Kerry’s ‘Pax Israeliana’ has failed. What next?

Israel/Palestine
on 0 Comments
Kerry in Jerusalem
Kerry in Jerusalem, late on June 30, photo by State Department

How do we respond to Kerry? I don’t know of anyone familiar with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – across the board – who sees in the Kerry initiative anything other than an attempt to impose on the Palestinians a Pax Israeliana. In fact, neither Kerry nor his Israeli partners bother to deny it. For his part, Kerry’s main contribution to this latest incarnation of the long-moribund “peace process” is a vague $4 billion package of “incentives’ – part of what Amira Hass calls hush money – that bears a striking resemblance to the “economic peace” Netanyahu and Peres have been trying to peddle for years. Otherwise, Kerry is merely pressing the Palestinians to accept Israel’s preconditions for negotiations and its version of a two-state solution: no end to settlement construction, land expropriation, house demolitions (28,000 Palestinian homes demolished since 1967, and counting) or displacement; recognition of Israel as a “Jewish” state; the imposition of the Clinton Parameter’s on East Jerusalem (“what is Jewish is Israeli, what is Arab is Palestinian,” thus eliminating completely any kind of coherent urban entity that might serve as the Palestinians’ capital); Israel’s retention of at least six major settlement “blocs,” strategically placed to fragment the West Bank into disconnected and impoverished cantons while isolating what remains of East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank; long-term or permanent Israeli military control over the Jordan Valley and Palestine’s borders with Egypt and Jordan – well, the list goes on: Israeli control over Palestinian airspace, over their electromagnetic sphere (communications), etc. etc. etc.  

Despite the fact that a majority of Israeli Jews favor a two-state solution of some sort and hold fairly negative views of the settler enterprise, no solution that even approaches the Palestinian demand for a viable, truly sovereign, territorially contiguous state with East Jerusalem as its capital has a chance of passing through the Knesset, even if it was approved by referendum. And the will on the part of United States – Congress in particular – to force Israel to accept such a solution is missing altogether, as Kerry’s lackluster diplomacy demonstrates. Why, then, engage in the exercise at all? Well, there really is no compelling reason. The US, like Israel, has always downplayed any linkage between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the dynamics of the wider Middle East; indeed, it portrays Israel as a valued ally in the War on Terrorism, which is the lens through which American administrations regard the region. It certainly wouldn’t hurt if Israel’s interminable oppression of the Palestinians ended, and to the degree that the US feels international isolation over its absolute support for Israel it might even help America’s standing; hence Kerry’s push (or, better, nudge) towards starting negotiations before the UN convenes in September and the Palestinians score some other symbolic victories. But Kerry’s willingness to walk away from the process if “the sides” do not cooperate (as if we’re speaking of two players of equal clout and responsibility) indicates that his government can live with the Occupation indefinitely.

Israel’s ambivalence, bordering on disinterest, also belies any genuine sense of urgency. True, Netanyahu is concerned lest a bi-national state ultimately emerges between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, but he also believes that a combination of hush money to the Palestinian elites, continued humanitarian aid by the international community and outright pacification (including self-pacification by a Palestinian Authority) is sufficient to push the Palestinian issue off his list of priorities. Interestingly, both Netanyahu and Tzipi Livni, the minister in charge of negotiations, have conceded that the BDS movement poses a threat to Israel – and more than simply an economic threat. Calls for an economic boycott may have started with the settlements, says Livni, “but the [EU's] problem is with Israel, which is seen as a colonialist state. It won’t stop with the settlements but will spread to the rest of the country.” But that threat, too, diminishes in light of the eagerness of EU member states to purchase Israeli arms and high-tech products. Nor do they want to tangle with the US over the Palestinian issue.

So, yeah, why not try once more to reach “peace” with the Palestinians? Especially since the American-brokered process does not fundamentally endanger Israel’s major settlement blocs, its sovereignty over East Jerusalem or, in fact, its overall control of the West Bank. The Palestinians, Netanyahu reckons, have nowhere to go. On the ground they are exhausted, politically and physically fragmented, and cannot resist to any significant degree; politically their cause is steadily losing ground as it ceases to be an international flashpoint and disappears from view – despite periodic initiatives like Kerry’s or symbolic votes in the UN. So if Kerry’s mission succeeds, Israeli leaders calculate, we can either enter into negotiations that will lead to de facto apartheid-by-consent, the preferred outcome, or drag them out interminably. It really doesn’t matter since either scenario leaves Israel in control, our major settlements intact. And if Kerry’s efforts fail, well, we can easily blame the Palestinians for that and return peacefully to the status quo ante.

All this is not merely cynical statecraft, nor is it unique to the Israeli-Palestinian case. It goes to the very heart of international politics, to a fundamental reality we who seek a genuinely better world must grasp if we are to develop effective strategies to contend with it. That reality is that governments do not resolve conflicts (certainly not on the basis of human rights, international law and concerns over justice); they merely manage them.

I saw that clearly in a recent meeting with the officials of the Middle East Desk of a major European government. That government is one of the most critical of Israel in Europe, a stalwart of human rights and, in fact, a supporter of BDS, having divested all state pensions from Elbit Systems, a profitable Israeli military company.

Yes, they told me, we work assiduously to end the Occupation and to reach a two-state solution, the only one acceptable to us.

But what, I asked, if you yourselves became convinced that the two-state solution was gone? Would you consider another approach, a single democratic state, for example, or a bi-national one?

No, never, they replied. Look, they explained to me, it’s true we are against Israel’s occupation, but Israel itself is a friendly country to us. We cooperate on NATO matters and encourage our businesspeople to trade with Israel. We would never do anything to harm it. Therefore we cannot go anywhere beyond a two-state solution.

But if you were convinced that that solution is gone, I persisted, what would happen then? In that case, they answered, we would merely increase our humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. We could never accept any solution besides two-states that would jeopardize the integrity and security of Israel. 

In other words, this resolute defender of human rights in the international community could live very well with injustice and apartheid if no solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict was forthcoming. This structural support for Israel carries one proviso, however: Israel must keep the lid on. Management means to essentially disregard situations that do not disrupt the international system or the core interests of its major blocs, focusing instead on extinguishing immediately disruptive flashpoints. Even wars represent more conflict management – securing resources and trade routes while keeping troublesome elements at bay – than a sometimes necessary measure in actually resolving an issue. The message of the government I visited and others to Israel is this: we will continue to extend to you our de facto support on condition that your suppression of the Palestinians remains “under the accepted radar,” that the Occupation becomes neither a flashpoint (as it did during the Intifadas and the attacks on Gaza) requiring our attention or an embarrassment to our official support of human rights. This Israel has largely succeeded in doing. The fact that the conflict continues to fester, however, especially because people around the world refuse to let it disappear, is enough to bring Kerry to the region. It is not enough, though, to generate meaningful pressures on Israel to actually end its Occupation. 

If this is the case, then what are we grassroots activists to do? First, we must realize that we are in a bad marriage. Governments claim an exclusive right to run our international affairs; only they can raise armies, negotiate, sign treaties. That is why we expect them to assume leadership and solve the world’s problems. But they won’t do that, they won’t go beyond conflict management dictated by their own collective interests. Only when public pressures from below force them to act – indeed, only when public resistance forces a collapse in the status quo that compels them to genuinely address the fundamental grievances – will governments so the right thing.

The realization that we need governments, if only to nail down the solutions we ourselves espouse, provides direction to our strategies for change. We the people must be the ones to formulate the outlines of just solutions to conflicts; governments will not do that, they will merely look for the path of least resistance. And we must then forge effective strategies for forcing our solutions, or at least the principles underlying just solutions, on them. Finally, we must closely monitor how they conduct negotiations, insisting that they be transparent and that they genuinely address the issues in a just manner. We must keep them honest. 

In terms of achieving a just peace between Palestinians and Israelis – something that would break down the barriers that divide us and contribute measurably to the people’s ability to address the need for change throughout our region – we as civil society still have a long way to go. The logical progression of civil society involvement, formulating an acceptable solution, effectively pursuing it and in the meantime monitoring political developments, is lacking. Through BDS and other campaigns we have in fact generated meaningful pressure on governments to justly resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but we have not formulated an alternative to the two-state solution which Israel and the US have effectively eliminated. This is the most urgent item on our agenda. Without an end-game formulated by Palestinians in conjunction with their Israeli counterparts, we cannot successfully insert ourselves into the political process, nor can we effectively monitor political developments such as Kerry’s initiative.  

We must, then, at least define the principles upon which to evaluate whether political initiatives like Kerry’s are just and honest, I offer the following for consideration. I have presented these five principles elsewhere, but it might be useful to look at them in this context, if only to generate needed discussion.  

1. A just peace and the process leading up to it must conform to human rights, international law and UN resolutions. 

2. Regardless of whether there should or should not have been an Israel, two peoples now reside in Palestine-Israel and a just peace must be based on that bi-national reality.  

3. A just peace requires an acceptance of the Palestinian refugees’ right of return.

4. A just peace must be economically viable, with all the country’s inhabitants enjoying equal access to the country’s resources and economic institutions.

5. A just peace must be regional in scope – by itself Israel-Palestine is too small a unit to address all the issues at stake in the conflict — and it must address the security concerns of all in the region.

