Netanyahu says Palestinians must recognize ‘the Jewish state’ for peace (and then says even that isn’t enough)

Yesterday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returned to Bar Ilan University, where in 2009 he gave a speech that many reference to show his support for the two-state solution, and made it clear that a peace deal will not be happening on his watch. You can watch video of the speech above (starting around 51:00) and here is the Haaretz summary:

Almost four and half years after he stood at the podium at Bar-Ilan University and delivered a moderate speech in which he recognized for the first time the two-state solution, Netanyahu returned to the same spot to give a hawkish address in which he did everything except announce that he is reneging on his agreement in principle to Palestinian statehood.

“Unless the Palestinians recognize the Jewish state and give up on the right of return there will not be peace,” he said in his address.

The prime minister went on to say that even if they do agree to these conditions, it will not be sufficient. “After generations of incitement we have no confidence that such recognition will percolate down to the Palestinian people,” he said. “That is why we need extremely strong security arrangements and to go forward, but not blindly.”

The centerpiece of Netanyahu’s speech was the insistence that Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state. From the speech:

During my speech here four years ago, I said that the solution is a demilitarized Palestinian state. The reason for demilitarization is clear to everyone in light of our experience – true and ongoing demilitarization with very clear security arrangements and no international forces. But a Jewish state – recognize the Jewish state. Why are you not willing to recognize the Jewish state? We are willing to recognize your nation state, and that is at great cost – it involves territories, our ancestral lands, which is not insignificant. And I say this as well – this is a very difficult thing. But you need to make a series of concessions too and the first concession is to give up your dream of the right of return. We will not be satisfied with recognition of the Israeli people or of some kind of binational state which will later be flooded by refugees. This is the nation state of the Jewish people. If they want, Jews immigrate to this country. Palestinian Arabs, if they want, will go there. Recognize the Jewish state. As long as you refuse to do so, there will never be peace. Recognize our right to live here in our own sovereign state, our nation state – only then will peace be possible.

I emphasize this here – this is an essential condition.

Although, as Haaretz points out above, even that wouldn’t be enough for Netanyahu because be basically thinks Palestinians hate Israelis too much to be trusted. Twitter user Joel Braunold summarized the speech as such:


The Institute for Middle East Understanding has put together a useful resource on the Israeli demand to recognize the “Jewish state,” and why to Palestinians this means asking them to agree to their own displacement and dispossession:

WHY DO PALESTINIANS OPPOSE RECOGNIZING ISRAEL AS A JEWISH STATE?

  • Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state means de facto endorsing Israel’s institutionalized discrimination against Palestinian Arab and other non-Jewish citizens of the state, who comprise approximately 20% of the population, about 1.6 million people. (See below for more on institutionalized discrimination against non-Jewish citizens of Israel.)
  • Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state means effectively renouncing the internationally recognized right of return of Palestinian refugees expelled from their homes and land during Israel’s creation in 1948. (See here for more on the right of return.)
  • Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state means endorsing an ideological narrative that denies and distorts Palestinian history, and seeks to subordinate fundamental Palestinian human rights for the benefit of Israeli Jews.

WHY DOES THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT INSIST THE PALESTINIANS RECOGNIZE ISRAEL AS A JEWISH STATE?

  • The demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as a “Jewish state” is rooted in an Israeli desire to maintain a Jewish majority state, in which Jews enjoy rights and privileges not granted to non-Jewish citizens, in a region that is predominantly Arab. The Israelis hope that by getting Palestinians to officially recognize Israel as a Jewish state in a peace agreement they can effectively negate the Palestinian right of return and legitimize in advance whatever discriminatory legal measures they may take in the future to ensure a Jewish majority, as well as current ones.
  • For the hardline Netanyahu, who boasted following his first term in office (1996-1999) that he “de facto put an end to the Oslo Accords,” insisting Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state is also potentially a way to sabotage any negotiations while placing the blame on the Palestinians for being rejectionist. (See here for more on Netanyahu’s views on the two-state solution and peace with the Palestinians.)

ORIGINS OF THE DEMAND

  • Israel has not insisted that any country in the world, including the United States and the two neighboring Arab countries Israel has peace treaties with, Egypt and Jordan, recognize it as a Jewish state.
  • In 1988, the PLO recognized the state of Israel. This was a historic compromise on the part of the Palestinians, who effectively renounced claim to 78% of historic Palestine. (See map here.) In 1993, the PLO and the government of Israel exchanged official letters in which the Palestinians again formally recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.”
  • The demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as a “Jewish state” was not part of the original Oslo peace process during the 1990s, only first appearing in 2001 when officials in the Bush administration began mentioning it. Prior to that, Palestinians had only been asked to agree to Israel’s existence as a state. Only in 2007 did Israeli officials begin demanding that the Palestinians formally recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
  • President Barack Obama adopted President George W. Bush’s support for the new requirement of the Palestinians, publicly calling on Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

INSTITUTIONALIZED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NON-JEWISH CITIZENS OF ISRAEL

  • The 2012 State Department country report on Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, released in April 2013, noted that Palestinian citizens of Israel suffer from “institutional and societal discrimination… in particular in access to equal education and employment opportunities.”
  • While Palestinian Arabs comprise approximately 20% of the population of Israel (about 1.6 million people), as non-Jews they are confined by law and zoning policies to just 3.5% of the land. Approximately 93% of the land in Israel is owned either by the state or by quasi-governmental agencies, such as the Jewish National Fund, which discriminate against non-Jews. Palestinian citizens of Israel face significant legal obstacles in accessing land for agriculture, residential, or commercial development.
  • Since Israel’s establishment in 1948, approximately 600 new municipalities have been created for Jewish communities, while only a handful have been created for non-Jews.
  • Tens of thousands of Bedouin and other non-Jewish citizens of Israel live in villages that aren’t recognized by the state or provided basic services like water or electricity. As many as 70,000 Bedouin citizens of Israel currently face eviction from their ancestral lands in the Negev desert, part of the so-called “Prawer plan” to “Judaize” the area.
  • Israeli government resources are disproportionately directed to Jews, a major factor in causing Palestinian citizens of Israel to suffer the lowest living standards in Israeli society by all socio-economic indicators.
  • Government funding for Arab schools is far below that of Jewish schools. According to the 2012 State Department country report on Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, released in April 2013: “Resources devoted to Arabic education were inferior to those devoted to Hebrew education in the public education system, leading some Arabs in ethnically mixed cities to study in Hebrew instead.”
  • There are more than 50 Israeli laws that privilege Jews or discriminate against non-Jews. These laws affect everything from immigration and family reunification to land ownership rights. They include:
    • The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law prevents Palestinians from the occupied territories who are married to Palestinian citizens of Israel from gaining residency or citizenship status in Israel. This law forces thousands of Palestinian citizens of Israel to either leave Israel or live apart from their families. In January 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court upheld the law against a challenge, with one justice writing, “Human rights are not a prescription for national suicide.” In an editorial, the respected liberal Israeli daily Haaretz decried the decision as thrusting Israel “down the slippery slope of apartheid.”
    • In 2011, the Israeli government approved a law allowing approximately 300 rural Israeli Jewish-majority towns to reject residents who do not meet a vague “social suitability” standard. Critics, including Human Rights Watch, slammed the move as an attempt to allow Jewish towns to keep Arabs and other non-Jews out.
    • The British Mandate-era Land [Acquisition for Public Purposes] Ordinance law allows the Israeli government to confiscate land for “public purposes.” Israel has used this law extensively, in conjunction with other laws such as the Land Acquisition Law and the Absentees’ Property Law, to confiscate Palestinian land in Israel.
    • The Law of Return allows Jews born anywhere in the world to immigrate to Israel and receive full citizenship automatically, while Israel denies the same right to Palestinians, who were born in and expelled from what became Israel in 1948, and their descendants.
    • In 2011, the Israeli government passed the so-called “Nakba law” which bans state funding for groups that commemorate the tragedy that befell Palestinians during the establishment of Israel in 1948, when approximately 750,000 Palestinian Arabs were ethnically cleansed to create a Jewish-majority state. (See here for more on the Nakba.)
    • In recent years, at least four bills were submitted to the Israeli legislature attempting to further entrench Israel’s identity as a Jewish state into law. In June 2013, a bill was introduced by Yariv Levin of Netanyahu’s Likud party and Ayelet Shaked of the Jewish Home party that would formalize Israel’s status as “the national home of the Jewish people,” specifying “that the right to national self-determination in Israel is reserved solely for Jews,” according to Haaretz newspaper.

About Adam Horowitz

Adam Horowitz is Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine, Israeli Government, Occupation

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

  1. seafoid says:

    I wonder for how much longer Israel will call the shots.
    Milikovsky with his “it’s not about 1967, the occupation doesn’t matter” thinks he’ll get another 20 years of doing nothing about peace while building houses for Jews in Yesha. We have to swallow Shoah business and “Jews wouldn’t do that” as if the field isn’t already saturated with Israeli insincerity and bad faith.

    • W.Jones says:

      Seafoid, I assume they will get as long as they want. They change the facts on the ground and if the world ever wakes up, by then it will be too late, which it was a long time ago. The only thing to say for sure is that in the long term, what is for sure about facts on the ground?

      • seafoid says:

        I have been reading about France in Algeria. Colony on the other side of the Med. So many facts on the ground. 130 years which is 2* Zionism. So 6 generations. Eternal. Went extremist. Metro France lost interest.

        I just can’t see Judaism running apartheid 2.0 for the next 50 years. The moral hypocrisy required of ordinary Israelis, what they will have to do to their children and what it will mean for their society and their values – it won’t work.

        • W.Jones says:

          Seafoid,

          In Algeria the French population was what small percent of the Muslim one? In the Holy Land, the numbers are roughly even, and Palestinians are even less if you don’t consider Gaza. Algeria was not really administratively managable because of the population issue, and plus the Algerians were fighting. The Palestinians on the other hand have been basically disarmed and constantly imprisoned demographically. I am not saying it won’t change, but unfortunately I am not sure there is as much room for optimism as I would like.

          I would like Israelis to want to live together with Palestinians, but the former are becoming even less tolerant in their polls. They are far more powerful financially and militarily as well. Absent a resurgence of the Middle East economically, it seems hard to say what could in the near term make it happen. France was not interested in maintaining the colonization, but the Israeli State seems to very much. Then you have so many other factors, like the stigma against talking about the persecution in the US, the Holocaust issue, the fact that there is a religious goal of controlling the Holy Land, etc.

          I am afraid we are looking at a longterm situation of domination of one group over another in the Holy Land.

          Even the Crusaders did not completely leave the Holy Land- they are still assimilated into Lebanon. Perhaps over centuries Israelis will gain/regain a “Middle Eastern” view of themselves, like the Lebanese have. Israelis have already incorporated some Middle Eastern food, etc. I am also doubtful 5 million of them really will simply immigrate back to Europe. Thus ultimately as a population it looks like they will stay, and meanwhile in the long term, there really is not anything that will force or persuade them to have an ideal democratic one state society.

