Liberal Zionists are the new front line against BDS

Israel/Palestine
on 254 Comments

One aspect of the shifting battle over the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) is that liberal Zionists have become the front line against BDS inside the American pro-Israel community. They are taking on BDS as avowed progressives, arguing that BDS rejects an idealistic project, the self-determination of the Jewish people.

This was the thrust of the pro-Israel side at the University of Michigan student government debate on divestment the other night. Yael Aronoff, an Israel studies associate professor at Michigan State, was the lead opponent of divestment (above). Aronoff identified herself as a liberal who had long opposed the occupation and worked for Human Rights Watch, then argued that in a “tragic” conflict of “right” against “right”, what BDS “is really about” is opposing the Jewish right to self-determination in Israel.

If Israel has flaws, she said (sounding more the hard-boiled realist than a progressive), they are the flaws of all nation-states, from ethnic cleansing at their establishment to the removal of nomadic peoples so as to foster modernity. And looking through rose-colored lenses, she said that Israel is “in the midst of negotiating withdrawal” from the occupied territories.

Her argument is aimed directly at the leftwing, pro-Palestinian view of the conflict as one between a settler state and an indigenous people. We must honor the “dreams and rights” of both peoples, Aronoff said. That view was later echoed by Sara Berlin, a Zionist student, who said she was a human rights activist and the Palestinian narrative denies her narrative:

“Your equality does not include self-determination of my people.”

This view of the conflict as a tragic one in which two victimized peoples are each struggling to determine their political destiny is now the liberal Zionist talking point against BDS. Liberal Zionists have adopted the Roger Cohen position that BDS means the end of the Jewish state, and that this would be a great tragedy.

Here are some other examples of this trend.

Two days ago, MJ Rosenberg wrote a head-on attack on the BDS movement, calling it a campaign to dismantle the state of Israel. The piece was promptly endorsed by Tom Friedman.

Rosenberg writes:

The reason why BDS keeps failing despite the almost universal recognition that the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the blockade of Gaza, are illegal and immoral is that the BDS movement is not targeting the occupation per se. Its goal is the end of the State of Israel itself. . . .

In other words, millions of the descendants of the original Palestinian refugees could return not just to the West Bank or Gaza but to Israel itself, essentially reversing the independence Israel achieved in 1948. As far as Israeli towns and villages, they would be “property” returned to the Palestinians. Hence, no more Israel. . . .

Of course, this will not happen in the real world, even if there is some justice in the demands…. Israel is not going to dismantle itself and Jews will not be the first people in the world to relinquish the right to self-determination.

MJ used to tell me not to refer to Jews as “my people.” I wonder if he’s changed his view on that.

Meantime, the Third Narrative, a project of the liberal Zionist group Ameinu, launched an initiative against academic boycott last week. Yael Aronoff, the lead Michigan speaker, is one of the signatories. The group seeks to validate a narrative of Jews as a persecuted people who need a state of their own. Its view of Israel is glass half-full — “a Jewish Athens, not Sparta,” as one writer on the site puts it.

Third Narrative’s Academic Advisory Council’s mission statement claims progressive ground:

A new progressive initiative was launched today to combat academic boycotts and defend freedom of expression, while challenging the false choice presented to the academic community that it must either undermine the legitimacy of Israel or accept violations of the rights and dignity of Palestinians. More than 50 leading academics, spread across a wide range of disciplines and from throughout North America, announced today the formation of The Third Narrative’s Academic Advisory Council. The founding statement declares that:

“We are progressive scholars and academics who reject the notion that one has to be either pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. We believe that empathy for the suffering and aspirations of both peoples, and respect for their national narratives, is essential if there is to be a peaceful solution…

“We hope to engage people on the left who suspect that it is wrong to lay all blame for the Arab-Israeli conflict at the feet of Israeli Jews…but aren’t sure how to respond to Israel’s most vitriolic critics. Some of what these critics say is true, some of their accusations are justified. Some of what Israel’s traditional defenders say is also accurate. …

The Third Narrative group has a frankly-Jewish character:

We feel a deep connection to the Jewish state and the Jewish people. We are also committed to social justice and human rights for everyone. Some say those commitments are contradictory, that particularist attachments to a state or a people can’t be reconciled with universal values. Our response is that belonging to a people, a community larger than ourselves, is a basic human need –indeed, it is our right. And balancing our communal attachments with a commitment to humanity as a whole is our responsibility.

Evidently it is speaking for the Jewish people, which transcends borders, and not the Israeli people, who are nearly 25 percent non-Jewish.

Its academics’ announcement includes a statement from Todd Gitlin sounding Aronoff’s “right” versus “right” theme: “Wrongs committed by a state, like Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, are not legitimate reasons to dismantle the state or to impose collective punishment. In the Middle East, riddled with conflict between right and right, justice requires reconciliation, not hatred.”

And Michael Walzer:

“Rejectionists on both sides who advocate a single state, who want the whole thing, are not only wrongheaded; they are radically unrealistic. This Council will provide a forum for an exchange of ideas about what is really possible and about what is best for the two peoples.”

Though the group seeks to advocate for what is best for two peoples, I don’t see any Palestinians on its statement. (Ziad Asali has a piece on the site.) There are many well-known (and mostly Jewish) names among the signatories, including Derek Penslar, Mira Sucharov, Steven Zipperstein, Eric Alterman, Peter Beinart, Cary Nelson, David Greenberg, Steven Cohen and Ari Kelman.

Also at the Third Narrative site, Brooklyn Rabbi Andy Bachman brags that he bought Ahava products, which are made in a West Bank settlement, in arguing that BDS “is insidious and stupid” and “wildly ineffective.”

That would seem to be one flaw in the liberal Zionist attack. MJ Rosenberg says it’s “irrelevant,” but that’s wishful: BDS is obviously gaining traction, especially in Europe, and the Third Narrative is spurred by the American Studies Association vote for boycott last year.

At the Michigan debate the other night (livestream at 1:28:00 or so), Victor Lieberman, a professor at the university, said there was an “emotional chasm” between one side and the other, and he sided with the Israeli narrative. But when asked about BDS, he likened it to Gandhi’s nonviolent movement:

“This is the most impressive Palestinian movement of its kind… For sure, it is very impressive what it’s achieved so far.”

If the latest round of talks fail, Lieberman predicted that Palestinians will initiate a new intifada of legal actions at international fora, combined with non-violent actions like BDS. “That would probably be fairly effective.”

This seems to be what the opponents of BDS are afraid of, that it will be effective in the discourse, delegitimizing the idea of a Jewish democracy. And in their effort to preserve Jewish status in Israel, some of these liberal Zionists would seem to be… conservative.

Update: In my original post, I failed to distinguish between the Third Narrative, which launched last summer, and its new academic advisory council, launched March 18. I’ve revised accordingly. Thanks to Dan Fleshler for the correction. He adds: “I also note that you also didn’t include the other, important half of the AAC’s message, which is opposition to attempts on campus to stifle those who support boycotts. These are people who object to efforts to stop BDS supporters, post-Zionists and anti-Zionists from speaking on campus.”

254 Responses

  1. seafoid
    March 28, 2014, 1:42 pm

    The Jewish Maginot Line

    Friedman and his “world is flat” – he never saw Lehman coming either .

    All those prog Jews who oppose the occupation but see how necessary it is to keep the Disneyland going- Israel bet the house on it after all and you don’t want to disturb the settlers and anyway we are afraid of those dumb Hebrew monoglot Sabras with their guns so lets’s just cross our fingers for the peace process can’t we have the status quo for another while …

    link to youtube.com

    “You pay your money you take your choice”

    Progressive Judaism chose
    Chose the wrong horse

    • Krauss
      March 28, 2014, 2:24 pm

      Yael Aronoff’s dicthomy will never win. She says “both sides contributed to the conflict”.

      That’s a really weird way of phrasing it.

      Who came into whose land started to colonize, bulldozer and raze entire villages(and then either shoot or force the villagers themselves to flee in mass ethnic cleansing)?

      Maybe Aronoff thinks Palestinians didn’t contribute to peace but not being servile enough into accomodating their own dispossession?

      She mentioned the native American genocide etc. Who defends this today? Secondly, this is the 21th century. Not the 19th.
      As for the tired trope of “privileged ethnicity of countries like Ireland or Germany” that is BS. Germany got rid of its ethnically-bound citizenship in 1999(it was de facto toothless before that, non-ethnic germans had the same rights but didn’t have the official papers, it was more of a technicality than a practice. And anyway, they DID get rid of it, so what’s her defence?)

      As for Ireland, its true that they give favors based to people of Irish ethnicity who want to immigrate, but not once you gain actual citizenship.

      But anyone can immigrate relatively freely and get citizenship, you just won’t get citizenship right away. That’s not even closely the same with Israel, where non-Jews who have even married Jews are stalled citizenship for years on end to dissuade them from getting one. And once you get citizenship, there are a range of policies that discriminate you on your basis as a non-Jew.

      After that, she quotes the pro-Cast Lead Amos Oz and her rant just continues to dwindle down into nothing. It’s almost shocking how easy it is to pierce her BS.

      Finally, her “Third Narrative” is the Oslo Peace Process all over again. She has no solution than permanent negotiations, forever. We’ve tried this for the last 20 years – it has been a disaster. Yet Aronoff’s solution is to try even more of the same? Maybe she can apply for a job on Kerry’s team with the other hand-picked AIPAC people!

      • Krauss
        March 28, 2014, 2:27 pm

        As for MJ Rosenberg, that guy has long lost his sanity.
        He more or less accused Abuminah of being an anti-Semite.

        Now he’s turning into a raging Likudnik. I’m just waiting for him to line up for Scarlett.

        It’s funny how “liberal” Zionists become remarkably similar to Likudniks once sufficient pressure is applied and they can no longer afford to play their kabuki theater.

        I used to follow his Twitter a year ago or so. He spoke very aggressively about white supremacists, yet he is essentially a Jewish supremacist himself. Would he defend a white nationalist turning the U.S. into a white Christian nation? As a Jew, I don’t think neither he nor I would be on board with that.

        But MJ is making exceptions when it comes to countries where he is in the majority. His “liberalism” is one giant fucking hoax. He only embraces it because he has to, as a minority. Once he gets out of that, he reveals his true colors.

        He’s an ethno-nationalist racist.

      • American
        March 28, 2014, 3:28 pm

        The mind of a Liberal Zionist:..

        1) The world is full of anti semites

        MJ (Mike) Rosenberg ‏@MJayRosenberg 3h
        Phil Weiss of @Mondoweiss is a pure soul, constitutionally incapable of hate or bigotry. Most of the other writers there hate freely

        “@scottroth76: @MJayRosenberg @Mondoweiss
        I’m sorry MJ but that is absurd and insulting.” God, read those people. Sickening.

        MJ (Mike) Rosenberg ‏@MJayRosenberg 1h
        @scottroth76 read your writers and imagine it was women, African Americans or glbt they were writing about not Israelis or Jews. No way.

        2) The Jewish tough guy vicarious thrill

        MJ (Mike) Rosenberg ‏@MJayRosenberg 17h
        The idea that a state w 200 nukes, a powerful army, and the financial support of a rich diaspora, is going to disband is ridiculous.

        3) The on- the -other- hand belief that the US exist to protect Israel and Jews- Entitlement.

        2Shirll2Nasty ‏@2Shrill2Nasty 16h
        @MJayRosenberg Most young Am. Jews are indifferent 2 Israel. Wen old liberal Zionists like u n @tomfriedman r gone Israel is in big trouble

        MJ (Mike) Rosenberg ‏@MJayRosenberg 16h
        @2Shrill2Nasty @tomfriedman
        Only if US is gone!

        MJ (Mike) Rosenberg ‏@MJayRosenberg 17h
        Jews indifferent to survival of State of Israel are as representative and relevant as Muslims indifferent to Palestine. Not.

        4) The Delusion that Israel insures Jews safety—(but only as long as the US exist)

        MJ (Mike) Rosenberg ‏@MJayRosenberg 17h
        Obviously,as a Jew, w Jewish children & grandchildren,I want Jewish state 2exist. My family knows alternative. Plus,much of family is there.

        The world cant reason with or cure minds like this, it can only ignore them.
        Hopefully that day will come.

      • seafoid
        March 28, 2014, 10:47 pm

        “2Shirll2Nasty ‏@2Shrill2Nasty 16h
        @MJayRosenberg Most young Am. Jews are indifferent 2 Israel. Wen old liberal Zionists like u n @tomfriedman r gone Israel is in big trouble ”

        People like Adelson and Haim Saban want to monetize Twitter but the medium is toxic for Zionism. The hasbara arguments are all dead. Not even the hard core hard right Zionists can defend them credibly. And MJR is as lost as they are.

        We have come a long, long way since 1956

        link to todayspictures.slate.com

      • Citizen
        March 28, 2014, 4:21 pm

        @ Krauss]
        MJ Rosenberg is totally Zionist; he just is leery of waking Dick and Jane up to that fact and what it entails.

      • seafoid
        March 29, 2014, 8:40 am

        The Dersh is not a happy bunny either

        link to haaretz.com
        “J Street’s position on Iran has been extremely troubling. It opposes the United States threatening military action, even as a last resort. It deliberately misquoted several former heads of the Mossad as opposing an American strike against the Iranian nuclear program as a last resort. The truth is that these distinguished Israelis oppose only an Israeli unilateral strike against Iran, but favored keeping the American military option on the table as a last resort and as a sword of Damocles. J Street now claims that it is not opposed to keeping the American military option on the table, but it says that in a whisper, while loudly proclaiming to its hard left constituency that an American military attack on Iran’s nuclear program, even as a last resort, would be a disaster to be avoided at all costs.
        J Street has also spoken out of both sides of its mouth on the issue of whether the Palestinian leadership should recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. While first appearing to oppose such recognition, it now seems to be saying that this issue should be left to final stage negotiations, but it leaves open the possibility that it will continue to oppose such recognition if and when such negotiations are reached.
        So here is my challenge: at the next J Street convention, show the film The J Street Challenge: The Seductive Allure of Peace in Our Time to all of its members, invite me to speak to them, allow me to distribute its conflicting position papers and positions and let the marketplace of ideas remain open to its members. Only when J Street opens up its tent to views critical of its own should it be demanding that pro-Israel groups open its tent to them. ”

        I have the feeling this is going to be a good year

      • MRW
        March 30, 2014, 2:08 am

        @Citizen says:
        March 28, 2014 at 4:21 pm

        ✓ ✓ ✓

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        March 28, 2014, 4:50 pm

        ”It’s funny how “liberal” Zionists become remarkably similar to Likudniks once sufficient pressure is applied and they can no longer afford to play their kabuki theater.”

        Well put. ”Liberal” Zionism is gun Zionism with a veneer of sophistication. If there’s ever even the teeniest hint of Jewish privilege in Palestine being threatened in any way, they’re scarcely distinguishable from Avigdor Liebermann.

        They’re really in a quandary over BDS, that much is evident. For years they’ve been lecturing Palestinians over ‘renouncing violence’ and ‘adopting peaceful resistance’ and now that the ultimate form of peaceful resistance finally shows signs of having an impact, they find excuses to oppose that too. The reality is that they don’t want Palestinians to oppose Zionism in any way, shape or form, peaceful or non-peaceful. They are psychologically committed to seeing Israeli Jews as the only victim, or, at the very most, this is a ‘tragedy’, where ‘both sides must compromise’. Any narrative which sees this as oppressor and oppressed, with the Palestinians being the latter, is simply intolerable. They just don’t know what to do with it.

      • Citizen
        March 29, 2014, 12:37 pm

        @ seafoid & Maximus Decimus Meridius
        I think Krauthhammer is a good guide to how all the Zionists favor keeping the USA military option tied to whatever Israel desires. All this talk about Obama being too weak, to apologetic about US past interventions, too “soft” or weak in foreign policy, and how the US needs to not cut in anyway the US defense in terms of anything–reintroducing the Cold War while claiming they’re not doing so, etc–it’s all the same–Krauthammer always pretends to be talking in terms of what’s best for the USA, but you can predict what he will say simply because he wants the US world cop power to remain chained to Israel’s agenda. It’s a pattern repeated relentlessly.

      • seafoid
        March 28, 2014, 10:29 pm

        “He’s an ethno-nationalist racist”.

        Isn’t he just ?

        I wonder what Kinky Friedman thinks now.

        “He says, “I ain’t a racist but Aristitle Onassis is one Greek we don’t need
        And them niggers, Jews and Sigma Nus, all they ever do is breed.
        And wops ‘n micks ‘n slopes ‘n spics ‘n spooks are on my list
        And there’s one little hebe from the heart of Texas — is there anyone I missed ? ”
        Well, I hits him with everything I had right square between the eyes.
        I says, “I’m gonna gitcha, you son of a bitch ya, for spoutin’ that pack of lies.
        If there’s one thing I can’t abide, it’s an ethnocentric racist; ”

        That song is from the early 70s when Zionism was respectable.

      • Citizen
        March 29, 2014, 12:40 pm

        Shhh, Kinky is Don Imus’s best buddy. Imus doesn’t even know he’s been had, big time. Imus is bragging up Kinky’s latest run in Texas politics. He’d maybe look into it if there was a military draft and suddenly his son was called to go fight for Israel, instead of roping steers as if it was a real sport.

      • unverified__5ilf90kd
        March 29, 2014, 12:15 pm

        Rosenberg seems to be angry with AIPAC because they fired him for using the words “Israel-Firster”. I have decided that he is mostly irrational about Israel like so many other Zionists. He is dizzy with emotion and illogical disconnected thoughts when he thinks of Israel. Calling Abunimah an anti-Semite is just totally nuts. Similarly, note the desperate and irrational attempts of so-called “Liberal” Zionists to suppress BDS by saying that (BDS) rejects an idealistic project, the self-determination of the Jewish people. This too is total rubbish. We have just had 50 years of self-determination of the Jewish people and it has been a catastrophe for the Palestinians singularly inflicted by Israel. A talking point based on semantic fraud and designed only to stun simple-minded commentators who are alert to the fact that they will be called anti-Semites if they disagree. The best way that we can counter the Zionist obfuscation is to use their own words against them immediately. How about “the self-determination the Palestinian people”? “Palestinian self-determination” has been completely blocked by the Zionists.

      • MRW
        March 30, 2014, 2:05 am

        I’ll second that, Krauss.

        Phil wrote above; “MJ used to tell me not to refer to Jews as ‘my people’. I wonder if he’s changed his view on that.” No, he’s aged, so now he’s thinking the way his parents did when he was five, and his mind is closing in. I’m noticing the weirdest thing about my friends as they age. They revert to how they thought and the kind of people they were when they were five or thereabouts. I’m noticing the same thing in myself. I was a hellion who had a real spidey sense for injustice and bullshit–which my parents beat out of me–and I took notes (!) because I knew how to write at age four, lol. It’s coming baaaack. My aunt showed me the letters I would write her. Hysterical.

      • seafoid
        March 28, 2014, 2:41 pm

        “Finally, her “Third Narrative” is the Oslo Peace Process all over again. She has no solution than permanent negotiations, forever”

        That particular Elvis has left the building forever and is NOT going to be doing an encore.
        You can run that joke on one generation of goys but not their kids.