If it’s true that governments merely manage conflicts and place their own interests above those of human rights and international law, it is up to us to monitor any process they initiate – to keep it honest. Formulating a set of principles through which we can evaluate whether they are genuinely addressing the issues at hand or trying to impose an unjust but manageable “solution” is crucial – not for Israel-Palestine alone, but in regard to any of the world’s innumerable conflicts.

About Jeff Halper

Jeff Halper is the Director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD). He can be reached at [email protected]

Other posts by .


Posted In:

No Responses Yet

  1. Citizen
    July 3, 2013, 12:50 pm

    Maybe the Palestinians should take a look at what the Egyptians are doing? What would it take to get a similar proportionate number of them out in the streets protesting for all the world to see?

    • Ramzi Jaber
      July 3, 2013, 2:01 pm

      Totally. Absolutely. We must go to the streets ALL OF US, CONTINUOUSLY, DAY IN DAY OUT until we are free. I bet it will not take a few weeks before the occupation crumbles. Add BDS/ICC/ICJ and we have a winning formula.

      • tidings
        July 3, 2013, 5:26 pm

        It’s much easier to protest when you have a square in a large city. It’s hard to imagine (and obvious to understand why) a huge revolt taking place in the canonized, check pointed reality that is the West Bank or the virtual, isolated prison that is Gaza. One can fantasize about opposition leaders breaching the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt to express solidarity with their brothers. Unfortunately the Occupation and the blockade have deprived the Palestinian people of more than their rights and freedom. It has weakened their nerve and ability to dream.

      • Ramzi Jaber
        July 4, 2013, 11:17 am

        tidings, the zios with their criminal acts may have indeed weakened our nerve and ability to dream, but we are not defeated by a long shot. We will win. In fact, looking at the global picture and trends, we are actually winning slowly but surely. Just remember…. First they mock you, then they deny you, then they kill you, then you win….. paraphrasing the great Ghandi. BDS/ICC/ICJ onwards to 1S1P1V.

      • JLWarner
        July 4, 2013, 4:18 pm

        Ramzi

        I agree that the Palestinians must demand their freedom through massive, sustained non-violent protests. But it won’t be easy or fast. As Martin Luther King said there will be suffering and even some deaths.

        The Israelis will respond violently but the protests must continue.

        Tidings says it willbe hard for Palestinians to protest given the occupation. I disagree. Let 100,000 Palestinians from Ramallah march to the Qualendia checkjpoint on Friday morning and demand to go to Jerusalem to pray. And do that the next Friday and the next and the next.

        Or get 100,000 Palestinians from Jordan to approach the Allenby Bridge with a similar demand. Or 50,000 Palestinians from Hebron demanding to pray in the Shrine of the Patriarchs

        The re are ways to protest, but the protests must be massive and continuous.

    • Woody Tanaka
      July 3, 2013, 3:45 pm

      The difference, though, is that the Egyptians aren’t faced with a blood-thirsty, evil force, like the Palestinians. If the Palestinians did this, the zio terror forces would be out with guns blazing.

    • Shingo
      July 3, 2013, 8:29 pm

      Israel will just come up with an excuse to mow them down with live bullets.

      • Carllarc
        July 4, 2013, 8:06 am

        do recall the public Israeli disappointment that there wasn’t a much higher (credible) kill in the last Gaza ‘invasion’. it was tough for Netanyahu; Israelis wanted dead Palestinians but after the previous carnage the world opinion was a jam.

        The difference between Palestine and Egypt is of course the Egyptian army doesn’t seem to be doing the ‘mowing close to the ground’ as the idf so specializes in.

      • Ramzi Jaber
        July 4, 2013, 11:10 am

        Woody and Shingo, you’re right, they will mow us down the terrorist criminal regime that they are. But after they kill a few thousand in NON-VIOLENT DEMONSTRATIONS, what next? The world will be disgusted and demand their governments to do something. The question is: will the Us government just satisfy itself with a “this is not helpful” comment or be obliged to do something since the criminal zios will be using American arms paid for by American tax payer monies. That is the question.

  2. Citizen
    July 3, 2013, 12:58 pm

    Basically, nothing will be done because most Americans don’t care, and our leaders know it. I don’t know what it would it take for them to care. Maybe if Obama knocked on their door and told them we spend $8.5 Million a day on military aid to Israel and $0 on military aid to the Palestinians, and would you rather he give that money to your local community for job and mortgage help and education?

    • Woody Tanaka
      July 3, 2013, 3:43 pm

      Why would Obama do that? This isn’t about what America spends, but about where the AIPAC fifth columnists spend their campaign bribes. Obama doesn’t give a damn what happens to the Palestinians and he doesn’t give a damn about justice, peace or human rights, either. He just wants all the zionist cash to go to the D party, rather than the R party. Maybe if we were able to get the money out of politics then we might get someone in office who isn’t ready to fellate the donkey. Obama’s not that guy.

    • American
      July 3, 2013, 9:53 pm

      @ Citizen

      I dont think it’s that they dont care what our shitty gov does (on more than just Isr)…more like they dont know what to do about it…voting hasnt worked.

    • W.Jones
      July 3, 2013, 10:32 pm

      Let me put it this way: When you turn the lights on you can see more clearly.

  3. radii
    July 3, 2013, 1:53 pm

    The Obama Administration and Kerry are now able to say that israel refused their efforts and is not serious about the peace process and to put pressure on israel about their house and land seizures and ongoing abuse of Palestinians … if they don’t do it and just put their tails between their legs and let israel and its vast 5th column in the U.S. continue to dominate them then they are pathetic and bad and should feel bad

  4. Ramzi Jaber
    July 3, 2013, 2:04 pm

    Jeff, excellent article! Thank you. The answer to your question “What’s next” is: 1S1P1V.

  5. Sibiriak
    July 3, 2013, 2:17 pm

    Great article. The “five principles” seem a bit vague though. I realize they are only principles, but I still would like to hear Halper spell out what they would mean in actual practice.

    This part was extraordinarily important, imo:

    But what, I asked, if you yourselves became convinced that the two-state solution was gone? Would you consider another approach, a single democratic state, for example, or a bi-national one?

    No, never, they replied. Look, they explained to me, it’s true we are against Israel’s occupation, but Israel itself is a friendly country to us. We cooperate on NATO matters and encourage our businesspeople to trade with Israel. We would never do anything to harm it. Therefore we cannot go anywhere beyond a two-state solution.

    • Dutch
      July 3, 2013, 4:32 pm

      Exactly, as it gives Israel carte blanche. Precisely what has been going on for the last decades.

    • American
      July 3, 2013, 8:34 pm

      Yea curious what country that is…..which country Jeff?

      • ritzl
        July 5, 2013, 12:45 am

        My guess is Norway, given the pensions mention.

  6. seafoid
    July 3, 2013, 2:37 pm

    “Despite the fact that a majority of Israeli Jews favor a two-state solution of some sort”

    They never, ever vote for it.
    The majority of Israeli Jews think the world owes them something. And that the Palestinians should pay for it.

    • Woody Tanaka
      July 3, 2013, 3:28 pm

      “The majority of Israeli Jews think the world owes them something. And that the Palestinians should pay for it.”

      Yup. Typical attitude of your israelis: they eat the meal and someone else picks up the check.

    • American
      July 3, 2013, 8:49 pm

      Havent seen any polls that show what jeff is saying….ones I’ve seen lately indicate the opposite.

      • W.Jones
        July 3, 2013, 11:19 pm

        Funny, I commented something similar below.

      • seafoid
        July 4, 2013, 12:03 am

        Jeff is a nice guy and he really understands the predicament but he can’t admit how bad things have become in the Altneuland amongst the dominant group.

        Here’s a VERY interesting NYR article about occupied Poland in the 1940s.

        link to nybooks.com

        “Through a parallel account of the experience and fate of Będzin’s Jews, Fulbrook demonstrates that what to Klausa was “only administration” was in fact the implementation of policies that

        1 humiliated
        2 expropriated
        3 exploited
        4 impoverished
        5 starved,
        6 uprooted,
        and
        7 finally murdered the Jews of Będzin”

        Concerning the Bedouin of the Negev and the people of Gaza, Israel has implemented 6 out of 7 stages.

        And that’s just the way it is for most Zionists. As regular as sending the kids to school or having a beer with the guys.

  7. mondonut
    July 3, 2013, 2:41 pm

    I don’t know of anyone familiar with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – across the board – who sees in the Kerry initiative anything other than an attempt to impose on the Palestinians a Pax Israeliana.

    All the while bemoaning the unwillingness of the US to do precisely the same to Israel – “And the will on the part of United States – Congress in particular – to force Israel to accept such a solution is missing altogether”.

    And so now an ever elusive peace itself is not good enough, now it has to be a purposely vague “just” peace the expands beyond the usual Palestinian demands of East Jerusalem and the RoR, now it has to include regional demands and the emergence of a bi-national state.

    • Woody Tanaka
      July 3, 2013, 3:30 pm

      “now it has to be a purposely vague ‘just’ peace ”

      Yeah, it would be so simple for you people if you just impose an unjust peace the way the likes of Stalin and Hitler did on their “disputed territories” in years past.

      • mondonut
        July 4, 2013, 1:36 pm

        Woody Tanaka says: Yeah, it would be so simple for you people ,,,
        ===================================
        “you people”. What does that mean?

