27, 2013, 10:55 am

        Yes talknic, of course they were compensated. So what? Do you think they shouldn’t be? These people had their entire lives there.

        So you think people who’ve had their lives disrupted by the Zionist state should be compensated, and this should be applied fairly across the board, and no one should be denied compensation on the basis of race.

        Israel owes the Palestinian refugees in the occupied territories, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan a few billion dollars, you know.

      • talknic
        June 27, 2013, 12:00 pm

        hophmi “Yes talknic, of course they were compensated. So what? Do you think they shouldn’t be? These people had their entire lives there. “

        Duped by the Israeli Government into thinking they had a right to settle illegally in “territories occupied”… of course they should have been compensated by the government. But the payment for glasshouses wasn’t by the Israeli Government.

        “The point is that what you saw on TV “

        Didn’t bother to watch. Knowing full well it was required by law and that they’d probably end up in some other non-Israeli territory

        “In fact, 3000 of the greenhouses were purchased by American Jewish donors for the Palestinians”

        In fact there’s only one American Jewish donor reported .. James Wolfensohn

        ” the Palestinians looted and destroyed them”

        Odd .. Your source says “dozens” and ” Al-Wazir said the greenhouses did not suffer structural damage, but that looters got away with irrigation pipes, plastic sheeting and most troublesome, water pumps. ” and “Jihad al-Wazir, the deputy Palestinian finance minister, said roughly 30 percent of the greenhouses suffered various degrees of damage”

        However the earlier pre disengagement NYT report stated 50% had already been dismantled by illegal settlers by July 15, 2005

        Your nbcnews report also states ” the high-tech greenhouses left by the Israelis”. Contradicting their earlier statement of Mr Wolfensohn and American Jews. More lies…. There’s no mention of the Bill Gates Foundation … Jewish American? link to wnd.com

        Living up to your impeccable propagandist credentials again. Congratulations.

        Further more your report reveals Israeli intentions to keep breaking the Law

        ” Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz toured two West Bank settlements, Karnei Shomron and Beit Arieh, and said Israel must develop the main blocs there after its Gaza pullout.

        “We have to make every effort to direct resources to strengthen the settlement blocs,” Mofaz said, according to his ministry. “We must do everything possible to strengthen the residents’ feeling of security.”

        Hilarious, by using Israeli Jews as pawns, encouraging them to illegally settle in “territories occupied”.

        Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said one reason for the Gaza pullout was to strengthen Israel’s grip on its main settlement blocs in the West Bank, where 246,000 settlers live. “

        What a ghastly criminal state Israel has become

        BTW By Dec 2005 the majority of the remaining glasshouses were in use, only to have their produce rot at Israel checkpoints. Never enough cruelty is enough

      • Shingo
        June 28, 2013, 3:20 am

        Yes talknic, of course they were compensated. So what? Do you think they shouldn’t be?

        Those who destroyed the green houses as they left shouldn’t have been, seeing as they were paid to leave them intact.

        the Palestinians looted and destroyed them

        Hasbara Alert!!! It was the Jewish squatters who destroyed them. The Palestinians actually repaired them.

        Here’s the reporting from the NYTimes, Boston Globe and MSNBC in 2005:

        In July 2005, prior to the disengagement:
        Israeli Settlers Demolish Greenhouses and Gaza Jobs

        In September 2005, immediately after the disengagment:
        link to nytimes.com

        Looters strip Gaza Greenhouses
        link to msnbc.msn.com
        {Note: This is the AP story that Cox claims said,”“more then 3,000 greenhouses costing the World Bank and private donors approximately $14 million were completely stripped and totally destroyed.” However it says no such thing. Cox lied.}

        In October 2005, one month later:
        link to boston.com

        Greenhouse project endangered in Gaza

        And another month later, in November 2005:
        Gaza greenhouses bear fruit once again
        link to nytimes.com

        So, to wrap up the truth behind some of the most egregious lies, the settlers houses were destroyed by Israeli soldiers as part of Israel’s disengagement, not by the Palestinians. Some settlers dismantled some of the greenhouses and equipment prior to the disengagement. And, according to news reports, about ten percent of formerly Israeli greenhouses were destroyed by Palestinian looters immediately after the disengagement, mostly stealing plastic irrigation pipe, plastic sheeting, and water pumps . That destruction was repaired within a month or so by the Palestinians and the greenhouses were up and running within 2 months.