        • W.Jones says:

          This is my guess, but I think perhaps you are too optimistic. In the short term probably the major change will be that leftists and human right activists will become more and more disenchanted with the Israeli State, because the system in place there does not match humanitarian ideals of equality, since it is one group controlling another. Modern Judaism and its community may also be seen more often in those circles as a particularist religion.

          There are also trends that Mondoweiss has noted- Christian Zionist supporters of the State gathering numbers while Israelis’ cousins in America care less about it. Plus, growing control over the West Bank and settlement there, making the situation a study in contrasts. One thing MW has not noted as much is the change in Israeli opinion over the last several generations. Perhaps Netanyahu will be considered a “moderate” in a few more generations, as those changes assert themselves. That change makes peace or integration less likely.

          But it seems like in the long term some shift will happen politically. The Holy Land switched hands so many times in thousands of years, it practically must happen again at some point. Perhaps the Middle East will become stronger economically like it was 1200 years ago, and this will change the balance of power there. It is hard to see the shift in the control of the land happening soon though, because of so many forces and causes blocking it, eg. the Sparta mentality, the religious goals involved, the force of their committed supporters, etc.

          Perhaps by that time, the Middle East will be reformed and secular enough so that if re-union occurs, the Israelis will be an upper level in Middle Eastern society.

        • seafoid says:

          Economics will be a key factor in what happens. That is what ultimately did for the Nazis. And the South Africans.

          The trends don’t look good for Israel. Increasing proportions of non working haredim, decreasing secular (working) population, hard time selling Israel abroad, will probably hit donations at some stage, cost of the wars of the future, declining diplomatic capital. A property crash could do a lot of damage too.

          I just don’t think Israel is as solid as it looks.

        • W.Jones says:

          1. (Increasing proportions of non working haredim) In an extreme situation, the former might be regulated into working. Anyway, perhaps they are doing some working, and so far their economy is still growing faster than America’s, in decline.

          2. (will probably hit donations at some stage, cost of the wars of the future) Didn’t it actually begin with donations, eg. those received by the kibbutzes, and the instances when the JNF purchased land from the Arab effendis? Do you think Adelson & co. would stop when they are personally willing to make appearances at Cooper Union?

          3. (hard time selling Israel abroad declining diplomatic capital.) Americans and their government are still favoring it. Did you see the poll within the last several months showing American attitudes on Israel have barely changed in the last 20 years?

          So yes, the Haredim are a slow drain on the economy, but the State has done well with donations and American support for a long time and it doesn’t look like that will really change in the short term. Granted, you may see a glacier moving, but it is a glacier pace, it seems.

          The only real change for me has been that since Cast Lead and the bombing of Lebanon leftists in general are more disillusioned, compared with, say, the 1960′s. The voluntary Israeli withdrawal from Gaza is also interesting as a change, although the military did not give up its control over the area, even if it is not directly there.

        • Theo says:

          Here I would like to insert that in Algeria the greatest percentage of the french colonists were born in that country, therefore so to speak were natives. We should also not forget the french colonised that land at the begining of the 19th century.
          We are now in the 21st century with different international laws in force and in Israel the greatest percentage of jews immigrated there, mostly from the former SU, (over 2 million), therefore are strangers and so occupiers and colonists.
          If the french could withdraw and take their compatriots back home, so could the jews go back to Russia, Ukraina and other states, where they were born and are or were citizens. Those countries are their homes!!
          In my opinion this is not a major problem in case the necessary agreements are signed. The major problem are the radical zionists with their idea of Eretz Israel, who think that “God gave that land to the jews”!! That is the major block to any agreement on the palestinian problem.

        • seafoid says:

          “In Algeria the French population was what small percent of the Muslim one?”

          It’s the same in Israel if you take the wider Arab area into account. You have an extremist religious minority living on the coast and an all Arab hinterland …

        • W.Jones says:

          It’s the same in Israel if you take the wider Arab area into account. You have an extremist religious minority living on the coast and an all Arab hinterland …
          Except that in Algeria that wider hinterland was living under colonial rule, which pushed them to resist it.

          As for the Israeli State, the wider Arab hinterland of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq is not living under Israeli rule, which does not create as strong a resistance to it as in the case of Algeria. That is not to say there is not a grain of salt in your comparison, since the State has created alot of friction, to say the least, with those countries. But it is not the same situation where you have 10-20% of the population ruling 85% of the population (my guess). Instead, the numbers are more comparable.

        • Problem for the French in Algeria was that there were far too few “French” and far too many others who did not want to be “French”. This is not the problem in Israel itself.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          @ Theo (from the other thread)

          “In my simple opinion “ethnicity” is never based on religion, but on the idea of a group of people coming from the same location, having ethnic similarities in their origin, therefore I refute your comment.”

          Even if your sources are correct (which I doubt, given the genetic evidence), your point still fails because although descent is often seen as a part of ethnicity, it is not, strictly speaking, absolutely necessary and homogeneity in descent is impossible anyway, especially among a dispersed population.

  2. amigo says:

    “You can watch video of the speech above (starting around 51:00)”

    No thanks, I am about to have supper and would like to enjoy it without gagging.

  3. mondonut says:

    WHY DO PALESTINIANS OPPOSE RECOGNIZING ISRAEL AS A JEWISH STATE?

    #1 – No more so then establishing any peaceful relations with the State of Israel, which of course they would have to do anyway. Basically a red herring, the true reason…

    #2 – The RoR as the Palestinians define it does not exist anywhere in law. And please do not bother replying with the fantasy that the Palestinians have no interest in the RoR for descendants. That is a tiresome lie. And BTW, UNGA 194 provides no rights.

    #3 – Ummm, so what? They can have their own history in their own state. If we are talking about the Palestinians getting the state they supposedly want, then this is hardly a deal breaker.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      ” No more so then establishing any peaceful relations with the State of Israel”

      Nonsense. If that were the case, then the Jews running the israeli government would be satisfied with the same bilateral recognition that exists between every other pair of states which recognize each other in the world. But you people don’t want mutual recogniztion between equals, you want a people to permanently dominate.

      “The RoR as the Palestinians define it does not exist anywhere in law.”

      Your denialism — akin to Holocaust denial — is a perfect example of the problem.

      “Ummm, so what?”

      Yeah, I don’t expect a zionist to have concerns for things like human rights or to have feelings like compassion, like decent people do…

      • mondonut says:

        Woody Tanaka says: Nonsense.
        ================
        This is not any other state, it is Palestine, existing relations do not compare. The Palestinians have very recently claimed the entirety of Israel as theirs. Many still do. They seek to eliminate the Jewish State through the non-existsant RoR. No other state is comparable.

        And no, a negative opinion on the RoR is nothing like Holocaust denial. What a ridiculous statement.

        • Hostage says:

          And no, a negative opinion on the RoR is nothing like Holocaust denial.

          Of course it’s exactly like Holocaust denial. The EU Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia makes what you are doing here a punishable offense, i.e. public condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) and crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the [Nuremberg] International Military Tribunal.

          Unjustifiable delay of repatriation of prisoners of war or civilians is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and a war crime. See article 85(4) and (5) of the 1st Additional Protocol below for list of war crimes Israel has committed. *Note they are all incorporated in Article 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute as either violations of the Geneva Conventions, the customary laws of war, or crimes against humanity:

          4. In addition to the grave breaches defined in the preceding paragraphs and in the Conventions, the following shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully and in violation of the Conventions or the Protocol:
          (a) the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory, in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Convention;
          (b) unjustifiable delay in the repatriation of prisoners of war or civilians;
          (c) practices of apartheid and other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination;
          (d) making the clearly-recognized historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and to which special protection has been given by special arrangement, for example, within the framework of a competent international organization, the object of attack, causing as a result extensive destruction thereof, where there is no evidence of the violation by the adverse Party of Article 53, subparagraph (b), and when such historic monuments, works of art and places of worship are not located in the immediate proximity of military objectives;
          (e) depriving a person protected by the Conventions or referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article of the rights of fair and regular trial.

          5. Without prejudice to the application of the Conventions and of this Protocol, grave breaches of these instruments shall be regarded as war crimes

          link to icrc.org

          Why don’t you just STFU about the ROR? It only makes you look criminally stupid.

        • Shingo says:

          The Palestinians have very recently claimed the entirety of Israel as theirs.

          False. The opposite is the case. The Zionists have very recently claimed the entirety of Paelstine as theirs.

          They have already eliminated most remnants of the Palestinians population and villages and towns that were there before they created Israel.

        • Cliff says:

          Mondonut, you are no different from a Holocaust denier.

          Go to Stormfront. You belong with other nuts.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “This is not any other state, it is Palestine”

          Your argument here is an appeal to bigotry, and should be dismissed as such.

          “The Palestinians have very recently claimed the entirety of Israel as theirs. Many still do.”

          BFD. The Palestinians are on record saying that they are willing to let the zios steal over 3/4 of the Palestinians’ land for their Apartheid state. The fact that some people don’t want to go along is simply a reflection of the fundamental evil of the zio position and ideology.

          “And no, a negative opinion on the RoR is nothing like Holocaust denial. ”

          Nonsense. It’s a species of Naka denial and in many ways is morally worse than Holocaust denial because it is ongoing and actually affects people’s lives.

        • talknic says:

          mondonut “The Palestinians have very recently claimed the entirety of Israel as theirs”

          Care to give the source of of the official claim?

          “They seek to eliminate the Jewish State through the non-existsant RoR”

          Impossible. The only people with RoR to Israel per UNGA res 194 link to unispal.un.org (no lineal descendants) are all over 65 years of age and had a 1948 life expectancy of 46 yrs. 65 years has passed. Common sense, the odds and simple maths tells us the majority of them are DEAD and those few remaining are over the age of rampant procreation

          But keep repeating your lines. It affords us the opportunity time and again to show honest readers the type of person defending Israel’s illegal activities.

        • mondonut says:

          talknic says: Care to give the source of of the official claim?
          ==================================================
          The PLO did not accept Israel’s right to exist until 1988, and yes that is recent. Even more recent is Hamas continuing claim to all of Israel.

          But keep repeating your lines. It affords us the opportunity time and again to show honest readers the type of person defending Israel’s illegal activities.

          Who is this “us” that you speak of? You have failed to convince anyone at this blog of your ridiculous belief that the Palestinians do not include descendants in their RoR claims.

        • Shingo says:

          The PLO did not accept Israel’s right to exist until 1988, and yes that is recent.

          So what? Israel has never accepted Palestine’s right to exist.

        • Hostage says:

          Who is this “us” that you speak of? You have failed to convince anyone at this blog of your ridiculous belief that the Palestinians do not include descendants in their RoR claims.

          Well you’ve failed to convince anyone here that right of return doesn’t exist in international law. In any event, it is an individual right that can’t be waived by PLO or Israeli negotiators.