    • just
      July 3, 2013, 7:05 pm

      As they say, you snooze, you lose.

      1S1P1V

      It’s a great article, James. Thank you very much.

    • Hostage
      July 3, 2013, 11:41 pm

      And so now an ever elusive peace itself is not good enough, now it has to be a purposely vague “just” peace the expands beyond the usual Palestinian demands of East Jerusalem and the RoR, now it has to include regional demands and the emergence of a bi-national state.

      Just to keep the record straight: the UN has never proposed anything but a bi-national Jewish state with constitutional and UN-backed guarantees of legal equality and non-discrimination for the non-Jewish inhabitants. It adopted President Johnson’s five point speech as the basis for resolution 242 in 1967, which required a “just settlement” for the Palestine refugees.

      If any of that is still news to you, it only illustrates your own studied ignorance of the subject matter.

      • mondonut
        July 4, 2013, 2:27 pm

        Hostage says: Just to keep the record straight: the UN has never proposed anything but a bi-national Jewish state…
        ===========================================
        Just to keep the record straight, a bi-national state in the context of what Halper writes (the 1ss) is not the position of the UN, nor has it ever been. The “just settlement” of 242 is not the Palestinian’s RoR and UN-backed guarantees would of course be worthless within such a state.

        But you already know all that.

      • Hostage
        July 5, 2013, 11:45 pm

        Just to keep the record straight, a bi-national state in the context of what Halper writes (the 1ss) is not the position of the UN, nor has it ever been.

        It has been pointed out, time and again, that the proposed “Jewish State” was under an obligation according to the terms of the UNSCOP proposal and General Assembly resolution 181(II) to participate in an Economic Union with the Arab State that included a revenue sharing plan. The resolution explicitly stated that, if the parties failed to agree on the terms by 1 April 1948, the UN Palestine Commission was empowered to implement the plan of regional integration, right of transit, customs collections, etc.

        The Jewish State was also under an obligation to implement a minority protection plan that would constitutionally protect equal rights, property rights, and proportional representation in the provisional government.

        There was supposed to be a very sizable Palestinian Arab population in the so-called Jewish State. According to the final population figures supplied by the responsible British government officials, there would have a Palestinian Arab majority inside the boundaries of the proposed Jewish State that would have dominated the Constituent Assembly. As we all know, the Zionist’s militias captured and incorporated millions of extra dunams in their jurisdiction that were allocated to the Palestinian population and their proposed Arab state. So there should have been a sizable Palestinian Arab majority.

        The UN Ad Hoc Committee report, A/AC.14/32, dated 11 November 1947 noted the updated population figures supplied by the British mandatory government indicated that, from the outset, Arabs would constitute a majority of the population of the proposed “Jewish” state – 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews. See pdf file page 42 of 69.

        Where I’m from, that’s a formal legal prescription for a de jure bi-national state with two Arab majority cantons in union with one another.

      • Sibiriak
        July 6, 2013, 12:01 pm

        Hostage,

        The UN Ad Hoc Committee report, A/AC.14/32, dated 11 November 1947 noted the updated population figures supplied by the British mandatory government indicated that, from the outset, Arabs would constitute a majority of the population of the proposed “Jewish” state – 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews. See pdf file page 42 of 69.

        Very important info.

        So what actual meaning did the expression “independent Jewish state” have in the GA resolution 181?

      • James Canning
        July 6, 2013, 1:52 pm

        Very important info indeed. Bravo, Hostage.

      • mondonut
        July 6, 2013, 2:24 pm

        Hostage says: It has been pointed out, time and again, that the proposed “Jewish State”…
        ==============================================
        You have put forth lots of crazy theories, but this one tops them all. So you would contend that the UN never actually proposed two independent states, one Arab and one Jewish – in reality they proposed a bi-national state of two Arab cantons. Do the Arabs know about this? Does the UN?

        Of course, that is ridiculous on its face. The UN explicitly dismissed the notion of a bi-national state and had every intention of creating an independent Jewish state. Unlike that ransom letter of a document you discovered this document not only dismisses the bi-national state, for bonus points it also dismisses another pet theory of yours…
        link to domino.un.org

        4. Following the rejection of the extreme solutions in its informal discussions, the Committee devoted its attention to the binational State and cantonal proposals. It considered both, but the members who may have been prepared to consider these proposals in principle were not impressed by the workability of either. It was apparent that the binational solution, though attractive in some of its aspects, would have little meaning unless provision were made for numerical or political parity between the two population groups, as provided for in the proposal of Dr. J. L. Magnes. This, however, would require the inauguration of complicated mechanical devices which are patently artificial and of dubious practicality.

        154. The Jewish assurance that no political injustice would be done to the Arabs by the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine, since the Arabs have never established a government there, gains some support from the fact that not since 63 B.C., when Pompey stormed Jerusalem, has Palestine been an independent State.

      • Hostage
        July 6, 2013, 3:32 pm

        The UNSCOP Committee proposal, which was adopted unanimously, recognized the on-going need to respect the principle of freedom of trade, freedom of transit through a common transport system, and the continued use of a common currency.

        The UN plan maintained the economic unity of the country as a whole through the adoption of a formal plan of Economic Union established under international auspices and administered through a joint Economic Board of Governors. As a result, Palestine as a whole, was still to be governed as a single country comprised of states that were totally independent in name only:

        “In appraising the various proposals for the solution of the Palestine question, it shall be accepted as a cardinal principle that the preservation of the economic unity of Palestine as a whole is indispensable to the life and development of the country and its peoples.” (Unanimous Recommendation No. IX, Chapter V)

        So the ability to obtain loans, devalue the currency, and use shared resources in order to finance or enable mass immigration would have been limited or constrained.

        Many delegations spoke out during the 2nd Special Session and explicitly stated that the UN plan envisioned the establishment of states that were independent in name only, because the General Assembly had ensured that the economies and policies of both states remained formally interconnected.

        The resolution did not mean that a license had been granted to the Jewish Agency or the Yishuv to implement minority Jewish rule over the inhabitants or that they could undertake any transfer of the indigenous Palestinian population or restrict their freedom of movement and transit. It also did not mean that Jewish authorities had the discretion to unilaterally determine the status of the City of Jerusalem. It’s status as an internationalized territory remained unchanged. Only the authority administering the territory, i.e. the United Nations Organization itself, was altered under the plan.

        *During the 46th Session of the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee hearings on Israel’s membership application Mr Malik of Lebanon noted that

        “The United Nations had certainly not intended that the Jewish State should rid itself of its Arab citizens. On the contrary, section C of part I of the Assembly’s 1947 resolution had explicitly provided guarantees of minority rights in each of the two States. For example, it had prohibited the expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State except for public purposes, and then only upon payment of full compensation. Yet the fact was that 90 per cent of the Arab population of Israel had been driven outside its boundaries by military operations, had been forced to seek refuge in neighbouring Arab territories, had been reduced to misery and destitution, and had been prevented by Israel from returning to their homes. Their homes and property had been seized and were being used by thousands of European Jewish immigrants.

        * Lebanon noted that Israel had attempted to alter the status of Jerusalem and its representative, Abba Eban, responded by saying the UN would decide its status:

        The statement contained in the Lebanese draft resolution that the New City of Jerusalem had been proclaimed as part of the State of Israel was false and malicious. The most salient feature of the Government of Israel’s present attitude to the Jerusalem problem was its earnest desire to see the juridical status of the city satisfactorily determined by international consent. The second progress report of the Conciliation Commission did not accurately reflect the attitude of the Prime Minister of Israel on that question, as expressed by him during his meeting with the Commission on 7 April 1949, namely that the Israeli Government would put its views before the General Assembly, where the actual decision on the matter would be taken.

        link to unispal.un.org

        Recently an elderly Israeli General explained that the Zionist militias engaged in ethnic cleansing operations. He said that if they hadn’t there would have been a million more Arabs and no Jewish State. Ben Gurion and Shertok repeatedly stated that the return of the refugees or the incorporation of more Arab territory would mean the end of the State of Israel.

        *During the 20th Sitting of the first Knesset Ben Gurion explained that annexing the Triangle and Hebron would add 500,000 to 800,000 Arabs to the population of the State of Israel. He noted that the Arabs would outnumber the Jews and that they would have to be given the vote. The Herut MKs replied that there were millions of Jews elsewhere in the world that would be willing to immigrate. Ben Gurion replied that the new Arab Knesset would adopt laws that would prevent them from coming. If there hadn’t been any ethnic cleansing, that would have been the first order of business for the Palestinian Arab majority. See “The Armistice Agreements with the Arab States”, in Netanel Lorch (ed), Major Knesset Debates 1948-1981, Vol. 2, JCPA/University of America Press, 1993, pages 514-515 (pdf file page 94 of 186) link to jcpa.org

      • mondonut
        July 6, 2013, 7:08 pm

        Hostage says: As a result, Palestine as a whole, was still to be governed as a single country comprised of states that were totally independent in name only:
        ————————-
        Thanks for the inappropriately long history lesson. But independent in name only is a leap that only you are willing to make. The UN had no intention of making the sovereignty of the proposed states subservient to a Board of Governors.

        But once again your insistence to keep shoveling is taking this off topic. Which is that the 1ss solution that Halper refers to is an obstacle to peace – not a solution.