      • Citizen
        March 29, 2014, 12:46 pm

        @ seafoid
        I dunno. On Cspan WJ this morning a young woman from the Heritage Foundation was telling us all how we need to prepare for the Cold War all over again even though she was saying that’s not what she was saying. Bottom line, more taxpayer funds for updating and maintaing our missile defense system; call for Reagan’s Star Wars system. Zionists of all stripes keep calling for a stronger US military, no matte where it may have to pounce–any reduction in US military might, no matter the sorry state of US economy and US debt–is viewed as a threat to Israel’s very existence–US as Israel’s tool is consistent in their POV. They pretend to be American patriots.

      • ANTIVICTORIA
        March 29, 2014, 3:48 pm

        Her name is Michaela Dodge- I tweeted this to her this morning on @cspanwj
        link to twitter.com

      • Citizen
        March 29, 2014, 6:21 pm

        Yeah, she’s just such a nice, well-spoken American girl–give you hope the newest generation is good, eh?

      • seafoid
        March 29, 2014, 4:45 pm

        Maybe they’ll string it along a while more in the States but the procrastination game is over in Europe.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        March 28, 2014, 4:44 pm

        ”As for Ireland, its true that they give favors based to people of Irish ethnicity who want to immigrate, but not once you gain actual citizenship.”

        No, that’s not really correct.

        Ireland’s citizenship laws favour people of Irish DESCENT, not Irish ‘ethnicity’ (whatever that is). In other words, anyone who can prove that a descendant of theirs (going back to grandparents I believe) was an Irish citizen can be granted an Irish passport. That includes Catholics, Protestants, atheists, and of course Jews who can show that they have a parent or grandparent who was/is a citizen of Ireland.

        So it’s even more different from the Israeli situation than you suggest. Ireland doesn’t really recognise the concept of ”Irish ethnicity”, just Irish citizenship, which is in line with most Western democracies. How the Zionists get away with still comparing that to Israel’s blatantly discriminatory ‘law of return’ is beyond me, but I suppose that’s the way things go with them.

      • Krauss
        March 29, 2014, 12:21 am

        We have to be careful with our words, Meridius.

        You’re correct that descent is a better phrase than “ethnicity”, but this just proves my point that you can be 11/12ths non-Irish and still get a passport because of some old great-grandma somewhere back in your ancestral line.

        But I think you missed my point, the point is that people of Irish descent get to skip the line, but there is nothing stopping you from getting Irish citizenship if you really want it as a non-Irish(if you have no descent whatsoever).

        Furthermore, and this is critical, once you do have citizenship, you are all truly equal before the law. That’s not the case in Israel, where only Jews can serve in the senior positions of the military.

        And since the military is the primary institution to get a good job after university, if you are academically inclined, that creates a strong disincentive to hire non-Jews in the upper echelons of society(and even further down). And it’s not just jobs.

        It’s housing policy(remember the “small communities act” that allows Jewish settlements to discriminate against non-Jews on the basis of their “cultural character”?), who you can marry, etc etc.

        Every fabric of society is governed by who is a Jew and who isn’t, even if you have citizenship. And again, even getting a citizenship as a non-Jew is a nightmare. Haaretz did a report on this some months back where people who have married Jews in Israel were stalled for years, in an effort to “starve them out” and make them give up. And these are mostly white Europeans. If you’re Arab, you’re creamed. And if you married another Arab from Israel, who does have Israeli citizenship, forget about it.

        That is far away from the Irish experience, once you have citizenship, you are de jure and de facto equal with everyone else.

        And Ireland takes refugees, for example, which Israel doesn’t. Why does Ireland take refugees? Because it isn’t for exlusively Irish people, like Israel is exclusively for Jews. The non-Jews in Israel are under pressure to move away. And Israel’s PM is on record for wishing to do mass ethnic cleansing(he did this in a speech in the late 80s during the Tiananmen Square protests).

        Is Ireland’s PM on record for wishing to ethnically cleanse all non-Irish people of Ireland(especially, but not exclusively, the growing minority of non-whites in Ireland)?

        I don’t think so.

      • seafoid
        March 30, 2014, 4:01 pm

        “and still get a passport because of some old great-grandma somewhere back in your ancestral line.”

        It doesn’t go back 2000 years, Krauss.
        That is a massive difference. Zionism is such a fraud

      • Citizen
        March 30, 2014, 4:32 pm

        Zionism is totally racist. It is The Prince saying the ends justifies the means. Israel is an ethnic or racist state. Whichever. It is not something the US should support under traditional US values. That the US government does so is because the US mainstream media does not tell the truth to the masses. He who controls the US government by campaign donations, by think tanks, by main media, controls the whole future and present of us all. It’s the Zionists, folks. Check out who has the power.

      • seafoid
        March 29, 2014, 8:41 am

        There is no comparison. Ireland doesn’t confine all English people to specific roads or deny them jobs in key areas.
        Israel is sui generis, degenerate.

    • MRW
      March 30, 2014, 2:10 am

      Friedman and his “world is flat” – he never saw Lehman coming either .

      Lehman was in his flat pack.

  2. seafoid
    March 28, 2014, 1:50 pm

    “If Israel has flaws, she said (sounding more the hard-boiled realist than a progressive), they are the flaws of all nation-states, from ethnic cleansing at their establishment to the removal of nomadic peoples so as to foster modernity..”

    And all the OECD countries torture children- it’s the only way to get them ready for the internet age

    Never forget

    “A Jew is by the nature of his creation a purer being. Similarly with the holiness of the land: The soil of Israel is essentially holier, the stones are holier because the land was destined by God to serve as the place of the Children of Israel”

    Is this what God actually wanted ?

  3. Balfour
    March 28, 2014, 1:54 pm

    “If Israel has flaws”, [Aronoff] said, “they are the flaws of all nation-states, from ethnic cleansing at their establishment to the removal of nomadic peoples so as to foster modernity.”

    Yet Israel supporters demand that the USA provide the military, diplomatic and economic protection required for Israel to practice these “flaws” so as to become a modern political state.

    Absolutely nauseating.

  4. American
    March 28, 2014, 1:59 pm

    More pilpul from the ‘liberal’ Zionist. No such thing as a liberal Zionist if liberal means adherence to equal rights and justice for all.
    IMO the Jewish State has forfeited the right to Jewish self determination by its criminal behavior…for 65 very long years.
    Only right they are entitled to now is a fair trial for their crimes against others.

    Round them all up including their US political enablers and send them all to the ICC.

    • Yitzgood
      March 28, 2014, 4:46 pm

      More pilpul from the ‘liberal’ Zionist.

      “Pilpul”? That’s an awfully interesting word choice. What inspired you to use that word?

      • American
        March 28, 2014, 6:43 pm

        Because that is what the Zionist arguments are.

        What is Pilpul, and Why on Earth Should I Care About It”
        David Shasha
        link to huffingtonpost.com

      • Yitzgood
        March 30, 2014, 12:50 am

        What is Pilpul, and Why on Earth Should I Care About It”
        David Shasha
        link to huffingtonpost.com

        Your source for how to use the word is Huffpo? The word sometimes suggests a display of erudition for its own sake or an intellectual exercise, but usually a certain question is looked at from multiple angles. You somehow seem to have gotten it into your head, judging from the Huffpo article, that it means displaying rhetorical skill by arguing for something manifestly false or something like that. Your use of the word reminds me of Seafoid’s use of “goy” elsewhere in this comments thread if you want to know the truth. A little ethnic dig added to the sneering. The Huffpo article is garbage. “Hakhi garsinan” means Rashi is offering a variant reading of the text, for instance, for normal reasons of textual scholarship. There were different readings in the various manuscripts and printed editions, so Talmud commentators do that frequently. The Talmud text is in the state you’d expect of an ancient work transmitted for centuries in manuscript form, especially in certain tractates. The word “pilpul” is not particularly relevant to understanding Dershowitz or Chomsky or Aronoff. They don’t inhabit intellectual circles that are involved with pipulim. When someone I was once talking to characterized what the Pri Megadim does as “chakiros and pilpulim,” he was using the word “pilpul” appropriately in a sentence.

      • American
        March 30, 2014, 11:58 am

        @ Yitzgood

        Pilpul , as describe in that article, does describe ‘exactly how the Zionist argue for Israel 99% of the time.
        Pilpul is pilpul, no one needs to be a rocket scientist to see how the nonsense is spun out.
        ‘Nonsense, nonsensical,’ spinning’ is the gentile’s term for the practice of pilpul.
        Pilpul is the Jewish term for pilpul.

      • Hostage
        March 30, 2014, 12:12 pm

        Your source for how to use the word is Huffpo? The word sometimes suggests a display of erudition for its own sake or an intellectual exercise, but usually a certain question is looked at from multiple angles.

        No, we usually mean that someone is trying to stand everything on its head and use offbeat, unusual, and eccentric lines of argumentation in order to completely reframe the debate.

    • yonah fredman
      March 28, 2014, 6:05 pm

      “round them all up” is American at his truest. And that’s why I object to your name.

      • American
        March 28, 2014, 6:38 pm

        @ yonah

        lol…object away.
        BTW…where is your ‘Famous Dead American Anti Semite Feature post of the day?
        I havent seen one today.
        Now that you know that Truman said what the Zionist planned for Palestine was against American principles of democracy you can make him another US nazi.

      • Yitzgood
        March 30, 2014, 2:53 pm

        ‘Nonsense, nonsensical,’ spinning’ is the gentile’s term for the practice of pilpul. Pilpul is the Jewish term for pilpul.

        Her is a link, showing the title page of the Minchas Chinuch. It reads “Sefer Minchas Chinuch, vehu biur rachav al sefer hachinuch bepilpul atzum ubekius nifla.”–“Sefer Minchas Chinuch which is a wide-ranging (literally “broad”) commentary on the Sefer Hachinuch with pilpul atzum and bekius nifla.” “Atzum” is something like tremendous. “Nifla” is something like amazing. Bekius is something like expertise. Do you think the author of that title page is using the word pilpul to mean “Nonsense, nonsensical,’ spinning”? link to hebrewbooks.org

      • American
        March 31, 2014, 9:56 pm

        @ Yitzgood

        ” Do you think the author of that title page is using the word pilpul to mean “Nonsense, nonsensical,’ spinning”?……

        ‘One man’s trash is another man’s treasure’.
        Or in other words, what one person may think is brilliant and erudite other person may think nonsensical verbosity.
        I did do a little searching and I did find some instances where a obviously Jewish person had used pilpul to describe something in the same way I would use ‘nonsense’ to describe something.
        Different strokes for different folks….not everyone agrees on what is brilliant and what isn’t.

  5. jsinton
    March 28, 2014, 2:02 pm

    BDS must REALLY scare the pants off them. They really don’t know how to deal with it. These are the tools of Gandhi, and MLK. It’s is peaceful resistance, which they cannot control. It is certainly the most appropriate political message one can make: Vote with your money.

    Furthermore, I don’t think there is any one definition of the BDS movement. It’s organic, and it means different things to different folks. To me, it’s a tool to dismantle the settlements, to others it’s about “right of return”. I find it rather extremist to condemn BDS as “destroying the Jewish state”, etc.

    I like the comment about ““tragic” conflict of “right” against “right””. Is this to say “two rights make a wrong”? Or “two wrongs make a right”? I hear this argument all the time from Zionists like “Muslims kill 140K in Syria, and anti-Zionists complain about shooting a few Palestinians”. It’s a “two wrongs makes a right” argument.

    • seafoid
      March 28, 2014, 2:37 pm

      They love Hamas violence because Hamas violence gets the IDF excited. The IDF can turkey shoot for the Olympics but it can’t deal with words. Especially in English.

      And Progressive Jews get their knickers in a twist over non violence.
      It’s just not fair.

      • Walid
        March 28, 2014, 2:47 pm

        Are you saying there is something sexual for the IDF in provoking Hamas to violence? What else, whips and chains, or just simple torture?

      • American
        March 28, 2014, 3:40 pm

        Walid says:

        March 28, 2014 at 2:47 pm

        Are you saying there is something sexual for the IDF in provoking Hamas to violence? What else, whips and chains, or just simple torture?”

        I don’t think I would call it sexual, but its obvious there is some sick thing going on —- trying to show that Jews are tough ‘warrior’ guys and not the wimps they think Jews were portrayed as in the past.
        So they beat up and kill unarmed Palestines, women and children–and are so stupid they don’t see the world views them as nothing but wimpy bullies and cowards for this.
        I noticed Isr was doing this big display of guns and etc

      • American
        March 28, 2014, 4:06 pm

        ..opps my edit got cut off…anyway Isr was doing this public display of war and weapons so that “Israelis could feel good about themselves”.
        Similar I suppose to when Hitler, USSR and similar others had their tanks/missiles whatever paraded thru the streets for admiring crowds

      • seafoid
        March 28, 2014, 10:40 pm

        IDF violence brings Israelis (obviously not “Israeli Arabs”) together, like some sports do in other countries. It’s a shared experience.

        They have super TV shows with wonderful graphics and you can get the popcorn in and everything

        link to youtube.com

      • seafoid
        March 29, 2014, 4:07 am

        Ya Walid

        Check out comment #4 under the article

        link to haaretz.com

  6. K Renner
    March 28, 2014, 2:14 pm

    I always have found it funny how hysterical it gets all over the pro-Israel political spectrum when it comes to the BDS movement– it’s not saying by any measure anything else then “you have to do right by the people you ethnically cleansed by the hundreds of thousands over several different periods”.

    Palestine is the home of these families, if they were expelled at the end of the 1940s, or in the first half of the 1950s, and after the “six day war” of 1967. You can’t deny them that and then claim that every Jew in the world, whatever their background is, and every Jewish convert has some right to come and live in the “Jewish Homeland” because Jewish tribes made up part of the population millennia ago and were jerked around by the Roman Empire.

    I would like to see the opportunity for a full Palestinian right of return, but I don’t see that happening at this point. If the liberal portion of the Zionist camp is so cut up about the BDS, then one thing they can do is increase the pressure on all fronts to make the Israeli state pull all “IDF” and “settlers” out of the Palestinian West Bank, and end the so-called “Right of Return” for Jewish 25-year olds living in New York or Toronto or Paris or Berlin or wherever.

    That’d be a good start.

  7. ritzl
    March 28, 2014, 2:23 pm

    Isn’t there something wistful or “phoned-in” about this liberal anti-BDS mouthing of words?

    They’re aware of the amorality of the situation. They make up straw-men. They don’t seem to be quite able to reconcile reality with idyll. It’s almost a self-image rationalization thing at this point (hypothetically):

    I’m not bad, therefore what I have believed in for so long can’t be bad, therefore what opposes what I believe be NOT bad, must be bad. … if I am to remain “liberal.”

    Quite contorted. Front line of the rear guard.

    PS. I hope someone can dissect why this notion that Israel will be destroyed if it becomes a equal rights-based state holds so much fear/sway. I don’t get it at all, yet somehow I feel like I’m supposed to, if not actually care. I don’t get the motivation behind the extreme insistence.

    Israel, as the state of the Jewish people, was self-determined when the Mandate partition borders were laid down. Everything since then has been/is violent expansion and wish fulfillment, not self-determination. Why should anyone, including these libzios, support violent wish fulfillment?

    It’s hard to read this libzio stuff anymore. It’s too disconnected from morality and reality and there’s way too much pointless and selfish thrashing around to be taken seriously. Schizophrenic and uncomfortable to be around, given the risk of being drawn in to the discussion.

    • seafoid
      March 28, 2014, 2:38 pm

      “I hope someone can dissect why this notion that Israel will be destroyed if it becomes a equal rights-based state holds so much fear/sway”

      What is Israel? Take away the IDF and the fear and what is it? American Jews are afraid to ask. Nobody wants to look under that rock.

    • Donald
      March 28, 2014, 2:53 pm

      “I hope someone can dissect why this notion that Israel will be destroyed if it becomes a equal rights-based state holds so much fear/sway. I don’t get it at all, yet somehow I feel like I’m supposed to, if not actually care.”

      It’s an ideology, a kind of religion. MJcould argue for a 2SS on strictly pragmatic grounds and he does so in part–he could argue that the Israeli Jews will never agree to give up their hegemony within the 67 lines and that past injustices in practice aren’t always rectified and so on and he does this. One could then debate what is or isn’t practical. But justifying Israel’s rejection of equal rights on purely pragmatic grounds isn’t emotionally satisfying for him, so he goes on to say that there’s some right to Jewish “self-determination” which means it was and is okay for Israeli Jews to drive Palestinians out of their homes and keep them out. And he makes the illogical claim that when apartheid ended in South Africa, South Africa still existed, but if Palestinians and Israeli Jews had equal rights in a 1ss, it would be the “end of the state of Israel.”

      He’s not making an argument–he’s reciting a creed.

      • ritzl
        March 28, 2014, 7:38 pm

        @seafoid, Donald- Combining your comments, it would seem to be a creed of not looking under the rock.

        Thanks.

      • American
        March 29, 2014, 9:43 am

        ” MJcould argue for a 2SS on strictly pragmatic grounds ”…Donald

        Pragmatic grounds is the only legitimate claim anyone could make actually—-the practical problems that would come of dismantling Israel and the migration or not or statelessness of 6 million Jews.
        The world doesn’t want to have to cope with any more millions of displaced people then its coping with due to wars, internal conflicts and poverty.
        The best solution is to move Israel entirely out of all post 1948 Palestine land they have seized and back into the original parcel the UN awarded with return or compensation for Palestine refugees.
        This is as close as anyone could get to justice for Palestine without dismantling Israel.

    • American
      March 28, 2014, 4:35 pm

      @ ritzl

      All the Israel people use ‘pilpul’ arguments. We all can see what they are doing but it helps if you have the correct description for the tactic. Saves you a lot of time trying to explain it to others. Just tell them what pilpul is then they’ll understand.

      What is Pilpul And Why On Earth Should I Care About It?
      David Shasha

      link to huffingtonpost.com

      (short course)

      ”As if this was not enough, the Tosafists instituted one more pilpul principle into Talmudic discourse. This was called the Lav Davqa method. In English we might call it the “Not Quite” way of reading a text.
      When a text appeared to be saying one thing, the Tosafot — in order to conform to the already-existing custom — would re-interpret it by saying that what it seemed to mean is not what it really meant!

      What this means for contemporary Jewish discourse is critical: Even though many contemporary Jews are not observant, pilpul continues to be deployed. Pilpul occurs any time the speaker is committed to “prove” his point regardless of the evidence in front of him. The casuistic aspect of this hair-splitting leads to a labyrinthine form of argument where the speaker blows enough rhetorical smoke to make his interlocutor submit. Reason is not an issue when pilpul takes over: what counts is the establishment of a fixed, immutable point that can never truly be disputed.

      What is thought to be the Jewish “genius” is often a mark of how pilpul is deployed. The rhetorical tricks of pilpul make true rational discussion impossible; any “discussion” is about trying to “prove” a point that has already been established. There is little use trying to argue in this context, because any points being made will be twisted and turned to validate the already-fixed position.
      Pilpul is the rhetorical means to mark as “true” that which cannot ever be disputed by rational means.

      The contentiousness of the Middle East conflict is intimately informed by pilpul. Whether it is Alan Dershowitz or Noam Chomsky, both of them Ashkenazim who had traditional Jewish educations, the terms of the debate are consistently framed by pilpul. ‘”>>>>>

      IOW whatever they say is ‘true”. Regardless of all and any indisputable evidence to the contrary. They will spend 2000 words in a paper or argument on tortured illogic and contradictions and redefining the meaning of terms and words to make their truth ‘true’. Jewish AND Democratic for instance–a contradiction in words and redefining what is democratic. Jewish is a nationality–redefining the definition of nationality. Europe feels guilty for killing Jews so now they now want to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews to not be reminded of their guilt—complete irrational reasoning.