          FYI, if Israel had an open and shut legal case against the return of descendants, they’d be knocking on the ICJ Courthouse door instead of falsely claiming that their final status can only be determined through a negotiated final settlement.

          The truth is that refugees and asylum seekers pass their legal status on to their children under a number of international laws and that provisions for maintaining family or tribal unity in international law, like the 1951 Refugee Convention and Protocols, the 1969 OAU Convention, and the Cartagena Declaration are not limited to minor children. Many of them say that a refugee continues to be protected until their case is resolved in accordance with resolutions of the UN General Assembly. The definition of the term refugee is considerably broader under many of the regional international treaties on human rights. They provide for multiple countries of nationality; take into account attempts at illegal denationalization; and prohibit or criminalize the act of rejection at the frontier. In short, the full scope of a Palestine refugee’s rights under international agreements depends upon the country or region where they have taken-up asylum.

          See the Cartagena Declaration

          And the OAU Convention

          Customary Rule 132. Return of Displaced Persons

        • @Mondonut – - Most Arab leaders say the Palestinians comprehend right of return will be severely limited, in any deal with Israel. Obviously, no deal is possible if a condition to the deal is admission into Israel of millions of non-Jews.

        • Hostage says:

          “The Palestinians have very recently claimed the entirety of Israel as theirs. Many still do.”

          BFD.

          I agree, senior members of the Cabinet and Israeli Knesset regularly do the very same thing in the NYTimes and WaPo Op-Ed pages.

        • talknic says:

          @ mondonut “the Palestinian RoR is a claim upon Israel not backed by law”

          OK have it your way = there’s also no RoR for Jews from Arab countries. Not that there are any Jewish refugees now, having forgone refugee status for citizenship elsewhere.

          @ mondonut //Care to give the source of of the official claim?//

          “The PLO did not accept Israel’s right to exist until 1988, and yes that is recent. Even more recent is Hamas continuing claim to all of Israel”

          = no source of the official claim = fail

          “Who is this “us” that you speak of? “

          Everyone who shows your nonsense to be nonsense. It’s not hard

        • talknic says:

          @ Mondonut “You have failed to convince anyone at this blog of your ridiculous belief that the Palestinians do not include descendants in their RoR claims”

          No one has shown me conclusive evidence of the right for lineal descendants and no one, including yourself has ever shown an official Palestinian claim other than 1948 UNGA res 194 for RoR to Israel of 00:001 May 15th 1948 (ME time )

          That stateless lineal descendants of refugees are in turn refugees is beyond doubt. However their RoR is questionable given that the Conventions and definitions maintain one had to have had actually lived in the/a region of return link to unispal.un.org

          Although being a stateless lineal descendant of a refugee may not afford them RoR, the precedents set in law by Jewish claims on Germany almost certainly afford Palestinian refugees the right to claim financial reimbursement of any inheritance illegally acquired by the State of Israel.

          It’s just another one of many reasons Israel MUST remain in denial. The financial repercussions of now adhering to the law are way beyond Israel’s financial capabilities.

          Under the law Israel would find itself paying rightful compensation for the illegal acquisition of territory, paying compensation for the illegal acquisition of private property, paying out illegally acquired inheritances, having to repatriate hundreds of thousands of illegal Israeli settlers back within Israel’s only recognized borders and housing them. Losing the lucrative resources of the non-Israeli territories it has been exploiting, losing billions of dollars of investment in its illegal facts on the ground.

          Facing a civil war in non-Israeli territories as it tried to remove hundreds of thousands of very angry illegal Israeli settlers who’ve been duped into believing they had a right to be there. All of which would add up to a failed state.

        • Hostage says:

          That stateless lineal descendants of refugees are in turn refugees is beyond doubt. However their RoR is questionable given that the Conventions and definitions maintain one had to have had actually lived in the/a region of return link to unispal.un.org

          The laws that were in force under the mandate granted automatic Palestinian citizenship to any children born abroad. That is considered a longstanding family right in most countries. Those laws remained in force under the Israeli Transition Act and Israel had to pledge that it would give the UN every assistance in implementing resolution 194(III) in line with its Charter obligation in order to be admitted as a member state.

          So it retroactively denationalized the Palestinian refugees in 1952 after it was admitted to the UN in the Nationality Law, 5712-1952
          link to israellawresourcecenter.org

          That law amounted to a writ or bill of attainder against Palestinian refugees under international law. The notion of forceably deporting entire families into permanent exile and stripping them of their nationality, tribal lands, estates, or private property without any proof wrongdoing or judicial process is an obvious violation of the Hague rule on the protection of family honor and rights. link to icrc.org

          The Geneva and refugee conventions merely supplement those longstanding customary rules of state practice. All of the western governments have recognized and entered into treaty relations with a number of nations whose societies are organized or governed by family or religious units like tribes, clans, & etc. Article 46 requires that those associations be respected.

        • talknic says:

          @ Hostage Thx .. I was un-aware

          The 1925 Citizenship Order partially recognized the jus soli principle. In defining Palestinian citizens by birth. Article 3, Clause (c), of the Order provided:
          Any person born whether in or out of lawful matrimony within Palestine who does not by his birth or by subsequent legitimation acquire the nationality of any other Stale or whose nationality is unknown.

          This clause regarded as Palestinians those children born to:
          (I) a stateless father: (2) an unknown father; or (3) unknown parents, i.e. a foundling child. It follows that the Order did not confer Palestinian nationality by the mere fact of birth in Palestine. Thus, the Order adopted the jus soli principle in the “exceptional case[s] of persons who otherwise would have been stateless”.
          This exceptional adoption of the principle was similar to the position of the 1869 Ottoman Nationality Law.’

          The International Law Foundations of Palestinian Nationality
          Palestinian Citizenship Orders, 1925-1942 Chapt V page 110

          The laws remaining in force under the Israeli Transition Act is a little harder to find …

        • mondonut says:

          Cliff says: Go to Stormfront. You belong with other nuts.
          =======================================
          Ha. This is the place for the I/P nuts.

        • Hostage says:

          The 1925 Citizenship Order partially recognized the jus soli principle. In defining Palestinian citizens by birth. Article 3, Clause (c), of the Order provided: . . .

          The overwhelming majority of refugees were Palestinian citizens in accordance with Article 3 (b):

          (b) Any person born in lawful matrimony out of Palestine whose father was a Palestinian citizen at the time of that person’s birth and was either born within Palestine or had obtained a certificate of naturalisation, or who had acquired Palestinian citizenship under Article 1 or Article 5 of this Order.

          link to books.google.com

          The order was amended in 1931 to take care of people who were made stateless between the entry into force of the Treaty of Lauzanne and the 1925 Order-in-Council. This is the amended law that remained in effect under the Israeli Transition Act. The act retained the laws in effect during the Mandate that weren’t repugnant to Jewish sensibilities and simply inserted Israel anywhere Palestine had formerly appeared. The new Israeli Courts immediately used Judge-made law to claim that Palestinian citizenship had been terminated on the day Israel came into existence. Those rulings were used to prevent the refugees from claiming Israeli citizenship. link to books.google.com

          The new state of Israel had established a population registry (see the link contained in the 1950 Act) and used that in conjunction with its first Nationality Law of 1950 to denationalize all of the refugees.

        • mondonut says:

          talknic says:
          = no source of the official claim = fail
          ====================================================
          Are you serious? You are really denying that the Palestinians have ever claimed the entirety of Israel? Are you going to need an official document if I were to state that 2+2=4 ??

          link to un.int

        • talknic says:

          mondonut “You are really denying that the Palestinians have ever claimed the entirety of Israel?

          I didn’t make YOUR claim. YOU did.

          Your statement ““The Palestinians have very recently claimed the entirety of Israel as theirs”

          You keep failing miserably. The first ‘recently’ you didn’t give a source for was 1/4 of a century ago (1988), now ‘recently’ has been ‘updated’ to almost 1/2 a century ago (1964)

          2011 and 2012 are ‘recent’ where Abbas at the UN, in front of the world, threw the ball into Israel’s court link to pages.citebite.com an amazing offer by any standard, asking for and taking NOTHING of Israel’s

          The State of Israel responded to this incredibly generous offer by building more of its ghastly illegal facts on the ground

      • Hostage says:

        “The RoR as the Palestinians define it does not exist anywhere in law.”

        You’re suffering from a lack of self-awareness. It has an exact parallel to the Jewish right of return in your own law. The requested “settlement” is similar to the one in the Palestine Mandate that required the British government to facilitate settlement of Jewish aliens on state land or waste land not needed for public use and in the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship.

        The mandatory repatriation of the actual refugees displaced by the 1948 and 1967 wars and the deportations is black letter law contained in the various UN Human Rights Conventions and the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, e.g. IV GC, Article 6 and 49.

        • mondonut says:

          Hostage says: It has an exact parallel to the Jewish right of return in your own law. The mandatory repatriation of the actual refugees displaced by the 1948 and 1967 wars and the deportations is black letter law contained in the various UN Human Rights Conventions and the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, e.g. IV GC, Article 6 and 49.
          ============================================
          The Palestinian claim to RoR has no similarity to the Law of Return (and it is not “my” law). The LoR is an immigration policy and is without dispute the right of Israel to establish, the Palestinian RoR is a claim upon Israel not backed by law.

          And as you know, the Geneva Convention of 1949 is not retroactive to 1948 and it does not support the “rights” of descendants. In short, it does not support Palestinian claims. The same goes for your various UN conventions, the vast majority of which do not constitute law.

          And BTW, the statements above are not a criminal offense.

        • Shingo says:

          . The LoR is an immigration policy and is without dispute the right of Israel to establish, the Palestinian RoR is a claim upon Israel not backed by law.

          False, UN194, which Israel said they accepted, states it is.

          And as you know, the Geneva Convention of 1949 is not retroactive to 1948 and it does not support the “rights” of descendants.

          Wrong. It does.

        • Hostage says:

          The Palestinian claim to RoR has no similarity to the Law of Return (and it is not “my” law). The LoR is an immigration policy and is without dispute the right of Israel to establish, the Palestinian RoR is a claim upon Israel not backed by law.

          No it is not Israel’s right to allow alien immigration into the territory beyond the UN partition lines, while it bases its other claims on the armistice agreement argument that the final status of that territory can only be determined through bilateral negotiations. The Palestinian right of return is enshrined in customary international law regarding displaced persons and undue delays in repatriating refugees is a war crime. Deny that fact is violation of the comment policy here. Full stop.

          See Rule 132. Return of Displaced Persons link to icrc.org
          And Article 85(4) and 85(5) link to icrc.org

        • eljay says:

          >> The LoR is an immigration policy …

          The LoR is a supremacist immigration policy, which grants to people around the world who happen to be Jewish special immigration status not accorded to all Israelis equally or to people originally from the region currently designated as Israel.

        • Hostage says:

          And as you know, the Geneva Convention of 1949 is not retroactive to 1948 and it does not support the “rights” of descendants.