      • Sibiriak
        July 6, 2013, 11:12 pm

        Hostage, thanks for that information.

        Many delegations spoke out during the 2nd Special Session and explicitly stated that the UN plan envisioned the establishment of states that were independent in name only…

        So, given the prospect of an Arab near-majority or actual majority, was the proposed independent “Jewish state” to be “Jewish” in name only as well?

        Another question: regarding state lands–under res.181, would the Jewish Agency have gotten control of those lands (apparently a large percentage of the territory) and been able to legally reserve them for the “Jewish people” alone?

        Finally, we have discussed in detail various legal implications of res.182, but what were the *legal* implications of the war between Israel and various Arab states in 1948. Was that judged to be an act of aggression against the new Israeli State?

    • Shingo
      July 3, 2013, 11:45 pm

      And so now an ever elusive peace itself is not good enough, now it has to be a purposely vague “just” peace the expands beyond the usual Palestinian demands of East Jerusalem and the RoR, now it has to include regional demands and the emergence of a bi-national state.

      Of course, Mondonut plays the part of the useful idiot by pretending as though the previous demands have already been met.

      • mondonut
        July 4, 2013, 1:55 pm

        Shingo says: Of course, Mondonut plays the part of the useful idiot by pretending as though the previous demands have already been met.
        =========================================
        Another invention? I made no such claim nor would I. The rather simple point (that you missed entirely) is that a difficult peace is not achieved by expanding its requirements.

      • Shingo
        July 5, 2013, 11:08 pm

        Another invention?

        No, it’s called noticing the elephant in the room. The simple point is that you and your fellow Hasbarats have a notorious habit of pretending that prior agreements and international law ( that you have worked overtime to bury) are NEW conditions or expanded demands.

        That is why just about every comment you make tries to dismiss ROR admin existent, in spite of UN194 and the fact Israel agreed to 194 as a condition if its admission to the UN.

      • Hostage
        July 6, 2013, 12:05 am

        Another invention? I made no such claim nor would I. The rather simple point (that you missed entirely) is that a difficult peace is not achieved by expanding its requirements.

        The requirements that govern the settlement include the customary prohibitions against the acquisition of territory by war and forced transfer or deportation of the population. If you are asking for exceptions, then you are maintaining a belligerent claim in violation of another explicit requirement of the international laws reflected in resolution 242.

      • mondonut
        July 6, 2013, 2:57 am

        Shingo says: No, it’s called noticing the elephant in the room.
        —————————————————————————
        First of all, I did not refer to the RoR as an expanded demand. I explicitly referred to it as one of the usual demands. So right there your comment makes no sense. Nonetheless…

        1. UNGA 194 does not provide any “rights” at all
        2. It is a non-binding resolution (no matter how many times it is repeated).
        3. If it had provided a RoR, it would not have provided the one the Palestinians claim, whereby descendants are somehow afforded the right as well.
        4. Israel did not agree to 194 as a condition to enter the UN.

      • talknic
        July 6, 2013, 6:49 am

        @ mondonut“The rather simple point (that you missed entirely) is that a difficult peace is not achieved by expanding its requirements”

        The Palestinians have not introduced ANY expansion of requirements. The Palestinians ask only for their rights according to the Law and UNGA/UNSC resolutions reminding Israel of binding law and Israel’s obligation to adhere to it. Adherence to the law is required whether there is conflict or not, negotiations or not. It exists to prevent conflicts from arising in the first place and/or escalating.

        Jerusalem: corpus separatum was never instituted. Jerusalem has never been legally separated from what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared and recognized as independent of Palestine per its plea for recognition link to trumanlibrary.org

        Israel has not since legally annexed any territory to it’s Internationally recognized legal sovereign extent.

        It has been Israel introducing entirely irrelevant, nonsensical expansionist requirements, NONE of which have any legal basis.

        ‘Demanding recognition as a Jewish state’ One does not and cannot demand recognition link to tinyurl.com

        ‘A peace agreement with the PLO before Israel acknowledges a Palestinian state’ The peace agreement would be with an entity that will be dissolved as soon as independence is attained.

        ‘A peace agreement before allowing any RoR’ A real cute piece of idiotic nonsense. People allowed RoR would then be ISRAELI citizens, subject to the Israeli side of the bargain, not the Palestinian side.

        You’ve been thrown factual lifebuoy after factual lifebuoy, yet you prefer to swim around in a room full of elephant crap. Keep up the good work

  8. DICKERSON3870
    July 3, 2013, 2:56 pm

    RE: “And the will on the part of United States – Congress in particular – to force Israel to accept such a solution is missing altogether, as Kerry’s lackluster diplomacy demonstrates. Why, then, engage in the exercise at all? ~ Halper

    SEE: “Kerry and Chutzpah”, by Uri Avnery, CounterPunch, 6/28/13

    [EXCERPTS] We have watched this procedure for many years. Successive American presidents have undertaken to bring the two sides together. It is an American belief, rooted in Anglo-Saxon tradition, that if two reasonable, decent people get together to thrash out their differences, everything will fall into place. It’s almost automatic: meet – talk – agree.
    Unfortunately, it does not quite work this way with conflicts between nations, conflicts that may have deep historical roots. In meetings between leaders of such nations, they often just want to hurl old accusations at each other, with the aim of convincing the world that the other side is utterly depraved and despicable.
    Either side, or both, may be interested in prolonging the meetings forever. The world sees the leaders meeting, the mediator and the photographers working hard, everybody talking endlessly of peace, peace, peace, [i.e., "the integrity of the process" as Kerry puts it ~ J.L.D.] . . .
    . . . Netanyahu declares, with his usual sincerity, that he wants to meet. Nay, that he is eager to meet. With the polished charm of a seasoned TV presenter familiar with the power of visual images, he even offered to put up a tent halfway between Jerusalem and Ramallah (at the infamous Qalandia checkpoint?) and sit down with Abbas and Kerry until a full agreement on all aspects of the conflict is achieved.
    Who could resist such a generous offer? Why the hell does Abbas not jump at it and grasp it with with both hands?
    For a very simple reason.
    The very start of new negotiations would be a political triumph for Netanyahu. Actually, it’s all he really wants – the ceremony, the bombast, the leaders shaking hands, the smiles, the speeches full of goodwill and talk of peace.
    And then? Then nothing. Negotiations that go on endlessly, months, years, decades. [i.e., "the integrity of the process" as Kerry puts it ~ J.L.D.]
    We have seen it all before. Yitzhak Shamir, one of Netanyahu’s predecessors, famously boasted that he would have dragged out the negotiations forever.
    The profit for Netanyahu would be clear and immediate. He would be seen as the Man of Peace. The present government, the most rightist and nationalist Israel has ever known, would be rehabilitated. The people around the world who preach a boycott of Israel in all spheres would be shamed and disarmed. The growing alarm in Jerusalem about the “de-legitimization” and “isolation” of Israel would be relieved.
    What would the Palestinian side get out of it? Nothing. No stop to the settlements. Not even the release of old prisoners who have been incarcerated for more than 20 years (like those who were released to Hamas in return for Gilad Shalit). Sorry, no “preconditions”!
    Abbas demands that the aim of the negotiations be spelled out in advance: the establishment of the State of Palestine with borders “based on” the pre-1967 lines. The omission of this statement from the Oslo accords of 1993 led to their eventual evaporation. Why make the same mistake twice?
    Also, Abbas wants to set a time limit for the negotiations. A year or so.
    Netanyahu, of course, refuses all of this.
    At the moment, poor Kerry is trying to put something together that would satisfy the wolf while keeping the lamb alive. Give Abbas American assurances without Israeli assurances, for example. . .
    . . . What can the Palestinians do to put pressure on the Israeli government? Very little. There is the threat of a Third Intifada. It worries the army, but does not frighten it. The army’s answer is more repression and bloodshed. Or another resolution of the UN General Assembly, elevating Palestine to the rank of a full member of the world organization. Netanyahu would be furious, but the actual damage would be limited.
    . . . ANY PRESSURE to start meaningful negotiations that would lead to a peace agreement in – say – a year must come from the President of the United States of America.
    That is so obvious that it hardly needs mentioning.
    This is the crux of the matter.
    Kerry can bring cash, a lot of cash, to bribe the Palestinians, or whisper into their ears dire threats to frighten them into meeting Netanyahu in his imaginary tent – it will mean next to nothing.
    The only chance to start real negotiations is for Barack Obama to put his full weight behind the effort, to confront Congress and the hugely powerful pro-Israel lobby and dictate to both sides the American peace plan. We all know what it must look like – a combination of the (Bill) Clinton outline and the pan-Arab peace initiative.
    If John Kerry is unable to deliver this pressure, he should not even try. It really is an imposition to come here and shake things up when you have no means to impose a solution. Sheer impertinence.
    Or, as you say in Hebrew, Chutzpah.

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to counterpunch.org

    • American
      July 3, 2013, 10:01 pm

      ”It is an American belief, rooted in Anglo-Saxon tradition, that if two reasonable, decent people get together to thrash out their differences, everything will fall into place. It’s almost automatic: meet – talk – agree.”

      Yea and if that didnt work we took off a glove and slapped the other fellow in the face with it and challenged him to a duel.

  9. seafoid
    July 3, 2013, 3:17 pm

    Judaism has failed.What next?

    • JustJessetr
      July 4, 2013, 12:18 am

      That is an incredibly bigoted statement.