      I try not to even read their pilpul stuff any more, it always the same nonsense.

      • ritzl
        March 28, 2014, 8:23 pm

        Thanks American. Pilpul fits. But if people are smart enough to use pilpul as a tactic, they also have to be smart enough to know WHY it’s being used.

        As you know, I resist attributing ugly motives to people, but that may be the only explanation for this behavior in the face of so much obvious/known Palestinian subjugation.

        By arguing to give it another year, and then another, and then another, if only we can get a USPres that gets it, good now we can make progress in his first term, we’ll need another term, we’re almost there, just one more year, I promise… another generation has passed. Meanwhile they expect the Palestinians to smile and nod/stepnfetchit while they (libzios) try to sort out their thinking. They’ve lost the battle and they don’t have a Plan B. Yet instead of attacking the people they lost to, the people that
        are actually killing their 2S dream, they attack the people that are trying to add a new lever into their [albeit dead] effort to say random words and hope something might happen.

        They have to know all this. It’s not some bloody game. Maybe a better question would be why are they trying to lose and take everyone down with them (except, of course, the people they actually have a beef with – the Israeli “right.”).

        In the end, the Palestinians are going to do what they need to do or not do. The Greater Israel one-state wave will wash over them and libzios will be even more irrelevant than they are now (no rear guard action to perform at the behest of the ptb they despise in Israel).

        So much wasted energy.

        Sorry for venting. Thanks again.

      • RoHa
        March 29, 2014, 5:31 am

        So David Sasha is saying that there is a tradition of intellectual dishonesty that is taught in Jewish schools.

        (The way the word “casuistry” is used these days certainly carries the implication of twisting the argument to get the conclusion you want, but its original meaning was simply applying moral principles to particular cases. We call it “applied ethics” these days.)

      • Yitzgood
        March 30, 2014, 11:54 am

        ”As if this was not enough, the Tosafists instituted one more pilpul principle into Talmudic discourse. This was called the Lav Davqa method. In English we might call it the “Not Quite” way of reading a text.
        When a text appeared to be saying one thing, the Tosafot — in order to conform to the already-existing custom — would re-interpret it by saying that what it seemed to mean is not what it really meant!

        May I ask you something? The Torah (Exodus 21:35) says that if someone’s ox gores his neighbor’s ox, the owner of the goring ox is liable for damages. Does the Torah mean “davka” an ox? That is, if someone’s dog hurts or kills his neighbor’s dog, is the same verse not a warrant for holding the owner of damaging dog liable because it talks about an ox? Or is the Torah framing the legal principle in terms of a commonly occurring case and it is “lav davka” talking about just an ox? If you think the later makes sense, you now have an example of where the expression “lav davka” would be used.

    • Citizen
      March 28, 2014, 10:20 pm

      MJR just can’t let loose of Jewish privilege in Israel; he’s like a shoeless Confederate soldier who personally never owned a slave.

    • Citizen
      March 30, 2014, 9:53 pm

      @ ritzl
      Try imagining a mentality that does not believe there’s any after life, no heaven and hell to send you to your reward or penalty when you die. Add to this mentality the notion/feeling/desire that you will live forever through your bloodline or conversion belief that the tribe itself is immortal as a collective renewed each generation. Now, get it?

  8. puppies
    March 28, 2014, 2:36 pm

    “Liberal Zionists are the new front line against BDS”
    Weiss is missing the game. “Liberal” Zionists are on both sides of the line. Some of them are very successfully trying to limit the boycotting to the post-1967 occupation only, as if the Zionist entity was innocent of the “settlements”. They are dominating the discourse by creating a general impression that it’s all about settlements. They are controlling some of the leading bodies of BDS and excommunicating people who do fight against Zionism.
    So these liberal Zionists seem to be both pro and con BDS? Or trying to destroy it both by frontal attack and from the inside?

    • kalithea
      March 29, 2014, 11:20 pm

      Excellent point.

      There is no such think as a “Liberal” Zionist, just as there is no such thing as democracy in the Zionist State, just as there is no real justice in a Zionist State.

      Zionism is incompatible with and contradicts liberal values, democracy and justice, and this is TRUTH, because we have ample evidence to support this truth. Therefore on this basis, no Zionist can be trusted to be squarely on the side of liberal values, democracy and justice as long as he believes that Zionism is acceptable and defends it.

      It is not surprising that these so-called “Liberal” Zionists are a contradiction unto themselves. Their lack of integrity is breathtaking.

      • puppies
        March 30, 2014, 1:28 pm

        @kalithea – I agree entirely about the lack of integrity part but a contradiction unto themselves, not so much. These are two successive retreat lines: the liberal Zionists influential in the official BDS point to the liberal Zionists who are vilifying the movement, using them as a pretext to limit and water down the targets and the objectives (settlements only, companies that collaborate with the occupation only, limiting the long-term objectives only to the post-1967 occupation…) To the point of having the leader of the libZionist Meretz party declare that she is participating in the boycott… of settlement goods. When the BDS movement is reduced to little more than a feel-good gesture that may or may not reduce soda sales both of these will have won.

  9. Donald
    March 28, 2014, 2:42 pm

    “The reason why BDS keeps failing despite the almost universal recognition that the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the blockade of Gaza, are illegal and immoral is that the BDS movement is not targeting the occupation per se”

    Rosenberg should be down on his hands and knees thanking God for the BDS movement–it gives him and other liberal Zionists an excuse for their own failings during the past several decades, long before BDS was even a blip on anyone’s radar. They allegedly want a 2SS that is fair to the Palestinians, but they’ve accomplished absolutely nothing.

    • Citizen
      March 30, 2014, 10:05 pm

      No way the rhetorical and governing sense of the founding fathers can be reconciled with Zionism–except the sense of hypocrisy in that only white male property holders could vote. The question is, are we still in the latter days of the 18th Century, or did we fight two world wars, install Nuremberg/Tokyo Trial and Geneva principles or not? Did all those folks die in those wars for nothing? Or is “never again” a real universal rule of law? The US, by funding and diplomatically immunizing Israel’s policies and conduct, keep alive the ape man and Goebbels’ s Goering’s sense of reality.

  10. munro
    March 28, 2014, 2:57 pm

    Israel & diaspora could benefit from similar soul-searching.

    We Need to Talk About Ireland
    Justine McCarthy
    link to youtube.com (Michael Davitt reference at 4:40)
    link to rte.ie
    link to facebook.com @trailblazery

  11. LeaNder
    March 28, 2014, 3:06 pm

    Lately I occasionally ponder what specific ingrediant cause me to call someone a really bad actor. And strictly I am really thinking about actors in this context.

    Speech wise, it would be something like the lady’s completely non modulated excitement. It is really hard to even listen to her for me, admittedly. At least since it seems to go on in pretty much the same amplitude almost to the end. Not only since it is the same argument we were all facing for years, quite possibly decades now, but mainly since after a while I seem find to it hard to even listen to her. In actors it would be one of the things that leaves me with the impression of a high degree of artificialness. Maybe I have to check what Stanislavski had to say about that.

    I know that’s off topic. I just wonder …

    • chuckcarlos
      March 28, 2014, 7:31 pm

      another self hating jew…where do you find this plethora of guys?

      she’s an actor? I thought she was involved in Israel Studies, which is the department right next to the Biology and Chemistry Department? Maybe she was just fed a really bad script?…seeing how she is a learned scientist familiar and probably related to Euler she just misunderstood.

      Well if she’s an actor, fire her and get somebody good!

  12. Dan Crowther
    March 28, 2014, 3:07 pm

    I’m sure Rosenberg will be given EVERY opportunity to respond, here on MW.

    • American
      March 28, 2014, 3:46 pm

      He’s too chicken shit to show here again, knows he cant win a fair-honest debate.
      He got (politely–mostly politely..lol) trounced last time–he now prefers to slander everyone from afar.

    • Citizen
      March 28, 2014, 4:39 pm

      You mean like Blamklfort and Atzmon?

      • kalithea
        March 30, 2014, 12:38 am

        You mean as in–prophetic?:

        It has long been accepted that Zionism and Israel, because they can so easily cause antisemitism, are ‘not good for the Jews’. But now, as I predicted, it has become evident that it is actually the so-called ‘progressive’ Jews who constitute the real danger to Jews.

        I actually wish I could post the link, because what’s written there rings crystal clear and truthful while the false narrative from the Third Narrative reeks of a last ditch attempt to delay justice by trying to blur the lines between morality/compassion and brutal indefensible acts that have no justification in reality, law or humanity. And I know they’re going to base their premise on a certain by-gone tragedy that they’ll milk again and again to explain how Jewish exceptionalism trumps whatever crimes were and are committed against Palestinians since the tragedy that befell Jews is so much worse and to deny them their Zionism would be like tempting fate. In other words using guilt to discourage gentiles from embracing BDS as the solution, and fear to rally all Jews against BDS, because compassion for the Jewish past must out-weigh compassion for those who suffer in the present and “never again” has a copyright belonging strictly to Jews.

        (I believe his name is spelled Blankfort.)

    • kalithea
      March 29, 2014, 11:27 pm

      God I hope not! We had enough doublespeak from him in the past.

  13. Woody Tanaka
    March 28, 2014, 3:13 pm

    I guess I look upon these people with the same mix of disgust, pity and anger as I would look upon a Russian-American who claimed to be a progressive or liberal, but who argued in favor of the Russian anti-gay laws.

    Further, Aronoff is nuts. There is no negotiated withdrawal; the number of occupiers increases every day. “We must honor the ‘dreams and rights’ of both peoples, Aronoff said.” Yet, her favored people never seem to get around to honoring the dreams and rights of the Palestinians. That’s the problem.

    Further, Rosenberg scare quotes “property” in the context of the Palestinians regaining what was stolen from them in the 1940s. I wonder what his view of the Jewish descendants of art collectors regaining what was stolen from them in the 1940s. Does he favor the return of that property or does he merely consider it “property”?

    • Nurit Baytch
      March 28, 2014, 8:10 pm

      Personal property (art) and real property (land and homes) are treated very differently when it comes to restitution after [lengthy] conflicts. My family’s real property in Poland was expropriated by Poles during the Holocaust, and they were compensated with reparations, not return of the property.

      For some perspective on how real property claims are adjudicated, read the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights on the real property of Greek Cypriot refugees who fled Northern Cyprus:
      link to hudoc.echr.coe.int
      “with the passage of time the holding of a title may be emptied of any practical consequences.”
      “The Court must also remark that some thirty-five years after the applicants, or their predecessors in title, left their property, it would risk being arbitrary and injudicious for it to attempt to impose an obligation on the respondent State to effect restitution in all cases…Thus, there is no precedent in the Court’s case-law to support the proposition that a Contracting State must pursue a blanket policy of restoring property to owners without taking into account the current use or occupation of the property in question.”
      “It recalls that the applicant lived in the home owned by her father until the age of two….Thus, it is not enough for an applicant to claim that a particular place or property is a ‘home’…The nature of the ongoing or recent occupation of a particular property is usually the most significant element in the determination of the existence of a ‘home’ in cases before the Court. However, where ‘home’ is claimed in respect of property in which there has never been any, or hardly any, occupation by the applicant or where there has been no occupation for some considerable time, it may be that the links to that property are so attenuated as to cease to raise any, or any separate, issue under Article 8…The fact that she might inherit a share in the title of that property in the future is a hypothetical and speculative element, not a concrete tie in existence at this moment in tim

      • Kris
        March 29, 2014, 11:47 am

        “with the passage of time the holding of a title may be emptied of any practical consequences.”

        Of course, this has been Israel’s strategy from day one: drive the Palestinians out, keep them out, prevent them from reclaiming their property, and then say it’s too late, the Palestinians no longer own the property because they waited too long to reclaim it.

        If it is not “too late” to return works of art to the heirs of the Jewish families from whom they were stolen, and to prosecute elderly former concentration camp guards, it is not “too late” to return the land to the Palestinian families from whom they were stolen.

      • Nurit Baytch
        March 29, 2014, 3:26 pm

        Again, I explained the distinction between real property and personal property claims. My family’s real property that was stolen during the Holocaust was not returned to us.

        And there is no statute of limitations on murder.

      • justicewillprevail
        March 29, 2014, 3:52 pm

        The case you cite is extremely specific to Cyprus and to the agreements and arrangements which were negotiated between the two parties. The Annan document was a rational attempt to compensate parties who had lost property with properties of similar value. Referenda took place on both sides. Furthermore, the judgement is not a general one, which is what you want to portray it as, but highly specific to the particular individuals and their circumstances and case histories. So if you want to somehow apply it to Palestine, you would expect a first of all open and detailed negotiations between Israel and Palestine detailing how compensation and property rights will be attributed, followed by a referendum of the population affected. Then particular cases, like the ones here, can be judged on their merits.
        Or in other words, cherrypicking some sentences from one case is entirely irrelevant to Palestinians and their situation, not least because Israel refuses to discuss or acknowledge the wrongs done to them. In that respect, they are light years behind the attempt to find a civilised settlement in Cyprus, and you are deluded in trying to find some succour there. Whatever happened to your family is of course no justification or rationalisation whatsoever for what happened to Palestinians, unless of course you also accept the parallel of fascism in Europe with what has happened in Palestine. Fail.

      • Hostage
        March 29, 2014, 8:20 pm

        And there is no statute of limitations on murder.

        Duh! “Pillage of public and private property” was one of the criminal offenses listed in the Nuremberg Charter for which individual criminal responsibility applies and for which there are no statutory limitations. While the Jewish Claims Conference and the State of Israel have obtained billions in compensation, in many cases, Israel, individual Jews, and classes of Jews maintain demands for the actual restoration of works of art, personal property, and real estate.

      • Nurit Baytch
        March 30, 2014, 5:25 am

        justicewillprevail writes, “The case you cite is extremely specific to Cyprus and to the agreements and arrangements which were negotiated between the two parties.
        This is correct, but many advocates of Palestinian right of return have cited the Loizidou v Turkey case as a favorable precedent, and this ruling supersedes Loizidou v Turkey.

        The Annan document was a rational attempt to compensate parties who had lost property with properties of similar value.
        As for the relevance of the Annan Cyprus plan to the discussion at hand, it should be noted that Annan proposed significant limitations on right of return:
        link to un.org
        “reinstatement would not be possible for more than 20 per cent of the residences and land in any village or town (with the exception of a few specific cases) and for more than 10 per cent of the residences and land in either constituent state…Owners whose properties were not reinstated would be compensated with bonds…this approach…strikes a fair balance between competing legitimate interests and individual human rights and respects the principle of bi-zonality and international law (including international human rights law and the fourth Geneva Convention).”

        Or in other words, cherrypicking some sentences from one case is entirely irrelevant to Palestinians and their situation
        Are you saying that I cherry-picked from this particular case or that there are contrasting precedents at courts of similar stature?

        not least because Israel refuses to discuss or acknowledge the wrongs done to them. In that respect, they are light years behind the attempt to find a civilised settlement in Cyprus,
        Turkey was compelled by the European Court of Human Rights to redress the wrongs it had committed: A Greek Cypriot refugee (Loizidou) sued Turkey [for violating the European Convention on Human Rights] for barring her from returning to her home in Turkish-occupied Norhern Cyprus, and the ECHR ruled in Loizidou v Turkey that she in fact had a right to return to her home in Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus (which is why, as I mentioned above, advocates of Palestinian right of return previously cited this case). Turkey initially refused to comply with ECHR’s decision:
        link to en.wikipedia.org
        However, Turkey eventually set up a commission (IPC) to process immovable property claims from Greek Cypriot refugees, giving the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus the authority to decide whether to permit refugees to return or compensate them for their property. A group of Greek Cypriots refused to recognize the IPC’s authority to process their claims, esp as the IPC typically preferred compensation as the form of restitution, so they appealed to the ECHR in order to compel the reinstatement of their expropriated properties. And the ECHR ruled that the applicants had to file their claims with the IPC.

        In the 2000 Camp David Summit, Israel did offer to contribute to a fund to compensate Palestinians for their property claims:
        link to news.bbc.co.uk

        Whatever happened to your family is of course no justification or rationalisation whatsoever for what happened to Palestinians, unless of course you also accept the parallel of fascism in Europe with what has happened in Palestine. Fail.
        I mentioned my family’s inability to have their real property reinstated after the Holocaust only because a Mondoweiss commenter remarked on the restitution of Nazi-looted art implying that it is a relevant legal precedent wrt Palestinian right of return. which it’s not.

        anyway, I have to go to bed, so perhaps I’ll reply to the other comments if I have time tomorrow.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 30, 2014, 11:32 am

        “And there is no statute of limitations on murder.”

        but these men are not being charged with murder. Murder would require the state to establish that they actually took some action in the killing of another person.

        Rather, these men are charged with essentially being present at a location where a murder occurred. Nothing more. That is why these prosecutions are greatly unjust.

        These people are being prosecuted not because of any action they took, but merely because because the persons who should really get prosecuted – the people actually committed the murders – have either died or have already been charged and tried

        This is nothing more than a last gasp of the Nazi hunting industry, so it can get a last lick in (and raise cash besides) before that generation dies out completely and with them dies the Nazi hunting industry.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 30, 2014, 10:32 pm

        but many advocates of Palestinian right of return have cited the Loizidou v Turkey case as a favorable precedent

        really? can you link to some?

      • Hostage
        March 31, 2014, 3:56 am

        This is correct, but many advocates of Palestinian right of return have cited the Loizidou v Turkey case as a favorable precedent, and this ruling supersedes Loizidou v Turkey.

        The minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II) is not subject to the jurisdiction of the ECHR, Protocol No. 9, or Rule A. There is a compromissory clause that grants the ICJ jurisdiction to settle any dispute between Israel and the General Assembly over interpretation of the terms of the agreement. The rights in question may not be modified without the consent of the UN General Assembly. Resolution 181(II) was catalogged in 1950 as part of a survey of legal instruments containing minority protection treaties E/CN.4/367, Date: 7 April 1950 (see Chapter III The United Nations Charter And The Treaties Concluded After The War, resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947, “The Future Government of Palestine”, pages 22-23). Resolution 181(II) is also cited in the “Table of Treaties” in Thomas D. Musgrave, Self-determination and National Minorities, Oxford Monographs in International Law, Oxford University Press, 1997, ISBN 0198298986, Page xxxviii

        FYI, compromissory clauses are a special case where an advisory opinion of the ICJ is considered legally binding.

      • Hostage
        March 29, 2014, 3:47 pm

        For some perspective on how real property claims are adjudicated, read the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights on the real property of Greek Cypriot refugees who fled Northern Cyprus:
        link to hudoc.echr.coe.int

        The ECHR simply refused to try the case until the Greeks have exhausted the remedies available to them from the ‘Independent Property Commission’ (IPC) set up by Turkish authorities. The case can still go back to the ECHR if those remedies prove to be inadequate. The dicta you are citing on personal property and the passage of time has been rejected by lawmakers and courts in many countries, as well as the Jewish Claims Conference. The New York Supreme Court recently ruled In Re: Flamenbaum that under the customary Laws of Land Warfare, pillage cannot be accepted as the basis for a valid title to personal property. That case dealt with restoration of an item looted from a Nazi Museum. link to caselaw.findlaw.com

        There are many justiciable differences in the case of Palestine, which remains the subject of a sacred trust of civilization. Israel “accepted” a formal minority protection plan contained in UN resolution 181(II) that governs the terms of any expropriation of Palestinian property and it also agreed to negotiate on the basis of the terms of resolution 194 (III), which leaves the option to accept compensation instead of repatriation up to the individual refugee. The rights in the legal instrument on minorities remain under UN guarantee and cannot be altered without the consent of the General Assembly. Any dispute between Israel and the UN over the interpretation of the terms of the plan is subject to compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ under the terms of a compromissory clause contained in the resolution itself. The ICJ and PCIJ have repeatedly held that states remain bound by the terms of their own “acceptance” of any resolution on minorities or boundary disputes adopted by an international organization. Unlike the Cypriots, Israel has steadfastly refused to repatriate or compensate refugees and only argues points of law outside the court house.

