Do Israelis want a real Palestinian state? The polls say no

Ariel
The settlement of Ariel (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

It’s peace process time again–and with it comes the trope that Israelis are ready for a two-state solution. That sentiment is accompanied by polls showing the same: that Israelis support the principle of two states for two peoples. But an examination of Israeli polls shows that nothing like a viable Palestinian state that would be acceptable to the Palestinian population is on the table.

With the peace process in overdrive, media consumers have been treated to a lot of hopeful thinking. In the past month, journalists and analysts have lined up to say that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has the support of the Israeli people to make a peace deal–if he would just go ahead and buck his right-wing coalition.

Writing in Foreign Policy, Brent Sasley says that there is “majority support, including among Jewish-Israelis, for talks and for a final settlement. One recent poll found that 62 percent of Israelis support a two-state solution.”

In a piece on why there’s hope for a two-state deal, The New Republic’s Ben Birnbaum writes that “two-thirds of Israelis—including a majority of Likud and Jewish Home (!) voters—would support a peace deal that gave the Palestinians a state on 100 percent of the West Bank (with land swaps) with its capital in East Jerusalem.”

The Guardian’s Michael Cohen similarly writes that “Israelis strongly support a two-state solution.”

All three of those analysts link to articles in Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post that provide details on the same poll: a December 2012 study conducted by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace showing that right-wing Israelis would support a Palestinian state. The polls–there were two in total commissioned by the center–surveyed Habayit Hayehudi and Likud voters, and found that the majority of them would support a Palestinian state. Conflict solved!

Not so fast. The devil is in the details when it comes to a Palestinian state.

As Haaretz’s Barak Ravid reports, the Palestinian state accepted by these right-wingers would be demilitarized–and the kicker is that Israel keeps all of the settlement blocs in this imagined deal. That means the settlements of Ma’ale Adumim and Ariel–two settlement “blocs” that are considered “consensus” settlements, or settlements that Israelis believe they will keep in a permanent peace agreement. Both Ma’ale Adumim and Ariel slice and dice the West Bank into pieces that take a viable Palestinian state off the table. And that’s just talking territory. Never mind the discussion about a demilitarized state.

“Ma’aleh Adumim was established to break Palestinian contiguity,” Benny Kashriel, the mayor of the settlement, said in 2004.

And even the leaders of the Palestinian Authority, who have shown themselves willing to give Israel a lot, were resistant to a deal that would keep Ariel in the hands of the Israelis, as the Palestine Papers showed. The same goes for the Palestinian population at large–especially since Ariel sits on top of major water resources that were once in Palestinian hands.

A more recent poll conducted in June 2013 and cited by Sasley found that 62% of Israelis would support a two-state solution. But the same poll states that about 54% oppose dismantling most of the West Bank settlements, though the specifics of which settlements Israelis oppose dismantling are missing from the polling data.

It may be, as Sasley wrote, that “public opinion in Israel has historically followed leaders’ efforts when they’ve pushed major decisions on war and peace.” But when you have a leader like Benjamin Netanyahu, who has vowed that Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim will remain in Israeli hands forever, there isn’t much cause for optimism.

And a brand new poll concludes that 63% of Israeli Jews are opposed to withdrawing to the 1967 borders. The poll also shows 58% of Israelis opposing a peace agreement in which Israel has to dismantle some of its settlements but gets to retain Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim. 

Taken together, the polling data shows that Israelis are decidedly not interested in a peace deal that would give Palestinians a viable state of their own. It’s a depressing fact that steadfast believers in the peace process refuse to acknowledge. If they did, they’d have to concede that Israeli society is too wedded to the continuing colonization of Palestine for a Palestinian state to come into being. 

This piece has been updated to correct the numbers on the brand new poll on Israeli views of a peace agreement.

About Alex Kane

Alex Kane is an assistant editor for Mondoweiss and the World editor for AlterNet. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.
Posted in Israel/Palestine, Settlers/Colonists | Tagged

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

  1. Ma’aleh Adumim and Ariel, before any other settlements that should follow, MUST go.

    • miriam6 says:

      And a brand new poll concludes that 63% of Israeli Jews are steadfastly opposed to a West Bank pull-out, even a pull-out in which Israel gets to retain Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim. The desire to hold on to those two mega-settlements at any cost indicates an even more extreme position than previous polls showed.

      Alex Kane’s claim that the brand new Israel Democracy poll shows that 63% oppose a West Bank pull-out even with the retention of Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim settlement blocs is disingenuous.

      The poll did not actually combine those two elements of West Bank pull-out and retention of the two settlement blocs in the same single question at all.

      What the poll actually asked was this ( presumably this is the 63% he is referring to );


      If a peace agreement is reached with the Palestinians that includes an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and an evacuation of settlements, in your opinion, would there or would there not be a need for a referendum to approve the agreement, or should the decision be left in the hands of the government and the Knesset.

      General Public (Jews) [Arabs]

      1. There is a need for a referendum 63.5 (62.0) [71.9]

      2. There is no need for a referendum. The decision should be left in the
      hands of the government and the Knesset 31.9 (33.9) [20.0]

      3. Don’t know / No answer 4.7 (4.1) [8.1]

      Mr Kane has taken care to leave out the two qualifying parts of the question asked, i.e. that for the Israelis polled the question of agreeing to a pull-out from the West Bank is dependent on whether or not they agree or disagree that a REFERENDUM ought to be held in order to ratify an actual peace treaty or that the decision be left up to the government and the Knesset.

      As it turns out, Israelis , both Arab and Jewish , prefer that a referendum be held to ratify any peace treaty should one be attained.

      Support for a referendum

      In the past, we have always found majority
      support for a referendum to ratify a peace agreement, should one be
      attained. This time we also asked if a peace agreement is reached that
      includes a withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and an evacuation of
      settlements, is there a need to approve it in a referendum or should the
      decision be left to the government and the Knesset? This time, as in the
      past, a clear majority of the Jewish public (62%) affirmed that if peace is
      reached a referendum should be held. In the Arab public, the rate of support
      for a referendum is even higher at 72%.

      The quite separate question about the Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim settlement issue was this :


      11. If Israel and the Palestinians reach an understanding and a permanent
      peace agreement that includes security arrangements for Israel, a
      demilitarized Palestinian state, international guarantees, and declaration
      of the end of the conflict by the Palestinians, in return for this peace
      agreement, would you support or not support each of the following?
      11.3 An evacuation of settlements, except for Ariel, Maaleh Adumim, and the
      settlement blocs

      General Public (Jews) [Arabs]

      1. Would support 44.3 (40.0) [68.7]

      2. Would not support 51.8 (57.6) [19.2]

      3. Don’t know / No answer 3.9 (2.4) [12.1]

      As for Kane’s claim of Israelis opposing a pull-out even if Israel is able to retain Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim , the pull-out question was not linked to the Ariel , Ma’ale Adumim issue in the first place.

      The poll actually asked the Israelis polled , both Jewish and Arab , the question of supporting or not supporting retention of the two large settlement blocs only in the context of a peace agreement already having been reached.

      The poll showed Israeli Jewish opinion is divided almost 50/50 on this question with 44.3 supporting and 57.6 opposed.
      Amongst Israel Arabs polled on the same question as their Jewish counterparts – 68.7 would support a West Bank pull-out whilst holding onto the two largest settlement blocs

      link to imra.org.il

      • talknic says:

        @ miriam6

        HUGE FAIL in true Hasbara style

        The poll is asking the Israeli public to answer ridiculous questions.

        “If a peace agreement is reached with the Palestinians that includes an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and an evacuation of settlements, in your opinion, would there or would there not be a need for a referendum to approve the agreement, or should the decision be left in the hands of the government and the Knesset.”

        Neither. If a peace agreement is reached, the peace agreement already dictates.

        “This time we also asked if a peace agreement is reached that includes a withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and an evacuation of settlements, is there a need to approve it in a referendum or should the decision be left to the government and the Knesset? “

        Neither. If a peace agreement is reached, the peace agreement already dictates.

        “11. If Israel and the Palestinians reach an understanding and a permanent peace agreement that includes security arrangements for Israel, a demilitarized Palestinian state, international guarantees, and declaration of the end of the conflict by the Palestinians, in return for this peace agreement, would you support or not support each of the following? 11.3 An evacuation of settlements, except for Ariel, Maaleh Adumim, and the settlement blocs”

        Same applies. The understanding and the permanent peace agreement already reached would dictate what was or what was not to be evacuated.

        The poll questions are idiotic and the results show Israelis fail to understand what nonsensical questions they’re being asked.

        It is meaningless to ask AFTER an agreement is already reached whether an agreement should or should not be reached or by whom the decision should be made. Elvis has already left the room!!

        • Citizen says:

          Both Israel and the PA, if memory serves, have said any peace agreement was subject to the condition subsequent that a referendum must approve it. Additionally, the PA is not even the official elected agent government of all the Palestinian people. So the referendum condition makes double sense there.

      • Denis says:

        @miriam: Alex Kane’s claim that the brand new Israel Democracy poll shows that 63% oppose a West Bank pull-out even with the retention of Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim settlement blocs is disingenuous.

        Yeah, well, there’s plenty of disingenuity to spread around here.

        @Alex:The devil is in the details

        No, sir. The devil is in the definitions.

        Excepting the last poll referred to, these polls are advertised as being about “Israelis’ opinions.” Well, what’s an Israeli?

        I would define Israeli by the equation: Israeli = iJew + iArab. But that’s me and that’s waaaay too Pollyanna.