      • homingpigeon
        July 4, 2013, 5:43 am

        Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism, among others, have failed.

      • amigo
        July 4, 2013, 6:12 am

        “That is an incredibly bigoted statement.”JJ

        Describe how it has succeeded.

      • JustJessetr
        July 4, 2013, 8:49 am

        I’m reading your response as sarcastic, not as one who never heard of Judaism until now.

        Go ahead, look past all the millions of people who are happy and proud of being Jewish no matter what disdain you may hold for it. Judaism and Torah has provided spiritual and legal guidance worldwide for Jews throughout the centuries. That’s just scratching the surface. One doesn’t have to equate Zionism with Judaism, but you equate Judaism with failure. That’s more than ignorant, that’s just sad.

      • amigo
        July 4, 2013, 11:53 am

        “One doesn’t have to equate Zionism with Judaism, but you equate Judaism with failure. That’s more than ignorant, that’s just sad.”JJ

        Why so. 69% of Jews are Zionists and given what Zionists do in the name of Judaism, it,s not a stretch to suggest that Judaism has failed.

        You allowed Zionists to hijack your religion.

        Now, that is sad.

      • seafoid
        July 4, 2013, 2:55 pm

        Torah has provided legal and spiritual guidance but with all due respect it does not work as a political guide and has been a disaster when used in the territories to justify systemic human rights abuses.

        By all means believe in Torah but those rabbis have no clue when it comes to geopolitics and diplomacy.

        The house of Judaism has been bet on YESHA and the bet is a beaten docket.

      • seafoid
        July 4, 2013, 8:46 am

        The return to Zion has failed. There is no Jerusalem worth praying for. Not when it requires systemic violence to run the place.

        And Tikkun olam is for losers.

        link to haaretz.com

        “And he is scared,” wrote Kol, who has helped advance bills in the fields of children’s rights, violence against children, health and education. “I am scared. I am scared that we will continue living like this. And that fear scares me.”

        link to ft.com

        “In 1976, Saul Bellow wrote: “No one is at ease in Zion. No one can be. The world crisis is added to the crisis of the state, and both are added to the problems of domestic life.” His words (in To Jerusalem and Back) ring as true as they ever did.”

        . link to ft.com

        “I recalled a conversation in 1991 with Professor Stanley Cohen, the eminent sociologist who died last month. We were discussing IDF human rights abuses, which Cohen worked tirelessly to expose. He turned to talk instead about his profound concern for young Israelis, specifically the brutalising effect that militarisation was having, and would have, on successive generations of young men and women. At the time his concerns seemed misdirected; on reflection what struck me was their prophetic accuracy.”

      • JustJessetr
        July 4, 2013, 8:56 pm

        And those replies mean only one thing to whom Judaism means everything: that Judaism has succeeded because it is non-monolithic. We tolerate our own diverging opinions while considering ourselves the same family. That’s one source of it’s ancient strength. Yet, you have the same answer for everything: Israel is wrong everyday in every way. It’s the answer of a fanatic and fanatics always fail. You can sit there and take potshots at Jews all you like, but we laugh at people like you because we know you’re wrong. Dead wrong.

    • thankgodimatheist
      July 4, 2013, 8:14 am

      “Judaism has failed.”
      Yes it did and Islam is not far behind falling as we speak….Inshallah

      • thankgodimatheist
        July 4, 2013, 8:26 am

        And eventually all of them will. Inevitable.

      • JustJessetr
        July 4, 2013, 8:43 am

        Yes, maybe once the earth blows up. But not before.

      • amigo
        July 4, 2013, 11:56 am

        “Yes, maybe once the earth blows up. But not before.” JJ

        And I bet it will be blown up by some crazed religious freak.

      • libra
        July 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

        jj: Yes, maybe once the earth blows up. But not before.

        Samson Option alert!

      • JustJessetr
        July 6, 2013, 10:46 am

        Most likely a Christian with an Armageddon worldview.

    • Annie Robbins
      July 5, 2013, 2:00 pm

      seafoid, any failures can be attributed to those who interpret the religion, which can be said for all religions. for religions themselves do not change. for example i wouldn’t claim buddhism had failed because of the monk in myanmar instigating the ethnically cleansing of muslims there, or whatever it is he’s doing.

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 5, 2013, 2:36 pm

        “for religions themselves do not change”

        Sure they do. Mormons used to be explicitly polygamists. Now they are not. Jews used to slaughter animals sacrificially. Now they do not. Christians used to live communisticly. Now they do not.

      • James Canning
        July 6, 2013, 2:25 pm

        Mormons changed their theology re: black people, too. And charging interest for loan of money used to be mortal sin for Christians.

      • seafoid
        July 5, 2013, 2:37 pm

        The problem for judaism is that yesha is backed up by the torah and unlike the other systems which focus on the next life , shangri la in jerusalem is supposed to be happening now. What the religious idf feeder schools in Israel teach is insane. The combo of messianism, zero religious discipline and the nihilism of the IDF is a disaster. Like islam there is no credible central authority so any rabbi can make up orthodoxy and there is no separation of religion and state. Zionism has succeeded in loading the costs onto all Jews. Anyone who disagrees is either self hating or straight out antisemitic.

      • tree
        July 5, 2013, 2:46 pm

        …any failures can be attributed to those who interpret the religion, which can be said for all religions. for religions themselves do not change.

        Religions (all religions), being man-made constructs, DO change over time, annie, and all can be called failures, as well as successes, depending on what you feel their purpose is.

      • seafoid
        July 5, 2013, 4:35 pm

        Jerusalem will have to return to being a metaphysical concept in the judaism version 2.0 or whatever that develops after the collapse of the Israel project.

      • JustJessetr
        July 7, 2013, 8:19 am

        Except it won’t collapse.

  10. libra
    July 3, 2013, 4:40 pm

    I can’t help thinking there’s something very familiar about the Kerry initiative. Could it be possible that the former Senator for Massachusetts is being advised by that very same state’s leading Liberal Zionist?

    Surely not? Yet longstanding Mondoweiss readers will recognize the Zionist imperative that two states are so vital to avoid the demographic disaster of a de facto single state that the Palestinians must make all the concessions to save “the Jewish State”. And the liberal bit? Well, yet again it’s those great dollops of (American) cash to the Palestinians to salve his conscience.

    This is absurd! Maybe so, on the face of it. Still I wonder just who it is pictured in the purple tie next to Kerry on that furtive-looking nighttime stroll in Jerusalem? Surely it couldn’t be this man, could it? I think Phil needs to take a close look and let us know.

  11. dbroncos
    July 3, 2013, 6:59 pm

    I agree with Mr. Halper that BDS could be greatly advanced, at least here in America, by identifying more specific political goals – a “bi-national reality” as he put it.
    As I understand it, however, most Palestinians still prefer a two state solution. Until a majority of Palestinians are convinced that a two state solution is no longer viable and that one state is their best option, BDS will suffer from having a vague agenda based on the oft mentioned and ignored terms: “human rights” and “international law”. If Palestinian pleas for sympathy were instead attached to more specific concepts such as voting rights, civil rights and equity under the law their case would be made stronger here in the US and elsewhere.

    • Djinn
      July 4, 2013, 1:06 am

      There is nothing vague about the aims of the BDS movement. It calls on Israel to;

      1 end the occupation – fairly straight forward specific concept no?
      2 allow for the right of return as per international law or compensation – again pretty specific
      3 legislative equality under the law regardless of religious/ethnic background

      Asking for voting rights assumes a position re 1s/2s which is further down the road and does not have to be decided before these 3 demands are met

      • JustJessetr
        July 7, 2013, 8:25 am

        It’s goals are “end the occupation.”

        Yes, and that’s a fine goal, until one peels back the curtain of unity amongst the left and sees how there are several competing definitions of the what the occupation really is.

        Most people would accept that Israel has to move out of the West Bank. It starts to get tricky (and most people aren’t going to listen to long diatribes about this or that UN resolution, or spend more than a second looking at maps – it’s going to be a public relations war) when opinions are offered about what the occupation really is. I see Palestinians marching here in NYC with signs that say “One Nation from the Mediterranean to the Jordan”. That repels the vast majority of Western interests. So does Arab rule of East Jerusalem.

        So, there’s nothing very straightforward about any of it, and that’s just the first principle.

  12. Hostage
    July 3, 2013, 9:53 pm

    I don’t think it will ever dawn on the international community that its too late for any proposition they adopt on the shape of the final settlement. They’ll simply loose patience and impose one and everyone will wonder why it took so long.

    During the Reagan era, US Ambassador Kirkpatrick narrowly headed-off calls for an international diplomatic conference, ala Versailles, that would be empowered to impose a solution – including the creation of the State of Palestine and the demarcation of its borders. Many thought that the Madrid Conference might be leading in that direction, including the Israelis who hastily concluded the back channel negotiations on the Oslo Accords instead.

    The UN member states aren’t just enamored with the two state solution. It has been codified in international law by its incorporation in key national legislation and UN Security Council resolutions that have never been rescinded.