      • LeaNder
        March 30, 2014, 7:57 pm

        I wasn’t aware of the Flamenbaum case, but interesting. Although your link does not work for me. I cannot even open the links of the search result in findlaw only open as a cached version. No idea why that is.

        That case dealt with restoration of an item looted from a Nazi Museum.

        I wouldn’t call the Vorderasiatische Museum (Near Eastern Museum) in Berlin “a Nazi Museum”. It is part of the Pergamon Museum, or in one of its wings. The Pergamon Museum is the no doubt the last of the Museums built on the Museums Island in Berlin, built between 1910 and 1930. Took quite some time. That’s close but does not really make it a Nazi Museum.

        I love the Ishtar Gate in the Near Eastern collection in that section as much as the Pergamon Altar in the Greek Part. And I don’t like to hear it called a Nazi Museum. … ;)

      • Hostage
        March 31, 2014, 4:02 am

        I wouldn’t call the Vorderasiatische Museum (Near Eastern Museum) in Berlin “a Nazi Museum”.

        I simply meant the item was looted from the museum while the Third Reich was still exercising territorial jurisdiction. It was still a violation of Article 28 of the Hague rules of 1907 which prohibits pillaging.

      • LeaNder
        March 31, 2014, 10:53 am

        Hostage, I understood you meant that. But it happens to be one of my favorite Museums in Berlin, even at the time when it was still in the East.

        When I was on the Museum Island the last time they had a really good exhibition on one of the people working for Bode, the force behind the Berlin Museums or the Museum Island building project still under the Prussian king. That guys history indeed showed ahead towards the Nazi mindset. But whatever he brought into the collection wasn’t so interesting that I paid too much attention to it. In any case Bode seems to have fired him after a while. The Bode Museum, as it called now, is another one of my favorites.

      • kalithea
        March 30, 2014, 12:50 am

        Pure bunk! There’s a difference between the Jewish situation and the Palestinian situation in that Jews are now living in Palestinians’ homes and on Palestinians’ land despite the reparations they got while Palestinians are f*cking refugees living in f*cking ghettos for DECADES!

        Expect Israel to either go bankrupt with reparations or to hand over the stolen property to its rightful owners!

      • puppies
        March 30, 2014, 8:50 pm

        The reparations will bankrupt them anyway. Just think of all the murders…

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 30, 2014, 10:36 am

        Nurit, there is no such distinction made in international law. The Cyprus example is an examination of the application of the plan for that specific conflict. At any rate, the Israelis also refuse the return of personal property stolen by the Israeli regime and Zionist squatters, so clearly that’s not the principle the Zionists are applying.

        As Kris so aptly put it: if it’s not too late to return the art stolen from Jews and not too late to prosecute camp guards, it’s not too late to do justice to the Palestinians’ property claims – real and personal.

      • Nurit Baytch
        March 30, 2014, 5:26 pm

        MJ Rosenberg’s original comment was about real property, not personal property, and real/immovable property claims are the only property claims relevant to right of return. (Another thing: international laws regarding cultural property also impact the cases involving Nazi-looted art, so again, not relevant to the matter at hand.)

        Israel is clearly not bound by UNGA Resolution 181 – if it were, it could not have signed the 1949 Armistice Agreements, the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, etc. As far as I know, Israel has never accepted the terms of UNGA Res 194 (nor is it compelled to do so). However, Palestinians’ outstanding property claims are expected to be resolved as part of a negotiated peace settlement. As I said above, Israel did offer to contribute to a fund to compensate Palestinians during the 2000 Camp David negotiations:
        link to news.bbc.co.uk

      • Hostage
        March 30, 2014, 6:54 pm

        Israel is clearly not bound by UNGA Resolution 181 – if it were, it could not have signed the 1949 Armistice Agreements, the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, etc.

        The General Assembly and the ICJ disagree and we’ve discussed that many times here in great detail, e.g.
        * link to mondoweiss.net
        * link to mondoweiss.net

        No one was asking for Israel’s consent. The armistice agreements were merely adopted as Article 40 “provisional measures”, under the auspices of two Security Council Chapter VII resolutions (62 and 73). They don’t create any prescriptive rights to territory or public and private property.

      • Nurit Baytch
        March 30, 2014, 8:49 pm

        Hostage, did Israel accept UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/48/158D? Even if it did, and somehow UNGA Res 181 were still binding (which it isn’t, since Israel’s borders were set in its peace treaties, and these borders do not conform to the borders set in 181), it would not require Israel to reinstate the real property of Palestinians. I’m not denying that Palestinians have legitimate property claims, but the reason that I cited the ECHR decision is that it did not compel reinstatement of Greek Cypriot refugees’ immovable property and gave the TRNC IPC, not the refugees, the authority to choose the form of restitution (which often meant monetary compensation).

      • talknic
        March 30, 2014, 9:20 pm

        @ Nurit Baytch “MJ Rosenberg’s original comment was about real property, not personal property, and real/immovable property claims are the only property claims relevant to right of return”

        What bullsh*t

        A) Property is ‘real estate’ or ‘land’ not ‘territory’. UN/UNGA resolutions and International Law and conventions use the word ‘territory’

        B) A homeless person who was homeless living under a bridge who flees the violence of war has an equal right of return as any owner of ‘real estate/land’

        “Israel is clearly not bound by UNGA Resolution 181 “

        Then Rabbi Silver, official spokesperson for the Jewish agency was a liar…

        Friday, 5 March 1948
        “Nevertheless, reluctantly but loyally, we accepted the decision which appeared fair and reasonable to the United Nations”

        “We feel under the obligation to make our position unmistakably clear. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision. “

        ” if it were, it could not have signed the 1949 Armistice Agreements, the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, etc. “

        Please explain why …. thx … I’ll wait .. link to talknic.files.wordpress.com

        “As far as I know, Israel has never accepted the terms of UNGA Res 194 (nor is it compelled to do so). “

        Strange. Israel ‘s admittance to the UN was dependent on Israel accepting UNGA res 194

        “However, Palestinians’ outstanding property claims are expected to be resolved as part of a negotiated peace settlement.”

        Good. Now about ‘territory’ and the compensation for what Israel has illegally ‘acquired’ by war link to wp.me . By far a more expensive consideration

      • Hostage
        March 30, 2014, 11:47 pm

        Hostage, did Israel accept UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/48/158D? Even if it did, and somehow UNGA Res 181 were still binding (which it isn’t, since Israel’s borders were set in its peace treaties, and these borders do not conform to the borders set in 181)

        You don’t seem to be very knowledgeable. Israel has signed one peace treaty with Egypt, which was based upon the existing 1906 Egypt–Palestine boundary delimited by Commissioners of the Turkish Sultanate and the Egyptian Khediviate; and another one with Jordan that essentially followed the mandate boundary with Transjordan, while explicitly stating in Article 3(2) that the international boundary is “without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.” link to kinghussein.gov.jo

        So it’s just as provisional in nature as the armistice agreements in so far as the status of Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, or the DMZs are concerned.

        Israel is clearly not bound by UNGA Resolution 181 – if it were, it could not have signed the 1949 Armistice Agreements, the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, etc.

        I’ve already pointed out that the armistice agreements were adopted as provisional measures in accordance with Article 40 of the UN Charter and do not prejudice the rights of the parties or the internationally adjudicated settlement contained in resolution 181(II). I supplied you the links to the verbatim minutes of the Ad Hoc Committee meetings in which Abba Eban affirmed on two occasions that Israel had supplied the required declaration acknowledging the minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II) and that it was an obligation that was capable of fulfilment by Israel acting alone, which was not affected in any way by the actions of neighboring states.

        As far as I know, Israel has never accepted the terms of UNGA Res 194 (nor is it compelled to do so).

        Israel voluntarily declared its acceptance during the hearings on its UN membership application and that fact was noted UN GA resolution 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations:

        Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it “unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations”,2/

        Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,

        The legal obligation to repatriate refugees and respect family honor, rights, and property flows from customary international law contained in the Hague rules that the Nuremberg Charter held to be legally binding on non-signatories by no later than 1939, combined with the customary rules on minorities and creation of new states reflected in resolution 181(II). Those binding obligations were simply reflected in resolution 194(III).

        I’m quoting the subsidiary organ the UN established to monitor and facilitate the exercise of “the inalienable rights” of the Palestinian people. It’s panel of experts reported that:

        19. In this respect, it was pointed out that Israel was under binding obligation to permit the return of all the Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the hostilities of 1948 and 1967. This obligation flowed from the unreserved agreement by Israel to honour its commitments under the Charter of the United Nations, and from its specific undertaking, when applying for membership of the United Nations, to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, safeguarding the rights of the Palestinian Arabs inside Israel, and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, concerning the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or to choose compensation for their property. This undertaking was also clearly reflected in General Assembly resolution 273 (III).

        link to un.org

      • Nurit Baytch
        March 31, 2014, 2:15 am

        Hostage, you cited the text of UNGA resolution 273, and as you can see, nowhere in the text does it condition Israel’s admission to the UN on acceptance of UNGA Res 194. I skimmed the UN’s account of the meeting to discuss Israel’s application for UN memership, and I do not see Israel declaring its acceptance of UNGA Res 194, as you claim. On the contrary: “Referring to the jurisprudence of the United Nations relating to the admission of new Members, the representative of Israel stated that it was his Government’s understanding that nothing but the provisions of Article 4 were relevant in the consideration of an application for membership. That conviction, based on the spirit and the language of the Charter, had been confirmed by the General Assembly resolution of 8 December 1948 (197 (III)), which stated that juridically no State was entitled to make its consent to the admission of an applicant dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Charter.”

        As for the question of whether Res 181 is binding on Israel, I already stated in my previous comment that it is irrelevant in terms of addressing Palestinian right of return, so I’m not engaging any further on this issue.

        You also cite a report published by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, which does not forward any valid legal argument regarding the right of return. It even contends on p. 17 that right of return was unanimously recognized by the UNSC in resolution 237, a claim easily proven false by perusing its text:
        link to en.wikisource.org

        Finally, you claim that the “legal obligation to repatriate refugees and respect family honor, rights, and property flows from customary international law contained in the Hague rules.” It’s arguable whether Israel was, during the war, actually bound by the Hague rules as CIL; however, assuming Israel was, this article in the UPenn Journal of International Law argues that the Hague rules do not apply to this matter. see p. 34+ (182):
        link to law.upenn.edu

      • Hostage
        March 31, 2014, 12:04 pm

        Hostage, you cited the text of UNGA resolution 273, and as you can see, nowhere in the text does it condition Israel’s admission to the UN on acceptance of UNGA Res 194.

        I didn’t say that Israel’s admission to the UN was conditioned on acceptance of resolution 194(III), simply that the subject came up during the hearings on its membership application and that’s when Abba Eban accepted it on behalf of the government of Israel. The international courts have ruled that countries become legally bound by the terms of their own acceptance of a resolution, even if they were originally intended as recommendations. See for example the Article 3, Paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne (Frontier between Turkey and Iraq) case and the Railway Traffic between Lithuania and Poland (Railway Sector Landwarów-Kaisiadorys) case
        * link to worldcourts.com
        * link to worldcourts.com

        The basic principle of international law involved is “Pacta sunt servanda”, agreements must be kept. That is considered to be a UN Charter obligation under the terms of Article 2(5), i.e. “All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter”.

        Israel had to accept resolution 181(II) as a pre-condition for termination of the mandate regime, not as a condition for UN membership. States under any form of international tutelage are not eligible for membership in the UN, which is strictly based upon the principle sovereign equality. See Articles 77 and 78 of the UN Charter. So termination of the mandate was an essential pre-condition to Israel’s eventual membership – and it contained the minority treaty that protects the rights of Arab citizens of Israel. link to yale.edu

      • Citizen
        March 30, 2014, 10:26 pm

        @ Woody T
        Yep, Kris nailed it.

      • Nurit Baytch
        March 31, 2014, 4:02 pm

        Hostage, you state that Abba Eban accepted UNGA Res 194 on behalf of the government of Israel during the hearings on Israel’s application for UN membership. I posted the UN’s account of that meeting, and I do not see Israel declaring its acceptance of UNGA Res 194, as you claim. Please post the relevant passage.

      • Hostage
        April 1, 2014, 1:04 am

        I posted the UN’s account of that meeting,

        No you did not. Footnote 5 of resolution 273 cites the verbatim records from several sessions of the Ad Hoc Committee – the 45th through 48th, 50th and 51st. You only linked to the minutes of the initial one cited, the 45th session.

        Mr Eban answered affirmatively with regard to the fact that Israel had supplied the required declarations and had implemented the minority rights contained in resolution 181 (II) in response to questions from the representative of Cuba during the 48th and 51st sessions. On a number of occasions it was pointed out that resolution 194 was simply a reaffirmation of the decision to internationalize Jerusalem contained in resolution 181 (II) and that the rights of the refugees of Palestine were protected by the minority plan contained in resolution 181(II). See for example the explicit remarks of the representative of Lebanon, Mr. Malik, on that particular point in his remarks during the 45th session that you cited.

        FYI, the process verbal of the 207th plenary session of the General Assembly, which adopted resolution 273 (III), also said that the declarations in question were contained in the report of the Ad Hoc Committee:

        The Committee’s report contained certain declarations relating to the future implementation of the provisions of General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) and 194 (III), adopted respectively on 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948, relating to the internationalization of Jerusalem and to the necessity for finding a humane solution of the problem of the Arab refugees. The Committee had invited the representative of Israel to participate without vote in the discussion, with a view to clarifying the Israeli Government’s attitude with regard to those and other matters.

        Any number of times during the sessions and the subsequent debates, it was stated that members have a Charter obligation to accept the decisions of UN organs contained in those two resolutions and Zionist propaganda still insists that Israel “accepted” resolution 181(II). So do you have a reliable published source which says otherwise, or not?

      • Nurit Baytch
        April 2, 2014, 5:48 am

        Hostage, you expended much effort to try to prove that Res 181 is binding on Israel despite that I previously stated that I’m not engaging any further on that since it is irrelevant in terms of addressing Palestinian right of return. Res 181 mandates compensation as a remedy for expropriating Arab land, and I’ve never denied that Palestinian refugees are entitled to monetary compensation for their property claims.

        And again, I have not seen any statement from Abba Eban accepting UNGA Res 194. Please cite the exact quote, not the claims of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, which I’ve already demonstrated included inaccurate information in their report.

        Finally, you cite multiple UNGA resolutions and treaties that post-date the creation of the refugee situation (and incorrectly attribute provisions of the ICCPR and UDHR re: right of return to the UN Charter). Non-retroactivity is a fundamental principle of both domestic and international law, so you need to cite legal standards that were applicable in 1947-48. For example, you cite Alexander Orakhelashvili’s interpretation of UNSC 242, which cites an article by Quigley that does not properly address the temporal issue (it also mentions the ICC/Rome statute, which was not in force until the 21st century):
        link to law.upenn.edu

        Annie, indeed I was imprecise; I should have simply stated that The Jerusalem Fund and BADIL published documents citing Loizidou as a favorable legal precedent for Palestinian right of return:
        link to badil.org

      • pjdude
        March 30, 2014, 10:50 pm

        You mean the russian puppet government. Poland was ruled by polish people serving push interests until the fall if the iron curtain

      • Nurit Baytch
        April 1, 2014, 5:37 am

        Annie, if you google “loizidou v turkey palestinian right of return,” you will find multiple advocates of Palestinian right of return, including The Jerusalem Fund and BADIL, citing Loizidou v Turkey. As I side note, I’d like to point out that on the page where The Jerusalem Fund cites Loizidou as a legal precedent for Palestinian claims, it states “in 1948, 800,000 Palestinians were expelled by Jewish forces or fled from their homes and land in historic Palestine.” (emphasis mine)

        Hostage, are you claiming that Israel is still bound by the minority rights provisions in UNGA Res 181, and as such, Israel is compelled to repatriate Palestinian refugees? I remain skeptical about the former, and I don’t see that the latter necessarily follows from the former.

        You cite language about Israel agreeing to a “humane solution to the problem of the Arab refugees.” This is virtually identical to the language in UNSC Res 242, which does not recognize a right of return. So, again, I don’t see any evidence that Israel ever accepted UNGA Res 194. Can you cite the statement Abba Eban supposedly made accepting UNGA Res 194?

      • Annie Robbins
        April 1, 2014, 7:18 am

        the page where The Jerusalem Fund cites Loizidou as a legal precedent for Palestinian claims

        The Jerusalem Fund published Arjan El Fassed citing loizidou, referencing it as an “information brief” with a exculpatory clause at the base explaining it does not necessarily reflect their views. so the Jerusalem Fund did not cite Loizidou. nor did The Jerusalem Fund “state” expelled or fled, which there is no distinction if your life is threatened, anway.

        nor did i find where badil cited Loizidou as a favorable precedent wrt right of return.

      • talknic
        April 1, 2014, 7:34 am

        @ Nurit Baytch “Hostage, are you claiming that Israel is still bound by the minority rights provisions in UNGA Res 181, and as such, Israel is compelled to repatriate Palestinian refugees?”

        A) They’re Israeli refugees. Refugees who were to be a part of the Jewish state.

        B) The Jewish Agency claimed UNGA Res 181 was binding link to pages.citebite.com

        “UNSC Res 242, which does not recognize a right of return”

        Why would UNSC res 242 mention RoR? It was to end hostilities between Israel and Lebanon, Syria, Jordan & Egypt. It wasn’t about Palestinian statehood and it didn’t mention anything about negotiating borders.

        It was according to the Israel/Egypt Peace Treaty about Israel withdrawing before peaceful relations were assumed link to wp.me i.e., having “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force” link to wp.me

        “Can you cite the statement Abba Eban supposedly made accepting UNGA Res 194?”

        Irrelevant. Israel is bound to the UN Charter in its entirety. Including the Laws of war and any convention or legal custom adopted by a majority of UN Members.

      • Hostage
        April 1, 2014, 10:10 am

        Hostage, are you claiming that Israel is still bound by the minority rights provisions in UNGA Res 181, and as such, Israel is compelled to repatriate Palestinian refugees?

        Nurit, you are obviously unfamiliar with the applicable international law and the historical record. I have cited the fact that new states created by international organizations are customarily required to accept a treaty protecting the rights of minorities through a declaration and provided you with links which establish that fact beyond any doubt. So, lets walk you through it step by step.