        In reality — and certainly w/ respect to most of these polls: Israeli = iJew. Period.

        And the reason I say it is that there is a big push by MKs to limit Bibi’s referendum on peace talks outcomes to iJews.

        And that is very funny ironic, if you see it. A referendum exclusively of iJews’ will shut down any peace proposals leading to a sovereign state of Palestine, meaning that the only open door remaining will be to a one-state Israel, meaning the same iJew majority voting against 2SS will continue their apartheid policies, meaning eventually Israel will crumble.

      • hophmi says:

        Again, when Kane and others here distort and lie like this, you have to wonder if they have an interest in seeing the peace process fail.

        • Hostage says:

          Again, when Kane and others here distort and lie like this, you have to wonder if they have an interest in seeing the peace process fail.

          Hophmi the United Nations doesn’t maintain facilities at Camp David. The General Assembly has declared time and again that no process should be undertaken by any of the parties outside the framework of the UN Organization or which circumvents the requirements of international law and the UN Charter. The US has worked tirelessly to violate its treaty obligation to give the UN Organization every assistance in carrying out that particular undertaking. The US has mandate to broker these endless peace talks. It only behaves this way to prevent an international peace conference from adopting an arbitrated settlement. See Kirkpatrick: Mideast Peace Conference Would Isolate Israel and the U.S. link to jta.org

          By definition, the UN has asked the United States to stop this charade dozens of times, including a few instances when it charged the USA with threatening the stability of international peace and security; condemned it for preventing the application of the necessary legal sanctions; and condemned it for escalating the conflict through US arms sales. The US and Israel have deployed a lot of hasbara regarding the de facto or de jure annexation of the Golan Heights, the City of Jerusalem, and much of the West Bank. But those were illegal and criminal acts of aggression under the terms of both customary law and the UN Charter at the time they occurred, without regard to the so-called willingness of Israel to negotiate endlessly over the future status of the territory in question.

          The General Assembly convened an emergency session and advised the USA of that fact. But it still persisted. Later on, the US even asked the International Court of Justice to waive its advisory jurisdiction and remain silent so as not to allow the principles of international law to interfere or disrupt US sponsored talks.

          Here is what the General Assembly has said on this subject:

          Reaffirming also the urgent necessity of the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the region, based on full respect for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations as well as for its resolutions concerning the problem of the Middle East including the question of Palestine,

          Convinced that the early convening of the Peace Conference on the Middle East with the participation of all parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, in accordance with relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, is essential for the realization of a just and lasting settlement in the region,

          1. Condemns Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and repeated resolutions of the United Nations;

          2. Declares that peace is indivisible and that a just and lasting settlement of the Middle East question must be based on a comprehensive solution, under the auspices of the United Nations, which takes into account all aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in particular the attainment by the Palestinian people of all its inalienable rights and the Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories;

          3. Reaffirms that until Israel withdraws from all occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, and until the Palestinian people attains and exercises its inalienable national rights, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, in which all countries and peoples in the region live in peace and security within recognized and secure boundaries, will not be achieved;

          4. Calls anew for the early convening of the Peace Conference on the Middle East, under the auspices of the United Nations and the co-chairmanship of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America, with the participation on an equal footing of all parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization in accordance with General Assembly resolution 3375 (XXX) of 10 November 1975;

          5. Urges the parties to the conflict and all other interested parties to work towards the achievement of a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the problem and worked out with the participation of all parties concerned within the framework of the United Nations;

          – United Nations General Assembly Resolution 33/29, December 7, 1978

          That same criteria had been stated in resolutions 3414 (1975) and 32/20 (1977), and was repeated again in resolutions ES-7/2 (1980), 37/123 (1982), 39/146 (1984), and 46/82 (1991).

        • Denis says:

          Hostage, such an incredibly important point. I don’t think I was ever aware of it: the GC opposes USG faux-peace initiatives in I/P. Amazing. Has Wolf Blitzer reported that? How about Anderson Cooper?

          So, what we’ve got here is, essentially, the PFLP has been arguing, roughly, the GC’s position?

          What this tells me is that Abbas is on the take. If he wasn’t, he would refuse to participate in any negotiations not under the auspices of the UN. There has always been this undercurrent of criticism that the Palestinian leaders are perpetuating the I/P schism because they are making so much money by the status quo.

          I found your ref to the 1987 JTA article about Kirkpatrick, well . . . sorta’ odd.

          She was talking at a Kahane gathering. I get all these rabbi guys confused — is that Meir David Kahane? aka David Sinai, aka Michael King, aka David Borac, aka Martin Keene. Violent, cretin, right wing-nut iJew who, thankfully, took a bullet to head in 1990? Maybe the only Jew since Hitler’s alleged grandfather to ever make Uncle Abe’s sh*t list?

          I don’t get the Kirkpatrick reference.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Hostage
          So we can safely say, when the UN legalized the self-declared Israeli state, the UN was a just agent of humanity, but now, when the UN, still seeking justice, objects to Israel’s actions, the UN is a devil, to be ignored, hated, and circumvented? And Uncle Sam backs Israel on this switcher, thus murdering its own reputation as an honest broker seeking justice, something all the GIs died for in WW2?

        • radkelt says:

          Hostage,
          Thanks for that background. “The US has mandate to broker these endless peace talks.” Shouldn’t that be “has no mandate”?

        • talknic says:

          hophmi “when Kane and others here distort and lie like this”

          People can misunderstand, which is neither a purposeful distortion or lie.

          Israel propaganda is purposeful distortion and lying.

          Apologist supporters purposefully propagating the wholly holey moldy old Hasbara are purposefully pushing distortions and lies which is against the basic tenets of Judaism.

          Purposefully failing to adhere to the basic tenets of Judaism on behalf of the Jewish state is completely BIZARRE!

          BTW the poll itself is a complete distortion link to mondoweiss.net

        • Hostage says:

          I found your ref to the 1987 JTA article about Kirkpatrick, well . . . sorta’ odd.

          Kirkpatrick was the UN Ambassador during the Reagan administration. Every time the General Assembly called for an international peace conference, the Secretary General had the unenviable task of trying to get the member states to accept an invitation to attend the Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries. During here term, Kirkpatrick always refused, in writing, while complaining that UN efforts were flawed, counter-productive, and damaging to the US-brokered talks conducted under the Camp David framework.

          I”ll try and find a link to one of the scoldings she delivered to the Secretary General on the subject. The link to the speech she delivered to the Jewish group was simply meant to illustrate that she knew Israel and the United States were already completely isolated from the opinions of the international community of states and determined to only work outside of any proposed UN framework.

          She was talking at a Kahane gathering. I get all these rabbi guys confused

          The Rabbi in question was a first cousin of Rabbi Meir Kahane.

        • Hostage says:

          “The US has mandate to broker these endless peace talks.” Shouldn’t that be “has no mandate”?

          Yep, my mind is always working faster than my fingers on the keyboard;-)

        • Hostage says:

          So we can safely say, when the UN legalized the self-declared Israeli state, the UN was a just agent of humanity, but now, when the UN, still seeking justice, objects to Israel’s actions, the UN is a devil, to be ignored, hated, and circumvented?

          I don’t know if its safe to say that, but it wouldn’t be dishonest;-)

        • amigo says:

          “Again, when Kane and others here distort and lie like this, you have to wonder if they have an interest in seeing the peace process fail.”hopnee

          “The United States accounts for 3/4 of the NATO budget, or, according to 2011 estimates, around 731 billion dollars. ” hopnee sagan

          ““The United States contributes between one-fifth and one-quarter of NATO’s budget. In FY2010 that contribution totaled $711.8 million.”Nato source

          link, link to natosource.tumblr.com

          And here link to natowatch.org

          What was that about distortion and lies.You are the master of lies and propaganda.No surprise there.Defending the indefensible can be tough going.

      • Talkback says:

        Miriam, both of you go it wrong.

        From your link:
        “62.5% oppose a withdrawal to the 1967 borders with
        land swaps; 58% oppose evacuating settlements except for Ariel, Maaleh Adumim, and the settlement blocs;”

        Detailed numbers in 11.1 and 11.3.
        link to imra.org.il

        It is misleading when Alex writes that “63%” oppose a pullout even if they can keep Ariel and Maaleh Adunim. He probably only meant that a majority would even oppose that, too.

      • Alex Kane says:

        Well, no, not exactly. I did indeed base that one paragraph in my report–a fairly small part of my overall point–on the Times of Israel article, and it seems they did not do the best job in describing the poll. But the poll also supports my general point, even if they got the numbers slightly wrong.

        62.5% of Israeli Jews polled are opposed to withdrawing to the 1967 borders. And 57.6 percent are opposed to evacuating settlements–even in the context of a peace agreement where they get to keep Ma’ale Adumim and Ariel. link to peaceindex.org (Edited since I first misread it)

        • hophmi says:

          61.3% of Israeli Jews, and 90.9% of Israeli Arabs are in favor of negotiating. So that means overall, about 2/3 of Israelis want to negotiate. That’s the important part.

          I am disturbed by the polling that says that 62.5% would not support a peace agreement including territorial swaps, and it’s a problem, but I see it differently; these are not deeply held views, in my opinion, and would change if there was actually an agreement on the table.

          The poll mostly shows that Israeli Jews are pessimistic about peace and that Israeli Arabs are more optimistic, which is interesting. Israeli Arabs believe both governments want to negotiate in significantly greater numbers than do Israeli Jews. They also believe that there will be majority support for an agreement, whereas Israeli Jews do not.