    The majority of ICC member states are disposed to view Palestinian claims more favorably than the General Assembly does. For that matter, it’s more likely that the General Assembly will overrule reluctant EU member States and go back to the ICJ under the existing Uniting for Peace framework regarding the on-going 10th Emergency Special Session to directly challenge the do nothing Security Council’s failure to be guided by either jus cogens or customary law, much less its own resolutions on the settlements and the Road Map (e.g. 1515 and 1860) or the advisory opinions of the primary UN judicial organs and treaty monitoring bodies.

    The status of South West Africa/Namibia was addressed to the ICJ for opinions on three occasions before the Security Council finally caved-in and took concrete action on sanctions

  13. gingershot
    July 3, 2013, 10:34 pm

    What’s next for Israel?

    How about tearing her a new Non-Apartheid orifice with the ICC and BDS?

  14. Ludwig
    July 3, 2013, 11:00 pm

    Could we have some citation or proof that most “Israeli Jews favor a two-state solution of some sort and hold fairly negative views of the settler enterprise”

  15. RJL
    July 3, 2013, 11:15 pm

    What in your 5 points negates a two state solution? What in the one state solution, that intrinsically would push out most, if not all, the Jews, is fair and humane? No way would the Palestinians tolerate a large Jewish presence in “their” land. Aren’t you merely couching your disdain for the Jewish presence in “Palestine” with “reasons” the two state solution has failed, so try the other more draconian one? What is to stop even a Judenrein Palestine from not splintering the way Syria, and Egypt to a lesser degree, is currently experiencing? What stability would yet another arab country in that region do to provide a democratic, thriving country in place of Israel? You’re not dreaming; you are nightmaring, at my people’s cost. No thanks. Go pick on the Iraqis instead. Ah, yes, they’re a perfect example of democracy and stability.

    • just
      July 4, 2013, 12:19 am

      wow, RJL. You don’t even attempt to hide your disdain for everyone else in “your” neighborhood. Palestinians deserve to live as HUMANS, not penned up, controlled, stolen from, and Occupied. You and your “people” (as you term them) brought this on by yourselves assisted and enabled by your “big brother”.

      There is nothing in a one state solution that would “push” out Jewish people. I can guess from their current behavior that they would leave of their own volition lickety split because the Israelis want Israel to be for Jewish folks only. They don’t like their semitic brothers and sisters. Sad.

      Yes, Iraq is suffering– WE did it. Your derision of others is perfectly loathsome.

      btw– ‘your’ democracy is only for you– nobody else!

      • JustJessetr
        July 7, 2013, 9:19 am

        Israeli’s wouldn’t leave the 1 state. They’d stay and try to work it out between themselves and Palestinians. And as soon as the first suicide bomber blows up a Passover seder, Israelis will say to the rest of the world, “See? We told you so!” And then they’ll take it all back and no one worth listening to will complain.

    • homingpigeon
      July 4, 2013, 6:15 am

      “What in the one state solution, that intrinsically would push out most, if not all, the Jews, is fair and humane?”

      The point of the one country solution is that Israelis would be able to live anywhere between the river and the sea, as would Palestinians.

      It seems there are some Israelis more unsettled by the possibility of living in peace than they are troubled by the prospect of sacrificing more lives to a continued conflict.

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 4, 2013, 7:43 am

        “It seems there are some Israelis more unsettled by the possibility of living in peace than they are troubled by the prospect of sacrificing more lives to a continued conflict.”

        I think they’re just racist and can’t stand the thought that they might have to live next door to people they believe are “inferior” to themselves.

      • JustJessetr
        July 4, 2013, 8:27 am

        “The point of the one country solution is that Israelis would be able to live anywhere between the river and the sea, as would Palestinians. ”

        They weren’t welcome by the surrounding Arabs before 1948, and they would subject to even worse Jew-bashing and persecution if the 1SS was implemented. If you think Arabs would tolerate even sharing a piece of land with “heretics”, then you are very naive. As soon as the 1SS solution is implemented, then the Arabs would say, “Yep, 1 state. For us. Juden, raus!”

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 4, 2013, 12:40 pm

        ” they would subject to even worse Jew-bashing and persecution if the 1SS was implemented.”

        Oh, baloney. A one-state solution would be one in which the rights of everyone, Jew and Palestinian alike are respected. But you don’t want that, do you, because then you wouldn’t be able to stomp on Palestinian heads with your Jackboots, would you?

        “If you think Arabs would tolerate even sharing a piece of land with ‘heretics’, then you are very naive.”

        Wow, racist and stupid. The word you’re looking for is “infidel,” Einstein.

        “As soon as the 1SS solution is implemented, then the Arabs would say, ‘Yep, 1 state. For us. Juden, raus!’”

        Yes, because we all now that Arabs speak German. Bigot. Damn, you zios have mental problems. Whoever thought running a society based on untreated PTSD (Hell, PTSD by proxy for most) would be a good idea?

      • amigo
        July 4, 2013, 1:41 pm

        “As soon as the 1SS solution is implemented, then the Arabs would say, “Yep, 1 state. For us. Juden, raus!”” JJ

        I suggest you contact the GOI real quick.They are busy building facts on the ground which happen to be ensuring the 2SS is dead.

        As for your Juden raus claim, are you too, suffering from that victimitus disease so common in Zionist apologists.

        And yes , you are a Zionist even though earlier you tried to claim otherwise.

        “One doesn’t have to equate Zionism with Judaism,.” JJ

      • JustJessetr
        July 4, 2013, 9:40 pm

        “Oh, baloney. A one-state solution would be one in which the rights of everyone, Jew and Palestinian alike are respected. ”

        Oh yes. Which of Israel’s neighbors has set this precedent for respecting the rights of Jews? Egypt? Syria? Lebanon? Jordan? Perhaps the Palestinians, who are more educated than most, will behave differently, but there is nothing that suggests so with Hamas still calling for full destruction of Israel. A 1SS solution will change everything according to your magical thinking only. You must be seriously blind to not see this or think everyone around you is an idiot. As an act of good will, I’ll lay odds on your blindness.

      • Shingo
        July 5, 2013, 11:23 pm

        Perhaps the Palestinians, who are more educated than most, will behave differently, but there is nothing that suggests so with Hamas still calling for full destruction of Israel.

        What do you mean still ? What has Israel done since THEY created Hamas to change this position? They are still occupying Palestine, they are still murdering, stealing land, oppressing Palestinians. So what has Israel dine to inspire Hamas to change it’s policies?

        Of course, your claim remains false in any case. Hamas have said they would accept the Arab Peace Initiative, which recognized Israel
        and normalizes relations between Israel and the 22 Arab signatories.

        Too bad that Israel rejects this incredibly generous offer.

      • Shingo
        July 6, 2013, 8:15 am

        If you think Arabs would tolerate even sharing a piece of land with “heretics”, then you are very naive.

        Typical Zionist projection.

        It’s the Zionists who came to conquer the land and drive out the indigenous population. To argue that after having suffered 64 years of ethnic cleansing, mass murder and land theft, the Arabs might not roll out the red carpet is grossly dishonest.

      • JustJessetr
        July 6, 2013, 10:01 am

        “Too bad that Israel rejects this incredibly generous offer.”

        It’s too bad Israel does lots of things. But looking at Hamas’ charter, instead of what they say to the newspapers so that you and your buddies can crow to the world about some hyperlink, isn’t one of them. Hamas hasn’t changed its explicit and spelled-out determination to destroy Israel. Whatever Likudniks, Zionists, etc, are doing on their end to kill the peace process, it’s not like they have a partner for peace in Hamas, blockade or no. They never will.

      • James Canning
        July 6, 2013, 2:09 pm

        Bravo, Shingo. And yes, Hamas accepted 2002 Saudi peace plan, meaning acceptance of Israel within 1967 borders.

    • talknic
      July 4, 2013, 7:21 am

      RJL Question: Why is it the only proper noun you have lower cased is ‘a’rab?

      A typo? Let’s see … link to mondoweiss.net
      Count : “Arab ” (0 results found)
      Count : “arab ” (31 results found)

      And you expect to be taken seriously?

    • Hostage
      July 4, 2013, 7:47 am

      What in your 5 points negates a two state solution?

      Since you ask, I explicitly stated that it was President Johnson who insisted that his five points, including a “just settlement for the refugees”, be incorporated in resolution 242. He specifically complained that both sides had prevented the refugees from exercising their right to either return to their homes or opt for compensation and resettlement elsewhere.

      Israel employed resolution 242 to negate a two state solution for several decades. It claimed that Palestine wasn’t specifically mentioned and it refused to abide by the terms of the resolution and recognize “the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of every state in the area” if that meant Jordan.

      FYI, the “territorial integrity norm” is reflected in the customary prohibition of acquisition of territory by war and forced population displacements or transfers. The Security Council is unconditionally bound by customary norms. That’s why a “just settlement” cannot be taken to mean that the Security Council intended to endorse the involuntary displacement of the refugees under the guise of a two state settlement.

  16. W.Jones
    July 3, 2013, 11:18 pm

    “a majority of Israeli Jews favor a two-state solution of some sort”
    What about Dov Waxman’s claim in Haaretz that a majority of their American community counterparts surveyed do not support Palestinian statehood?

  17. Nevada Ned
    July 4, 2013, 3:07 am

    Thanks, Jeff Halper, for a sobering article.

    One possible source of strength went unmentioned in your article:

    The Palestinian cause is popular – and Israel is unpopular – with people all over the world. The only exceptions are in the US and in Israel itself. There ought to be some way to build on the fact that Palestinian cause is strongly supported by the majority of people, all over the world.