          No I don’t know that, because no Court has ruled on the question. The Geneva Conventions state explicitly that they are supplementary to the Hague IV rules of 1907 that had already passed-on into the body of customary international law by the time of the Nuremberg trials. The Geneva Conventions have also been recognized as a codification of the rules of customary law which were considered binding on non-signatories.

          If you claim that Article 46 of the Hague Convention respecting the protection of “Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice” don’t apply to Palestinian families or that there are magical Zionist exceptions to the absolute prohibition against confiscation of private property belonging to those families, I’d love to see you explain that to an International Court.

          I can’t imagine anything more disrespectful of family, clan, or tribal rights than issuing what amounts to a bill of attainder to denationalize and permanently exile the family members. That’s been illegal or unconstitutional in many societies, including our own in the USA, for several centuries now.

        • mondonut says:

          Hostage says: No it is not Israel’s right to allow alien immigration.. Deny that fact is violation of the comment policy here. Full stop.
          ==============================================
          Israel has the same right as every country to establish their own immigration policy, like it or not. Full Stop.

          And the rules you chose to quote do not support your contention that the 1949 convention is both retroactive and applies to descendants. Keep digging.

          If pointing out the above, that the Geneva convention is not retroactive, is a violation of comment policy – I would love to hear that from anyone who actually makes policy around here.

        • mondonut says:

          eljay says: The LoR is a supremacist immigration policy
          ======================================================
          I see. The supremacist LoR is a supremacist immigration policy, which grants supremacy to supremacist people around the world who happen to be supremacist Jewish, special supremacist immigration status not accorded to all Israelis equally or to people originally from the region currently designated as Israel. Supremacist, supremacist, supremacist.

        • mondonut says:

          Shingo says: False,
          - UN194, which Israel said they accepted, states it is.
          - Wrong. It does.
          ===========================================
          - UN 194 is not a law, it is not even binding on those who accept it.
          - Really? Please point out where it is retroactive and where it applies to descendants.

        • mondonut says:

          Hostage says:
          No I don’t know that, because no Court has ruled on the question.

          So tell me Legal Eagle, all rules and laws are considered infinitely retroactive unless ruled otherwise? Or is it the other way around?

          If you claim that Article 46 of the Hague Convention…

          So now the Palestinian claim to the RoR rests on “Family honour and rights”? You better alert the Palestinians because they are still quoting 194

        • talknic says:

          @ mondonut “So tell me Legal Eagle, all rules and laws are considered infinitely retroactive unless ruled otherwise? Or is it the other way around?”

          Stupid question. The GC’s are not retroactive they’re the codification and a supplement to what already existed. Either you didn’t read the post or it seems you’re just being a pathetic annoying jerk.

          “So now the Palestinian claim to the RoR rests on “Family honour and rights”?”

          Article 46 is one article

          ” You better alert the Palestinians because they are still quoting 194″

          UNGA res 194 was drafted based on the Hague Conventions, it predates the GCs of 1949. No one ever tell you that 1948 is BEFORE 1949

        • mondonut says:

          talknic says:
          The GC’s are not retroactive …
          Exactly. And as your buddy now likes to say, Full Stop.

          Article 46 is one article
          Ummm. Ok. WTF?

          UNGA res 194 was drafted based on the Hague Conventions, it predates the GCs of 1949. No one ever tell you that 1948 is BEFORE 1949
          UNGA res 194 provides no rights and is non-binding. Again with the full stop. If you prefer to find the RoR in the Hague Conventions then you should start quoting the Hague Conventions. Which as the Palestinians themselves understand (notice how they do not rest there claims on it), provides no RoR.

        • Hostage says:

          So tell me Legal Eagle, all rules and laws are considered infinitely retroactive unless ruled otherwise? Or is it the other way around?

          Article 23 of the Lieber Code was already customary law in 1863:

          Art. 23. Private citizens are no longer murdered, enslaved, or carried off to distant parts, and the inoffensive individual is as little disturbed in his private relations as the commander of the hostile troops can afford to grant in the overruling demands of a vigorous war.

          * link to icrc.org
          * link to avalon.law.yale.edu

          The Hague Convention of 1907 codified all of the customary practices shared by the international community of states. That included requirements that an occupying power must respect family honor and rights. That traditionally has included the right of residence or domicile, nationality, and continued quiet possession of family estates and private property after a change in sovereignty. Those customs pre-date the existence of the State of Israel by more than a century. So any question of retroactivity in that connection is moot.

          But since you asked, Israel has committed thousands of violations of the Geneva conventions since it became a signatory, including the failure to repatriate the refugees of the 1967 war, thousands of home demolitions, expropriations, and the revocation of residency rights involving more than one hundred thousand people. Retroactivity is a moot question in all of those cases.

          In 1993, the UN Security Council adopted a report by the Secretary General which stated that the Hague IV Convention, the four Geneva Conventions 1949, and their Protocols reflect many rules of customary law that had undoubtedly passed into that body of international law considered binding on all parties engaged in armed conflicts. The Security Council incorporated them into the Statutes of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and directed all member states, including Israel, to assist the tribunals in bringing the violators to justice. The tribunal did apply those rules retroactively to non-signatory parties – and an ad hoc regional or international criminal tribunal for Palestine could one day do the very same thing.

        • Hostage says:

          Stupid question. The GC’s are not retroactive they’re the codification and a supplement to what already existed.

          Exactly. You can be convicted for any crime that the Nazis were held accountable for before the Geneva Conventions of 1949 entered into force. While it’s true that Article 49 of the 4th Convention was adopted to codify the prohibition against forced population transfer, deportation, colonization of occupied territories, and expropriation or destruction of private property, those were already well-established violations of customary law. So the Tribunal rejected defenses based upon claims that the Nuremberg Charter was an ex post facto or retroactive law.

          Nothing prevents any state or collection of states today from exercising universal jurisdiction and prosecuting the Crimes against Peace listed in Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter and applying the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal. There’s even a special UN Convention which explains that fact:

          No statutory limitation shall apply to the following crimes, irrespective of the date of their commission:
          (a) War crimes as they are defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Nurnberg, of 8 August 1945 and confirmed by resolutions 3 (1) of 13 February 1946 and 95 (I) of 11 December 1946 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, particularly the “grave breaches” enumerated in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims;

          (b) Crimes against humanity whether committed in time of war or in time of peace as they are defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Nurnberg, of 8 August 1945 and confirmed by resolutions 3 (I) of 13 February 1946 and 95 (I) of 11 December 1946 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, eviction by armed attack or occupation and inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid, and the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, even if such acts do not constitute a violation of the domestic law of the country in which they were committed.

          – Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and CrimesAgainst Humanity link to www1.umn.edu

          The crimes of aggression that were prosecuted included the act of waging a war in violation of international treaties, forceable deporation, and systematic expropriation and destruction of homes. Israeli officials have done all of those things.

          The international courts are merely courts of last resort. A number of ad hoc regional criminal tribunals have been established with UN and ICJ blessing in places like Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Cambodia. I’m fond of pointing out that in R. v Jones, one of the Law Lords advised

          “that the core elements of the crime of aggression have been understood, at least since 1945, with sufficient clarity to permit the lawful trial (and, on conviction, punishment) of those accused of this most serious crime. It is unhistorical to suppose that the elements of the crime were clear in 1945 but have since become in any way obscure.”

        • Shingo says:

          Shingo says: False,
          - UN194, which Israel said they accepted, states it is.
          - Wrong. It does.
          ===========================================
          - UN 194 is not a law, it is not even binding on those who accept it.

          Yes it is, seeing as Israel accepted it as a condition of admission to the UN.

          Please point out where it is retroactive and where it applies to descendants.

          I never said it was retroactive, but it clearly applied to descendants.

        • Hostage says:

          The GC’s are not retroactive …
          Exactly. And as your buddy now likes to say, Full Stop.

          Once again, Article 1 of the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity explains that grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 or the acts defined as crimes in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal are not subject to any statutory limitations, even if such acts do not constitute a violation of the domestic law of the country in which they were committed.

          Israel helped establish the standard for prosecuting Germans under an ex post facto law that it adopted in August of 1950 for crimes they had committed in other countries, long before Israel even existed. link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

          So it’s a little late to be lecturing others about retroactivity.

        • Hostage says:

          And the rules you chose to quote do not support your contention that the 1949 convention is both retroactive and applies to descendants. Keep digging.

          Well here is a pretty good overview. link to israellawresourcecenter.org

          I’ve already provided a link to the Lieber Code (1863) from the ICRC website which explains that it reflected contemporary customary law regarding the treatment of civilians in war time. The Laws and Customs of War no longer permitted them to be driven into exile. FYI, the Nuremberg Charter established that forceable deportation was an international crime.

          The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) provided for the right of any person to return to their country of origin. That customary right was incorporated in the UN human rights treaties that Israel has subsequently ratified and is bound to respect.

          There shouldn’t be any doubt that civilians have a right to return after a conflict, when article 20 of Hague IV (1907) required that even belligerent POWs with blood on their hands had to be repatriated:

          Article 20. After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shall be carried out as quickly as possible.

          If you’re just trying to impersonate a Nazi, then you’re being wildly successful. But the comment policy here is based upon the notion that this isn’t the place to debate the legality of the Nakba.

        • talknic says:

          mondonut //talknic says:
          The GC’s are not retroactive … ///

          What was actually said is still there for all to read. It shows you to be a pathetic cheat. BRAVO.

          Again you show honest folk how low you’re willing to lower yourself

          “UNGA res 194 provides no rights and is non-binding.”

          The laws, UN Charter and relevant conventions in UNGA resolutions ARE binding.

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

          “Which as the Palestinians themselves understand (notice how they do not rest there claims on it)”

          Strange… They do. UNGA res 194 was based on the principles of existing international law.

          In true idiot for Israel style, you’ll say anything no matter how ridiculous, untrue or bizarre

        • Hostage says:

          Please point out where it is retroactive and where it applies to descendants.

          You seem to have a problem with the principle that, among other things, States are established to protect family rights and freedoms – including the right to quiet possession of the family home – for both ourselves and our posterity. The Leiber Code prescribed punishment for any violation of the “sacredness of domestic relations”. See the list of treaties and laws under Practice Relating to Rule 105. Respect for Family Life. link to icrc.org

          The idea of securing those fundamental human rights of future generations is part of the Laws of Nations reflected in the Manga Carta, the US Constitution, and the UN Charter itself.

          A change in sovereignty doesn’t effect the right of residence or family relations in anyway. In the case of the territory and people of Palestine the League of Nations and the International Court of Justice described the legal situation as a “sacred trust of civilization”.

          Once again, the Israels had to employ a retroactive legal fiction to claim that the jus sanguinis provision (Latin: right of blood) under the existing Palestine citizenship law regarding persons born abroad to a Palestinian national were no longer in effect.

        • Hostage says:

          The laws, UN Charter and relevant conventions in UNGA resolutions ARE binding.