          Israeli Jews don’t believe it will happen, and they’re not going to support withdrawing from territory when there isn’t some assurance that peace will follow. So, for me, this polling is academic.

          My view continues to be that if there is a concrete agreement on the table that ensures basic security and an end to the conflict, there will be a majority of Israelis, Jews and Arabs, who will support things like 1967 border with swaps, token right of return, and so on. In the absence of such an agreement, most people will say they’re against it.

        • Hostage says:

          Israelis want to negotiate. That’s the important part.

          Yeah right. When international law says no, they always want to negotiate anyway. When they rejected the Peel Commission proposal they wanted more negotiations. Whenever they didn’t like an international arbitrated settlement proposal from the UNSCOP or General assembly Ad Hoc Committee they simply demanded renegotiations. So the poll shows that Israelis like to negotiate, but won’t accept the results. What’s new about that?

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “My view continues to be that if there is a concrete agreement on the table that ensures basic security and an end to the conflict…”

          Interesting that your view does not include justice for the Palestinians, their basic autonomy, compensation for all that the zionist have stolen from them, and end to the occupation, or even a real state. Typical zio.

        • eljay says:

          >> … about 2/3 of Israelis want to negotiate. That’s the important part.

          The really important part is: Do 2/3 of Israelis want:
          - their country to immediately and completely halt its illegal and immoral occupation and colonization of Palestine?
          - their country to withdraw to within its / Partition borders?
          - their country to transform from an oppressive and supremacist “Jewish State” into a secular, democratic and egalitarian Israeli state – a state of and for all of its citizens, equally?
          - Israelis responsible for past and ON-GOING (war) crimes to be held accountable for their crimes?

          My guess – based on the shit continually spouted by *eee’s such as hophm, yrn, OlegR and others – is “no”.

        • hophmi says:

          “Interesting that your view does not include justice for the Palestinians, their basic autonomy, compensation for all that the zionist have stolen from them, and end to the occupation, or even a real state. Typical zio.”

          Interesting that you think that my view does not include justice for the Palestinians and the rest. Typical leftist idiot.

  2. just says:

    Thank you, Alex, for bringing the truth.

    The fact is that the Zionists do not want peace nor justice with their brothers and sisters.

    They want the expulsion and erasure of the indigenous Palestinians by continued Occupation or any other means necessary & available to them, including theft of land and all other resources.

    Until and unless the US government stops its enabling and unconditional support for Zionist Israel, nothing approximating justice and peace will happen. The status quo will continue with one side benefiting and the other side being horribly repressed, oppressed and punished for daring to breathe and survive.

  3. RoHa says:

    Now there’s a surprise. (Yawn.)

  4. Light says:

    62% are for peace as long as it means ratifying the status quo.

  5. Walid says:

    Interesting perspective by George Friedman at Stratfor from 4 years ago:

    The foundation of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process for years has been the assumption that there would be a two-state solution. Such a solution has not materialized for a host of reasons. First, at present there are two Palestinian entities, Gaza and the West Bank, which are hostile to each other. Second, the geography and economy of any Palestinian state would be so reliant on Israel that independence would be meaningless; geography simply makes the two-state proposal almost impossible to implement. Third, no Palestinian government would have the power to guarantee that rogue elements would not launch rockets at Israel, potentially striking at the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor, Israel’s heartland. And fourth, neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis have the domestic political coherence to allow any negotiator to operate from a position of confidence. Whatever the two sides negotiated would be revised and destroyed by their political opponents, and even their friends.

    For this reason, the entire peace process — including the two-state solution — is a chimera. Neither side can live with what the other can offer. But if it is a fiction, it is a fiction that serves U.S. purposes. The United States has interests that go well beyond Israeli interests and sometimes go in a different direction altogether. Like Israel, the United States understands that one of the major obstacles to any serious evolution toward a two-state solution is Arab hostility to such an outcome.

    The Jordanians have feared and loathed Fatah in the West Bank ever since the Black September uprisings of 1970. The ruling Hashemites are ethnically different from the Palestinians (who constitute an overwhelming majority of the Jordanian population), and they fear that a Palestinian state under Fatah would threaten the Jordanian monarchy. For their part, the Egyptians see Hamas as a descendent of the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks the Mubarak government’s ouster — meaning Cairo would hate to see a Hamas-led state. Meanwhile, the Saudis and the other Arab states do not wish to see a radical altering of the status quo, which would likely come about with the rise of a Palestinian polity.

    At the same time, whatever the basic strategic interests of the Arab regimes, all pay lip service to the principle of Palestinian statehood. This is hardly a unique situation. States frequently claim to favor various things they actually are either indifferent to or have no intention of doing anything about. Complicating matters for the Arab states is the fact that they have substantial populations that do care about the fate of the Palestinians. These states thus are caught between public passion on behalf of Palestinians and the regimes’ interests that are threatened by the Palestinian cause. The states’ challenge, accordingly, is to appear to be doing something on behalf of the Palestinians while in fact doing nothing.

    The United States has a vested interest in the preservation of these states. The futures of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are of vital importance to Washington.

    link to stratfor.com

  6. Tuyzentfloot says:

    I think the main distinction is a very common one: it’s between the general and the specific. As a general vague idea many Israeli Jews will approve. It sounds good. But as soon as it becomes specific what ‘viable’ means if it’s taken seriously, support drops.
    I don’t know if polls like this are very meaningful. How important is the matter for Israelis? Is it more than some annoying background issue?

  7. Citizen says:

    Kerry’s hope is PA can be bribed? He must think the bribe (with US tax dollars) just needs to be big enough, and long-lasting.

  8. talknic says:

    Israelis have been ‘educated’ for the past 65 years into thinking:

    Israel never had borders
    However link to trumanlibrary.org

    Israel was attacked by the Arab States
    However, the Israeli Govt website says “Palestine” was invaded link to mfa.gov.il

    That the 1948 war was fought in Israel
    However the Israeli Government at the time says it was in territory “outside the state of Israel” … “in Palestine” link to pages.citebite.com and; after Israel was declared independent of Palestine, the UNSC resolutions on the Question of Palestine call for “peace in Palestine”

    That the UN is biased against Israel
    However the hundreds of UNSC resolutions against Israel are reminders of Israel’s obligations to the Law and its failure to adhere to those obligations E.g., UNSC res 252 has EIGHT reminders. 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 June 30 1980 and 478 August 20 1980.

    That the Mandate for Palestine is still in force
    However it expired link to mfa.gov.il

    That the Mandate gave Jews the right to a state
    However link to avalon.law.yale.edu

    Israelis are not educated enough in the matter to the point where they can make an informed and rational decision

    • Talkback says:

      You gotta love this bit from their proclamation of independence:

      “WE APPEAL … to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”

      Even funnier regarding the “Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel”, the US in 1950:
      “The United States delegate stated that:

      “His delegation could not accept the proclamation of peace as a prerequisite for the return of refugees and hoped that the Assembly would not make this a condition. It was recognized that the bulk of the refugees could only return in peaceful circumstances. However, they need not wait for the proclamation of peace before beginning. These unfortunate people should not be made pawns in the negotiations for a final settlement”.”
      link to unispal.un.org

      • talknic says:

        @ Talkback

        You gotta love this bit from their proclamation of independence:

        “WE APPEAL … to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”

        As if the Jewish People’s Council didn’t know that for some weeks prior to during and after declaration, Jewish forces were razing non Jewish homes and villages in the territory allotted for the Jewish state (and outside the territory allotted for the Jewish state)

        Re link to unispal.un.org and specific text … try link to citebite.com e.g., link to pages.citebite.com

      • Hostage says:

        These unfortunate people should not be made pawns in the negotiations for a final settlement”.

        Bear in mind, by 1950, the Geneva conventions had already stated that the protections for displaced persons remained in effect until they were repatriated. That foreclosed the possibility of concluding a final agreement or peace treaty until that task was accomplished.

  9. Citizen says:

    Why Kerry’s success so far is worse than his failure
    link to counterpunch.org

  10. Sibiriak says:

    Both Ma’ale Adumim and Ariel slice and dice the West Bank into pieces that take a viable Palestinian state off the table.

    People keep saying a non-contiguous, demilitarized state cannot be “viable”, but they never support that contention. Some kind of definition and argument is needed. Surely, “viable” doesn’t mean “just” or “fair”. Nor can it mean economic autarky, an outmoded concept .

    Possibilities of confederation and other kinds of linkages need to be considered.

    … Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported that Abbas informed several PLO leaders “to be prepared for a new confederation project with Jordan and other parties in the international community…”

    link to theatlantic.com

    • Hostage says:

      Possibilities of confederation and other kinds of linkages need to be considered.

      I’ve pointed out on several occasions that there already is a treaty of confederation that is nominally limited in scope to joint jurisdiction over the Holy Sites in Palestine. link to en.lpj.org

      Any territory subject to Jordanian jurisdiction would automatically be governed by the terms of the Rome Statute as of the date of Jordan’s accession.

      The new treaty points out that the Jordanian disengagement from the West Bank was limited and conditional in nature. It also notes that Jordanian laws have remained applicable to portions of the West Bank in the meantime. Even the Israeli administration there has continued to disingenuously employ Jordanian law as the basis to create new “state” owned lands in the occupied territory. The International Law Commission has always held that the only tangible manifestation of sovereignty is the exercise of jurisdiction. The fact that the occupying power has employed their choice of Jordanian laws renders the missing reversioner argument moot.

  11. gingershot says:

    The real ‘peace process’ is thru the ICC and with BDS – externally forcing Israel to conform to international norms.