    Egyptians support the Palestinians, for example. In the past, the Mubarak regime simply didn’t care what its subjects thought. The short term (or long term) of Egypt is hard to predict. But if, in the future, Egyptian public opinion played more of a role, that would put some pressure on Israel.

    I don’t have all the answers, but let’s put it out for Mondoweiss readers to discus.

  18. dimadok
    July 4, 2013, 10:58 am

    Demanding honesty requires from the speaker to be honest himself. And here Mr. Halper fails- no one in Israel will agree to the return of professional refugees, growing in numbers every year, enjoying the unprecedented amount of money from UN, while being denied every common rights from their countries of residence and birth! You want honesty-talk to the Arab world and ask to give Palestinians full citizenship, before you make demands from Israels.

    • Hostage
      July 4, 2013, 2:18 pm

      Demanding honesty requires from the speaker to be honest himself. And here Mr. Halper fails- no one in Israel will agree to the return of professional refugees, growing in numbers every year, enjoying the unprecedented amount of money from UN, while being denied every common rights from their countries of residence and birth!

      Really? For all practical purposes the European Jewish refugees were the subjects of their very own UN refugee convention in 1951 – and they’ve been adopted by a country that has been the largest recipient of US foreign assistance and totally unprecedented outpourings of war crimes reparations from European governments, banks, and businesses. During the mandate era the international community pursued a one state solution in Palestine for Jews who were being denied basic rights from “their countries of residence and birth”. So why should we treat the Palestinians with less generosity?

      • dimadok
        July 4, 2013, 6:28 pm

        @Hostage.Congratulations- you’ve managed to ignore/miss every single point of mine.
        I have no problem with the “original” Palestinian refugees returning ar accepting some compensation, as generous as it can be. I have a complete problem with their decedents, relatives and others who will jump the bandwagon of the return to the most modern state of the whole Middle East. Additionally, I and Israeli public have given their Arab Jews refugees , including their non-Jewish relatives, full citizenship and rights. Palestinians are still at the limbo.
        Amount of money paid to Israel by Germany and other countries, is a fraction of the actual property values that was lost and is combined with the reparations for the human suffering.
        However, if the international community, yourself included, should feel generous-which is constantly failed, Arab states leading the list, I would welcome it. But please do not insult my intelligence, when all the costs and burden will be carried by Israel alone.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 4, 2013, 7:38 pm

        when all the costs and burden will be carried by Israel alone.

        ha ha ha, when does israel ever carry all ‘cost and burden’ alone??? israel’s had its hand out since day one. you’ve got a lot of nerve living off stolen land and stolen resources. what chutzpa.

      • Hostage
        July 4, 2013, 9:23 pm

        @Hostage.Congratulations- you’ve managed to ignore/miss every single point of mine.
        I have no problem with the “original” Palestinian refugees returning ar accepting some compensation, as generous as it can be. I have a complete problem with their decedents, relatives and others who will jump the bandwagon of the return to the most modern state of the whole Middle East.

        I can’t insult your intelligence, until you bring some to the table. The Palestinians probably wouldn’t object to the hypothetical return of the ancient Hebrews, but they have as much right as you do to object to the Polish, Lithuanian, Russian, French, and German decedents, relatives and others who jumped on the bandwagon of so-called return. Once again I see no reason to treat them with less generosity than your bunch of blowhards. Where I’m from, the State of Israel is considered dead weight to modernity anyway, e.g. OECD: Israel is poorest of all developed countries link to jpost.com

      • JustJessetr
        July 4, 2013, 9:29 pm

        Wow. You’re so modern. I bet you lie awake at night sweating how entire developed countries don’t reach your standards.

      • Mayhem
        July 4, 2013, 10:14 pm

        @Hostage, I would put it to you that the reason that Israel has such a tough time dealing effectively with the poorer sections of its population is as a result of the huge dent in its budget because of its military expenditure – see link to news.antiwar.com. If Israel did not have to face off against persistent Arab belligerence then the situation could be very different.
        This article from Halper is pure pie-in-the-sky stuff not based on anything other than fantasy. The Israelis and Palestinians after having been in conflict for so long need to live apart. If a confederation is desired between the two peoples in the future let that evolve – you will never force a bi-national state down the throats of people who distrust each other so profoundly.
        Discontiguous states are very possible (refer link to jcpa.org), notwithstanding the usual kind of dismissive talk about viability that we get from Halper.
        Conveniently Syria, Lebanon and Jordan never signed the UN’s 1951 Refugee Convention as they had no wish to give full citizenship to Palestinian refugees. They abdicated their responsibility to their Palestinian brethren and Israel should not be made to pay for their disingenuousness,
        Notwithstanding the persistent negativity around here about talks between Israelis and Palestinians they are still likely to go ahead soon – read link to haaretz.com.

      • talknic
        July 4, 2013, 10:46 pm

        dimadok “Congratulations- you’ve managed to ignore/miss every single point of mine”

        “every single point” was illogical nonsense. Nothing to miss

        “I have a complete problem with their decedents, relatives and others who will jump the bandwagon of the return to the most modern state of the whole Middle East”

        A) The most modern state of the whole Middle East link to oecd-berlin.de

        B) The Palestinian claim for RoR to Israel (as Israel was recognized link to avalon.law.yale.edu ) is under UNGA res 194 (1948) , it does not include lineal descendants link to unispal.un.org Only LYING Israel propagandists perpetuate the scaremongering myth in order to prevent consent to any RoR link to wp.me

        “Additionally, I and Israeli public have given their Arab Jews refugees , including their non-Jewish relatives, full citizenship and rights”

        Nice try…. Arab Jews are covered under the “Law of Return”. Israel has absolutely no legislation what so ever allowing the “Right of Return” for non-Jews.

        “Amount of money paid to Israel by Germany and other countries, is a fraction of the actual property values that was lost and is combined with the reparations for the human suffering”

        It is based on the countries who were ‘legally responsible’ for the situation arising.

        “However, if the international community, yourself included, should feel generous-which is constantly failed, Arab states leading the list”

        What drivel. The Arab states weren’t ‘legally responsible’ for the 1948 war. There are no UNSC resolutions against any Arab State for a war that took place “outside the State of Israel” )

        The Arab States weren’t ‘legally responsible’ for dispossessing Palestinian refugees. Israel was/is by either driving them out or preventing their return if they fled the violence of their own volition. No matter why civilians flee the violence of war or who right have told them to or why, they have a right to return because they are civilians.

        “But please do not insult my intelligence”

        Repeating the Hasbara requires no intelligence what so ever.

        “when all the costs and burden will be carried by Israel alone”

        Rightly so. The Arab states didn’t cleanse Palestinians from their rightful territory. Israel did and continues today. The Arab states aren’t preventing refugees for returning. Israel is. The Arab states haven’t illegally acquired Palestinian territory. Israel has and still is. The Arab states haven’t illegally settled Palestinian territory. Israel has and still is. The Arab states haven’t illegally annexed any territory. Israel has.

      • Bumblebye
        July 5, 2013, 10:08 am

        “I have no problem with the “original” Palestinian refugees returning ar accepting some compensation, as generous as it can be.”
        With which statement, and with what he follows it with, dimduck appears to deny that the stateless heirs of these refugees should have any right to any compensation for their stolen inheritance, for 65+ yrs of rent plus interest, plus the current value of their stolen lands and homes and businesses, and surely not for their 65+ yrs of suffering! Germany should never have had to pay a brass farthing to Israel, which was not the country of the dead. Any monies should have been repaid direct to relatives or descendants only.
        However, the case of Palestine, a stolen/annihilated country is the responsibility of Israel – but then, most of us probably learnt as kids that if another takes something of yours and doesn’t want to return or repay debt, that other all too often then conducts a campaign against the kid he’s taken or borrowed from. Just like brattish Israel/Israelis.

      • dimadok
        July 5, 2013, 6:58 pm

        @Hostage and Annie. While I’m presenting here arguments both of you had resolved to personal attacks and insults. Now I’m sure that I’m getting the point right.

      • Hostage
        July 5, 2013, 11:08 pm

        Conveniently Syria, Lebanon and Jordan never signed the UN’s 1951 Refugee Convention as they had no wish to give full citizenship to Palestinian refugees.

        You might want to read the 1951 treaty again. It specifically excluded all non-European refugees from the definition of the term “refugee” that appears in Article 1. That was due to the fact that the western world didn’t want to take in the Asians displaced by WWII or the conflict in Palestine. FYI, the 1967 protocol, like the 1951 treaty, excluded refugees who receive any aid from non-UNHCR organs, like UNRWA. The State of Israel participated in the Diplomatic Conference that drafted the treaty and protocol and has always been responsible for efforts to portray Palestinians as stateless persons rather than refugees.