      • Sibiriak
        June 28, 2013, 3:48 am

        Shingo:

        So, to wrap up the truth behind some of the most egregious lies…

        Good work! Thanks.

      • ritzl
        June 28, 2013, 10:04 pm

        Heh, tree. I forgot about the “depending on the breaks!” part. Great stuff.

      • ritzl
        June 28, 2013, 10:25 pm

        Agree, sort of, Sibiriak. Agree in the sense that that is kinda the point, to me. The wave of unrestrained Israeli arrogance and arrogation is almost certainly going to wash over Palestine. They, Israelis, are creating the scenario where the probability of their own future violent resistance to the coming shift in world opinion is mandated.

        Of course probability suggests an alternative, so they will have a choice, but it will be Israel’s choice on how to address their own self-inflicted narrow (from the Israeli PoV, again) options, and avoid the 10000x scenario.

        I’m not hopeful they will avoid it, but I hope they have some deep national introspection and DO avoid it.

      • ritzl
        June 28, 2013, 10:33 pm

        Thanks Shingo. And the resulting output of the repaired (with precious resources) greenhouses, principally strawberries, iirc, was/is consistently left to rot for lack of Israeli export permits.

        Also, OT, that was a brilliant summary you posted of the re-re-re-re-negotiating practices and positions of the Israelis. Bookmarked.

      • ritzl
        June 28, 2013, 10:37 pm

        @seafoid Sorry for the late response to you all, but yeah, Hebron, hooo boy! 1000 mega-ultra-zealots in an emblematic scenario. Would they just become citizens of Palestine?

      • Dutch
        June 25, 2013, 6:44 pm

        @ hophmi

        Pretty amazing theory you got there. Can you post the map that shows the consequences, please? I mean, in this scenario the Palestinians get Jerusalem, Yaffa and Tel Aviv, right?

        By the way, do you realize that you are dealing away someone else’s land and rights? Is that normal in the place you live in?

        And as for ‘meant to make the two-state solution seem impossible': there will be no two-state solution because the majority of the Israeli cabinet rejects it. Danon said Kerry’s initiative and the 2SS have ‘not been discussed’ – because everybody knows a vote would be negative. Solve that first, than come back with your fairy tales.

      • Sibiriak
        June 26, 2013, 2:38 am

        Dutch:

        there will be no two-state solution because the majority of the Israeli cabinet rejects it.

        And there will be no one-state solution because the majority of the Israeli cabinet rejects that as well?

        Why would you think any solution must be based on what an Israeli cabinet rejects/accepts?

      • hophmi
        June 26, 2013, 3:41 am

        “Pretty amazing theory you got there. Can you post the map that shows the consequences, please? I mean, in this scenario the Palestinians get Jerusalem, Yaffa and Tel Aviv, right?”

        You’re welcome to play with the possibilities yourself at ispeacepossible.com, where there is an interactive map. link to ispeacepossible.com

      • talknic
        June 26, 2013, 9:04 am

        hophmi “You’re welcome to play with the possibilities yourself at ispeacepossible.com”

        LOL. Playing with yourself in a delusional state. The basic map is incorrect, a lie, propaganda. Israel has never legally acquired ANY territory beyond its Internationally recognized boundaries, those of UNGA res 181, as Israel pleaded to be and was recognized May 15th 1948. link to wp.me

        Swapping non-Israeli territory with the Palestinians for Palestinian territory so that Israel can keep Palestinian territory is NOT A LAND SWAP. It is shuffling a fixed deck, where the thief swaps stolen goods in order to keep stolen goods. No Israeli territory changes hands. Only Palestinian territory changes hands.