    All Israeli and US strategies designed to avoid the above are actually not part of any peace process, but are designed rather as part of the sustaining Apartheid process.

    A process that is designed to circumvent all advantageous International Law, the Geneva Conventions, and the numerous UN Resolutions which Israel is violating is farce at a truly ridiculous level. How do the Israelis keep a straight face while enjoying the spectacle?

    As Israel continues to colonize the West Bank as we speak, Palestine should forego the chump change ‘prisoner release’ (of course it wouldn’t include Marwan, Barghouti anyway) – and start racking up wins at the ICC in order to support a worldwide boycott of Apartheid Israel.

    Let Israel live like Israel and her Neocons are having Iran live, under heavy sanctions, and PRESTO we’ll have a whole new generation of Israeli ‘leaders’ unlike Netanyahu, Bennett or Lieberman

  12. Sonja says:

    So, they don’t want peace. Now it’s finally official. Time to stop sobbing and whining and shalom and holocaust calling.

  13. amigo says:

    headline on Haaretz Poll: Most Israelis oppose withdrawing to 1967 borders

    Most Israelis would oppose any peace deal with the Palestinians that involved withdrawing to pre-1967 ceasefire lines, even if land swaps were agreed to accommodate Jewish settlements, a poll showed on Tuesday.

    link to haaretz.com

    Nothing new here .

  14. Sibiriak says:

    Talknic:

    However, the Israeli Govt website says “Palestine” was invaded link to mfa.gov.il

    That’s the Arab League declaration on the invasion of Palestine, 15 May 1948.

    • talknic says:

      Sibiriak “That’s the Arab League declaration on the invasion of Palestine, 15 May 1948

      FAIL : The first paragraph is from the Israeli Government Yearbook 1 VOLUMES 1-2: 1947-1974 II. THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE 5. link to mfa.gov.il

      The Arab League declaration begins at 1. :

      1. Palestine was part of the former Ottoman Empire subject to its law and represented in its parliament. etc

      • Sibiriak says:

        Talknic:

        FAIL : The first paragraph is from the Israeli Government Yearbook 1 VOLUMES 1-2: 1947-1974 II. THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE 5. link to mfa.gov.il

        The Arab League declaration begins at 1.

        Not sure why you write “fail” when I’m only trying to understand what document you linked to and why.

        Is this the critical statement, before the Arab League declaration begins?

        The State of Israel came into being on the evening of Friday, 14 May 1948. On the night of 14-15 May, the regular forces of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon invaded Palestine

        What is the significance of it?

        • talknic says:

          Sibiriak “What is the significance of it?”

          Israel had just been declared independent of Palestine. The statement is an Israeli statement informing readers the Arabs ” invaded Palestine”.

        • fnlevit says:

          Mister Sibiriak, are you indeed from Siberia? Your question is right on – next day after Israel decared establishement of state of Israel (ACCORDING AND IN THE BORDERS OF THE UN RESOLUTION) so next day essentially all Arab states declared war on Israel and 3 or 4 directly invaded it – Egypt, Jordan, Syria and I think Iraq. The war was preceded by a period of civil war in the territory of the Mandatory Palestine between Jewish Yishuv forces and Palestinian Arab forces in response to the UN Partition Plan. An alliance of Arab states intervened on the Palestinian side, turning the civil war into a war between sovereign states.
          As a result of the war, the State of Israel PREVAILED (amazingly, no one gave them any chance) and kept nearly all the area that had been recommended by the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 and took control of almost 60% of the area allocated to the proposed Arab state. Transjordan took control of the (what they later called) West Bank (Judea and Samaria in history) as well as part of Jerusalem which became a divided city and the Jordanian part became known as East Jerusalem. The Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip. No Arab Palestinian state was created. Armistice agreements were signed between all belligerents except Iraqis and Palestinians.

  15. hophmi says:

    “Taken together, the polling data shows that Israelis are decidedly not interested in a peace deal that would give Palestinians a viable state of their own. It’s a depressing fact that steadfast believers in the peace process refuse to acknowledge. If they did, they’d have to concede that Israeli society is too wedded to the continuing colonization of Palestine for a Palestinian state to come into being. ”

    Do you have an interest in making this argument, Alex? Because you seem to try very hard. Do you apply this logic the other way, and find that the Palestinians, who overwhelmingly favor a right of return, are not interested in any state that the Israelis would accept?

    • Talkback says:

      hophmi says: “Do you apply this logic the other way, and find that the Palestinians, who overwhelmingly favor a right of return, are not interested in any state that the Israelis would accept?”

      That they overwhelmingly favor to have this right doesn’t mean that they want to return; 4,500 refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank were asked, “only 10% said they would live in Israel if given the option, while 54% opted for monetary compensation and a home on the West Bank or Gaza.”
      link to pages.citebite.com

    • Hostage says:

      Do you apply this logic the other way, and find that the Palestinians, who overwhelmingly favor a right of return, are not interested in any state that the Israelis would accept?

      Lol! I’ve noticed that the Palestinians have promised to conduct a national referendum, including the refugees, on any proposal. The government of Israel claims to speak on behalf of Jews everywhere without any such niceties, but it also is going to conduct a referendum of sorts.

      On 20 June, 1962 the UN General Assembly adopted a decision to accept a UN commission’s proposal to partition Ruanda-Urundi into two independent states, Rwanda and Burundi – after it had already conducted a national plebescite on the question.

      So that begs the question as to why the Jews insisted on having a state that the majority would have never voted to accept and why Hophmi tries to make the refugees seem unreasonable for feeling the same way today on the basis of hindsight? What have Zionists done to justify this experiment in disaster and perpetual war?

      • Hostage says:

        P.S. If the international community can impose Jewish colonists on Palestine, then it can certainly impose the Palestinian refugees on Israel. Full stop.

        • Arab leaders agree there is little chance Israel could be forced to accept large numbers of non-Jews.

        • Hostage says:

          Arab leaders agree there is little chance Israel could be forced to accept large numbers of non-Jews.

          If the Arab leaders were underwriting the costs for the Palestinian government and the UNRWA, then their opinion would carry a lot more weight. The notion that Israel can just let the rest of the world pickup the tab for its ethnic cleansing and apartheid, while millions live on the brink of poverty or starvation, is not a winning strategy for the long run.

        • @Hostage – - I entirely agree the fabulously rich Gulf monarchies should be footing much of the costs.
          But zero chance Israel can be compelled to accept immigration of large numbers of non-Jews (unless those non-Jews agree to at least pretend to be Jews).

        • Hostage says:

          I entirely agree the fabulously rich Gulf monarchies should be footing much of the costs.

          Why? How many indigenous Arabs did they drive out of Palestine?

          But zero chance Israel can be compelled

          That’s nonsense. Israel is already burning its bridges. When it finally pisses off the international community completely, even the United States won’t waste its waning political capital to bail them out – even if it could.

          There were pundits who said there was zero chance of compelling Sadaam Hussein to end the occupation of Kuwait. There was a lot of talk about the size of his army and its weapons, including dirty bombs made from radioactive waste, fuel air bombs, other weapons of mass destruction, and a plethora of irrelevant factors – like a Russian or Chinese veto – that skeptics felt would make the job impossible. It just goes to show that you should never say never.

        • hophmi says:

          “Why? How many indigenous Arabs did they drive out of Palestine?”

          You’re right Hostage. Arabs never bear responsibility for anything that they do. They didn’t take part in hostilities in 1948, and they’ve welcomed Palestinian refugees in their countries with open arms. Just look at Lebanon, where Palestinians live in splendor.

        • @Hostage – - Fact: Arab leaders who endorsed 2002 Saudi peace plan agreed the chances of one Arab country, or a combination of Arab countries, crushing Israel or even forcing Israel to get out of the West Bank, were next to zero.

          Of course you can disagree.

          Those who thought the US, UK et al could not force Iraqi forces out of Kuwait were extremely foolish.

        • Hostage says:

          @Hostage – – Fact: Arab leaders who endorsed 2002 Saudi peace plan agreed the chances of one Arab country, or a combination of Arab countries, crushing Israel or even forcing Israel to get out of the West Bank, were next to zero.

          Of course, I happen to disagree with the notion that the international community of states is limited to, or synonymous with, a mere combination of Arab States.

        • Hostage says:

          You’re right Hostage. Arabs never bear responsibility for anything that they do. They didn’t take part in hostilities in 1948, and they’ve welcomed Palestinian refugees in their countries with open arms. Just look at Lebanon, where Palestinians live in splendor.

          LOL! Why don’t you tell us all about the non-existent Lebanese participation in the 1948 war Hophmi? They had no ammunition to begin with and skipped the invasion altogether.

          Their role was limited in scope to cross border shelling in reprisal to waves of refugees pushed into their territory through ethnic cleansing and attacks launched by the Zionist militias from the watchtower and stockade settlements that had been erected by the Jewish Agency on their so-called “Confrontation Line”. Why should they pay for the maintenance of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians that Israel forced into their country in violation of Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity?

        • hophmi says:

          “LOL! Why don’t you tell us all about the non-existent Lebanese participation in the 1948 war Hophmi?

          It wasn’t non-existent. They basically didn’t have an army. They sent 1000 soldiers. Ben-Gurion bribed the Maronites not to participate. Perhaps Lebanon could have used that money to provide for the refugees.

          And they had designs on Northern Palestine, so don’t come here and act like their hands are clean, and that they were there to “repel ethnic cleansing.”

          You’re showing that you are OK with Palestinians having second-class citizenship – no, wait, they don’t even have that in Lebanon – as long as it’s an Arab state that’s responsible.