          Not only that, the good old fashioned contract law principle of acceptance comes into play with regard to the minority rights treaty in resolution 181(II). It specifically required Israel to respect family rights and honor and prohibited arbitrary eviction or expropriation of homes or property. The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP), have always cited Israel’s acceptance as the basis for repatriating all of the refugees. The representative of Lebanon specifically cited Israel’s non-compliance with the minorities treaty during the same hearings where Abba Eban repeatedly agreed to implement both it, and resolution 194.

        • talknic says:

          mondonut “UN 194 is not a law “

          True. However the Laws on which it is based and the International Law it references are law. All law is binding

          ” it is not even binding on those who accept it”

          A telephone agreement isn’t law. Signing to a telephone agreement is binding. Guess your mom takes care of those things

          “Please point out where it is retroactive”

          The International Law on which it was based already existed.

    • RoHa says:

      “The RoR as the Palestinians define it does not exist anywhere in law.”

      And since you are a Zionist, you do not understand morality or moral rights.

      • mondonut says:

        RoHa says: And since you are a Zionist, you do not understand morality or moral rights.
        ======================================
        a) I am not a Zionist
        b) It is not a question of morality.

        • Bumblebye says:

          nut
          “a) I am not a Zionist”
          Oh yes you are!
          Every comment you’ve posted to this site confirms the fact!

        • Cliff says:

          a)yes you are a Zionist
          b)yes, we know you have no capacity to question morality in these issues

        • Shingo says:

          a) I am not a Zionist

          To be precise, you are a right wing, Zionist extremist.

        • RoHa says:

          “b) It is not a question of morality.”

          The fact that you cannot see that ethnic cleansing and the rights associated with it are moral issues shows that you do not understand morality or moral rights.

        • mondonut says:

          RoHa says: The fact that you cannot see that ethnic cleansing and the rights associated with it are moral issues shows that you do not understand morality or moral rights.
          =================================================
          I never said that ethnic cleansing was not a moral issue. I said that the Palestinian’s claim to a RoR is not based on moral issues. Even they know that.

        • talknic says:

          @ mondonut“I never said that ethnic cleansing was not a moral issue. “

          OK Have it your way. Ethnic cleansing by refusing RoR is a moral issue

    • talknic says:

      mondonut “WHY DO PALESTINIANS OPPOSE RECOGNIZING ISRAEL AS A JEWISH STATE?”

      There’s no legal obligation for anyone anywhere to recognize any one else. There are numerous UN Member States who do not recognize each other, they are never the less valid states. There is no UN or any other vote on recognition.

      Recognition is unilateral, i.e., a decision taken by the recognizing party if they want to, if they don’t it’s no one else’s business.

      No other country has recognized the Jewish state, they have recognized “Israel”, the actual name of the country per its declaration, which it seems few idiots for Israel have ever bothered to read including Netanyahu

      There are NO VALID LEGAL REASONS why the Palestinians or anyone else is obliged to recognize Israel as a/the Jewish state.

      Let’s examine the illogicality behind the meaningless demand:
      Israel demands recognition from a non-independent entity it doesn’t recognize before that the entity can gain independence from Israeli occupation. Israel can later claim that recognition from a non-recognized non-independent entity before it became an independent state is invalid because it isn’t recognition by the independent state

      In order to be recognized one must define what is to be recognized. Israel’s ONLY existing plea for recognition is “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ There is no other plea.

      Furthermore, if the Palestinians do not recognize the State of Israel and/or/as the Jewish state is irrelevant to the fact that: The State of Israel is acting outside the territory of the State of Israel in “territories occupied” and; it’s facts on the ground as the occupying Power are in breach of the law and; under the law is required to withdraw from all non-Israeli territories, recognize RoR and pay reparations. The only legal way out of the Jewish state’s illegal facts on the ground, is for the State of Israel to cut a plea bargain with the Palestinians.

      #2 – The RoR as the Palestinians define it does not exist anywhere in law ….etc …. etc”

      The Palestinians official claim for RoR is under UNGA res 194 (1948) which cites the law. It’s propagandists for Israel who claim the Palestinians want RoR to Israel including lineal descendants per UNRWA. Problem with their stupid theory is UNRWA didn’t exist in 1948

      “BTW, UNGA 194 provides no rights”

      Uh huh. So no rights for Jews from the Arab states either…

      “If we are talking about the Palestinians getting the state they supposedly want”

      Strange, the State of Palestine has already been recognized by the majority of the world. It is now up to Israel to stop occupying all non-Israeli territory and start adhering to the law for once, because it is illegal to occupy the territory of states .

      • mondonut says:

        talknic says:
        There are NO VALID LEGAL REASONS why the Palestinians or anyone else is obliged to recognize Israel as a/the Jewish state.
        Of course not, they can choose not to if they want. Or they can choose to in order to get the state they supposedly want. They are free to choose.

        The Palestinians official claim for RoR is under UNGA res 194 (1948) which cites the law. It’s propagandists for Israel who claim the Palestinians want RoR to Israel including lineal descendants per UNRWA.
        Still pushing that crap? You cannot even get at this blog to agree with you. And please remember to include The Electronic Intifada, Al-Awda and The Palestinian Return Centre to your list of Israeli propagandists

        Uh huh. So no rights for Jews from the Arab states either…
        Exactly

        Strange, the State of Palestine has already been recognized by the majority of the world.
        The State they want includes territory, they do not have that yet.

        • Shingo says:

          Or they can choose to in order to get the state they supposedly want.

          But they have and it hasn’t given them a state.

          The State they want includes territory, they do not have that yet.

          Yes they do, it just happens to be occupied.

        • Hostage says:

          Of course not, they can choose not to if they want. Or they can choose to in order to get the state they supposedly want. They are free to choose.

          No Israel can continue to illegally occupy and colonize the State of Palestine until other countries and the ICC start imposing sanctions, issuing arrest warrants, and putting its officials behind bars. The UN and EU have already made it clear that the option of a Palestinian state is not subject to a US veto or the peace process and that no changes to the 1967 frontiers will be recognized without Palestinian consent.

        • talknic says:

          @ mondonut //There are NO VALID LEGAL REASONS why the Palestinians or anyone else is obliged to recognize Israel as a/the Jewish state//
          “Of course not, they can choose not to if they want. Or they can choose to in order to get the state they supposedly want.”

          The two matters are not related. They already have a state recognized by the majority of the world and the UN. Israel is obliged to withdraw from all non-Israeli territories AND take its illegal settlers.

          “Still pushing that crap? “

          Supported by verifiable OFFICIAL documentation.

          “You cannot even get at this blog to agree with you.”

          No one has actually shown evidence to the contrary. Certainly not you.

          “And please remember to include The Electronic Intifada, Al-Awda and The Palestinian Return Centre to your list of Israeli propagandists”

          Strange … I quote the Jewish Agency, the Israeli Government, the UN/UNSC, the UN Charter

          “The State they want includes territory, they do not have that yet”

          It doesn’t belong to the Occupying Power (UNSC res 476)

        • Talkback says:

          Here goes mondonut again.

          Allthough it has been pointed out to him multiple times that the right of return is based on human rights and has become customary international law he still repeats the same crap over and over again.

          But what does one expect from someone who supports a state that only knows to exist as long it keeps certain people expelled and denationalized because of their faith? We might as well ask certain Germains who also claim to have have a problem with returning refugees.

    • eljay says:

      >> WHY DO PALESTINIANS OPPOSE RECOGNIZING ISRAEL AS A JEWISH STATE?

      “Jewish State” is a supremacist construct. No-one should be expected to “recognize” or accept any state as a supremacist state.

  4. pabelmont says:

    “Even that would not be enough.” What is this, a distorted echo of “It would have been enough”? Is God involved in all this, or are these the works of politicians? Or madmen? Psychopaths?

    But seriously now, if the refugees are not to be allowed to return to their homeland (now governed as pre-1967 Israel), then they (being as numerous as the Jewish Israelis and being an agricultural people as well) will need a much bigger state than WB&G&highway-between.

    Dear Mr. Yahoo, would you consider a 50/50 division of land where you divide and the Palestinians choose? After all, Israel now controls 100% and claims it all as of right, thereby destroying any preferential Israeli claim to any particular land within it.

    Oh? You do not agree to one-person one-unit-of-land? Oh, so this is not to be a fair deal, after all? Oh, so sad. Well then, 78%/22% (the green line solution, plus a highway between Gaza and West Bank)? And the Palestinians, alone, can use their own water. And Israel will take back the garbage, sewage, industrial waste, nuclear waste, et al., dumped since 1967 on Palestinian land? And the wreckage of the destroyed settlement buildings if the Palestinians ask for their destruction? Oh, but you want access or ownership to the Western Wall for Israel. Too?

    Gosh, Mr. Yahoo, you sure do want a lot. Maybe the PLO should wait until Israel self-destructs or the EU squeezes Israel so hard that 50/50 would look good?

    Gee, Mr. Yahoo, what say?

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “are these the works of politicians? Or madmen? Psychopaths?”

      Yes. More and more it appears that to be a zionist leader is to be a murderous, paranoid psychopath.

  5. Woody Tanaka says:

    Is anyone really surprised?? This is nothing other than the old saying that there can never be “separate but equal” because the bigotry that insists on separation will insist on inequality. Zionists are Klansmen in kippas. Nothing more and nothing less.

  6. bijou says:

    Peace requires coming to terms with what Israel has done to the Palestinians. Internally. Really facing it.

    Doesn’t it? Is it any wonder that they panic every time peace seems even remotely possible?

  7. Mike_Konrad says:

    Right or wrong, Israel will never accept a Palestinian Right of Return and commit national suicide. Never!

    The Jews have been looking to return for 2000 years. To quote the bible they are a stiff-necked people.

    Exo 32:9 “I have seen these people,” the LORD said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people.

    They will not yield to international pressure.

    So you have to ask yourselves:

    Is it easier and more humane to give economic compensation for the Palestinians to leave

    -or-

    to start a process which will end up in nuclear war with millions of Arabs, especially Palestinians, evaporated?

    Forget right or wrong. Just consider the outcome of your efforts.

    The Israelis will not budge.

    After 2 millenia of Inquisitions, Holocausts, massacres by both Muslims and Christians, any Jew who lacked the will to resist assimilation has assimilated already. Those who are left are now the most “stiff-necked” (Exo 32:9) of the “stiff-necked.”

    They will not yield.

    So you are not helping the Palestinians by offering them a solution which will end in their own evaporation.

    This is not a right or wrong issue. This is cold analysis.

    • Abierno says:

      Well said m konrad, you restate premier netanyahu with perfect, succinct clarity:
      The Palesinians, otherwise known as all non Jewish residents of greater Israel, men, women and children can either leave (infiltrators?) immediately or face a nuclear holocaust – I belive evaporation is your word, incineration would be mine.
      Inquiring minds will wonder why Russia, Europe, the US have not realized before your comment that this is the undying, longstanding position of the Israeli government. I especially liked your comment that any solution offered by the US,
      or Europe would end in their (Palestinian) nuclear annihilation. Of course given this imperative no rational, thinking human could expect Netanyahu to declare his nuclear weapons or sign on to any IAEC agreements. Help me understand – are Syria and Iran also included in this dictum? Perhaps after this holocaust, Israel will have some inclination to discuss a nuclear-free middle east. Again, a well spoken comment. You are to be congratulated for your clarity.