        Carol Fink explained that in 1878 the Concert of Europe dictated the conditions on internal governance of four new states. She says that is when the concept of granting title to a territory on the basis of minority rights treaties started, with the cases of Serbia, Montenegro, and Romania. See Defending the Rights of Others, page 37 link to books.google.com

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

        During the Versailles Peace Conference, French Prime Minister Clemenceau noted in an aide-memoire attached to the treaty which created Poland, that the minority protections were nothing new, but had long been a customary part of European public law. link to macalester.edu

        In 1932 the Council of the League of Nations adopted a resolution which required the mandated states, including Palestine to accept a minority rights undertaking in a formal declaration or treaty as a condition for the termination of a mandate regime. See The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, Luther Harris Evans, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758 Stable URL: link to jstor.org

        The Permanent Court of International Justice was asked to rule on the legal nature of minority rights declarations in the Albanian Schools case. The Court considered these declarations to be tantamount to a treaty. The opinions made no distinction between the two and frequently cited the Treaty on Albanian Minorities in order to interpret the Declaration supplied by the government of Albania. See Henry J. Steiner, Philip Alston, Ryan Goodman, International Human Rights in Context, Oxford University Press, 2008, page 100 link to books.google.com

        Resolution 181(II) contained a minority rights legal instrument that Israel accepted through a formal declaration. Here are some extracts from the text of the resolution which governs and ensures fundamental humans rights:

        B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE

        The Constituent Assembly of each State shall draft a democratic constitution for its State and choose a provisional government to succeed the Provisional Council of Government appointed by the Commission. The Constitutions of the States shall embody Chapters 1 and 2 of the Declaration provided for in section C below and include, inter alia, provisions for:

        Guaranteeing to all persons equal and non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association;
        Preserving freedom of transit and visit for all residents and citizens of the other State in Palestine and the City of Jerusalem . . .
        C. DECLARATION
        A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence. It shall contain, inter alia, the following clauses:
        General Provision
        The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

        Chapter 2: Religious and Minority Rights
        Freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, shall be ensured to all.
        No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex.
        All persons within the jurisdiction of the State shall be entitled to equal protection of the laws.

        No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be paid previous to dispossession.

        Chapter 4: Miscellaneous Provisions
        The provisions of chapters 1 and 2 of the declaration shall be under the guarantee of the United Nations, and no modifications shall be made in them without the assent of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Any Member of the United Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the General Assembly any infraction or danger of infraction of any of these stipulations, and the General Assembly may thereupon make such recommendations as it may deem proper in the circumstances.
        Any dispute relating to the application or interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.

        — UN resolution 181(II) link to yale.edu

        During the People’s Council discussion about the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel on the 14th of May, David Ben Gurion stated:

        “We have put in the basic phrases demanded by the UN, and I am sure that they, and more, will be included in the law of the land.

        – See Netanel Lorach, Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981, Volume 1 – People’s Council and Provisional Council of State, 1948-1949, pp 53 (pdf page 40 of 184) link to jcpa.org

        During the 48th session of the Ad Hoc Political Committee that was considering Israel’s application for membership, the representative of Cuba asked if Israel had supplied the required declaration on minority rights? He noted that the rights were under United Nations guarantee. See pages 2-3 of the .pdf A/AC.24/SR.48
        Mr Abba Eban said he could answer in the affirmative and cited a cable from Foreign Minister Shertok to the Secretary General outlining the provisions of The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, which had been signed by the members of the People’s Council on 14 May 1948. Eban said he needed a little time to produce the documents. But he assured the Ad Hoc Committee that a declaration had been made by the Foreign Minister to the Secretary General on 15 May 1948.

        At the 51st session Mr Eban acknowledged that the resolution required Israel to make a declaration. He said that the rights stipulated in UN resolution 181(II) had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by the resolution when the Declaration of Independence had been promulgated as law in the official gazette. See his full remarks starting on page 6 of the verbatim UN record, link to un.org

        The minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II) was included in a catalog of minority treaties and instruments published by the Secretary General in 1950. The plan for Palestine was the only instrument that wasn’t deemed to be affected by the dissolution of the League of Nations. — E/CN.4/367, Date: 7 April 1950 (see Chapter III The United Nations Charter And The Treaties Concluded After The War, resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947, “The Future Government of Palestine”, pages 22-23)

        Resolution 181(II) is also cited in the “Table of Treaties” in Thomas D. Musgrave, Self-determination and National Minorities, Oxford Monographs in International Law, Oxford University Press, 1997, ISBN 0198298986, Page xxxviii

        I also quoted the legal opinion of the expert panel of a subsidiary organ of the UN created by the General Assembly with a specific mandate to identify and facilitate the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. It specifically stated that Israel is under a legal obligation to repatriate all of the refugees from the wars in 1948 and 1967 because of its acceptance of resolution 181(II) which protects the rights of Arabs in Israel:

        19. In this respect, it was pointed out that Israel was under binding obligation to permit the return of all the Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the hostilities of 1948 and 1967. This obligation flowed from the unreserved agreement by Israel to honour its commitments under the Charter of the United Nations, and from its specific undertaking, when applying for membership of the United Nations, to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, safeguarding the rights of the Palestinian Arabs inside Israel, and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, concerning the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or to choose compensation for their property. This undertaking was also clearly reflected in General Assembly resolution 273 (III).

        link to un.org

        In a number of cases, including others involving the decision to terminate a mandate, the ICJ has advised that it does not exercise judicial review of the legal decisions of competent UN organs and that General Assembly resolutions have legal consequences for the member states:

        Eventually, in 1966, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted resolution 2145 (XXI), whereby it decided that the Mandate was terminated and that South Africa had no other right to administer the Territory. . . . Objections challenging the validity of these resolutions having been raised, the Court points out that it does not possess powers of judicial review or appeal in relation to the United Nations organs in question. Nor does the validity of their resolutions form the subject of the request for advisory opinion. The Court nevertheless, in the exercise of its judicial function, and since these objections have been advanced, considers them in the course of its reasoning before determining the legal consequences arising from those resolutions. . . . It has been contended . . . that resolution 2145 (XXI) made pronouncements which the General Assembly, not being a judicial organ, was not competent to make; . . . the General Assembly was not making a finding on facts, but formulating a legal situation [i.e. laying down the law]; it would not be correct to assume that, because it is in principle vested with recommendatory powers, it is debarred from adopting, in special cases within the framework of its competence, resolutions which make determinations or have operative design.

        — Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) link to icj-cij.org

        Now if you are going to rebut something I’ve explained, that’s how you should go about doing it.

      • LeaNder
        April 1, 2014, 10:38 am

        How the hell do you find the correct reply button, if some comments have one but others don’t?

        Nurit, I will read the article you linked to above. But this is highly cynical:

        Instead, in the section applying law to fact, I assume the truth of the Palestinian version of history–that most or all fled as a result of Israeli force to threats.

        It looks as if he argued that at the time you still lost your belongings once you fled for fear to save your life. Was that so in earlier times?

      • Hostage
        April 1, 2014, 11:00 am

        the page where The Jerusalem Fund cites Loizidou as a legal precedent for Palestinian claims

        The problem is that Loizidou is inapplicable, since it is based upon the application of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom. Neither Israel nor Palestine are parties to the convention or subject to the jurisdiction of the ECHR. It has been utterly impossible to get Israel to adopt enabling legislation for the conventions it has ratified to date which govern refugees and repatriation, including the UN convention on refugees and the Geneva conventions of 1949.

        Loizidou can only be considered as “evidence of state practice”. But that is almost meaningless unless Israel accepts it as such. Bear in mind that Article 6 of the 4th Geneva Convention already requires repatriation and it has been recognized as part of the body of conventional law that has achieved customary status, that makes it binding on non-signatories. The 1st Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions has been accepted by 173 state parties. The international criminal tribunals and ICRC hold that it also reflects rules of customary international law that are binding on non-signatories. But Israel does not acknowledge them as such, including Article 85 which makes the failure to repatriate prisoners and civilians a grave breach and a war crime.

      • Hostage
        April 1, 2014, 12:56 pm

        “Can you cite the statement Abba Eban supposedly made accepting UNGA Res 194?”

        I’ve already done that. Israel’s declarations were contained in the report of Ad Hoc Committee and were cited by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People as being unconditional and unreserved.

        I also explained that Israel cannot “accept” the internationalization of Jerusalem in resolution 181(II), while rejecting the reaffirmation contained in resolution 194(III).

        Likewise, Israel cannot “accept” the provisions of Article 1 of the UN Charter and resolution 181(II) regarding equality of fundamental human rights, while rejecting their reaffirmation in resolution 194(III). The rights that were specifically addressed in the minority plan in the resolution on the future government of Palestine included citizenship, equal rights and protection under the law, freedom of transit, visit, and quiet possession of personal homes and property. There were very specific prohibitions against expropriation of property for private use and a requirement for the payment of compensation prior to any expropriation for public use. The right of every person to freedom of movement and to leave and return to their country of origin was explicitly recognized as a fundamental human right. That is also true of several other treaties which Israel has subsequently ratified, including Article 6 of the 4th Geneva Convention, and Article 12(2) and 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is also one of the rights that UN Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations through the promotion of the universal rights and freedoms contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

        “UNSC Res 242, which does not recognize a right of return”

        I don’t believe that’s the case. The members of the Security Council reaffirmed resolution 194(III) annually for 20 years before they finally adopted resolution 242. There’s no reason to suspect that they are incompatible. The Security Council has also reaffirmed many times that the 4th Geneva Convention, which requires the repatriation of prisoners and civilians, applies to all the parties engaged in the conflict.

        Alexander Orakhelashvili and Judge Elihu Lauterpact have both pointed out that the UN Security Council is unconditionally bound by peremptory norms of international law and the terms of the UN Charter. Its resolutions cannot be employed to violate international law or create loopholes in international law that would license or condone war crimes or crimes against humanity.

        Orakhelashvili explained:

        Resolution 242 called for ‘a just settlement of the refugee problem’ in Palestine. ‘Just settlement’ can only refer to a settlement guaranteeing the return of displaced Palestinians, and other interpretations of this notion may be hazardous. The Council must be presumed not to have adopted decisions validating mass deportation or displacement. More so, as such expulsion or deportation is a crime against humanity or an exceptionally serious war crime (Articles 7.1(d) and 8.2(e) ICC Statute)

        — EJIL (2005), Vol. 16 No. 1, 59–88 link to papers.ssrn.com

      • LeaNder
        April 1, 2014, 1:27 pm

        Hostage, you are absolutely priceless, in other words if we had to we could pay you. ;)

        I will read the interesting paper Nurit Baytch (Emmi Noether) linked to and then look at your comment.

        Thanks a lot. (Strictly the link he gives for me belongs in the context that makes me pessimist: law versus “law and/as power”)

  14. radii
    March 28, 2014, 3:18 pm

    hey zionists:
    “self-determination” is not license to cruelly smash any opposition to what you determine you want … and using actual bulldozers to crush your opposition has already revealed your great lie

    • Citizen
      March 30, 2014, 10:28 pm

      And the fact those bulldozers were paid for by US taxpayer dollars shows just how complicit all of us Americans are. Caterpillar investors are very, very happy. I’d like to see them choke on their investment portfolios.

  15. Sycamores
    March 28, 2014, 3:22 pm

    MJ Rosenberg came out with The BDS Movement Is About Dismantling Israel, Not The ’67 Occupation the day after the University of Michigan student government voted against divestment

    it was like Rosenberg base his idea that the BDS movement will ulimately fail because at what happen at the University of Michigan. kinda like grasping at straws.

    Early Wednesday morning the University of Michigan’s student government voted down a resolution that would have begun the process of divesting from companies doing business with Israel. It was the latest defeat for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement which is dedicated to fighting Israel by isolating it, particularly in the cultural and economic sectors.

    Other than Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision to devote a full 25 percent of his recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to condemning the BDS movement, it hasn’t got very much to show for its efforts. And I don’t expect it ever will.

    resorting to quoting Netanyahu why the BDS will fail is laughable. considering Netanyahu devote a full 25 percent of his recent speech to condemning the BDS movement says a lot.

    however unitentionally Rosenberg highlighted how worry/scare certain groups (eg: liberal zionists) were about #UMDivest.

    • K Renner
      March 28, 2014, 6:06 pm

      Another thing to consider–

      Do those in the “liberal/talk-with-able” Zionist camp denounce the efforts of the Israeli state to have key players in the world community and the United Nations slap even more sanctions on Iran, a nation whose political and social opposition to the real hard-line of the Khomeinist elements is massive (numbering in the millions) and from many different walks of life?

      The sanctions already placed on Iran– and off the bat, at least initially, without any attempt at other courses of action instead– are far more all-encompassing and potential severe then what the BDS advocates for.

      I wouldn’t advocate sanctions or divestment if the possibility remained of other avenues of approach– but it’s clear that, with Israel, they’ll blow you off or otherwise disregard whatever you say, or announce, or condemn. The won’t even listen to people criticizing them for their actions regarding the Palestinians or in the Lebanon wars unless you make some very heavy-handed analogy, and then it’s to bitch at you for “demonizing” them or “belittling the Holocaust” (even though that’s not what’s being said in comparison), and not actually listening to what exactly of their actions people are criticizing.

      • Citizen
        March 30, 2014, 10:33 pm

        @ K Renner
        They don’t care, the free US tax dollars keep rolling in, and the US keeps underwriting Israel’s debt despite the state of the US economy and debt, despite the fact of gigantic US poverty while the top 10%, especially the top 1% roll in the dough and keep cutting the welfare safety net. How long can this go on?

      • K Renner
        April 1, 2014, 2:20 am

        No, I know.

        More a rhetorical question then anything when I ask “do ‘liberal Zionists’ who denounce the BDS also denounce the consistent efforts of some parties to increase the sanctions and isolating measures on Iran, while advocating “no moderation, no diplomacy, Iranians are Khomeini!”

  16. German Lefty
    March 28, 2014, 4:16 pm

    there is some justice in the demands…. Israel is not going to dismantle itself

    I am speechless. MJR understands that the BDS demands are justified. He also understands that Israel is not willing to implement a just solution. Then why on earth does he NOT come to the logical conclusion that BDS is good and necessary in order to achieve justice?

    • Citizen
      March 28, 2014, 10:08 pm

      @ GL
      He thinks, at this juncture, that BDS is just a mask for destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. BTW, did you ever see that video clip about the 75 year old former Wehrmacht solider who burned himself to death back in 1995 to bring attention to the never-ending collective guilt/debt imposed on his generation?

      • kalithea
        March 30, 2014, 1:01 am

        Yes, that’s the choice: death by a thousand cuts or death by fire. In other words slow, gradual death in every sense or a painful faster death.

        Right now Palestinians are being subjected to the slow genocide, until they can’t take it anymore and commit collective suicide — that’s the Zionists’ wet dream.

    • puppies
      March 28, 2014, 11:46 pm

      @DE-L: There is a third possibility of course –not that it would apply to that Rosenberg type. The fact that DBS is pretty inadequate as a single method, and liable to get deviated from its purpose at any moment.

  17. dbroncos
    March 28, 2014, 5:03 pm

    Liberal Zionists “polish their hot red blades with…forgiveness” as Mourid Barghouti put it.

  18. Chu
    March 28, 2014, 5:13 pm

    Left wing Zionist subterfuge is worth it’s weight in gold. One hand
    will always wash the other when it comes to Israel’s crimes.

    I expected it from MJ, but Roger Cohen was a surprise.

    It seems that Jews are not going to be able to figure out Israel alone
    and they continue to lose allies in their defense. It’s an enigma that
    they’ve trapped themselves inside – they’ve lost the key.

    • Citizen
      March 28, 2014, 10:04 pm

      @ Chu
      Maybe they never had the real key because they’re bi-polar?

    • kalithea
      March 30, 2014, 1:42 am

      Left wing Zionist subterfuge is worth it’s weight in gold. One hand will always wash the other when it comes to Israel’s crimes.

      Kind of like the Preacher – Murderer in Night of the Hunter with Love tatooed on the right hand and Hate on the left; preaching and praying to God one day and stealing from women and children and killing the next.

      That’s what Zionists do: steal land and kill its rightful owners with one hand and pray to God and preach to the rest of us with the other.

  19. bilal a
    March 28, 2014, 5:17 pm

    Here’s a thought experiment:

    What if ‘Liberalism’ per se was always part of an ethnic agenda against native American-European traditional culture, in order to make it friendly to the new arrivals?

    Wouldn’t this explain the discomfort Chomsky, Finkelstein, and the liberal zionists express towards BDS?

    And more importantly, the discomfort anti-zionist Jews have with Israeli nationalism? Its all part of making the new arrivals secure in their acquired elite establishment position, that is a minority ethnic socio-economic ethnic agenda.

    Liberalism is intellectual colonization , occupation, settlement of the mind.

  20. unverified__5ilf90kd
    March 28, 2014, 5:30 pm

    As a European myself, I have to say that the average European does not bother to understand these arcane arguments of so-called liberal Zionists against BDS. These arguments only serve to engage wooly philosophers who feel obliged to listen to such semantic maneuverings. This anti-BDS logic is circuitous and flawed in all respects and is based on conscious misinterpretation of the motives and intentions of BDS by concentrating on individual arguments of some BDS proponents that serve to embolden the specific logical attack of the Zionists. This is a standard traditional method many Zionists use to dismiss arguments that threaten Israeli expansion. The average European sees Israel as an intransigent thug with no manners that has only gotten worse over recent decades when faced with polite requests to shape up. Therefore, BDS is a last resort (as in South Africa) designed to punish the Israeli government to such an extent that they quit the occupation and do the right thing by the Palestinians. The arguments in this article put forth by a small number of Zionists who are trying to suppress BDS, for a variety of specious reasons that are not worth analyzing, are just not rational. The facts are that Europeans feel that they bent over backwards to accommodate Israel, showed compassion to Israel and supported Israel and in return Israel has only seen this as a weakness and an opportunity to steal more land and collude to arrange a greater Israel that includes the West Bank etc. The average European sees Israeli apartheid/occupation as directly analogous to South Africa and thinks that BDS is the only way to get Israel to shape up. As a result there is no logical argument to dismiss BDS and it will be increasingly successful regardless of these specious, irrational and irrelevant arguments put forward by the so-called liberal Zionists.

    To make this even easier to understand the average European is saying simply “We asked you to stop the occupation, colonization and brutality but you told us to F… Off and only got worse. Now you want us to treat you like a civilized Western European country. Sorry, we know you are not as bad as North Korea but you are a pariah to us and we will treat you like South Africa because you are practicing Apartheid against the Palestinians. Hopefully as we ratchet up the pressure you will change for the better. We do not want to cancel your country, we just want to force you to cancel your expansion of occupation/settlements and what we see as your uncivilized ways.”

    Basically, these arguments of liberal Zionists are designed to give naive critics the impression that Israel is not like South Africa, therefore BDS is not appropriate in this case and BDS is actually designed to destroy Israel or will tend to destroy Israel rather than discipline Israel. In fact, the demographic differences between Israel and South Africa prove that Israel can not be destroyed by BDS. The South African State (white supremacy) was destroyed because the blacks were the majority whereas the Palestinians are a minority. The majority of Europeans do not support a Palestinian right of return to Israel that would upset this balance. On average, contemporary BDS is not destined to destroy Israel, and prior experience has shown it is probably the only method that will stop Israel from this crude colonization that is ruining the chances of a timely and successful peace process.

    • justicewillprevail
      March 28, 2014, 7:46 pm

      Yes, that’s pretty much it. These so-called ‘liberal’ zionists are engaged in what they have always done – screaming ‘anti-semitism’ at anybody or group who might threaten their self-interested special pleading. BDS must be smeared as promoting the ‘destruction’ of Israel and Jews blah blah, which avoids the problem of countering the facts and arguments, and they hope prevents the american public of hearing about and considering the appalling treatment which Palestinians suffer every day. They are on a loser, the old tricks of demonising anyone who points out the ugly, corrupted nature of Israel and its occupation won’t work any more. The dam is cracking, and shouting voodoo curses at it won’t work, while jamming their fingers in their ears. The truth is too powerful for them to continually cover it up and divert attention to their eternal victimhood status and the benefits and privileges they demand for it. I don’t think they have any idea of how much the ground has shifted under them, which is easy when you live in the bubble they have constructed for themselves.