        “However, if the international community, yourself included, should feel generous-which is constantly failed, Arab states leading the list”

        I’ve pointed out on many occasions that the Jewish Agency “accepted” resolution 181(II), while demanding the incorporation of ports and territory that contained much of the revenue generating Arab businesses and agricultural lands. Both the UNSCOP report and the Secretary General’s report noted that the proposed Arab State would not be economically viable and would not be able to fund its own essential services. The only way that the Jewish Agency partition proposal gained UN acceptance was on the condition that revenue from the Jewish State would be redistributed through the device of a regional Economic Union between the new states that was part and parcel of General Assembly resolution 181(II). link to yale.edu

        Needless to say Israel took all of the territory (and more) while defaulting on its obligation to financially support the Palestinian Arabs it had defrauded. The international community of States had already stepped-in and picked up Israel’s tab long before it outsourced the bill for its occupation of the remainder of Palestine. — See United Nations Special Committee on Palestine Report to the General Assembly, A/364, 3 September 1947, “A Technical Note On The Viability Of The Proposed Partition States Prepared By The Secretariat” and Foreign relations of the United States, 1947. The Near East and Africa Volume V, Page 1167 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Here’s some advice. When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

      • Sibiriak
        July 6, 2013, 12:25 pm

        Talknic:

        The Palestinian claim for RoR to Israel (as Israel was recognized link to avalon.law.yale.edu ) is under UNGA res 194 (1948) , it does not include lineal descendants

        Is this the interpretation that most Palestinian give to the expression “right of return”? (And how do we know that?)

        Does the BDS movement define the “right of return” in the same way as you do?

        Thanks…

      • Mayhem
        July 6, 2013, 11:39 pm

        @Hostage, the technicalities on the wording of the original UN Refugee Convention and subsequent updates and caveats is just legalese mush – here are the facts:
        1. While the UNHCR works with governments to settle refugees, UNWRA is specially dedicated to the Palestinian cause, helping to perpetuate the on-going existence of its refugees that have swollen greatly in number because there is no interest (would lose a cash cow) in seeing them absorbed
        2. In 2012 the UN spent 6 times more on every Palestinian refugee as compared to other refugees
        3. The Arab states pass dicriminatory laws against Palestinians. In Lebanon they were barred from working as doctors, dentists lawyers, engineers or accountants.
        By making the Palestinians the poster children for international victimhood the Arab states have created a permanent trump card to pressurize Israel. While the Arab states were saturated in petrodollars nothing filtered through to assist Palestinians and subsidise UNRWA. Scanning the list of UNRWA’s top contributors you’ll see that it’s exclusively North American or West European.
        Furthermore @Hostage you alluded to this economic cooperation that was earmarked to take place

        a regional Economic Union between the new states

        but as the Palestinian state never came into being of their own choosing, Israel had no financial obligation. To suggest that Israel ended up “defaulting on its obligation to financially support the Palestinian Arab” is therefore completely baseless.

      • talknic
        July 7, 2013, 10:14 am

        Sibiriak /// The Palestinian claim for RoR to Israel (as Israel was recognized link to avalon.law.yale.edu ) is under UNGA res 194 (1948) , it does not include lineal descendants link to unispal.un.org ///

        Is this the interpretation that most Palestinian give to the expression “right of return”? (And how do we know that?)

        The official claim made by the official representatives of the Palestinian people IS under UNGA res 194.

        “Does the BDS movement define the “right of return” in the same way as you do?

        Presenting verbatim official documentation and official statements, as I do, neither ‘interprets’ or ‘defines’.

        BDS acts in support of Israel adhering to the law and in support of Palestinian rights under the laws Israel agreed to uphold when it A) declared and B) obliged itself to in order to be accepted as a UN Member State.

    • talknic
      July 4, 2013, 9:36 pm

      dimadok“Demanding honesty requires from the speaker to be honest himself”

      Well let’s see how your notions score in the honesty stakes

      “no one in Israel will agree to the return of professional refugees”

      1) If they’re returning to what was declared as Israel in 1948 link to trumanlibrary.org they’re A) all over 65 yrs of age. B) there are very few left as the life expectancy in 1948 was mid forties. C) UNGA res 194 (1948) did not allow for lineal descendants. link to unispal.un.org

      It is mathematically impossible that a few thousand refugees all over the age of 65 yrs are a threat to Jewish demographics within the actual sovereign extent of the State of Israel. There is no legal or rational basis for refusing their right of return. IOW the arguments for refusal are DISHONEST

      Lose a big chunk of honesty points

      2) “professional refugees”? Please elucidate. I’ve not been able to find a course or any jobs advertized where one cam become a professional refugee. They all seem to require having or the learning of accountancy skills, trades skills etc. In fact everything but remaining dependent on refugee aid and everything about getting off refugee aid.

      Lose more honesty points for using slimy weasel words

      ” growing in numbers every year, enjoying the unprecedented amount of money from UN”

      Financial support to UNRWA has not kept pace with an increased demand for services caused by growing numbers of registered refugees, expanding need, and deepening poverty. As a result, the Agency’s General Fund (GF), supporting UNRWA’s core activities and 97 per cent reliant on voluntary contributions, has begun each year with a large projected deficit. Currently the deficit stands at US$ 72 million. link to unrwa.org

      Lose more honesty points… BTW If you think it is somehow enjoyable to be displaced, to have your territory illegally acquired illegally settled, to be denied your rights, I suggest you seek treatment for your sadism before developing any relationships with other living beings

      “while being denied every common rights from their countries of residence “

      Uh oh, you lost more honesty points

      Name ANY country hosting refugees that grants those refugees common rights with its citizens or equal residency rights. Be careful which shining example/s you choose ( link to haaretz.com ) or you might strip yourself of any dubious honesty points you might have left

      Furthermore, if parents have no residency in their country of refuge, there is little chance that their children anything but refugee rights.

      Lose another honesty point

      “You want honesty-talk to the Arab world and ask to give Palestinians full citizenship”

      Why? Palestine refugees aren’t asking for citizenship in their host countries. They’d lose their right to return to their own country.

      Lose another honesty point

      The Arab states have been incredibly generous hosts for refugees for 65 years and they have no legal obligation to force refugees to become citizens if the refugees would rather return to their own country.

      “..before you make demands from Israels”

      Lose more honesty points. Israel obliged itself to adhere to the Law, the UN Charter and relevant conventions. Israel’s agreements demand Israel adhere to the law, regardless of what anyone thinks or asks of Israel.

      The Palestinians only ask for their rights under the Laws Israel AGREED to uphold. It is the Jewish State in breech of those laws, not the Palestinians.

      Now let’s look at just how depleted of honesty the naked the emperor is “You want honesty-talk to the Arab world and ask to give Palestinians full citizenship, before you make demands from Israels”

      Aside from fighting wars in order to protect Palestinians from Israeli aggression ( UNSC resolutions – none condemn the Arab States. Against Israel aplenty ) and; aside from the Arab States generously hosting Palestinian refugees for 65 years, Israel has hosted no Palestinian refugees, even though Israel got UNRWA funding from 1949 til 1953 and; aside from the Arabs making Israel incredibly generous offers of non-Israeli territory for peace, you now demand they take over Israel’s responsibilities for the refugees Israel created.

      Why should they and why are you demanding they do?

      To be honest, Israel cannot financially afford to now adhere to the law. The extent of its DIS-HONEST & illegal facts on the ground are now so great, the Jewish state would be sent bankrupt for decades were it to comply with its legal obligations.

      The Jewish state’s DIS-HONESTY has resulted in millions of Israelis being duped into believing they’re living in Israel, when in fact Israel has never legally acquired any territory beyond “frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″. link to trumanlibrary.org

      The Jewish state’s DISHONESTY has it in a position where in order to circumvent the consequences of its DIS-HONEST illegal actions over the last 65 years, it must, while it can maintain the protection of the US veto vote in the UNSC, plea bargain with the Palestinians who have made some incredibly generous offers for peace

      Israel has not made one HONEST offer or gesture towards peace in 65 years. It has thus far been a thorough disgrace to Judaism.

      • Shingo
        July 6, 2013, 8:23 am

        Outstanding post Talknic!!

    • Shingo
      July 6, 2013, 8:19 am

      no one in Israel will agree to the return of professional refugees, growing in numbers every year, enjoying the unprecedented amount of money from UN, while being denied every common rights from their countries of residence and birth!

      Professional refugees? Is that anything like being a professional Holocaust survivor DIM? And do you seriously expect anyone to believe that Israel would change it’s stance on iota if:

      1. The numbers didn’t continue to grow
      2. enjoying the “unprecedented amount of money from UN”
      3. Were not denied every common rights from their countries of residence and birth?

      What’s most amusing is that you bemoan the UN providing the refugees with aid, while ignoring the fact that the UN is footing the bill that Israel should be held liable for.

  19. James Canning
    July 4, 2013, 7:19 pm

    Someone should ask John Kerry why the presence of Jews in an area of the West Bank means that area should be annexed by Israel.

    Let those Jews live in Palestine.

    • Woody Tanaka
      July 5, 2013, 7:21 am

      “Let those Jews live in Palestine.”

      The attitude that says that anyone — other than the Palestinians themselves — has a say on whether or not to permit non-Palestinians to enter and live in Palestine is the original devil in this whole problem. It was the hubris and racism of Europeans like Balfour and Llyod-George who imposed upon the Palestinians a gang of alien Jews with no legitimate right or claim to the land of Palestine, who were bent on the destruction of Palestine and the ethnic cleansing, if not genocide, of the Palestinian people. This attitude must die.

      • James Canning
        July 6, 2013, 2:18 pm

        Woody – - I have a hunch most Muslims and Christians living in Palestine would prefer to keep “1967″ borders even if this means hundreds of thousands of Jews live in Palestine.

Leave a Reply