    • Right or wrong, Israel will never accept a Palestinian Right of Return and commit national suicide. Never!

      See, soon after the fall of the Berlin wall, Francis Fukuyama decreed the end of history. Less than 12 years later, the Twin Towers were turned into rubble.

      Predictions about the future can be very inaccurate. Israel has the upper hand now, but the tables might turn. If and when that happens, it will have been very wise for the Palestinians not to have renounced their right of return.

    • just says:

      Your “analysis” is a failure.

      Israel wants no peace– quoting scripture is ridiculous.

    • libra says:

      Mike_Konrad: So you are not helping the Palestinians by offering them a solution which will end in their own evaporation.

      What could our “cold analyst” possibly mean by this strange sentence?

      • Eva Smagacz says:

        libra,
        What I read that Mike Konrad is saying, is that if Israel will be forced to accept the ROR of Palestinians, they, Zionist Jewish Israelis, will deal with the problem internally, reducing the democratic Palestinian threat with some contraption ( gas chambers followed by ovens can do this successfully on an industrial scale, some nuclear devices are also helpful) that will turn Palestinians into fumes/smoke.

        So if you work towards RoR the (evaporated) blood of murdered Palestinians refugees is on your hands.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          Interesting, Eva. So MikeKonrad is doing just what Hitler did when he blamed the Jews ahead of time for their own murders.

        • Eva Smagacz says:

          Yes Woody. The wheel of history has turned a ful circle.

        • Mike_Konrad says:

          I am not blaming Jews. I am saying Israel will exercise the Samson option, which you all know exists.

          I am not blaming Palestinians.

          I am saying you are not helping them.

          “Israel must be a like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” -Moshe Dayan as quoted in link to mondoweiss.net

          Whether you like it or not, that is true.

          When Israel left the Sinai, they burned houses rather than leave them to the Egyptians. When they left Gaza, they demolished houses. Some individuals left aquaponic gardens, but that was not policy.

          Israel will go nuclear before it surrenders what it considers its vital areas.

          This is not bigotry but cold analysis.

        • talknic says:

          @Mike_Konrad “Israel will go nuclear before it surrenders what it considers its vital areas.”

          Then surely you must agree the State of Israel, valuing land over even Jewish lives, is by far the greatest threat to peace.

          You must also surely agree it will be safer for Jews to abandon Israel while they’re still alive or be massacred by the Jewish state’s final suicidal stupidity.

          You must also surely agree that Israel must be held accountable for its nukes and be stripped of them post haste

          “Israel must be a like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” … “Whether you like it or not, that is true.”

          The statement might be true. But are Israeli leaders really that insane?

          ” Some individuals left aquaponic gardens, but that was not policy.”

          They were paid not to destroy them

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

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

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

          Note the date, BEFORE dis-engagement.

          “This is not bigotry but cold analysis”

          What do you suggest? The Palestinians be sacrificed for the sake of a completely insane state?

          BTW Are you trying to scare us or yourself?

    • Dutch says:

      Yeah, let’s go for the easy solution: just stop the experiment, consider it failed, and go home. And next time, behave!

      • seafoid says:

        “After 2 millenia of Inquisitions, Holocausts, massacres by both Muslims and Christians, any Jew who lacked the will to resist assimilation has assimilated already. Those who are left are now the most “stiff-necked” (Exo 32:9) of the “stiff-necked.”
        They will not yield.”

        $20,000 GDP per head says they will.
        Apartheid is a turd that cannae be polished.

        • $20,000 GDP per head says they will.

          probably a lot less per head than that. link to haaretz.com

          A poll commissioned by Israel Channel 10 television for their news series this week “Hayordim Ha-Hadashim” (loosely, The New Outmigrants, or The New Defectors) asked a cross-section of Israeli Jews “Have you recently considered moving abroad?”

          A majority of respondents, 51 percent, said Yes. Another 11 percent answered that they had no possibility of moving. Only 38 percent of respondents answered with a flat No.

          so, it sounds like only 38% could be classified as ‘stiff necked’, on a good day.

      • Eurosabra says:

        Possible, but the survival rate for Jews hiding in Dutch attics is way, way too low for that to be a viable, survivable option, unless you count losing 75% of the Jewish population to genocide a serious survival option. Past performance sometimes IS an indicator of future probability.

        Europe has not changed, Jews will not be “repatriated” except for the British-, French-, and German-born and their children, and largely ex gratia passport-holders of German, Czech, Slovak, and Polish heritage who received them because of a relative’s Holocaust heritage. Moroccan Jews wound up in Israel precisely because French citizenship could not be extended to them. A more likely solution is the experience of the Saharan Jews: dhimmis to the Muslims, “mosaic natives” to the French.

        • seafoid says:

          “Europe has not changed”

          Europe is very different now. Gay people also died in the camps. Now they can marry. Jews and other minorities are respected and protected.
          Israel still lives in the 1930s.

        • Shingo says:

          Europe has not changed, Jews will not be “repatriated” except for the British-, French-, and German-born and their children, and largely ex gratia passport-holders of German, Czech, Slovak, and Polish heritage who received them because of a relative’s Holocaust heritage.

          The German Jewish population is almost at the level it was before the Holocaust.

          Interestingly, right on cue, this article appears at Haaretz.

          “Israel’s higher education system is deteriorating and well-educated Israelis are fleeing abroad, according to a report recently published by the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel. The emigration rate of Israeli researchers is now the highest among Western countries, according to the study. “

          Israel has worst rate of brain drain in West, study shows
          link to haaretz.com

          So contrary to Mike Konrad’s delusion, Israeli Jews are practically lining up to leave Israel. As MJ Rosenberg points out:

          Israelis are worried that more and more Israelis want out, so many that the 1950′s joke is back: “Will the last person to live Ben Gurion Airport turn off the lights?”

          And not only that, the best people are the very ones who want out: seculars, the highly educated, normal folks. And the ones who are arriving: religious fundamentalists and those who can’t make it in their own countries.

          Not good news.

          And it’s no secret that many of the Russian Jews who migrated to Israel for economic reasons are heading back to Russia.

        • i was just coming here to post this article shingo. you beat me to it. but what do they mean by ‘in the west’? israel is not ‘in the west’.

          here’s more:

          For every 100 faculty members at Israeli universities living in Israel in 2008, 29 were working at American universities. That was an increase over the figures just four years earlier, when there were 25 Israeli academics working in the United States for every 100 in Israel.

          sounds like they’re leaving alrighty.

        • Walid says:

          “The emigration rate of Israeli researchers is now the highest among Western countries, according to the study. ”

          Must be very frustrating to be in a Western country that’s located in the east. Maybe it’s all the surrounding countries that are out of step. No wonder they keep taking it out on the original natives.

        • seafoid says:

          Haredi prayers will run the economy, Walid. G_d is on standby.

    • Keith says:

      MIKE KONRAD- “The Jews have been looking to return for 2000 years.”

      No they haven’t. For at least the last 1000 years, individual Jews could immigrate to Palestine, but chose not to. Why should they? This is all a Zionist myth. An additional trickle of Jews immigrated to Palestine as a consequence of early Zionism, but most Jews, trying to escape from Germany or Eastern Europe, preferred the US or England. In fact, even after the war and Holocaust, most Jews wanted to go to one of the Western democracies but were practically shanghaied to Israel by Zionist thugs in the survivor camps. Once in Israel, most preferred Tel Aviv to the backcountry Jerusalem. And when Israel became a state, it was transformed into a crude imitation of the Jewish Eastern European homeland, including planting inappropriate fir trees. Hardly indicative of reverence for their mythical Middle East “homeland.” If it wasn’t for the skillful exploitation of the Holocaust by the Zionists, it seems unlikely that a Jewish state would have been created.

    • pipistro says:

      I wonder if Netanayahu hears himself when he speaks.
      And I wonder if someone down here reads the very words he’s just written.
      [...] “start a process which will end up in nuclear war with millions of Arabs, especially Palestinians, evaporated”.
      By the way, Israel doesn’t need anybody’s help to keep on working with alacrity on its own sucide. And thinking of the Samson option as a viable one is a good start.

    • braciole says:

      Some one said that the problem with defending Israel is that it’s a five bomb country – five multi-megaton bombs and it’s history. The Zionist dream that a strong Israel with an all-Jewish population and with all Jews living there is the safest place for Jews is an incredibly stupid idea.

    • RoHa says:

      So you are saying that the Israeli Jews are totally devoid of any human decency at all, and therefore we should let them have their own way?

    • Peter in SF says:

      Some commenters here complain about anti-Semitism (meaning anti-Jew) on this blog, but this post by Mike_Konrad is the most anti-Jewish thing I’ve read here in a long time. The Jews are stiff-necked! Because the Bible tells us so! We must give in to their demands, or else Israel (which is the same thing as the Jewish people) will unleash nuclear weapons! Doesn’t Mike_Konrad’s post violate rule 1 of the Comments Policy?
      link to mondoweiss.net

      • ah, you mean the mike’s “cold analysis.” what i can’t figure out is why, if mike thinks he’s got the answer, he’s wasting his breath here. he should be warning the UN. jews are stiffed necked! the bible says so! clear a path for them or else you’ll get evaporated!

        i have no idea who cleared that comment. perhaps the policy was waved because of the absurd value. our site zio mascot. no idea.

    • talknic says:

      Mike_Konrad “Right or wrong, Israel will never accept a Palestinian Right of Return and commit national suicide. Never!”

      = propaganda myth perpetuated by Israel to prevent any RoR

      Apply some logic to the facts.

      Fact 1) The official Palestinian claim for RoR is under UNGA res 194 adopted in 1948.

      Fact 2) There is no official Palestinian claim for RoR under the UNRWA definition and UNRWA didn’t exist in 1948. It was adopted 12 months later in 1949 and its definition is not even applicable to RoR under its mandate. link to unrwa.org

      Fact 3) The definition used for UNGA res 194 doesn’t mention RoR for lineal descendants, one has to have actually lived in the region of return. link to unispal.un.org

      Fact 4) 65 years have passed. The life expectancy of a person in the region in 1948 was approximately 46 yrs. Logic and simple maths tells us by far the majority of those who did have a RoR to Israel in 1948 are DEAD and those few still alive were at best babies who fought no war against Israel in 1948

      “The Jews have been looking to return for 2000 years”

      Nonsense. E.g., In his lifetime Herzl could have immigrated to Palestine, acquired legal citizenship, bought land anywhere in Palestine and settled. He didn’t. Nor did the majority of Jews in the diaspora until they were encouraged by the Zionist Federation under their plan to colonize Palestine.