      • Citizen
        March 30, 2014, 10:45 pm

        @ justicewillprevail
        Americans can catch up with the European viewpoint thanks to the internet–it’s just amazing for someone like me brought up on the ideal of free speech via First Amendment, and the notion of the Fourth Estate as its defender, one who lived through the McCarthy and Nam era, how much my country has lost thanks to, mostly, AIPAC lobbies and access journalism–which is nothing but Pravda, US style.

    • JeffB
      March 28, 2014, 7:47 pm

      @unverified

      There isn’t enough of a Jewish population to have these debates in Europe. You don’t have huge Christian Zionists either because Baptist / Pentecostal forms of Christianity haven’t really developed in Europe. So absolutely the political debate is entirely different.

      As an aside I think your analysis is off about the degree of pressure you can apply and your view that Israel and South Africa are likely to respond to pressure if it were high in remotely similar ways. I also think most people don’t remember much about the actual process of beating South Africa. The idea that college protests were the primary cause rather than say the locals + Cuban army fighting their peripheral colonies is a bit of selective memory how difficult it actually was.

      @ivri

      I agree. I suspect that the BDS activism on campus is breeding the AIPAC of 2040.

      • kalithea
        March 30, 2014, 2:32 am

        College protests are just the beginning.

    • CloakAndDagger
      March 28, 2014, 8:33 pm

      Great post!

      • unverified__5ilf90kd
        March 28, 2014, 9:41 pm

        Thank you cloak and dagger. I do not get much praise for these outbursts.

      • American
        March 30, 2014, 1:06 am

        unverified…
        I like it also…more,more.

      • Citizen
        March 30, 2014, 10:54 pm

        I agree, you did us all a favor by spelling out the difference in US & EU POV & the Whys of that. Thank you, unverified__5ilf90kd

        I think the average American is very naive, gullible–maybe it’s due to being bordered by two oceanic moats and two weak states? Right now they are listening to the drums of war on Iran and Putin, knowing absolutely zilch about the history of either country, not even trying to stand in the shoes of either to make a wise decision, and they think Paul Newman in Exodus is Israel today, and only 1% of America comprises military families. Doesn’t look good.

    • seafoid
      March 29, 2014, 5:13 am

      Good stuff

      In other words “this is going to hurt but it’s for your own good”

  21. The JillyBeans
    March 28, 2014, 5:59 pm

    We managed to BDS South Africa. As far as I’m aware, there are still lots of Afrikaaners in South Africa. So the argument doesn’t wash.

    The reason I sympathize with BDS is that one cannot go about trumpeting “but we’re the only democracy in the middle east” then pump bullets into civilians. The reality is the settlements in the occupied territories tell a lie to the assertion of westernness and democracy with the flouting of western laws and UN resolutions, the Geneva conventions, common sense, etc.

  22. ivri
    March 28, 2014, 6:37 pm

    Yes, BDS is the issue where all those that have any positive sentiment for Israel will circle the wagons. In this sense it is a unifying force as it makes people who care about Israel to any degree understand that the squabbling among them on nuances is meaningless in face of what is in effect being confronted – forces whose REAL intention is to undo Israel underpinned with a limitless hate of it.

    • Citizen
      March 28, 2014, 9:40 pm

      @ ivri
      No, forces whose REAL intention is to stop Israel’s internationally recognized criminal policies and conduct in the post-WW2 world. You know, “never again”?

    • puppies
      March 29, 2014, 2:21 am

      @ivri – You must be out of your mind. Your so-called liberal Zionist faction is increasingly observing BDS (limitedly, it is true, to the post-1967 “settler” institutions and companies) in a last-minute, desperate bid to save Zionism from ruin. Including your fake-labor Meretz party chair or somesuch. So much for your BDS wagons.
      As for objectives, we are very diverse. Among us are Zionist criminals, as already said, and we also have honest, straight-thinking people who appropriately intend “to undo Israel” and harbor an abundantly justified hate for it.

    • seafoid
      March 29, 2014, 5:11 am

      “In this sense it is a unifying force as it makes people who care about Israel to any degree ”

      BDS is scattering the pigeons, Ivri.
      AIPAC is riven with infighting.
      UK Jews are turning away from Zionism.
      The Israeli foreign ministry has some industrial dispute that is more important than fighting for Zionism in Galut.

      “limitless hate” describes Israeli policy in Gaza

      All we want is a rational Israel.

  23. Daniel Rich
    March 28, 2014, 7:09 pm

    ‘Liberal Zionism’ is an Ox Moron Oxymoron. It’s like calling a baby with diarrhea a fancy ‘Turbo Prop.’

    Sounds great, but according to ‘Diapers Digest’ ends up being ‘shitty’ anyway.

  24. Sumud
    March 28, 2014, 7:49 pm

    Once again – because [liberal] zionists keep lying about it – it’s important to note that BDS is agnostic on a one- or two-state outcome and BDS’ goals can be fully satisfied in either format, even one that leaves Israel as a state with a jewish majority.

    If jewish Israelis want this they need to negotiate with neighbouring arab states –including Palestine – and Palestinian refugees and come up with an offer of compensation that is acceptable to all parties, that will enable Palestinian refugees from Israel proper to settle permanently in a country other than Israel. Israel can modulate the number of returning refugees by offering a more or less generous compensation packages, and offers would have to accepted or declined on an individual basis for this mechanism to work.

    If a Palestinian refugee accepts to take up citizenship in another country, with compensation, it does not mean they are giving up their right of return, it means their right of return has been acknowledged by Israel and the two parties have come to a permanent negotiated settlement of the issue.

    It’s pretty simple, but there is a lot of obfuscation going on by zionists as they attempt to “complicate” matters.

    It’s worth watching Yael Aronoff’s clip above. A lot of tired old hasbara – long since debunked by the Israeli New Historians – and she becomes most frantic when discussing the crimes committed by zionists in 1947/8/9. Given she is a professor in Israel Studies I can only assume she is aware of the New Historian’s work and chooses to lie about their findings.

    Pretty despicable stuff.

    • The JillyBeans
      March 28, 2014, 8:52 pm

      Well BDS can’t be agnostic to 1 or 2 state solution. The whole point is to BDS Israel because it has set up settlements in the occupied territories, which are illegal under international law, and because those are the very lands the Palestinians want to keep in the two state solution.

      Anyhoo, it doesn’t appear most people mind Israel being a refuge state for Jews, as long as it’s not done by a program of expulsion or persecution of the indigenous populations (bedouins, palestinians/arabs, christian palestinian/arabs, etc) to ensure their declining numbers.

      • jon s
        March 29, 2014, 1:05 pm

        Being “agnostic” on one state or two is very problematic, to put it mildly.

        Many people – including myself – don’t get on the bus without knowing the destination.

      • jon s
        March 29, 2014, 4:05 pm

        A word of advice to the BDS crowd:
        When you lose a round – admit it.
        You could say : “We suffered a setback. Let’s try to figure out why. Was it our strategy? our tactics? our message? our spokespeople? We need to understand”.
        If you’re going to tell yourselves that a defeat was actually a victory – you’re not going to have many real victories.
        I know that in the IDF , when an operation fails , it’s debriefed and dissected down to the smallest detail, with brutal honesty, so that lessons can be learned for the future.

      • James North
        March 29, 2014, 4:22 pm

        jon s: Do you realize how unintentionally revealing you are when you compare BDS — a nonviolent campaign for justice — to an Israeli military “operation.” (By the way, when was the last time the Israeli military carried out anything that could legitimately be called a “military operation” — and not the enforcement of an illegal occupation against civilians?)

      • eljay
        March 29, 2014, 4:38 pm

        If you’re going to tell yourselves that a defeat was actually a victory – you’re not going to have many real victories.
        I know that in the IDF , when an operation fails , it’s debriefed and dissected down to the smallest detail, with brutal honesty, so that lessons can be learned for the future.

        Despite all the debriefing and dissection and brutal honesty, the IDF appears to have learned nothing about justice, morality, equality and accountability.

      • Citizen
        March 29, 2014, 6:23 pm

        IDF debriefing has zero to do with morality or ethics–except such premised on Zionist morality, which is at best, analogous to Aryan morality and ethics.

      • ANTIVICTORIA
        March 29, 2014, 10:31 pm

        Are you trying to convince us that the IDF comes out in public and admits “losing a round”?
        Can you give me some examples of this?
        And how it led to greater victories?

        Your advice is actually encouraging me to believe that this is a bigger victory than I’d thought.

      • American
        March 30, 2014, 1:22 am

        ” I know that in the IDF , when an operation fails , it’s debriefed and dissected down to the smallest detail, with brutal honesty, so that lessons can be learned for the future.”…..jon

        You don’t get it……even when it fails it wins…..the point is to create enough momentum at the grass roots level –colleges and etc…to make it AN ISSUE…and BDS has done that.
        It doesnt have to be dissected…we know why it fails when it fails—Zionist pressure and intimidation. And even there it flushes out and further EXPOSES the Zionist as they try to eliminate ‘free speech’…..which then ALSO becomes AN ISSUE.
        College funds BDSing companies because of Israel isn’t going to ruin Israel–it provides the ‘ground swell’, the ‘noise’ in the population to support the country and government entities that can hurt Israel with boycotts and or sanctions……if its ‘popular’ with the people it easier for governments and governments are sometimes pressured by ‘popular demand’.

      • talknic
        March 31, 2014, 9:32 am

        jon s “A word of advice to the BDS crowd:
        When you lose a round – admit it”

        … says a denialist par excellence

      • Sumud
        March 29, 2014, 5:26 pm

        jon s –

        Being “agnostic” on one state or two is very problematic, to put it mildly.

        Many people – including myself – don’t get on the bus without knowing the destination.

        jon maybe you haven’t noticed yet but you’re already on a bus and it’s about to go over the edge of a cliff. I advise against further procrastination.

      • jon s
        March 30, 2014, 1:01 am

        James North,
        I was writing about BDSers celebrating a victory after, in fact, losing. They don’t have to take my advice, their problem.
        The example of the IDF is what came to my mind, because it’s something I know about. I’ve mentioned several times on this forum that I’ve served in the IDF. I suppose other examples could have been used: a failed business plan, or ad campaign, or election campaign.

        I don’t see the BDS campaign as being “for justice”. Quite the opposite.

        Your question about the IDF carrying out military operations aside from the occupation: I assume that you were not asking seriously.

      • Citizen
        March 30, 2014, 11:00 pm

        @ Sumud
        jon doesn’t get MLK, obviously. Well, we all know he’s not on the Freedom Riders bus, don’t we? He’s with the Old South Jim Crow cops and their dogs. He’s even got skunk cannons and rubber bullets. A really modern kinda guy.

      • jon s
        April 1, 2014, 3:59 pm

        Antivictoria, You’re not quoting me accurately. Regarding the IDF I didn’t say “losing a round”, I said “when an operation fails”. Obviously The IDF doesn’t do most of the debriefing and lesson-learning in public. Doing so would be a gift to an enemy.

      • puppies
        March 29, 2014, 7:15 pm

        @johns – And who the hell invited you to that particular bus?

      • jon s
        March 30, 2014, 1:04 am

        puppies,
        My parents.

      • Citizen
        March 30, 2014, 10:20 am

        @ jon s

        “I don’t see the BDS campaign as being “for justice”. Quite the opposite.”

        OK, so please explain to all of us here how you explain to a Palestinian why you took their home, or bulldozed it. We’re waiting….

        And while you’re at it, please explain to us the meaning of ” two wrongs don’t mean a right,” and also, “the ends justify the means.”

      • puppies
        March 30, 2014, 1:33 pm

        @johns – Your parents? Meaning you were born in Azriel? Irrelevant. As a Zionist, you’re more than unlikely to work for any solution, even of two sovereign, equal states. Not in your program.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 30, 2014, 2:43 pm

        Being “agnostic” on one state or two is very problematic, to put it mildly…. don’t get on the bus without knowing the destination…..Interesting that all the responses to my comments focus on my example of the IDF and my metaphor of the bus, but not on the essence.

        that’s because the ‘essence’ as you put it, is bunk. the bottom line jon, is that many many very smart people no longer believe 2 states is possible. and as Reza Aslan put it:

        It’s over. So this notion of well, ‘we need to figure out a way to revive the peace process…’ Don’t believe it. The peace process is nothing more than a waste of time, so that the rest of the land can become gobbled up.

        therefore, regardless of all the accusations of anti semitism and blame, as if we’re the ones at fault here, being agnostic is no different than saying, sure, i would support 2ss, but since it is no longer an option i will support whatever form of government that bring equal rights to all the people, not just jewish people and not just palestinian people.

        i don’t object to 2 states any more that i object to santa claus, however, i don’t believe santa exists so why should i promote the idea of him as a living being. it would be a waste of my time. but i wouldn’t object to him if he showed up at my door, i would invite him in for tea and graciously accept any presents he wanted to give me.

        and since it goes against human nature (for realists as opposed to dreamers) to pretend something you do not believe in actually exists or could exist, the remaining options are limited.

        but i have no choice whether to get on a bus that could lead to expulsion or continued ethnic cleansing of palestinians fro their land. and of course that would be a horrible destination. but whose fault is that jon? so of course it is problematic, but what choice do we have? you pretend this could be turned around, but you are here jon, you’re not spending your time rallying against the right wing spectrum of the blogisphere, are you? no, you’re over here rubbing salt in the wounds of the supporters of the oppressed giving your ‘advice’ that ‘admitting’ defeat is some how preferable behavior that seeing any kind of victory at all.

        well jon, contrary to your allegation, i do not think bds is a failure, and i do not think we’ve suffered a set back, all things considered.

        i think there are only 2 options left jon. one state or expulsion, and unlike you i have more faith in the humanity of the international community AND the israeli public than you do. because i do not believe israel will commit suicide which is exactly what expulsion will bring on.

        while you might think one state is suicide, i think committing genocide would be much worse for israel. and that is what it would entail.

        so yes, the whole thing is problematic. but you’re position is problamatic too. because you’re wasting your time lecturing us about what we should admit and our alleged failures and promoting more of the same that’s been failing for decades at the expense of moving forward based on today’s reality.

        I know that in the IDF , when an operation fails , it’s debriefed and dissected down to the smallest detail, with brutal honesty, so that lessons can be learned for the future.

        so what? all that detail and “brutal honesty” doesn’t change justice, ever. it only maintains israel’s grip on palestine and tightens the noose. the percentage rate of child convictions for rock throwing is still 94%, 99% which means there is no justice. and all the debriefing in the world will not make santa real. the lessons the iof learns are used to maintain the occupation.

        if you really wanted to make a difference jon, you’d be at a rightwing site. is it the sadist in you that keeps you here? clearly you do not think an admission of defeat will bring anyone closer to a 2ss? (the emperor does have clothes really i see them!)

        and while israel offers palestine 400 prisoners to keep up the facade of negotiations going for a few more months, do you know what that means to me?

        close to 400 young people will be slaughtered, their lives cut short in compensation , throwing red meat to netanyahu’s coalition partners.

        because that is what we’ve seen since these negotiations began. 60 killed for how many prisoners released? and how many re arrested. it’s sadism jon, and you have the nerve to tell us we’re ‘problematic’.

        bds is our best hope jon, and israel knows it. if you wanted peace you’d get on the bandwagon, because the destination is the best option available.

        oh, and lest i forget, a word of advice to you:
        When you lose a round – admit it.

      • Citizen
        March 30, 2014, 11:11 pm

        @ Annie Robbins
        According to the State Department’s latest assessment of civil rights in all countries, in Israeli controlled land, the guilty verdict on all Palestinians detained, charged, jailed for any length of time, is 99%.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 30, 2014, 11:56 pm

        ok, i fixed it. i’m not sure exactly what it is, but it’s ridiculous.

      • jon s
        April 1, 2014, 4:32 pm

        Annie, quite a tirade, sorry I couldn’t respond more promptly.
        -How do you know that I’m not active against the right wing?
        -I’m willing to compete with any MW commenter on the number of demos, marches, petitions, campaigns, etc. I’ve been a part of, in the effort to promote peace through the establishment of a Palestinian state, side -by-side with Israel. It’s truly a sisyphean effort, but we shouldn’t despair. When we first came up with the idea of a Palestinian state, we were regarded as crazies, on the” loony left”. Today that idea is at the center of an international consensus.
        -I’ve never been accused of sadism, that’s a first.
        -400 prisoners released means 400 people slaughtered? You lost me there…or are are you echoing the arguments of the Israeli right wing against the release of terrorists?

      • Hostage
        March 29, 2014, 4:11 pm

        Well BDS can’t be agnostic to 1 or 2 state solution. The whole point is to BDS Israel because it has set up settlements in the occupied territories, which are illegal under international law, and because those are the very lands the Palestinians want to keep in the two state solution.

        We didn’t stop boycotting South Africa when the illegal occupation of Namibia ended. I’d still be boycotting Israel over the issue of its two-tiered legal system and its systematic discrimination and persecution of non-Jews, even if the occupation of Palestine ended tomorrow. BDS is about equal human rights for everyone living in the former mandated territory regardless of how many states there are.

      • tree
        March 29, 2014, 5:47 pm

        BDS is about equal human rights for everyone living in the former mandated territory regardless of how many states there are.

        Exactly! And jon jumped on the inequality bus a longtime ago, so I don’t see why anyone should take his advice on what “bus” to get onto.

      • jon s
        March 30, 2014, 4:44 am

        Interesting that all the responses to my comments focus on my example of the IDF and my metaphor of the bus, but not on the essence.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 30, 2014, 10:50 am

        “Interesting that all the responses to my comments focus on my example of the IDF and my metaphor of the bus, but not on the essence.”

        Because the essence was dumb. You made the assumption that this was, in fact, defeat. Not so. You should know sometimes goal is not necessarily victory but, rather, what can be gained from the fight. Here, the victory is in raising awareness of the issue.

        For example, if the IDF does not have the goal of taking a village, but, rather, in murdering some men women or children in the village and spilling their blood in order to Terrorize the general population, a goal which the IDF seems to have all the time, then the fact that the village was not taken is not a defeat.

      • Citizen
        March 30, 2014, 11:12 pm

        @ Hostage
        Yes.

      • puppies
        March 29, 2014, 7:22 pm

        @Jilly Beans – Boycotting, etc. is a way of fighting against the Zionist entity. There is certainly no need to set a final goal for all. Right now it includes the whole gamut, from Zionists trying to derail the effort, to people who are jake with the existence of an Apartheid state provided it remains within pre-67 borders plus existing post-67 settlements, others who preach all-round brotherhood, all the way to those who want to see the whole thing undone and Palestine decolonized. What “most people” think is not a guide: Fights are started precisely in order to change what most people think.

    • ritzl
      March 29, 2014, 6:43 pm

      Yeah, Sumud. Her whole resume recitation at the beginning was the proverbial appeal to authority fallacy. With that many across the table credits, you have to wonder who was actually across the table and/or what her purpose was in those efforts.

      She could not possibly have been in a position to actually engage and learn from all those encounters, and still tick off all the BS she did in her presentation.

    • JeffB
      March 30, 2014, 6:32 am

      @James Northin

      By the way, when was the last time the Israeli military carried out anything that could legitimately be called a “military operation” — and not the enforcement of an illegal occupation against civilians?