        It boils down to you being either ultra stupid enough to believe in their ultra stupidity or you being an inherently dishonest propagandist with it’s foul smelling foot full on the denial pedal

        With the amazing inability to think beyond Israeli propaganda, it’s little wonder consecutive Israeli governments have been able to dupe Israelis into believing Red Heifer sh*t, enabling Israel to dig itself into an intractable ILLEGAL black hole it cannot now afford to get out of by adhering to the law. ONLY a plea bargain with the Palestinians can now circumvent the law. It’s why Israel insists on negotiations.

        Israel is entirely dependent on Palestinian generosity. Only the vile and hypocritical US veto vote in the UNSC enables Israel to continue the occupation and continue committing its ghastly crime spree.

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

        Talknic – – Every Arab country has agreed to accept Israel within “1967” borders. Even Iraq under Saddam Hussein endorsed 2002 Saudi peace plan.

      • James Canning
        June 26, 2013, 2:13 pm

        Interesting map, Hophmi. Makes excellent case for all countries to prssure Israel to get out of the West Bank entirely.

      • James Canning
        June 26, 2013, 2:25 pm

        Yes, Sibiriak. I agree. What the current Israeli cabinet will accept is not especially important.

      • talknic
        June 28, 2013, 5:59 am

        James Canning ” Every Arab country has agreed to accept Israel within “1967″ borders”

        They have indeed. Israel hasn’t

      • James Canning
        June 25, 2013, 6:55 pm

        hophmi – – Why do any Jews “have to” move? They end up on wrong side of the border, so what?

      • yonah fredman
        June 25, 2013, 8:20 pm

        hophmi- If Israel reaches a peace treaty with Fatah that conforms to Abbas’s proposals to Olmert then the number of those Israelis who will have to move will be in the range of 130,000. But if Israel fails to reach a peace treaty with Fatah, then eventually Israel may have to remove its troops from the West Bank according to the wishes of Hamas, which will be to the 67 border and then the 650,000 figure (or the by that time: 1,000,000 figure) will come into play.

      • seafoid
        June 26, 2013, 1:01 am

        Calling them “Jews” is supposed to give them magic protection. Jews cannot be moved as they are eternal victims. It would just be like a pogrom in Ashkenazistan where Shimon Peres and Ariel Sharon grew up.

        HOWEVER if you are discussing apartheid, DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES call them “Jews”. Call them Israelis.
        Here is the Dershbag with a great example

        link to haaretz.com
        “According to Walker, there are roads that are for “Jews only,” rather than for Israelis of all religions and ethnicities.”

        And this is the tragedy of the settlers and Israel. There are no Druze, no Bedouin and no Palestinians in YESHA. The settlers are 100% Jewish and they are part of an evil system. . And bringing out the anti-Semitism canard is more or less pointless at this stage.

        It is a big mess.

      • Sibiriak
        June 26, 2013, 1:57 am

        Hophmi:

        Saying that a two-state solution involves moving 650,000 people is just not accurate.

        Agree.

    • W.Jones
      June 25, 2013, 6:11 pm

      Chet,

      He is talking about a bantustan “state” that looks like swiss cheese due to the settlements.

      In South Africa they also had black African “states.”

      They sign a “peace treaty” with an unarmed, dependent, cut-up puppet “state” and wipe their hands.

      • James Canning
        June 26, 2013, 7:15 pm

        Idea was to deny South African citizenship to blacks living in SA. By saying they were citizens of a Bantustan, not SA. Even if the blacks lived in SA.

      • Hostage
        June 27, 2013, 9:01 am

        Idea was to deny South African citizenship to blacks living in SA. By saying they were citizens of a Bantustan, not SA. Even if the blacks lived in SA.