      “They will not yield to international pressure. So you have to ask yourselves … “

      … A) why did they withdraw from Egypt’s sovereign territory? Why did they withdraw from the Suez Canal? Simple, because of International pressure.

      … B) why should the International community put up with a rogue state that wishes the Palestinians to leave or it will start a nuclear war with millions of Arabs, especially Palestinians, evaporated?

      This is a gem BTW “Is it easier and more humane to give economic compensation for the Palestinians to leave”

      When has Israel ever officially made such an offer, when has anyone who did leave actually been compensated and WTF makes you think it “more humane”? Furthermore WTF makes you think Israel could afford it?

      Here’s another gem “This is not a right or wrong issue.”

      States in breach of the law are wrong. That’s why we have laws to define what is wrong.

      Your ‘cold analysis’ is just another transparent and tepid attempt to justify.

      • Talkback says:

        Talknic: “Fact 3) The definition used for UNGA res 194 doesn’t mention RoR for lineal descendants, one has to have actually lived in the region of return.”

        Oh Talknic. You just don’t get it, do you? How can there be allready any descendants of refugees at the time of the resolution that are not refugees themselves? And how many times must we quote that UNRWA Guiness explained that the passing of the refugee status is common practice no matter under what refugee convention?

        Nobody imagined that the racist Zionist Junta would prolong the refugee problem and that it would become a problem effectinng multiple many generations.

        Do you really think that a refugee has no right to take his child with him back to his own homeland?

        I expect no answer – as usual. Just keep ignoring counter arguments and repeating the same nonsense.

        • talknic says:

          @ Talkback “How can there be allready any descendants of refugees at the time of the resolution that are not refugees themselves?”

          I have no argument with that .. They would have also lived in the region. (I’d even argue from conception :- )

          “And how many times must we quote that UNRWA Guiness explained that the passing of the refugee status is common practice no matter under what refugee convention?”

          Again I have no argument. As I previously stated, “That stateless lineal descendants of refugees are in turn refugees is beyond doubt. However their RoR is questionable given that the Conventions and definitions maintain one had to have had actually lived in the/a region of return link to unispal.un.org ” and;

          AFAIK Guiness has been quoted on Mondoweiss once, quite recently sufficient for me to check it out

          “Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states “individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority .”

          “Nobody imagined that the racist Zionist Junta would prolong the refugee problem and that it would become a problem effectinng multiple many generations”

          I have no qualms about placing the blame fairly on the shoulders of Israel’s ghastly policies

          “Do you really think that a refugee has no right to take his child with him back to his own homeland?”

          As I understood it they’d have every right for a child who has not yet reached majority.

          “I expect no answer – as usual.”

          I’m not an Israeli apologist

          “Just keep ignoring counter arguments “

          I’ve taken every consideration of every argument I’ve ever been presented with.

          NB: You’re answering to my post October 8, 2013 at 4:23 am link to mondoweiss.net
          Some 8 hrs later link to mondoweiss.net Hostage pointed me to relevant information
          I replied acknowledging that information link to mondoweiss.net and will scour the Israeli Transition Act when I have the opportunity

          I’m quite willing to admit an error or misunderstanding and reassess once I’ve viewed the evidence

        • Hostage says:

          I replied acknowledging that information link to mondoweiss.net and will scour the Israeli Transition Act when I have the opportunity

          See Chapter Four: The Law subsections 11-16. The Palestine refugees and their descendants who were born abroad should have become citizens of Israel by operation of the existing law, i.e. subsection 3(b) of the 1925 Citizenship Ordinance and its amendments.
          – LAW AND ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE No. 1 of 5708-1948
          link to geocities.com

          I’m quite willing to admit an error or misunderstanding and reassess once I’ve viewed the evidence

          Without an international court addressing the issue, who can say which view is correct? It’s unlikely to be the subject of a contentious case without Israel’s consent, and its not likely to accept an advisory opinion.

          I think that the acceptance of the undertakings on minority group rights by Israel make this case very different from most of the other historical cases, although there are some examples where the General Assembly has preemptively dealt with the issue of the right of return for descendants, e.g.:

          By a vote of 50 in favour to 17 against, with 86 abstentions, the General Assembly today adopted a resolution recognizing the right of return of all internally displaced persons and refugees and their descendants, regardless of ethnicity, to their homes throughout Georgia, including in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

          link to un.org

          The minority protection plan in 181(II) did have a compromissory clause that grants the ICJ jurisdiction to resolve any disputes with the General Assembly over its interpretation – and it has created subsidiary organs like the CEIRPP which has raised the issue of the minority protections in 181(II) in connection with RoR.

          Teenaged refugees have a fundamental human right to marry and have a normal family life. In very short order any refugee group will encounter objections with regard to the right of return of their descendants or restitution involving property that has changed hands. Population transfer is a serious crime. I don’t think that the courts can legally condone a settlement treaty that codifies the results of an illegal use of force in violation of the UN Charter in favor of the perpetrators or the citizens of an aggressor state.

        • talknic says:

          @ Hostage. Thx .. Had already found the law changes and am aware of the constant changes instigated in order to deny pre-existing legal rights

          For the moment I’m interested in seeing what Israeli leaders said during the Knesset Transition Debates link to jcpa.org

        • Hostage says:

          Had already found the law changes and am aware of the constant changes instigated in order to deny pre-existing legal rights

          Another place to look for evidence of customary state practice is the Israeli High Court and its rulings in favor of restoring property to Jewish owners on the basis of Ottoman era titles, without regard to how many times the property has subsequently changed hands among secondary occupants.

          That’s more germane to a discussion about the meaning of 194 (III) and “what should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible” under the “principles of international law or in equity” than the details of Kofi Annan’s futile diplomacy in Cyprus.

        • talknic says:

          @ Hostage Thanks ….. appreciated

          I’m inclined to use statements by Israeli leaders from the UN and official Israeli record that offer Hasbarristers no shelter and reveal the scale of Israeli duplicity in their own words :-)

    • Shingo says:

      Israel will never accept a Palestinian Right of Return and commit national suicide. Never!

      Which is amazing when you consider that the Israeli propagandists criticize the Palestinians for opposing the mass immigration of Jews to Palestine and the granting of Palestinian territory of Jewish immigrants.

      Do I take it Mike, that you admit asking the Palestinians to step aside and allow this to happen was indeed suicide?

      The Jews have been looking to return for 2000 years.

      No they haven’t. Even in early 1900 most Jews thought the idea was nuts and even today, most Jews refuse to.

      They will not yield to international pressure.

      Yes they will. Israelis are cowards who’s resolve has never truly been tested, but if the US were to stop coddling them, they would yield like jelly fish.

      Israel is a paper tiger. It’s only tough and resolute when it can be, and it will crumble when it is truly tested.

    • eljay says:

      >> The Jews … a stiff-necked people. … Is it easier and more humane to give economic compensation for the Palestinians to leave -or- to start a process which will end up in nuclear war with millions of Arabs, especially Palestinians, evaporated? … So you are not helping the Palestinians by offering them a solution which will end in their own evaporation.

      So this is what Zio-supremacism boils down to: Stiff-necked, supremacist and colonialist greed built on terrorism and ethnic cleansing and maintained by brute force and the threat of annihilation of the indigenous and surrounding population.

    • Talkback says:

      Mike_Konrad: “This is not a right or wrong issue. This is cold analysis.”

      As cold as some German or only as cold as some Southafrican analysis in the past?

    • Light says:

      Hey Mike Konrad. How is it you know so much what Jews want and don’t want? Do you have some special line to the chief rabbi? With your insider knowledge there must be something better you can do with your time than post on mondoweiss. Your childish and antisemtic posts make me think you have some sort of apocolytic fantasies.

  8. just says:

    There are Jewish, Muslim, Christian and Agnostics in “Israel”

    What an incredible fool is this Netanyahu and his sycophants.

  9. seafoid says:

    How Jewish is Israel really, anyway ? Are the torture centres kosher lemehadrin ?
    Do the prayers balance out the sleep deprivation techniques?

  10. Woody Tanaka says:

    I was getting bummed out by yet another Netanyahoo speech. Then, I found out that Ovadia Yosef died! Also, the sun just came out! And I found a $20 bill in my pocket that I didn’t know was there! And I ran into a friend I hadn’t seen for a while! This afternoon is looking better and better.

    • Dutch says:

      @ Woody
      “This afternoon is looking better and better.”

      For me, too. Glad you found my $20 bill, Woody! Still got the fifty?

  11. If Israel is a “Jewish” state, why do they want to be made a member of the European Union? If the Land of Israel is truly their ancestral homeland why join the EU?

    • MHughes976 says:

      Very good point Brownie. However i would like to ask what the wording of the Jewish Clause in the agreement is supposed to be. If it is (rather like the warguilt clause of Versailes) ‘Israel affirms with Palestinian agreement that it is a Jewish state’ then I would have thought that would not be an obstacle to an agreement. Or is there more?

    • flyod says:

      i thought benjamin’s ancestral home was poland?

    • Bumblebye says:

      Thing about that is, that according to something I read some while back, they wouldn’t be able to join the EU while they’ve got discriminatory (racist) laws on the books. I can’t stand the fact they participate in other supposedly European competitions. Presumably Fifa and the Eurovision don’t care about the filthy racism supported in Israeli law.

      • braciole says:

        The EU is as two-faced as Israel or the United States when it wants to be. In Croatia, there was a large Serbian minority in Krajina. When Croatia broke away from Yugoslavia, the Croatian government passed a law that made Serbs second class citizens. The Krajina Serbs established an independent republic to protect their rights and fought a war with the Croats that they, the Krajina Serbs, lost. Whereupon, the Croats ethnically cleansed them. The prejudicial law then became unnecessary and was repealed allowing Croatia to enter the EU. I can see just the same happening in Palestine. The Israelis expel all the remaining Palestinian Arabs, repeal all the laws that advantaged Jews over Arabs and get to join the EU.

      • Hostage says:

        Thing about that is, that according to something I read some while back, they wouldn’t be able to join the EU while they’ve got discriminatory (racist) laws on the books.

        Equal rights under the law for religious and minority groups is part of the public international law of Europe in accordance with the acquis communautaire. link to eurofound.europa.eu

        Those principles of international law were incorporated in the criteria established by the League of Nations for the creation of new states and the termination of a mandate regime. So, Ambassador Abba Eban had to lie about the UN-required guarantees of equal rights and non-discrimination for religious groups, women, and minorities during the hearings on Israel’s UN membership application. If he had told the truth, Israel would have been kept out of the organization.