        • hophmi says:

          Here’s a little about what Palestinian refugees face in Lebanon to counter Hostage’s cedar-washing.

          link to refugees.resist.ca

        • @Hostage – - You think an army would be put on the ground by non-Arab countries, to drive Israeli troops out of the West Bank?

        • American says:

          ‘@Hostage – – You think an army would be put on the ground by non-Arab countries, to drive Israeli troops out of the West Bank?”"…James

          One needs to be.
          Palestine and others like Gen Jones and other US experts have recommended peace keeping troops for I/P for decades…Israel refuses it.
          I think inter peace keepng troops would be a good step and a “first step’ to eventually getting the settlers out of Palestine.
          I am sure Isr see that as a ‘first step’ to getting the illegals out also and thats why they wont go along with it.
          Should have been done 65 years ago, the British should have never left and should have been bolstered by other international forces.

        • talknic says:

          hophmi ” Arabs never bear responsibility for anything that they do”

          What have they done they should bear responsibility for? The Arab states fought the legal battle from the early 1900′s til 1947 for self determination on behalf of all the people of Palestine. They have fought wars on behalf of what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine.

          “They didn’t take part in hostilities in 1948″

          If you say so, no one else has..

          ” and they’ve welcomed Palestinian refugees in their countries with open arms.”

          They have in fact given refuge to hundreds of thousands of Palestine refugees for 65 years at enormous expense.

          ” Just look at Lebanon, where Palestinians live in splendor”

          They’re in refugee camps. Show me a splendorous refugee camp, any one, take your pick and time … I’ll wait … link to talknic.files.wordpress.com

        • Sibiriak says:

          talknic:

          The Arab states fought the legal battle from the early 1900′s til 1947 for self determination on behalf of all the people of Palestine.

          While I agree with you on many issues, your benign view of Arab states regarding Palestinian self-determination is not convincing.

          I think Walid has got it right:

          “Palestine is the mother of the Arab world”(Assi Hillany)

          Not really; from the way Palestine has been getting kicked around for the past 60 years, a more appropriate description would be “the orphan of the Arab world”. Talk is cheap. Hopefully Mohammed Assaf will succeed in waking up the Palestinians because no other Arabs are going to do anything about their sad situation.

          —-

          “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.

          —-

          “What Arab Idol shows and proves (to me at least) is that we are more united as Arabs …”

          Wishful thinking, Ramzi and Inanna, otherwise you wouldn’t see Palestine shrinking day by day while Arabs don’t lift a finger or a voice.

        • fnlevit says:

          On the pages of this site I recently learned that the international law recoqnizes as refugees only those who actually fled, i.e. only the 1st generation. I also learned on these pages the following argument – the life expectance in 1948 was around 50 years so now after 65 years very few people are left to return. Would you say these are correct arguments? UNRWA of course continues to support even in the 3rd generation and by the way it is very exceptional and the tab is picked mostly by US. For instance 12 mln German refugees were not supported. Same with 850 000 Jews expelled from Arab countries. Or Greeks expelled from parts of Cyprus, etc,etc

        • amigo says:

          “Just look at Lebanon, where Palestinians live in splendor.”hopnee

          Look at Israel where Syrian refugees are living in splendour.

          So you like to think that some other nation has to pick up the tab for Israel,s ethnic cleansing.

          Lay off that Ziocaine.It can be fatal.

    • talknic says:

      hophmi “Do you apply this logic the other way, and find that the Palestinians, who overwhelmingly favor a right of return, are not interested in any state that the Israelis would accept?”

      Uh? That the Israelis would accept? Israel DID accept such a state then failed to adhere to its own acceptance.

      “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.”

      The Palestinian demand for RoR to Israel is under UNGA res 194, only applies to Israel as it pleaded to be recognized and only applies to people who actually lived (no lineal descendants link to unispal.un.org ) in the area Israel pleaded to be recognized by. Life expectancy at the time was 47 yrs. It is now 65 years later. The vast majority of people who had RoR are dead.

      The excuses Israel uses are based on bullsh*t as has been explained to you often enough. Yet here you are again. Your powers of IGNORance and denial are nothing short of amazing!

    • Qualtrough says:

      How do you hold these two thoughts in your head at the same time without it exploding? That it is unreasonable for people expelled from a land within the last 60+ years to expect to be able to return, but entirely reasonable for people claiming to have been expelled from the same land over 2,000 years ago to claim a similar right?

  16. ckg says:

    From the Times of Israel on the latest poll:

    Sixty-two percent of Israeli Jews and 72% of Israeli Arabs agree that a national referendum is needed to approve any peace settlement that involves evacuating settlements and withdrawal from the West Bank. Notably, 49% of Israeli Jews said that the national referendum should not include the country’s Arab citizens, as opposed to 46% who think all Israelis should have a say. In the Arab sector, the response to the question was 4% and 88%, respectively.

    Jim Crow attitudes have found a comfortable home in Israel. No wonder southern Republicans love the Jewish state.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “Notably, 49% of Israeli Jews said that the national referendum should not include the country’s Arab citizens”

      Of course. They’re only PRETENDING not to be racist pigs. When it’s something important, however, they’ll let the truth come out.

      • miriam6 says:

        Actually Woody your interpretation is mis-leading as the poll shows that a MAJORITY of Israeli Jews and Arabs polled agreed at 52.1 % to SUPPORT BOTH Arab and Jewish Israeli voters being able to vote in such a national referendum.

        That’s the poll result that actually matters.

        Saying 49% (48.6) of Jewish Israelis polled are against Arab citizens voting in the referendum simply means that roughly the other half of the Israeli Jewish public polled SUPPORTED the right of Arab Israeli citizens to vote in such a referendum.

        Actually 45.8 % of the Israeli Jewish public polled said they believed Arab citizens of Israel SHOULD be able to participate with agreement running at 87.8 amongst Israeli Arab respondents polled.

        All the polls results show that Israeli public opinion , mostly amongst Jewish Israelis is deeply divided on these issues.

        That has been the case for many years.


        4. If a referendum is held, do you think that all Israeli citizens without
        distinction, both Jews and Arabs, should have the right to vote in the
        referendum? Or should this right be limited to Jewish citizens only?

        General Public (Jews [Arabs]

        1. All citizens, Jews and Arabs, should have the right to vote in the
        referendum 52.1 (45.8) [87.8]

        2. Only Jewish citizens should have the right to vote in the referendum
        41.9 (48.6) [3.9]

        3. Don’t know / No answer 6.0 (5.6) [8.3]

        link to imra.org.il

      • amigo says:

        “Notably, 49% of Israeli Jews said that the national referendum should not include the country’s Arab citizens”WT

        Fine,let,s have referendum in the occupied Territories and omit the 600,000 illegal settler Jews.

        Or am I being anti semitic.

  17. Hostage says:

    The peace process is, and always has been, a device to postpone or prevent an arbitrated solution from being imposed on the parties within the framework of the United Nations or international law.

    It’s a fact that Kerry is trying to ward-off a showdown in the General Assembly over the application of mandatory arbitrated sanctions against Israel stemming from the fact that Palestine has the legal status of a separate State entitled to file accessions to the various UN treaties.

    For example, the State of Israel has no enforceable treaty agreements with the State of Palestine. Nothing prevents Palestine from becoming a party to UN multilateral treaties, like the New York Convention/The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), and obtaining or enforcing judgments against Israel in the Courts of the 130 countries that have formally recognized it as a separate foreign state within the UN armistice lines. link to newyorkconvention.org
    link to newyorkconvention.org

    • talknic says:

      @Hostage 10:52 am

      Quite. The frog is in the pot. The UNSC veto vote only allows it to stay there. A plea bargain with the Palestinians is the only way out.

  18. Les says:

    Piece loving Israeli Jews are in the majority.

    • just says:

      Then why don’t they give (by election) us, and the Palestinians a person who believes in peace and justice for all?

      Israel’s “democracy” is as big a sham as ours is. $$$$$$$$$$$$$.

    • fnlevit says:

      And this is despite so many efforts by the Palestinains to convince them otherwise. It is still amazing, isn it?

  19. I think European countries need to remind Israel the border of Palestine is the Green Line. Even if a million Jews illegally settle in the West Bank.

  20. Is the State of Israel a Liberal Democracy that wants peace?

    Does the current, ruling, right-wing, Likud coalition headed by Binyamin Netanyahu, with its agenda for a `Greater Israel` to include the Arab West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, seek to control the thoughts and actions of its citizens in accordance with the Revisionist Zionist ideology of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of the IZL terrorist organisation that bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem? Netanyahu is the acknowledged 21st century`s torch-bearer for Revisionist Zionism and its territorial maximalism.

    Does the Israeli state use mass media, exploit its diplomatic missions abroad and its powerful lobby in America to indoctrinate its audience worldwide with endless propaganda e.g. “There is no such thing as a Palestinian`, notwithstanding that the Muslim Arab has been the largest, continuous indigenous people of the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river i.e. Palestine, for well over a thousand years?

    Are Israeli schools and universities involved in implanting propaganda in the minds of their student populations that the indigenous Arab is somehow inferior to an Israeli?

    If Israel is a liberal democracy, as claimed, then:

    · Why is one fifth of its entire population, the Israeli Arab, denied full civil rights?

    · Why does the Israeli state openly violate international law?

    · Why does it expropriate Arab land for illegal settlement?

    · Why does it reject the Geneva Convention on Human Rights?

    · Why does it keep its secret nuclear weapons arsenal hidden from the UN`s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)?