      There bombings all this year of weapons flows from Syria to Hezbollah. Also recently their operations against Iran’s nuclear program and their building a base of operations in MEK territory against Iran.

      • Citizen
        March 30, 2014, 10:30 am

        @ JeffB
        Kudos to you for supporting North’s point. Geez, just how dumb are you?

      • justicewillprevail
        March 30, 2014, 1:54 pm

        You’re calling the illegal murder of Iranian scientists by undercover agents a ‘legitimate military operation’? Or assisting and fomenting terrorism against Iran? You have a distended idea of ‘legitimate’ or even ‘military’.

  25. Nurit Baytch
    March 28, 2014, 8:20 pm

    Weiss remarks: “Though the group seeks to advocate for what is best for two peoples, I don’t see any Palestinians on its statement.”

    I’m curious how one-staters would respond to this poll of Palestinians (in WB and Gaza):
    link to pcpsr.org
    “A majority of 51% supports the two-state solution….the overwhelming majority (72%) is opposed to a one-state solution and only 26% support such a solution in which Arabs and Jews enjoy equality.”

    • Ecru
      March 29, 2014, 4:37 pm

      @ Nurit Baytch

      First let’s look at the original text.

      “A majority of 51% supports the two-state solution but 57% believe that such a solution is no longer practical due to settlement expansion and 74% believe that the chances for the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel in the next five years are slim or non-existent; only 24% believe the chances are high or medium. Yet, the overwhelming majority (72%) is opposed to a one-state solution and only 26% support such a solution in which Arabs and Jews enjoy equality.”

      Well first I’d have preferred more info on methodologies (how were random locations chosen for example), sample type that sort of stuff but….taking the survey at face value.

      Their lives. If they don’t want to live in the same political entity as a bunch of quite possibly insane rapacious colonial bigots, ones who’ve shown themselves as having zero compunction in committing even the most heinous of crimes against humanity, I for one can hardly blame them. After all who’d want a paranoid (to the point of complete xenophobia) genocidal maniac who refuses to take their meds and has a history of using your children for target practise as a next door neighbour? You’d never know when they’d claim their great great grandmammy looked at your house once and that makes it theirs, swiftly followed by them bulldozing it with you still inside.

      However note that whilst most don’t want a two state solution just over half of them believe they’ll probably have no choice and the reason is purely down to the Israeli inability to stop stealing other people’s things. Something that has led an overwhelming majority to see no hope of them having a state of their own anytime soon.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 29, 2014, 6:20 pm

        ecru, i’d be wary of that poll. just look at the fine print

        This survey was conducted with the support of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in Ramallah.

        as an exercise try googling “Konrad Adenauer Stiftung” and “USAID”

        or “Konrad Adenauer Stiftung” and “NED”

        oh,lookie see what i found link to globalresearch.ca

        The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, sometimes referred to as the German NED

        now that didn’t take long.
        i assume you know what ned is. be wary of any polling data from this group (pcpsr.org), it’s frequently used by hasbrats to make points. i’ve intercepted their data about palestinians before.

        here’s more on link to sourcewatch.org

        Konrad Adenauer Foundation
        The Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) is a German Christian Democrat (CDU) party affiliated, state-funded, foundation that seeks to influence political outcomes in lesser developed world by influencing political parties or moulding civil society. KAS is similar organization to the multiple political manipulation organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (in the US), Westminster Foundation for Democracy (in the UK), Friedrich Naumann Foundation (also in Germany); Canada, the Netherlands, France… all have similar organizations. Organizations like KAS or NED attempt to influence political outcomes in countries where they might have economic or political interests. All these groups aim to foster civic groups and political parties in lesser developed countries that play along with the Western favored model of neoliberalism (in politics and economics).

        i wouldn’t engage in a debate based on a premise that was likely flawed. it’s a diversion, possibly professional one.

        and just in case you’re unfamiliar link to sourcewatch.org

        Alan Weinstein, one of the founders of the NED, explained in 1991:
        A lot of what we [NED] do was done 25 years ago covertly by the CIA[2]

      • jewishgoyim
        March 29, 2014, 10:08 pm

        Thank you Annie. We are surrounded by so much BS of this kind all the time that it is nice that you cut through the fog!

      • Annie Robbins
        March 29, 2014, 10:43 pm

        my pleasure. it’s a very common propaganda tactic to set up a false premise as ‘fact’ and then divert the conversation where you want it to go around that non fact. it happens all the time, over and over just today.

        spot the false premise and cut it off at the root.

        zionist are really hung up over the bds movement being non specific on one or two states also. saying you really don’t care whether it’s one state or two drives them nuts and they just love claiming pro equality discriminates against jews. it’s so absurd. anyway, see ya around!

        another thing, the hasbara handbook suggests setting up polls (one can skew poll results very easily) and then base point scoring conversations around that data, it’s a fairly transparent propaganda tactic.

      • ANTIVICTORIA
        March 29, 2014, 11:10 pm

        Thank you from me also- I love how focused you are and go to the essence of the issue.
        I actually googled the KAS myself, but didn’t follow it through to it’s source.

      • Nurit Baytch
        March 30, 2014, 4:11 am

        Maybe at Mondoweiss globalresearch.ca is considered a reliable source, but not to many fair-minded folks…
        link to rationalwiki.org
        Personally, I don’t know anything about Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, and I have little interest in investing the time to learn more, but if globalresearch.ca is all you can find to discredit it, I don’t find that compelling.

        In any case, I just happened to pick the most recent poll regarding Palestinian opinions on the matter. Here’s another poll from late 2012 that was conducted by a different organization:
        link to jmcc.org
        “the poll indicated to an increase in the percentage of supporters of a bi-national state from 22.3% November 2011 to 27.5% November 2012, even though supporters of the two-state solution hardly changed, remaining at 51.2%.”

        I await Annie’s attempt to discredit this poll and/or the JMCC!

      • Annie Robbins
        March 30, 2014, 6:29 pm

        I await Annie’s attempt to discredit this poll and/or the JMCC!

        nurit, note how jmcc’s poll did not claim Yet, the overwhelming majority (72%) is opposed to a one-state solution ?

        so let’s look at thier poll:

        Furthermore, the poll indicated to an increase in the percentage of supporters of a bi-national state from 22.3% November 2011 to 27.5% November 2012, even though supporters of the two-state solution hardly changed, remaining at 51.2%. The poll also showed that the majority of respondents 48.0% said the leadership heading to the United Nations would benefit the Palestinian cause while 35.6% said it would neither be to the benefit nor to the detriment of the cause; 12.2% said it would be to its detriment.

        so in one year the support for one state went up 5%. and that was 2 years ago, 2 years in which lots of people grew to believe the ‘window has closed’. in case you have not heard similar phrasing, lots of people have been saying that forever, so it finally sink in.

        anyway, lots of (myself included) people who believe the window has closed, would still support 2 states. iow, palestinians within that category “supporters of a bi-national state” who would accept their own separate palestinian state if one was came about. so that’s why “supporters of the two-state solution hardly changed, remaining at 51.2%. ” while the other percentage rose. one is not contingent on the other.

        that’s not rocket science. but i fail to see how this poll even supports your question, given they didn’t even ask who or how many opposed a one-state solution. and if supports went up 5% a year, shall we now assume the 27.% has risen to 37.5%? anyway, i’m not compelled to find that poll flawed because they didn’t make any strange allegations.

      • Nurit Baytch
        March 30, 2014, 5:32 am

        Annie, what is this hasbara handbook to which you refer that “suggests setting up polls”?

      • Hostage
        March 30, 2014, 11:29 am

        The propaganda and point scoring techniques used by Israeli-backed campus hasbara activists are described in a publication sponsored by the Education Department of the Jewish Agency for Israel and published by the World Union of Jewish Students, the “Hasbara Handbook: Promoting Israel on Campus”. link to middle-east-info.org

        If they ever do come up with some new propaganda, you can hear about it first on the RSS feed from the Hasbara Fellowship International. link to hasbarafellowships.org

        The sky is the limit. It only depends upon how clueless you are willing to look, while spamming our comment threads.

      • Nurit Baytch
        March 30, 2014, 5:41 pm

        Wow, that Hasbara Handbook is bizarre; nevertheless, despite that handbook’s recommendation to commission biased opinion polls, it does not imply that the PSR’s polls are hasbara. One would require further evidence that the PSR’s polls are conducted using a flawed/politically motivated methodology, and none has been provided.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 30, 2014, 5:50 pm

        Hasbara Handbook is bizarre; nevertheless, despite that handbook’s recommendation to commission biased opinion polls, it does not imply that the PSR’s polls are hasbara.

        you’re right, the hasbara handbook doesn’t even mention psr’s polls.

        One would require further evidence that the PSR’s polls are conducted using a flawed/politically motivated methodology

        which ‘one’ are you speaking for. why not just say ‘i would require’? because personally, finding out a poll is funded by an org like this: link to sourcewatch.org is about all i need to know.

        Personally, I don’t know anything about Konrad Adenauer Stiftung and I have little interest in investing the time to learn more

        well you do not have to invest time, i just did your homework for you. see this:

        seeks to influence political outcomes in lesser developed world by influencing political parties or moulding civil society.

        that’s their business.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 30, 2014, 5:59 pm

        what is this hasbara handbook to which you refer that “suggests setting up polls”?

        google is your friend. see pg 26 under ‘bandwagon’,

        often it is possible to create the impression of extensive support — through poorly conducted opinion polls..can commission opinion polls…

        to create impressions…etc etc. get it? were not into having our opinions molded by flawed data.

      • Ecru
        March 31, 2014, 2:32 am

        @ Annie

        Thanks for all that. I was suspicious the poll seemed a little too “neat” but thought what the hell – take it at face value and it still doesn’t paint a pretty future.

      • Nurit Baytch
        March 30, 2014, 4:00 am

        Ecru writes: “If they don’t want to live in the same political entity as a bunch of quite possibly insane rapacious colonial bigots, ones who’ve shown themselves as having zero compunction in committing even the most heinous of crimes against humanity, I for one can hardly blame them. After all who’d want a paranoid (to the point of complete xenophobia) genocidal maniac who refuses to take their meds and has a history of using your children for target practise as a next door neighbour?

        Why would Mondoweiss publish a comment like this after vociferously (and to be clear, rightfully) complaining about the recent letter the NYTimes published that included a bigoted generalization about Palestinians?

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 30, 2014, 10:53 am

        because that one was flat out libelous statement. This one is not. This one is a mere analogy of how the Israeli government has acted through the years. If you don’t like the way the Israelis actions are portrayed, then you should move to have the Israelis change their actions.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 30, 2014, 5:44 pm

        nuance. like including the words a bunch of quite possibly .

        i wouldn’t take it too personally, unless you’re of the ilk that supports that gentile baby killing book by those rabbis, or the yeshivas they live in.

      • Nurit Baytch
        March 30, 2014, 9:46 pm

        Annie, it’s not “nuance,” as you suggest since I constructed a similarly bigoted generalization about Palestinians using the same syntax (like “a bunch of quite possibly”), but Mondoweiss would not post it (despite that I included the following explicit disclaimer to avoid misinterpretation: “surely that would be regarded as a bigoted generalization about Palestinians, no?”).

        I also pointed out that Ecru’s comment does not restrict its generalizations about Israelis to the behavior of the Israeli government.

  26. bilal a
    March 28, 2014, 9:15 pm

    Oopps, FBI drops internet promotion of SPLC and ADL as authorities on hate:

    We commend the FBI for removing website links to the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that not only dispenses erroneous data but has been linked to domestic terrorism in federal court. We hope this means the FBI leadership will avoid any kind of partnership with the SPLC,” Tony Perkins, FRC President, told Secrets.
    link to washingtonexaminer.com

  27. Kay24
    March 28, 2014, 9:48 pm

    MJR has disappointed me. I used to like his articles, and was under the impression that he was realistic in his criticism of Israel. However, it seems some of these liberal Jews have suddenly realized their loyalty to their Israel (and maybe religion) when it comes to any suggestion of boycotting Israel, and doing what was done to apartheid South Africa, isolating it, until it hurt them economically. Suddenly they feel protective of this rogue nation, that has violated human rights of defenseless people, stolen lands, demolished homes, and abused it’s powers as an occupier to collectively hurt and punish these victims, which MJR and others spent hours writing about, criticizing, and bringing world attention to. Have they gone to the dark side?

    • jewishgoyim
      March 29, 2014, 10:11 pm

      Maybe MJ just needs to eat. He’s been let go for a while now.

      • Citizen
        March 30, 2014, 11:26 pm

        @ jewishgoyim
        I noticed he was pretty busy blocking everybody on Twitter who sent him a tweet inconsistent with his own tweets. Quite a fellow, really into the free flow of ideas and facts. A regular Socrates.

  28. Hostage
    March 28, 2014, 11:23 pm

    They are taking on BDS as avowed progressives, arguing that BDS rejects an idealistic project, the self-determination of the Jewish people. . . . “Your equality does not include self-determination of my people.”

    The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples; The Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations; and The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action on Human Rights all stipulated that the exercise of the right of self-determination does not include a right of secession or the establishment of governing regimes that discriminate against inhabitants on the basis of race, creed, language, or religion.

    The “Jewish people” aren’t even a coherent spatial, territorial, or political entity that is capable of exercising self-determination in the first place. If Yael Aronoff is an example of a typical liberal Zionist expert on international law and human rights, it’s easy to see why the rest of the world placed them under tutelage for 25 years and were still considering trusteeship proposals up until the last possible moment because they were manifestly unfit to oversee the self-governing institutions of Palestine.

    Under the terms of the Palestine Mandate, the limited number of Jews who actually lived in the former mandated State, and those who managed to immigrate, assimilate, and acquire Palestinian nationality did not have a democratic right that could be exercised independent of, or in isolation from, the rights and position of all of the other non-Jewish inhabitants.

    The 1920 Report Of the International Committee of Jurists entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the task of giving an advisory opinion upon the legal aspects of the principle of self-determination with respect to the Swedish national inhabitants of the Finnish Aaland Islands said:

    Positive International Law does not recognise the right of national groups, as such, to separate themselves from the State of which they form part by the simple expression of a wish, any more than it recognises the right of other States to claim such a separation. Generally speaking, the grant or refusal of the right to a portion of its population of determining its own political fate by plebiscite or by some other method, is, exclusively, an attribute of the sovereignty of every State which is definitively constituted. A dispute between two States concerning such a question, under normal conditions therefore, bears upon a question which International Law leaves entirely to the domestic jurisdiction of one of the States concerned.

    link to ilsa.org

    As the UN Declarations cited above amply illustrate, nothing in the UN Charter changed the situation after the Aaland Islands decision on the right to a “nation state” was adopted. When Article 1 of the UN Charter spoke about “the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” it was not talking about two different things that are divisible from one another. When the UN agreed to partition Palestine into a pair of states composed of one with a Jewish and the other with an Arab majority, it strictly conditioned its approval of the plan on the basis of guarantees of absolute constitutional equality and non-discrimination and proportional representation in the governments of each of the resulting bi-national States. Israel still rejects that reality and the constitutional equality and proportional representation of the Arab minority to this very day. As a direct result, it has no grounds for claiming legitimacy on the basis “the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples”. Certainly not while it has a plethora of discriminatory laws on its books and advocates evil policies and programs like the Prawer Plan.

  29. seafoid
    March 28, 2014, 11:33 pm

    Tragic conflict most intractable yada yada

    Joe Sacco on balance and objectivity in relation to his work

    link to aljazeera.com

    “I find it very difficult to be objective when to me there is a clear case of a people being oppressed,” he said. “I’m not sure what objective means in a situation like that. I would rather be honest about what’s going on.”

  30. seafoid
    March 29, 2014, 12:24 am

    Ivor Dembina from 2010
    Things have really gone downhill for Israel since this interview was published

    link to electronicintifada.net
    “But despite past clashes with supporters of Zionism, Dembina also feels that, in Britain at least, the Zionist cause is showing unmistakable signs of weakness. “I think that direct abuse and hatred is a tactic that by and large the Zionists are starting to leave alone,” he observes. “I think they’ve learned to their cost that it just makes people more determined to speak out publicly and that hate campaigns can be counter-productive. I think they’re starting to try and engage in discussion and going for the whole positive PR angle, like this email campaign about sending medical aid to Haiti. Or they’re going to use Iran as an excuse. They keep coming up with these reasons that the Jewish community has to support Israel and one by one they get exposed as nonsense.”

    Dembina is also convinced that opinions really are shifting in the British Jewish community, and that the combined force of protests, cultural contributions and public debate are genuinely affecting public feeling on Palestine. What he calls the “ruse” of accusing any critic of the State of Israel of being anti-Semitic has been “burnt out.”

    I don’t know how much,” he says, “but the ground is shifting. I wouldn’t say that the Zionists are on the back foot now, but they’re certainly not on the front foot. I don’t want to exaggerate, but it would have been unthinkable ten years ago for a Jewish comedian to put this show on in central London. My sense is most Jewish people will still not yet openly criticize the State of Israel, but their willingness to nail their colors to the overtly Zionist mast seems to be decreasing. The Zionists are having to try much, much harder to hang on to the compliance of the Jewish community. I perform to large numbers of Jewish people all the time, and they are becoming increasingly embarrassed by the antics of the Zionist secret police who claim to speak for them, and they are beginning to drift away.”

    But, Dembina warns, this can also make the Zionist lobby all the more dangerous. “You’re left with a rump of very angry people who are used to getting their own way. Things have to be handled very carefully in the months and years ahead,” he says”

    Ma sha allah

  31. ANTIVICTORIA
    March 29, 2014, 9:45 am

    “As far as Israeli towns and villages, they would be “property” returned to the Palestinians. Hence, no more Israel. . . .”

    This is a tacit admission that the lands were stolen in the first place.

  32. Taxi
    March 29, 2014, 12:20 pm

    How ironic that the inventor of the phrase “israel-firster” has become a rabid israel-firster himself.

    MJ Rosenberg, always slamming MW writers and commentators as “antisemites”, deserves to be ridiculed and piloried for his racist hypocrisy and his unhinged smear attacks on jews and non-jews who don’t agree with his likudist idealogy.

  33. tommy
    March 29, 2014, 12:26 pm

    Liberal Zionists explain Israel’s flaws are only those of rabid ethnic nationalists who can rationalize territorial theft and mass murder of people whose existence interferes with their goals.

  34. MSeveral
    March 29, 2014, 12:27 pm

    The BDS movement will continue to be the failure it is because it has over-reaching objectives. In contrast to Europe, which makes a clear distinction between Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territory where Israel is in violation of Art. 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention by transferring its civilian population, the BDS in the United States does not make this distinction. The third objective of the American BDS movement of promoting the right of return of the 7 million Palestinian refugees is a non-starter. Despite decades of promoting this goal, the Palestinians have to my knowledge never developed any comprehensive plans that will ensure the transfer of the population from refugee camps to Israel in a humane and orderly manner. Nor does it have plans for the resettlement of the indigenous population that is in Israel that will be giving up their residences for the new-comers. As long as the BDS movement keeps itself saddled with the right of return, it will continue to be an annoyance to Israel and little more. The failure of the BDS movement in this country can be seen, not only by the rejection of divestment at virtually every college and university where it has been a student government issue, but the exports of Israel continued to grow during each of the past 3 years, demonstrating the absence of any economic impact. If proponents of BDS think they are having an effect, they are welcomed to continue to pursue this fools mission. They will continue to spend fruitless effort on a cause that does nothing to resolve the conflict. However, if the BDS movement honed exclusively in on the settlements, it might have success.