    • talknic says:

      Brown-Eyed Girl “why join the EU”

      An attempt to garner trading partner support and perhaps align with a different block in order to gain a seat on the UNSC. It backfired, which was obvious from the start. The EU rules forbid the kinds of activities Israel engages in outside the extent of its Internationally recognized sovereignty. Seems Israeli leaders have a huge problem with reading rules and remembering their promises and obligations

      • Walid says:

        “An attempt to garner trading partner support …”

        It already has several agreements in effect with the EU since 2 or 3 decades. It’s under one of those agreements that the EU has been having problems with Israel ramming down its throat goods from the West Bank. It has taken measures to stop the illegal trade with Israel’s settlements. Some of the current agreements between the EU and Israel, from Wiki:

        The EU-Israel Association Agreement (2000):
        The EU-Israel Association Agreement forms the legal basis governing relations between Israel and the European Union, modeled on the network of Euro-Mediterranean Agreementsbetween the Union and its partners in the southern flank of the Mediterranean Sea.

        The agreement with Israel incorporates free trade arrangements for industrial goods, concessionary arrangements for trade in agricultural products (a new agreement here entered into force in 2004), and opens up the prospect for greater liberalisation of trade in services, and farm goods, from 2005. The Association Agreement was signed in Brussels on 20 November 1995, and entered into force on 1 June 2000, following ratification by the 15 Member States’ Parliaments, the European Parliament and the Knesset. It replaces the earlier Co-operation Agreement of 1975.

        … Article 2 of the Association Agreement states: Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement.

        … Dispute on preferential treatment for Israeli products originating from Palestinian territories:
        Goods from Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories are not subjected to the free trade agreement, as they are not considered Israeli.

        Since 1998, Israel and the EU have been in dispute over the legal treatment of products exported to the EU from the Israeli-occupied territories. Israel argues that these are produced in its custom territory and should thus be subjected to the Association Agreement and benefit from preferential treatment. The EU upholds that the Territories are not part of Israel, given the illegality of the occupation under international law, and such products do not therefore benefit from preferential treatment.

        … The Agreements on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products which focus on pharmaceutical products (ACAA) was adopted by the European Parliament on 23 October 2012, following a debate that had lasted for more than a two years of delay. The ratification of ACAA will make it easier to export Israeli pharmaceuticals and other goods to the 27 EU member countries, and vice versa. Following a controversial debate, 379 members of the European Parliamentin favor and 230 against the ratification. The ACAA agreement is in conformity with the Brita ruling on the non-preferential access of goods produced in the Israeli settlements.

        Open skies agreement:
        In June 2013, Israel and the EU signed an open skies agreement, which will come into effect in 2018.

        … Trade:
        Trade between the EU and Israel is conducted on the basis of the Association Agreement. The European Union is Israel’s major trading partner. In 2004 the total volume of bilateral trade (excluding diamonds) came to over €15 billion. 33% of Israel’s exports went to the EU and almost 40% of its imports came from the EU.

        Total EU (27 Member States) trade with Israel rose from €19.4 billion in 2003 to €21.36 billion in 2004. EU exports to Israel reached €12.75 billion in 2004, while imports from Israel were €8.6 billion. The trade deficit with Israel was €4.15 billion in the EU’s favour in 2004.

        Under the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement, the EU and Israel have free trade in industrial products. The two sides have granted each other significant trade concessions for certain agricultural products, in the form of tariff reduction or elimination, either within quotas or for unlimited quantities.

        Science and culture:
        Israel was the first non-European country to be associated to the European Union’s Framework Programme for Research and Technical Development (RTD). Israel’s special status is the result of its high level of scientific and research capability and the dense network of long-standing relations in scientific and technical co-operation between Israel and the EU. The European Commission signed an agreement with Israel in July 2004 allowing for its participation in the EU’s Galileo project for a Global Navigation Satellite System.

        Euro-Mediterranean regional programmes:
        Israel, because of its high national income, is not eligible for bilateral funding under MEDA. It has however been involved in a wide variety of Euro-Mediterranean regional programmes funded under MEDA:
        Young Israelis participate in youth exchange programmes with their European and Mediterranean counterparts under the Euro-Med Youth Action Programme.
        Israeli filmmakers have benefited from funding and training under the Euro-Med Audiovisual Programme.
        Israeli universities participate in the FEMISE forum of economic institutes while chambers of commerce and employers associations have participated in programmes like UNIMED and ArchiMedes.
        Institutes like the Israel Antiquities Authority participate in Euromed Cultural Heritage.

        For full article and links:
        link to en.wikipedia.org

  12. yrn says:

    Published today (updated) 07/10/2013 19:20
    RAMALLAH (Ma’an) – A meeting in Ramallah Monday between President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Knesset members was “positive,” a senior Fatah official said.

    Participants addressed the means to support the ongoing peace negotiations and to overcome all obstacles, said Muhammad al-Madani, the head of a PA committee for interconnection with Israeli society.
    Speaking to Ma’an via telephone, al-Madani highlighted that Abbas told the Knesset delegation that the Palestinians remained supportive of a two-state solution on the basis of internationally recognized legitimacy. Abbas also reiterated that the Palestinian side denounced killings and aggressiveness by any party.

    Al-Madani asserted that meetings with Israeli politicians at different levels were seeking to prepare for future political moves and to prepare Israeli society for peace. Such meetings, he said, are also attempts to deter the Israeli right-wing forces who oppose the two-state solution. The meetings will continue in future, he said.
    link to maannews.net

    Where is Allison Deger, she mentioned that the peace negotiation stopped and are not going to continue .

    • Shingo says:

      Where is Allison Deger, she mentioned that the peace negotiation stopped and are not going to continue .

      It hasn’t. Your link says that Abbas told the Knesset delegation that the Palestinians remained supportive of a two-state solution on the basis of internationally recognized legitimacy. It said nothing about what Netenyahu saying the same thing.

  13. a blah chick says:

    “Unless the Palestinians recognize the Jewish state and give up on the right of return there will not be peace,” he said in his address.

    Translation: The Palestinians’ continuing to hold us responsible for the crimes we committed against them shows bad faith.

    They should just pretend it didn’t happen, like most of the rest of Jewish Israel.

  14. Another racist principle palestinians must accept..

  15. A very graphic way of showing the discrimination against Arabs in Israel is to point out that while only the foreign-born children of an Israeli Arab can claim Israeli citizenship, in the case of an Israeli Jew both their foreign-born children and grandchildren can do so. That’s what you call second-rate and first-rate citizenships.

  16. edwardm says:

    Deja Vu
    “by insisting that the PLO recognize Israel as a “Jewish state” as a precondition for peace talks (a demand that Israel never raised when it negotiated peace treaties with its Arab neighbors, Egypt and Jordan), the Israeli government is saying that even this is not enough. It is not enough that the PLO give diplomatic recognition to Israel as a state that has successfully expelled so many Muslims and Christians that its population is now overwhelmingly Jewish; they have to say specifically that Israel is a “Jewish state”, i.e. a state that is not only populated by Jews, but where the full benefits of citizenship are intended only for Jews.”
    Precisely because this “Jewish state” was created not in a vacuum, not in “a land without a people for a people without a land”, but in Palestine, where there was a settled indigenous population that was overwhelmingly not Jewish, the designation of Israel as a state for only one of its peoples carries all sorts of baggage, and has ramifications for past, present and future relations between Palestinians and Israelis. From an historical perspective, declaring Israel a “Jewish state” means that there is nothing left to resolve from the events of 1948. If Israel is only for Jewish people, then there is no refugee problem, and no Right of Return, regardless of what international law says. Because the refugees aren’t Jewish, so how can they expect to have rights in a “Jewish state” in the first place? From this perspective, expelling the people of the “wrong” race or religion isn’t a problem to be resolved in peace talks between the two communities, it is simply a right that a sectarian state may exercise to rid itself of the “wrong” sort of people who happen to be the native population.”
    link to lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com
    Walter Youngs entry-
    link to mondoweiss.net

  17. braciole says:

    I thought that Netanyahu demanded that there be no pre-conditions attached to these negotiations?

  18. piotr says:

    “true and ongoing demilitarization with very clear security arrangements and no international forces.”

    I live near such area, it is called “State Gameland No. 264″. Except that hunting seasons are rather short, while open season for Palestinians is all year round.

    That may sound inciteful, but consider what happened when Israel was displeased with TV stations in Ramallah and Nablus. They just send troops and stole the equipment.

  19. I continue to think that Arab leaders and many Palestinian leaders comprehend there will be very limited “right of return”. And I think Netanyahu is well aware of this.

    Primary problem, in my view, is Israeli refusal to provide a map. Of Palestine.

  20. Jehu killed Ahab,his 70 royal court members,and Jejebel undera chariot. He was seized with religious passion of no compromise. He himself had to bow to Assyrian king .Still he could not save Israel. Modern Israel is again seething with angers and emotion ,only Elijah would nod in heaven with full endorsement.

    On another vein, the slipping in of a sentence in the speech is nothing new by Israeli insiders.

  21. Israel has no borders,no constitution,and no concept of nationality for a purpose that is to to encroach and grab more and more from the surrounding countries and keep non Jewish out of the spoils

  22. Kathleen says:

    For decades Israel demanded Palestinian’s recognize Israel’s right to exist. Then Palestinians and the Arab League said out loud Israel exist based on the internationally recognized border. And that was not enough. Over the last four or five years the new demand has been Palestinians have to Israel as a Jewish state basically asking them to rubber stamp racism. Next Israel will be demanding that Palestinians must promise their first born be brought up in Israeli schools teaching Israeli children to look down upon Palestinians. Enough!

  23. Ramzi Jaber says:

    Nutnyahoo unhinged, undone, bezerk! This guy has gone over the cliff. ROTFLMAO.

  24. Ramzi Jaber says:

    Just read this on Ynet link to jpost.com

    Initially, I thought this was nuts but then realized this could be predictive between the lines.

    I first thought here’s another zio leader unhinged, undone, bezerk, gone over the cliff just like Nutnyahoo. BUT, I really believe there is much to this. What he and Nutnyahoo are actually telegraphing is the next preemptive attack which will be MAJOR and is likely to be soon. Certainly hitting in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine (Gaza). Maybe even Iran.

    We’re headed into very dangerous times as the zio regime feels more and more trapped. If this happens, it will turn out very badly for the zios.

  25. RoHa says:

    A bit OT, but too good not to post.

    “Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu mocked on social media over Iranian jeans and music ban comments”
    link to abc.net.au

    I love number 3 – the Red Line.

  26. “Unless the Palestinians recognize the Jewish state and give up on the right of return there will not be peace” ~ Benjamin Netanyahu

    I recognize Israel as a Jewish majority state, a majority artificially created by ethnically cleansing 750,000 (61%) of 1,237,000 non-Jewish Palestinians in 1947-49 and 320,000 more in 1967.
    I recognize Israel as the conquering colonial state of depopulated and conquered Palestine.
    I recognize Israel as the colonized and Judaized state of Palestine.
    I recognize Israel as the state formerly known as Palestine.
    I recognize Israel NOT as the state built on “a land without a people”, but as the state built on the rubble & ashes of Palestine and the corpses blood & tears of the Palestinian people.
    I recognize Israel as the state that wiped Palestine off the map.