    · Why is it not a member of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?

    · How does its political lobby succeed in influencing the foreign policies of overseas governments to supply it with nuclear submarines, helicopter gunships, F15/16 fighter bombers, strike aircraft, chemical weapons and cluster bombs, and to have the US tax-payer service its military and fund its arms expenditure to the tune of billions of dollars, annually? How? Why?

    • fnlevit says:

      I will probably not be able to diffuse all the hatred you have towards my country and most probablyI am wasting time. But I am new to this site so let me try at least on some issues.
      1. Israeli Arabs have full civil rights. They have parties in parlament, they have publicly supported schools teaching in arabic, newspapers, TV channels, many known public figures in Israel are Arabs. Our last president guilty of sexual misbehaviour was centenced to 7 year in prison by an Arab judge. Etc. Many, many examples. Are the Arabs equal to Jews in the economic, social, employment etc sence. Unfortunately not. Many reasons for that. Is the situation improving? Every day. Frankly one of their problem is that they are not able to project their full political power. Rather than having one political party with some 12-15 seats reflecting their proportion there are 3 very small parties not agreeing to unite. Why it is so? Many reasons but the fact is they can not politically influence the democratic establishement so they often do not get their fair share of the budgets, etc.

      • Hostage says:

        1. Israeli Arabs have full civil rights.

        No, the State of Israel has any number of laws which discriminate against its non-Jewish citizens on the basis of their non-Jewish “nationalities”. None of them are allowed to form a political party that challenges the territorial integrity or existence of Israel as a State of the Jewish people, where Jews enjoy a plethora of superior rights. Click here for the most recent collection of Discriminatory Laws. (Updated June 2013)

        Inequality under the law is not compatible with equal civil rights.

        • Doesn’t Israeli law prohibit an Israeli Muslim from marrying an Israeli Jew?

        • Hostage says:

          Doesn’t Israeli law prohibit an Israeli Muslim from marrying an Israeli Jew?

          There is no civil marriage in Israel and the Rabbinical authorities prohibit religious intermarriage.

        • yrn says:

          Smart guy
          Show me one country which is “in a state of war with it’s neighbors”, that permits a Party that ” challenges the territorial integrity or existence”.

        • So, in effect intermarriage is illegal.

        • Intermarriage is recognized, but can only be “performed” outside of Israel. I know there is a move of people who object to the rabbinate’s control of common law marriages and I assume that would apply to intermarriage as well. If someone goes to Cyprus to get married, the state recognizes the marriage.

        • Hostage says:

          So, in effect intermarriage is illegal.

          Not quite. The State will accept and register couples who have been married abroad. Intermarriages between non-Jewish couples are permitted under certain conditions, if they can find a foreign consulate in Israel willing to perform the service.
          link to ynetnews.com

          Many, like the US consulate, will not perform marriages.

        • tree says:

          Another important point is that a Palestinian from the occupied territories who marries an Israeli citizen is NOT allowed to live with his/her spouse in Israel, per the Israeli government laws.

          link to haaretz.com

          This law mainly affects Israeli Arabs but even a Jewish Israeli cannot live with his/her Palestinian spouse in Israeli.

          Some more background from Amira Hass:

          link to haaretz.com

        • Thanks, Hostage. I am oner who thinks more intermarriage is a good thing, long-term.

        • RoHa says:

          “I am oner who thinks more intermarriage is a good thing, long-term.”

          Me too, but my wife says I’ll have to divorce her first.

        • miriam6 says:

          James Canning:

          Lebanon , Jordan and Syria prohibit such mixed sectarian marriages.

          Such Israeli, Lebanese couples ( I don’t know what Syrian Jordanian couples in the same situation do ) usually choose to go Cyprus to obtain civil marriages.

          Then Israeli law is forced to recognise such civil marriages.


          All about civil weddings in Lebanon.

          Lebanon is a democratic republic and is perhaps the most westernized and diverse of the Arab countries.
          However, with 18 religious communities coexisting after a 15-year civil war, it is still a country, like neighboring Israel, Jordan and Syria, that does not offer a choice to people who do not wish to surrender to the authority of religion.
          Lebanon does not have civil marriage.
          In Lebanon, a marriage has to be conducted by a religious authority from one of the 18 registered sects.
          The bride and groom’s sectarian identity has to be registered with the Vital Statistics Bureau on the marriage certificate.
          The registration takes place in the jurisdiction of husband’s birthplace. Those wishing to have a civil marriage must marry outside the country.
          In cases of interfaith relationships, either partner can convert to the faith of the other for the purpose of marriage.
          The civil marriage of a couple married outside Lebanon is recognized by the Lebanese authorities on the condition that the marriage should be officially registered in the Lebanese Embassy or Consulate in the country where it took place
          cont…

          link to copperwiki.org

          Please moderate this comment

        • Question: are Muslims in Israel allowed four wives?

      • talknic says:

        fnlevit ” But I am new to this site so let me try at least on some issues”

        Uh huh. It’s a pity you bring the same tired wholly holey moldy old Hasbara BS as the other apologists for Israel’s illegal activities.

      • Shingo says:

        I will probably not be able to diffuse all the hatred you have towards my country and most probablyI am wasting time.

        True, unless you end the illegal occupation illegal settlements, apartheid and war crimes.

        1. Israeli Arabs have full civil rights

        False. We hear this BS all the time, but you have at least 30 laws that discriminate against non Jews. Israel is an apartheid state.

      • Donald says:

        “I will probably not be able to diffuse all the hatred you have towards my country and most probablyI am wasting time”

        You are wasting everyone’s time. You’d do better if you’d shed your own biases and then start fighting the injustices your country inflicts on Palestinians. The least of your problems is the fact that some people in a blog comment section take a jaundiced view of your country’s rotten human rights record, and that maybe some feel “hatred” for it.

    • fnlevit says:

      I will continue
      2. Which international laws you are refering to? Remember (or learn) that so called 67 borders is a random armistie line of 1948 war. As the result of the wae the Palestinian refugees problem was created and the West Bank was occupied by Jordanians who etnically cleansed it from all the Jews and placed refugees in camps. At around the same time and as a result of the war and hostilities also the Arab Jews refugees problem was created. Around 850000 were expelled, lost their property and possesions. majority of them setteled in Isreal but some reached France and other countries. They were absorbed in all these countries so that eventually they stopped be refugees.

      After the 1948 war Israel tried hard to reach peace, i.e. to convert armistice to real agreed upon peace but got continuous rejects. As a result of the 67 war Israel surprisingly won a military victory in 6 short days. Wars are not won by standing still. The success came because Isreal moved fast and advanced into Sinai peninsula and destroyed Egyptian army, then to Golan heights and destroyed Syrians, then to the West Bank and destroyed Jordanians. And then what? Israel immediately officially declared that it is ready to withdraw from all the territories it concured in exchange for peace. It was called “Land for peace” proposal. What Isreal got in reply? The 3 famous No’s of the Arab league assembly in Khartoum “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.”. link to en.wikipedia.org.

      • Hostage says:

        2. Which international laws you are refering to? Remember (or learn) that so called 67 borders is a random armistie line of 1948 war.

        The UN Charter is a multilateral treaty that represents conventional international law as well as a codification of pre-existing customary international law.

        The parties to the armed conflict in 1948 were ordered to adopt permanent armistice lines of demarcation by the UN Security Council, acting under the auspices of Chapter 7 of the Charter (SC resolutiuon 62). It subsequently ordered the parties to implement and observe the armistice agreements, pending a future settlement under the same Chapter 7 auspices (SC resolution 73). It goes without saying that member states are bound to accept and carry-out decisions adopted by the Security Council in accordance with the conventional law contained in Articles 24 and 25 of the Charter. link to yale.edu

        The ICJ has also advised that General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), “The Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations” reflects the applicable customary law and treaty obligations per the UN Charter on the subject of borders or frontiers. It provides that:

        Every State… has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

        Those are some of the laws we are referring to.

      • Most European diplomats say the way forward is “1967″ borders, even if Israel does not like this.

      • talknic says:

        fnlevit “2. Which international laws you are refering to?”

        The binding Laws, binding UN Charter and binding ratified conventions reaffirmed, recalled and emphasized in hundreds of UNGA and UNSC resolutions recommending that Israel adhere to said binding laws, charter and conventions..

        “the West Bank was occupied by Jordanians who etnically cleansed it from all the Jews”

        NORMAL practice for countries at war to expel or inter possible allies of their enemies. The US, UK, Australia interred and expelled German and Japanese in WWII. Also normal to release and or allow them to return at the end of hostilities, if they wish to return. The US, UK, Australia did. Israel hasn’t.

        BTW Israeli military ordnance 1948 forbade Israeli citizens and residents from entering the territory of any hostile state, thereby preventing Israelis from worshiping in Jordanian controlled Judea and Samaria (later renamed the West Bank)

        “..the Arab Jews refugees problem was created”

        Not by the Palestinians and again NORMAL for states at war to expel or inter possible allies of enemy states. Also normal to release and or allow them to return at the end of hostilities, if they wish to return. The US, UK, Australia did. Israel hasn’t.

        “After the 1948 war Israel tried hard to reach peace, i.e. to convert armistice to real agreed upon peace but got continuous rejects”

        Israel has never fully withdrawn from all non-Israeli territory. The Israel Egypt Peace Treaty required Israel to first withdraw from all Egyptian territory before peaceful relations were assumed. Not land for peace, WITHDRAWAL for peace!!! link to mfa.gov.il

        1. In order to provide maximum security for both Parties after the final withdrawal, the lines and the Zones delineated on Map 1 are to be established and organized as follows:

        …until Israeli armed forces complete withdrawal from the current J and M Lines established by the Egyptian-Israeli Agreement of September 1975, hereinafter referred to as the 1975 Agreement, up to the interim withdrawal line, all military arrangements existing under that Agreement will remain in effect, except those military arrangements otherwise provided for in this Appendix.