        And how is that this different from creating a “Jewish” state with a “Jewish” nationality that specifically excludes the indigenous Palestinian Arab population; expropriates their land for state use; and places national planning of its utilization in the hands of a guaranteed Jewish plurality – including the unelected representatives of a chartered parastatal entity that exists only to promote the interests of “persons of Jewish descent”?

        You can’t seriously be arguing that the acts being perpetrated against the Bedouins and large Palestinian population centers in Israel since the state became independent aren’t the same constituent acts of the crime of apartheid that were used in South Africa to create isolated ethnic enclaves (Bantustans), by fragmenting the available territory and creating territorial discontinuities, while denying its use to other indigenous people on the basis of their ethnicity.

      • James Canning
        June 27, 2013, 2:13 pm

        @Hostage – – Does Israel discriminate against non-Jewish Israeli citizens? Yes.

        If Israel tried to declare that Muslim citizens of Israel living in Israel, were citizens of Palestine – – meaning the rump statelets envisionioned by Likud – – the parallel with South Africa would be more apt.

      • W.Jones
        June 28, 2013, 3:19 am

        I don’t see what your criticism is of the comparison between (A) liberal Zionism’s vision of a Two State Solution containing an unarmed dependent Palestinian puppet “state”; and (B) the old system with the dependent, subjugated Bantustan “states”.

        Your statement about the comparison between the internal situation in the State Proper and (B) the Bantustans doesn’t mean that the above comparison is incorrect.

        Anyway, to answer your question what the difference is, the State Proper does not claim Palestinians there have their own free state, like the Bantustans did. In the case you mentioned, the Palestinian minority citizens do not have effective control over their land even though most people living there just 70 years ago were Palestinian. In any case, you are on to something :)

      • Hostage
        June 28, 2013, 8:23 am

        If Israel tried to declare that Muslim citizens of Israel living in Israel, were citizens of Palestine – – meaning the rump statelets envisionioned by Likud – – the parallel with South Africa would be more apt.

        Netanyahu is still holding open the Foreign Minister’s spot for Liebermann, who proposed doing exactly that during an address to the United Nations. See Lieberman presents plans for population exchange at UN link to haaretz.com

        So the parallels and the comparisons are most certainly apt. The fact that Ariel Sharon started creating Bantustans on both sides of the Green Line when he was a Cabinet minister has been a matter of public record here in the US ever since Israel Shahak submitted a pair of JPost articles containing Sharon’s interviews on the subject as exhibits during hearings conducted by a US Senate Committee. The fact that Sharon continued to pursue that policy as Prime Minister was reported in Haaretz articles cited by UN Special Rapporteurs. One of those reports was included in the Secretary General’s dossier. It was cited in the ICJ advisory opinion.

      • Hostage
        June 28, 2013, 8:47 am

        If Israel tried to declare that Muslim citizens of Israel living in Israel,

        You don’t seem to appreciate the fact that Israel deliberately and illegally annexed East Jerusalem without incorporating and franchising its inhabitants.

        It has been annexing more and more of the West Bank to the so-called “City of Jerusalem” ever since 1967, and has terminated the residency of a quarter of a million Palestinians right under your nose. Many of them were born in Jerusalem, like Dr. Mustafa Barghouti. I’m hard pressed to see any differences between South Africa’s policies on both sides of the border with South West Africa/Namibia and Israeli policies on both sides of the border with Jordan/Palestine.

      • Hostage
        June 28, 2013, 9:45 am

        P.S. the Bedouin are being moved to reservations or forceably displaced on both sides of the Green Line, because they are not “Jewish nationals” or persons of “Jewish descendancy”. You still haven’t explained how that situation is different from the one prevailing on both sides of the border between the Union of South Africa and South West Africa/Namibia in the apartheid era. The same sort of arbitrary legislative measures regarding “nationality” were used to create ethnic enclaves in both cases.

      • James Canning
        June 28, 2013, 2:05 pm

        I would say Israel purports to have annexed portions of West Bank since 1967 Arab-Israel war.

      • James Canning
        June 28, 2013, 2:11 pm

        @Hostage – – South Africa did not propose to a population exchange. Instead, blacks living in Capetown would lose their South African citizenship but remain in Capetown, or Pretoria, or wherever in SA.

        Some Israeli fanatics do want to deport Israeli citizens who happen to be Muslims.

      • W.Jones
        June 28, 2013, 2:49 pm

        Hostage,

        It depends on whether you consider East Jerusalem to be part of Israel proper. Alot of Israelis and their supporters actually do see it that way, meaning they practice Apartheid inside of what they consider to be the “democratic state”, since they deprive huge numbers of the minority population even of citizenship.

        On the other hand, if you still consider East Jerusalem outside of the Israeli State, then it’s just part of the continuing Apartheid in the west Bank.

        As to the Bedouins, it is important to consider how much they have been deprived of civil rights as Israelis, whether they are forced to be separate, what the reservations have in terms of autonomy, etc. It’s an important issue though.

        Peace.

      • Hostage
        June 28, 2013, 6:26 pm

        South Africa did not propose to a population exchange. Instead, blacks living in Capetown would lose their South African citizenship but remain in Capetown, or Pretoria, or wherever in SA.

        Israel has done the same thing by proposing to redraw the borders and strip citizenship in several towns or villages that straddle or are close to their desired demarcation line. Tzipi Livni famously proposed doing that in the Palestine Papers. The candidates were Umm al-Fahm, Baqa, Bartaa, and the Beit Safafa.

      • James Canning
        June 28, 2013, 7:00 pm

        Yes, I am well aware some Israelis want the 1967 border changed, to put in Palestine areas of Muslims currently in Israel. But Israel is not proposing to claim those same Muslims are citizens of Palestine, unless the border is moved. No stripping of citizenship based on religion.

      • yonah fredman
        June 28, 2013, 9:55 pm

        Hostage- You’re usually quite accurate as far as history and law, but without referring to anything but my memory I think you are wrong. Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem was a one time thing and of a very large area, much larger than a logical map of Jerusalem. Therefore it may seem as if they are annexing more and more of the West Bank to the city, but in fact the annexation took place years ago on the books if not de facto as well.

        I think, the Palestinians of East Jerusalem have certain health coverage that other West Bank Palestinians do not have. The process that an East Jerusalem Palestinian has to go through in order to get citizenship is not clear to me, but it does exist and you infer that no such option (however seldom used or however difficult to use) exists. Such an option does exist.

      • Shingo
        June 30, 2013, 5:03 am

        The process that an East Jerusalem Palestinian has to go through in order to get citizenship is not clear to me, but it does exist and you infer that no such option

        They also have a legal option to obtain building permits, but they are never granted, so what’s the difference?

  11. jsinton
    June 25, 2013, 2:58 pm

    I’m not holding my breath. Two state is toast, perpetual conflict will be the norm.

  12. David Samel
    June 25, 2013, 6:45 pm

    I’m not sure what the significance of 2013 is. Israel has managed to continue the occupation for 46 years; it grudgingly admitted the remote possibility of a Palestinian state about half-way through, and has been holding this out as a carrot if the Palestinians will only agree to swallow whatever crumbs are “generously” thrown their way. Why can’t this situation continue for an indefinite period? Certainly J Street won’t do anything to stop it.

    • talknic
      June 27, 2013, 12:14 pm

      David Samel “Israel has managed to continue the occupation for 46 years”

      65 years link to wp.me No non-Israeli territory has ever been legally acquired by Israel.

  13. James Canning
    June 25, 2013, 6:54 pm

    Bibi Netanyahu was in the West Bank this week, foolishly claiming the illegal settlements will always be part of Israel.

  14. Carllarc
    June 26, 2013, 8:00 am

    a negotiated ‘settlement’ is unimaginable.

    the Palestinians must take the lead in establishing the single state by unilaterally declaring the Israeli Palestinians AND the Israeli Jews who are in the colonies in the Occupied Territories to be citizens of Palestine.