        Within a period of seven days after Israeli armed forces have evacuated .any area located in Zone A…..

        Within a period of seven days after Israeli armed forces have evacuated any area located in Zones A or B…

        The Parties agree to remove all discriminatory barriers to normal economic relations and to terminate economic boycotts of each other upon completion of the interim withdrawal.

        As soon as possible, and not later than six months after the completion of the interim withdrawal, the Parties will enter negotiations with a view to concluding an agreement on trade and commerce for the purpose of promoting beneficial economic relations.

        1. The Parties agree to establish normal cultural relations following completion of the interim withdrawal.

        2. They agree on the desirability of cultural exchanges in all fields, and shall, as soon as possible and not later than six months after completion of the interim withdrawal, enter into negotiations with a view to concluding a cultural agreement for this purpose.

        Upon completion of the interim withdrawal, each Party will permit the free movement of the nationals and vehicles of the other into and within its territory …. etc etc

        “The 3 famous No’s of the Arab league assembly in Khartoum “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.”

        Quite reasonably based on legal principles .. link to wp.me

        • Donald says:

          “Not by the Palestinians and again NORMAL for states at war to expel or inter possible allies of enemy states.”

          You’re going too far here. It might be “NORMAL” for states to do this, but this is what Israel did to the Palestinians. Anyway, some of the Arab Jews (or whatever the proper term is–I don’t know) were expelled, which was a crime, and some left voluntarily, which wasn’t.

          The point should be this–the crimes of some Arab countries don’t justify the crimes of Israel, and vice versa.

      • Shingo says:

        As the result of the wae the Palestinian refugees problem was created and the West Bank was occupied by Jordanians who etnically cleansed it from all the Jews and placed refugees in camps

        Correction, Israel used the war to expel 800,000 Palestinians. As Ben Gurion said, war would allow the Zionists to do what they could not do in peace time.

        Around 850000 were expelled, lost their property and possesions.

        False. The 850,000 figure refers to all the Jews who left Arab states, many of whom left of their own accord over a period of 30 years.

        An Israeli academic with Iraqi roots, Yehouda Shenhav had a lot of things to say about the bogus Zionist claim that 800,000 Jews were expelled:

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

        In contrast, Jews from Arab lands came to this country under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations. Some came of their own free will; others arrived against their will. Some lived comfortably and securely in Arab lands; others suffered from fear and oppression.”

        After the 1948 war Israel tried hard to reach peace, i.e. to convert armistice to real agreed upon peace but got continuous rejects.

        False. Israel wanted peace without addressing the injustices it perpetrated. It also refused to abide by countless UN Resolutions.

        As a result of the 67 war Israel surprisingly won a military victory in 6 short days.

        There was nothing surprising about it. The reason Israel launched the attack is because they knew that Egypt would need another 12-18 months to prepare for war.

        Wars are not won by standing still.

        Wars of aggression, such as 1967, are the ultimate war crime.

        Israel immediately officially declared that it is ready to withdraw from all the territories it concured in exchange for peace.

        False. Israel never made such an offer. It proposed peace without offering to return any territory.

        What Isreal got in reply? The 3 famous No’s of the Arab league assembly in Khartoum “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.”.

        And Israel has responded with far more than 3 No’s to the Arab Peace Initiative.

        Israel never had any intention of returning the land it stole.

  21. jon s says:

    I’m old enough to remember the 1970s. In 1977 the Israeli voters elected Menahem Begin Prime Minister, the Right was ascendant , and the overwhelming majority of Israelis, in every poll, opposed any withdrawal , especially one entailing the abandonment of settlements in the occupied territories.
    On Nov. 19th of that year Anwar Sadat landed in Israel, spoke directly to the Israeli people , and convinced the vast majority that he was sincere and trust-worthy in his desire for peace. And you know what? Public opinion polls changed, literally overnight. Once the Israeli people were convinced , by leaders such as President Sadat and King Hussein, that peace was possible -there was overwhelming support for an agreement which included a total withdrawal and the dismantling of the Sinai settlements. So far , the Palestinian leadership- Yasser Arafat and his successors -has not had that effect on the Israeli public.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      Of course the difference is that there were few of you zios who pretended that Sinai was part of “israel” but there are a lot of you people who even now use racist terms like “Samaria and Judea” to describe the West Bank. It is YOU who are the problem, not the leadership of the group you are victimizing.

      • fnlevit says:

        Why Samaris and Judea are rasist terms. This are the names since the bibical times. The West Bank name was given by Jordanians when they were occupying it from ’48 to ’67 and controlled in this way the two banks of the Jordan river – the East Bank and the West Bank.

    • fnlevit says:

      I am also old enough to remember this. Sadat and King Hussein projected sincerety in their approach and Israelies embraced them, withdrawing from enourmous (60K sq. km, almost 3 times Israel) and almost empty territory WITH PROVEN OIL resources (found by Israel in Abu Rodes). Withdraw to the last square meter!!!! All – for a piece of paper, the peace treaty. Some of us were scared to death that it will all start over again by their small steps of violating the agreement which was not simple. But they had a genuine interest in peace and it holds to this very day. Fast forward to Olso agreement. WE WERE jubilant at it. We though – that’s it. But we were duped by Arafat. He never intended to have peace. He wanted to get in and continue from within. And the second intifada was his peak attempt to make us beg and flee and surrender. And that was what brought us back to the West bank with all the barriers, and army posts, and all the ugliness our children (my children) in the army have to get involved to make sure our buses and school and pizza parlors will not be bomb. And yes it comes with all the awfull (but still amazingly rare) cases of their (our soldiers) inproper and worse than it behaviour, they are just 18, not professional army like US or British and see what they did in Iraq and Afganistan. So – botom line – untill a Palestinian leader like Sadat will rise and give us a sense of sincere desire to reach peace – do not expect us to support this phony game of telling one thing to the world and another to themselves and educating their children in hatred and revenge.

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        Oh, baloney. Arafat wanted justice and you people didn’t. You want to continue to stomp on the heads of Palestinians forever, until they give up and let your steal their land.

      • Hostage says:

        I am also old enough to remember this. Sadat and King Hussein projected sincerety in their approach and Israelies embraced them, withdrawing from enourmous (60K sq. km, almost 3 times Israel) and almost empty territory WITH PROVEN OIL resources (found by Israel in Abu Rodes).

        Members of the Nazis regime were charged with violating the Kellogg-Briand Pact (outlawing wars of aggression) and the Hague regulations attached to the Convention of 1907. Even though Germany was not a party to the latter, the Allies held that it represented a codification of the laws and customs of war that were considered binding on all parties, including non-signatories.

        The Kellogg-Briand Pact is still a treaty in force. It’s prohibition against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity of any state was incorporated in the UN Charter, which has been universally ratified. That and the Hague regulations always required Israel to withdraw from any territory captured as a result of war and limited any use of the natural resources of the occupied Arab territories to mere usufruct.

      • Danaa says:

        fnlevit – has there ever been an Israeli leader who approached Sadat in courage? you will say Rabin, no doubt. But there is no equivalence – may be he was assassinated too early and would have shown the requisite courage in due course, but he didn’t get the chance, did he?

        As for this continuing emphasis on “peace” what do you mean by that? peace on your terms? accepting the colonies of the settlers as legitimate enterprise? something that humans do when they conquer a land? something they should have because, well, they got the power?

        But I suspect you have little clue what israelis mean by “peace”. They have peace already, even as they conquer, persecute, mount pogroms, exile, dispossess and torture the natives of the land. To israelis – peace means the ability to go on as they have and “getting away” with it, with minimal “fuss”. The typical argument you hear in israel is, in fact, not unlike yours: might makes right, so just accept defeat and go on with whatever reservations we choose to let you have.

        Just because Jewish Americans have no concept about what or who Israelis are doesn’t mean the Israelis care. israelis are quite content to let you continue the hasbara with some other silly Americans. may be even erecting strawmen a la – but they are so much worse!! – a serious favorite of the hasbara beginners. But that’s your job in their book – learn and improve the hasbara. Though I’d say it still needs work – not very creative yet. Check out jon s above – he has been finnessing for much longer, I suspect.

        If, along the way, you need to keep brandishing meaningless words like “peace” – why not. There’s always the possibility that somehow, somewhere a few new words will be found – that can pool the wool over new generations of new comers to the “conflict”.

        BTW, a pointer (you clearly being a beginner in this discourse): the “argument” you pound (if it can be elevated to a level of ‘argument”) sounds similar to the “negotiations” America had with their own natives – start with “the Indians were so much worse! they even scalpted them whereas we just killed humanely”. Didn’t the Spanish use similar argument about the Aztecs? the Mapuchi?

        Personally, I kind of doubt this somewhat old hat, rehashed, warmed over justifications for colonialism will fly in this forum. You were a physicist, you said? hmmm….shouldn’t you have researched Mondoweiss first?

      • Donald says:

        “So – botom line – untill a Palestinian leader like Sadat will rise and give us a sense of sincere desire to reach peace – do not expect us to support this phony game of telling one thing to the world and another to themselves and educating their children in hatred and revenge.”

        Even if one accepted this self-serving nonsense, it doesn’t really explain why Israel has decided to practice settler colonialism on the West Bank. The real explanation for that is that it’s part of the ideological DNA of the country.

        • Donald – I don’t think that the settler movement reveals that it is part of the DNA of the country. (Yes, but… “There’s more” is the answer to that.) You’ve probably read Gorenberg, Gershom’s Accidental Empire and the combination of deep seated impulse to settle which was part of most of the DNA of the founders (whose followers had already lost that settler feeling), plus indecision, plus a determined group whose “settling” impulse developed differently (and later) than the impulse of the founders of the land are the causes.

        • Sadat’s peace with Begin was a perfect storm: 1. The conduct of Golda Meir’s stubbornness vis a vis Egypt resulting in the Yom Kippur War, led not only to her party’s defeat to Begin’s party, but to discrediting Moshe Dayan’s “We prefer Sharm el Sheikh without peace, than peace without Sharm el Sheikh.” This led to Begin telling Sadat secretly that he could get all of Sinai if he would give a full peace. (The surprise came when Sadat wanted to negotiate for the Palestinians as well, which was not really part of Begin’s plan and thus he treated that autonomy with disdain.)

          2. Sadat’s “victory” in 73, allowed him to make peace. (At the price of his life eventually, but it justified his peacemaking to some.)

          3. Begin’s right wing credentials allowed him to make the deal. The Labor party would have pursued that direction, but they would have done it piecemeal, wedded as they were to the previous strategy. So Begin rather than Labor allowed him to think of the deal. And eventual passage resulted from Begin’s ability to stake his patriotism as claim that this was the best he could do for the country.

          4. Sadat wanted to leave the Soviet orbit and enter the American orbit.

          5. The Sinai presents a natural buffer zone between Israeli and Egyptian forces. There is no such natural buffer zone between Israel and Syria and between Israel and the hypothetical emerging Palestine there is none whatsoever.

          Any peace with the Palestinians will not be as easy as the Sadat Begin peace. It will result from American pressure and/or economic pressure from the EU. The results regarding Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Gaza (Hamas) discourage any withdrawal regarding the West Bank. And the turmoil in Egypt and Syria encourage a go slow attitude (particularly in those whose attitude is “patience, slow, delay” to begin with). The business elite in Israel seems to realize that the occupation of the west bank is a big time business problem vis a vis exports and investment and they see things differently than the man in the street. A leader like Netanyahu is a natural to sympathize and think like the businessmen and has credentials to sell a deal to the people. It’s not up to the Palestinians to prove that it’s a good deal. The 1% in Israel want a deal. The 99%, meaning the poorest 99% of the Jewish population, don’t want a deal. Meaning that particularly the poor Mizrahi and the religious, but a majority of the Jews will not vote for the deal that Netanyahu would bring to the people. Only with the Arab votes would such a deal pass a referendum.

      • Shingo says:

        Fast forward to Olso agreement. WE WERE jubilant at it.

        Of course you were. Olso was nothing more than a new framework to maintain the occupation and have the Palestinians help you.

        Olso was not a peace agreement. And speaking of being duped, not only did Israel violate Olso from day 1, but Netenyahu was caught on video boasting about sabotaging Olso.

        And the second intifada was his peak attempt to make us beg and flee and surrender.

        Oh poor you, having to surrender stolen property. Oh the humanity!!

        And that was what brought us back to the West bank with all the barriers, and army posts, and all the ugliness our children (my children) in the army have to get involved to make sure our buses and school and pizza parlors will not be bomb.

        Yeah right, brought you back. Obviously the way to protect your citizens from suicide attacks was to build settlements on Palestinian land – makes perfect sense.

        So – botom line – untill a Palestinian leader like Sadat will rise and give us a sense of sincere desire to reach peace – do not expect us to support this phony game of telling one thing to the world and another to themselves and educating their children in hatred and revenge.

        Yeah, best to leave that phony game of telling one thing to the world and another to themselves and educating their children in hatred and revenge. to people like Netenyahu.

        Seriously, you people are a sick joke. You’re like a rapist, who insists that he had to kill his victim because she gave him no choice when she tried to fight back.

      • Hostage says:

        “So – botom line – untill a Palestinian leader like Sadat will rise and give us a sense of sincere desire to reach peace – do not expect us to support this phony game of telling one thing to the world and another to themselves and educating their children in hatred and revenge.”

        Sadat and his Syrian allies launched a war against your state in 1973 to drive you out of the occupied territories. That’s why Israel made peace with Sadat. In the long run, Israel can’t defeat larger Arab armies by conventional means, so long as they have the ability to operate under an adequate air defense umbrella. That’s why Netanyahu is still worried about Syria or Lebanon getting their hands on an anti-aircraft missile defense system today.

        When your country starts launching preemptive attacks on the neighbors to stop them from obtaining conventional defensive weapons systems, you’re only inviting a war, and UN and international sanctions. Every country has an inherent right to defend its airspace against aggression.

  22. If Netanyahu emerges from the talks with an ostensible agreement, it will barely scrape by in the Knesset and it will barely scrape by in the referendum. (It will need Arab MK voters in the Knesset and Arab (Palestinian) Israeli voters in the referendum.) Netanyahu will have to be convinced that it is the best deal that Israel can get and if he is convinced, he can be a strong salesman. I don’t think it will happen, just saying, if.

  23. fnlevit says:

    Have the honorable members of this discussion asked a natural symmetric question (physicists like me like to consider symmetries in nature), symmetric question of what is the percentage of the Palestnians supporting the peace with Israel? With clarifications like “with or without declaration of the END OF THE CONFLICT”, “with or w/o mutually agreed swaps of land”, etc. Interesting to know.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “a natural symmetric question”

      It’s not a “naturally symmetric” situation, any more than there is symmetry between rapist and rape victim. When you people stop your endless crimes against your Palestinian victims, then your question might be appropriate. Not before.

    • amigo says:

      “Have the honorable members of this discussion asked a natural symmetric question (physicists like me like to consider symmetries in nature), symmetric question of what is the percentage of the Palestnians supporting the peace with Israel? With clarifications like “with or without declaration of the END OF THE CONFLICT”, “with or w/o mutually agreed swaps of land”, etc. Interesting to know.”fnlevit.

      People observe the symmetrical nature, often including asymmetrical balance, of social interactions in a variety of contexts. These include assessments of reciprocity, empathy, apology, dialog, respect, justice, and revenge.

      Just one of those fits Zionism.You figure out which one.

      Symmetrical interactions send the message “we are all the same” while asymmetrical interactions send the message “I am special; better than you.” Peer relationships are based on symmetry, power relationships are based on asymmetry.[14]

      Recognize Zionism in there somewhere.

    • Shingo says:

      Have the honorable members of this discussion asked a natural symmetric question (physicists like me like to consider symmetries in nature)

      If you were a physicist you wouldn’t pose such an absurd question given that there has NEVER been any symmetries in this conflict. It is entirely one sided in every regard.

      symmetric question of what is the percentage of the Palestnians supporting the peace with Israel?

      Typical Zionist sadism. You have no right to ask that question until you address the crimes and injustices that Israel has inflicted.

      That’s like a rapist offering to stop the abuse on condition that his victim promises to give him first.

    • talknic says:

      fnlevit“.. natural symmetric question … of what is the percentage of the Palestnians supporting the peace with Israel?…”

      Numerous efforts are constantly being made to point out the complete lack of symmetry in the I/P issue

      “(physicists like me like to consider symmetries in nature)”

      If a physicist like you can’t grasp the complete lack of symmetry in the I/P issue I doubt you’ll be able to understand it in nature, which is far more complex.

      • Donald says:

        “If a physicist like you can’t grasp the complete lack of symmetry in the I/P issue I doubt you’ll be able to understand it in nature, which is far more complex.”

        Doesn’t follow. His emotions and prejudices are less likely to play a role when he’s studying physics. There aren’t any Arab or Israeli elementary particles.

  24. Hostage says:

    (physicists like me like to consider symmetries in nature), symmetric question of what is the percentage of the Palestnians supporting the peace with Israel? With clarifications like “with or without declaration of the END OF THE CONFLICT”, “with or w/o mutually agreed swaps of land”, etc. Interesting to know.

    Lawyers like to talk about “Quiet enjoyment”. The Palestinians didn’t invade Israel and colonize it. In order for symmetry to exist, the Palestinians would need to dispossess hundreds of thousands of Jews and settle hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs on State and private land on the Israel side of the Green Line and declare that it will be part of Palestine under any conceivable final settlement.

    • Donald says:

      “In order for symmetry to exist, the Palestinians would need to dispossess hundreds of thousands of Jews and settle hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs on State and private land on the Israel side of the Green Line and declare that it will be part of Palestine under any conceivable final settlement.”

      An obvious point that seems impossible for some to understand.

      • Shingo says:

        Indeed, and yet they come to this blog resigned to the idea that they will be able to change anyone’s mind because Israel is understood.

  25. fnlevit says:

    I do not get this logic. Granted there is no symmetry between the parties but that is not what I was refereing to. If one wants say to sell a car and another wants to buy it there must be a symmetree of agreements on the price. Otherwise no deal. So I was asking if the palestinians support peace with Israel because if they dont then there is no deal irrespective of what Israelis think. So again – do Palestinians support peace? I have in my possesion data showing that only 15% percent support neotiations and 45% suport armed struglle. Isnt this a meaningful statistics to compare with statistics of Israeli attittude towards the peace process? I think it is and trying to hide behind all those words and accusations is not an answer. Be honest with yourself.