    • fdgsr
      June 28, 2013, 9:41 pm

      Unilaterally? The Jews want one state, Palestinians want one justice. They can go together. Jews can learn to live with non-Jews and Muslims can learn to live with People of the Book. Christians can give up the Crusades and atheists can accept Truth as “…that than which nothing greater is possible.” Truth rules what is and denies what is not. See One State Solution.

  15. Shegetz
    June 26, 2013, 10:13 am

    It always surprises me how easily people who claim moving 650,000 of one kind of person will ‘be impossible’ don’t even break stride to consider such things when contemplating the ‘transfer’ of millions of another kind of person.

    However, it doesn’t surprise me at all that people that carry around such stark examples of cognitive dissonance tend to be miserable, anxious, and angry at everything.

    So many self-inflicted wounds! Oh my.

  16. fdgsr
    June 28, 2013, 9:30 pm

    What would be a better solution than to create a state of Israel with equality, freedom and justice for all? Why not teach Israeli settlers to vote their minds in a multicultural Palestine with Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Ba’hai, Druze, and Samaritans? A united Israel could easily find the fundamental principle of human rights to reign in Hamas, Zionists, and all dissidents. No, I don’t think it will happen in my lifetime. After all, it took a long time after the Declaration of Independence of my country to fight a Civil War to abolish slavery in a significant part of the United States of America. (Four score and seven years ago…) It took well over a hundred more years to get some justice for the descendants of former slaves. It took a long time and defeat of Hitler Germany to bring some justice to Jews in America when Americans were caught with their human rights pants down in public violating our constitution and equality of all Americans under law. Jews were lynched in our southern states and discriminated against in other American examples of our idea of equality. If at some time in the next hundred years a United Israel re-designates itself as United Palestine (Israel), with equality and justice for all, that could be a milestone in human rights for Jews, Muslims and Christians as well as for many others now discriminated against. One state of Palestine/Israel with liberty and justice for all living within its borders with the right of return to all who claim it as their homeland could bring people together as no other could.

    • fdgsr
      June 28, 2013, 9:54 pm

      PS: PLO has as a charter condition the freedom of religion designation for a United Palestine. PLO (opposed by Islamists and Zionists) wants freedom of religion, Israel does not. Christian Palestinians want equality before the law, Zionists do not. Free Jewish people want freedom of religion, Zionist Jews do not. Jews are widely variant in their faith and beliefs, so are Muslims and Christians. Muslims: Shiite, Sunni, and Druze all believe in the Islamic faith, yet have very different interpretations. Nothing is further apart than orthodox Jews and bacon eating liberal Jews and Ethical Culturists.

  17. talknic
    June 28, 2013, 10:06 pm

    Sibiriak Did the UN recognize Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem?

    A) Israel signed an Armistice Agreement with TransJordan AGREEING TransJordan was the Occupying Power over Judea and Samaria

    B) Annexation was a matter between the Occupying Power and the Occupied. Self determination.

    C) Recognition isn’t a UN function. There is no UN/UNGA/UNSC vote on recognition. (There may be a vote on the adoption of a statement of acknowledgement or condemnation). Recognition is unilateral, outside of the UN in the International Community of Nations, individual state by individual state, at their own time.

    “According to Wikipedia” ” Is there anything inaccurate or misleading in that account?”

    A ) WikIPedia editorial policy results in third hand opinion. There is no restriction in MW on citing original documentation verbatim

    B) Yes it is entirely misleading. The usual WikIPeditors attempt to infer it was illegal because of the limited recognition. However the law tells folk whether or not something is illegal. Not recognition.

    See UNSC 252 and EIGHT reminders of binding Law, binding UN Charter, relevant binding conventions under which the UNSC condemned the unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem.

    You won’t find UNSC 252 mentioned on Wiki’s East Jerusalem tho. Any reference to it has been purged link to en.wikipedia.org

Leave a Reply