    • talknic
      March 29, 2014, 2:43 pm

      @ MSeveral “The BDS movement will continue to be the failure it is because it has over-reaching objectives”

      OK. Bye. You’re not needed to fend it off…. Say why are you here?

      “In contrast to Europe, which makes a clear distinction between Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territory where Israel is in violation of Art. 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention by transferring its civilian population, the BDS in the United States does not make this distinction. “

      Start quoting BDS in the United States … thx

      “The third objective of the American BDS movement of promoting the right of return of the 7 million Palestinian refugees is a non-starter.”

      Why? The majority don’t have right of return to sovereign Israeli territory link to mondoweiss.net . They do however have a right of return to territory Israel has illegally acquired by war and where Israelis have no actual legal right to be.

      ” Despite decades of promoting this goal, the Palestinians have to my knowledge never developed any comprehensive plans that will ensure the transfer of the population from refugee camps to Israel in a humane and orderly manner.”

      It’s up to Israel to accommodate the transfer of refugees who have RoR back to Israel, they are after all Israeli refugees, they fled and had a right to citizenship in what became Israel, not Palestine

      “Nor does it have plans for the resettlement of the indigenous population that is in Israel that will be giving up their residences for the new-comers”

      Same, it’s up to Israel to provide for its returning refugees.

      ” If proponents of BDS think they are having an effect”

      Catch up buddy link to economist.com

      link to israelnationalnews.com

      • MSeveral
        March 29, 2014, 4:30 pm

        Thank you for the link to the Economist. It basically confirms my point: focusing on the settlements, which is what is being done in Europe, is effective. Spending time trying to divest in HP, GE, etc. or promoting the right of return is a waste of time and energy.

        If you expect Israel to be the responsible party for developing an implementation plan, dream on. Since the Palestinians are promoting the right of return, they should at least know how many residences were abandoned in 1947-48, how many are still standing, what will returning Palestinian get if the residence is gone, and what will happen to the current residents and owners when the Palestinians return. If they are Jews, send them back to Morocco? Iraq? Egypt? Syria? Maybe its finally time to face up to the hard truth: the refugees ain’t going home if they consider home the Israel within the 1949 Armistice Line.

      • Hostage
        March 29, 2014, 8:40 pm

        Spending time trying to divest in HP, GE, etc. or promoting the right of return is a waste of time and energy.

        Well the “S” in BDS includes criminal and civil sanctions for businesses and corporations who are aiding and abetting human rights violations. BTW, the recent round of EU divestments was triggered by the referral of the conclusions and recommendations of a UN fact finding mission on the settlements to a UN Working Group with a mandate to monitor acts by transnational corporations and other businesses, with the aim of holding them and their officers legally responsible in the countries where they are headquartered or in the ICC. The threat to their profits from frozen assets and forfeiture and their own responsibility for due diligence has a lot more to do with developments than any change in attitude on the part of the EU ministers. The fact is that state-owned pension funds were suddenly confronted with their criminal liabilities.

      • MSeveral
        March 30, 2014, 2:17 am

        Thank you for the helpful reference. From what little I know about what happened with the European pension funds and banks was more D than S. But again, the limited actions that were taken, whether it was D or S, was because Europe is fed up with the settlements. The BDS effort is not only a waste of time but also ineffective in this country because the settlement issue is only one of the three goals of the movement in this country. As you noted, theEuropean pension funds are not taking the action they are because Jews are privileged in Israel over people of other religions, nor because Israel isn’t willing to open its borders and allow 7 million Palestinians to settle there. It was done because of the settlements. So rather than waste time with BDS to ensure Arabs have full rights in Israel, I would suggest that people concerned with the descrimination in Israel would be more effective by making a generous contribution to the New Israel Fund.

      • Hostage
        March 30, 2014, 11:59 am

        From what little I know about what happened with the European pension funds and banks was more D than S. But again, the limited actions that were taken, whether it was D or S, was because Europe is fed up with the settlements.

        No, the fact finding mission on settlements referred the matter of corporate criminal culpability to a UN Working Group that has a mandate to monitor and report on transnational corporations and businesses involved in human rights violations. They did that in order to put them on notice and hold them civilly and criminally liable. All of the other UN human rights mandate holders, like Faulk, have also been implementing the conclusions and recommendations in their own mandates too. So it is matter of due dilligence when these large pension funds and banks, many of which are state-owned, suddenly find that their assets may be frozen or forfeited if the situation in Palestine gets investigated by the ICC. So of course they are divesting in hopes of avoiding sanctions.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 29, 2014, 10:23 pm

        oh,and i am really confused about how the economist article ‘confirms your point’. please explain.

      • talknic
        March 30, 2014, 4:58 am

        @ MSeveral “It basically confirms my point: focusing on the settlements, which is what is being done in Europe, is effective.”

        I answered to this ” If proponents of BDS think they are having an effect”. So they ARE having an effect.

        If you expect Israel to be the responsible party for developing an implementation plan, dream on”

        They have RoR because they’re refugees .. from Israel. It is actually up to Israel to take care of its returning refugees

        “Since the Palestinians are promoting the right of return, they should at least know how many residences were abandoned in 1947-48″

        Irrelevant. People have a right of return even if they were homeless bums, living under a bridge.

        “Maybe its finally time to face up to the hard truth: the refugees ain’t going home if they consider home the Israel within the 1949 Armistice Line”

        Israel has no territory within the armistice line. The armistice lines were drawn across Palestinian territory .

      • MSeveral
        March 30, 2014, 10:54 am

        Your last comment unveiled your thinking. Israel exists within the internationally recognized boundaries of the 1949 Armistice Line. You don’t recognize its existence anywhere, which is confirmation of the complaint that the “liberal Zionists” make: The BDS movement considers Israel illegitimate, illegal and has to be destroyed. It is a position I strongly oppose. Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

      • Hostage
        March 30, 2014, 4:46 pm

        Your last comment unveiled your thinking. Israel exists within the internationally recognized boundaries of the 1949 Armistice Line.

        No, my last comment simply acknowledged the current state of the applicable international law. The UN Security Council is unconditionally bound by the terms of customary international law and the UN Charter. That means it can’t adopt resolutions that create legal loopholes for Israel to that allow it to acquire territory by war or avoid its obligations under minority treaties contained in internationally adjudicated settlements.

        Everyone here is aware of the fact that Israel has unilaterally declared the armistice agreements null and void and violated them through a series of illegal unilateral annexations. Israel also has employed a decades old propaganda program regarding its refusal to ever return to those “Auschwitz borders”. So the claim that it legally ” exists within the internationally recognized boundaries of the 1949 Armistice Line” is false.

        In any event, the armistice agreements were merely imposed on the parties as “a provisional measure” under the terms of Article 40 of the UN Charter under the auspices of two Chapter VII Security Council resolutions (62 and 73). The text of Article 40 explains that it does not impair the rights of the parties to request an adjudicated settlement from the General Assembly or ICJ under the terms of Article 33, 35, and 36:

        Article 33

        1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of a, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

        2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.
        Article 34

        The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.
        Article 35

        l. Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.

        2. A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.

        3. The proceedings of the General Assembly in respect of matters brought to its attention under this Article will be subject to the provisions of Articles 11 and 12.
        Article 36

        1. The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.

        2. The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties.

        3. In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.

        Article 40

        In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

        link to yale.edu

        A “Letter Dated 5 July 1948 Addressed To The United Nations Mediator By The Minister For Foreign Affairs Of The Provisional Government Of Israel” acknowledged that the resolution of the General Assembly of 29 November 1947, remains the only internationally valid adjudication on the question of the future government of Palestine. The competent organs of the United Nations, including the ICJ have also acknowledged that resolution 181(II) is still relevant and has legal consequences regarding the protection of the rights of Arab Palestinians in the state of Israel.

        You don’t recognize its existence anywhere, which is confirmation of the complaint that the “liberal Zionists” make: The BDS movement considers Israel illegitimate, illegal and has to be destroyed.

        I haven’t said that at all. The legal steps Israel has to take in order to be recognized and considered legitimate are pretty simple, I’ve commented on that subject on many occasions:
        * link to mondoweiss.net
        * link to mondoweiss.net

        The black letter customary international law regarding the creation of new states by international organizations has required them to accept a legal undertaking regarding non-discrimination and equal constitutional rights ever since the 19th century in exchange for recognition and cessions of territory. There is no exception for Israel, which has deliberately lied about it’s adoption and promulgation of the necessary fundamental laws on minority rights and then stubbornly refused to secure the Jewish national home in accordance with public international law as the Zionists had always promised. If Israe would abide by the terms of its own legal undertakings, there would be no question about its legitimacy within the boundaries of the partition plan or any other mutually agreed upon frontiers. But so long as it refuses to adopt fundamental laws guaranteeing absolute equality and non-discrimination for religious groups and minorities, it is just as illegal as the now defunct apartheid regimes in South Africa and Southern Rhodesia. It has been axiomatic since the Security Council declared Southern Rhodesia an illegal regime that peoples do not have an unconditional right to exercise self determination and that states which oppress indigenous people or commit wrongful acts against others, do not have a guaranteed right to exist.

      • talknic
        March 30, 2014, 4:50 pm

        MSeveral “Your last comment unveiled your thinking. Israel exists within the internationally recognized boundaries of the 1949 Armistice Line.”

        Your last comment unveiled YOUR thinking. (Amazing how many apologists for Israel’s illegal expansionism who purposefully or are experts at misreading)

        “You don’t recognize its existence anywhere..”

        You’re contradicting your first statement and thus far haven’t reflected anything I’ve actually written

        “…. The BDS movement considers Israel illegitimate, illegal and has to be destroyed. It is a position I strongly oppose.”

        I oppose the notion that Israel has to be destroyed too. It’s strange tho, I can’t find a single statement by “the” or any BDS movement to confirm your assertion…. maybe you can QUOTE one? Yes? I’ll wait link to talknic.files.wordpress.com

        “Thank you for confirming my suspicions”

        Your delusional suspicions have nothing to do with me pal

      • MSeveral
        March 30, 2014, 9:50 pm

        Do you not agree with me that the 1949 armistice line is provisional, but it is an internationally recognized boundary between Israel and its neighbors, except with Egypt and Jordan, where final agreements have been reached? Yes or no.

        Do you not agree with me that the international community recognizes the State of Israel within the 1949 Armistice Line?

        If I understand your argument, you are asserting that because Israel has territorial claims beyond the 1949 armistice line, it doesn’t exist within that line. Am I understanding your position correctly?

        Israel has “annexed” about 70 sq. km of Palestine (the City and a surrounding 66 sq. km), but no country in the world recognizes this annexation.

        I think you are going to have to connect the dots for me with respect to your citing Art. 33. What is the relevance to the BDS movement, the status of Arabs-Palestinians in Israel and the right of return.

        With respect to your assertion: “But so long as it refuses to adopt fundamental laws guaranteeing absolute equality and non-discrimination for religious groups and minorities, it is just as illegal as the now defunct apartheid regimes in South Africa and Southern Rhodesia.” If that were true I’m afraid most of the countries established since the end of WWII would fail that test. Actually, the facts on the ground, as I understand them, is that Israel, though far from the standard I would like, is not doing all that badly, particularly in comparison to its neighbors. It has a reasonably functioning democracy, elections that are honest and fair, a free press, legal processes.

        If I recall, Rhodesian declared itself independent unilaterally, but the UN never recognized it, so it was illegal. From what I remember about the events in 1962, I would say comparing Rhodesia with Israel is a false analogy. Israel was recognized by the UN, it had a seat in the UN almost immediately, and it was recognized by the five SC permanent members. Rhodesian never had that. Unlike Rhodesian, Israel has had international legitimacy from its inception. Though the 1949 armistice line is quite different than the 1947 partition plan, over time the 1949 armistice line has been recognized by the international community as the boundary of Israel until a final settlement has been reached.

        I am curious about the section of the ICJ “wall decision” (which is what I assume you are referring to) that refers to Res. 181 as applicable to the rights of Palestinians in Israel. Could you cite it for me.

      • talknic
        March 31, 2014, 12:15 am

        @ MSeveral “Do you not agree with me that the 1949 armistice line is provisional”

        Indeed. Provisional, NOT between Palestine and Israel and quite specific.

        Article II
        2. No element of the land, sea or air military or para-military forces of either Party, including non-regular forces, shall commit any warlike or hostile act against the military or para-military forces of the other Party, or against civilians in territory under the control of that Party; or shall advance beyond or pass over for any purpose whatsoever the Armistice Demarcation Line set forth in Article VI of this Agreement except as provided in Article III of this Agreement; and elsewhere shall not violate the international frontier; or enter into or pass through the air space of the other Party or through the waters within three miles of the coastline of the other Party. link to mfa.gov.il

        One is an Armistice Demarcation Line. “elsewhere” is the International border. Israel proclaimed and was recognized by its borders May 15th 1948 link to trumanlibrary.org

        Furthermore;
        22nd May 1948 Israel officially claimed it held territories “outside the State of Israel” …”in Palestine” under military control link to pages.citebite.com
        31st Aug 1949 Israel re-affirmed the territories were not Israeli link to unispal.un.org

        “but it is an internationally recognized boundary between Israel and its neighbors”

        You can quote verbatim an example of this recognition. Yes? thx … I’ll wait … link to talknic.files.wordpress.com

        There’s never been a agreement between Israel and Palestine and Israel has never legally annexed any territories further to those it pleaded to be recognized by as an “independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ link to trumanlibrary.org

        Fact is, no country has ever officially recognized any further territory as Israeli. It would be illegal to grant recognition of territory any country has acquired by war link to pages.citebite.com

        ” except with Egypt and Jordan, where final agreements have been reached?”

        The agreements reached were that Israel would withdraw from all territories already sovereign to Egypt before peaceful relations were assumed link to wp.me I.e., withdrawal for peace!

        No borders were changed, Israel agreed to have respect for and acknowledgement of the pre-existing ” sovereignty , territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;” per UNSC res 242.

        Furthermore, it was NOT an agreement between Israel and Palestine
        and;
        the agreement reached between Jordan and Israel was per UNSC res 242 and it was NOT an agreement between Israel and Palestine

        “If I understand your argument, you are asserting that because Israel has territorial claims beyond the 1949 armistice line, it doesn’t exist within that line. Am I understanding your position correctly?”

        Israel only legally exist as it asked to be and was recognized. As proclaimed “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,” (ibid)

        “Israel has “annexed” about 70 sq. km of Palestine (the City and a surrounding 66 sq. km), but no country in the world recognizes this annexation.”

        Correction; Israel has ILLEGALLY (unilaterally) annexed territory, so no country in the world is permitted to recognize it as Israeli. (ibid)

        I think you are going to have to connect the dots for me with respect to your citing Art. 33. What is the relevance to the BDS movement, the status of Arabs-Palestinians in Israel and the right of return.

        ” Actually, the facts on the ground, as I understand them, is that Israel, though far from the standard I would like, is not doing all that badly, particularly in comparison to its neighbors. It has a reasonably functioning democracy, elections that are honest and fair, a free press, legal processes”

        But no legally elected Government, under a constitution, as required by
        A) UNGA res 181, accepted a binding by the Jewish Agency link to pages.citebite.com and;
        B) as required by the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel link to pages.citebite.com

        “If I recall, Rhodesian declared itself independent unilaterally, but the UN never recognized it, so it was illegal”

        It didn’t have majority rule. The British refused to grant independence. BTW the UN doesn’t recognize independence, it accepts states already recognized as independent by the International Comity of Nations after those already recognized state are recommended by the UNSC. There is no vote on recognition a the UN or for that matter in the Internationally Comity of Nations. States recognize or not without a vote amongst nations.

        “Israel was recognized by the UN, it had a seat in the UN almost immediately”

        A) the UN doesn’t recognize states. B) Israel wasn’t under occupation, the Mandate for Palestine expired midnight May 14th 1948 link to pages.citebite.com Israel had majority rule over its allotted territory and said it would abide by the (“binding” http://pages.citebite.com ) conditions of UNGA Res 181 granting it the right to declare independence

        “over time the 1949 armistice line has been recognized by the international community as the boundary of Israel until a final settlement has been reached”

        Quote an example of this recognition please…. verbatim.

        “I am curious about the section of the ICJ “wall decision” (which is what I assume you are referring to) that refers to Res. 181 as applicable to the rights of Palestinians in Israel. Could you cite it for me.”

        If you were actually curious you’d look it up. The next Hasbara move is to say it isn’t binding because it’s only an opinion. However, the IJC opinion indicates that were it asked for a ruling it would A) find the law binding, as it must (by its nature all law is binding) and B) that it would certainly NOT favour Israel.

      • Hostage
        March 31, 2014, 3:35 am

        Do you not agree with me that the 1949 armistice line is provisional, but it is an internationally recognized boundary between Israel and its neighbors, except with Egypt and Jordan, where final agreements have been reached? Yes or no.

        I already pointed out to you that the boundary with Jordan is without prejudice to the status of the territory Israel captured in 1967. It isn’t a final agreement. I do agree that customary international law treats provisional boundaries, including armistice lines, as legally binding ones, that do not prejudice the legal claims of the parties. They are bound to respect them, pending a mutually agreed upon final settlement, arbitration, or adjudication. What you don’t seem to understand is that arbitrated or adjudicated settlements are customarily considered final and are not ordinarily subject to revision or appeal. That’s why Israel spouts mountains of legal arguments, that it will never utter inside a court room and falsely claims that a settlement can’t be imposed and must be negotiated. That’s really not the case.

        I have already explained that Israel’s failure to fulfill its obligations under the minority protection plan cast doubts over the lawfulness of the exercise of its jurisdiction over groups whose human rights remain under UN guarantee.

        Carol Fink explained that in 1878 the Concert of Europe dictated the conditions on internal governance of four new states. She says that is when the concept of granting title to a territory on the basis of minority rights treaties started, with the cases of Serbia, Montenegro, and Romania. See Defending the Rights of Others, page 37 link to books.google.com

        French Prime Minister Clemenceau noted in an aide-memoire attached to the treaty that created Poland that the minority protections were part of European public law:

        This treaty does not constitute any fresh departure. It has for long been the established procedure of the public law of Europe that when a State is created, or when large accessions of territory are made to an established State, the joint and formal recognition of the Great Powers should be accompanied by the requirement that such States should, in the form of a binding International convention undertake to comply with certain principles of Government. In this regard I must recall for your consideration the fact that it is to the endeavors and sacrifices of the Powers in whose name I am addressing you that the Polish nation owes the recovery of its independence. It is by their decision that Polish sovereignty is being restored over the territories in question, and that the inhabitants of these territories are being incorporated into the Polish nation…. …There rests, therefore, upon these Powers an obligation, which they cannot evade, to secure in the most permanent and solemn form guarantees for certain essential rights which will afford to the inhabitants the necessary protection, whatever changes may take place in the internal constitution of the Polish State.

        link to macalester.edu
        In 1932 the Council of the League of Nations adopted a resolution which required the mandated states, including Palestine to accept a minority rights undertaking in a formal declaration or treaty as a condition for the termination of a mandate regime. The UN General Assembly addressed that requirement in a minority protection plan contained in Part C of their resolution of 29 November 1947. The League of Nations also acknowledged that “the ability to stand alone” did not include the ability to withstand foreign aggression, which was a matter of collective responsibility under Article 10 of their Covenant and Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. See The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, Luther Harris Evans, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758 Stable URL: link to jstor.org

      • pjdude
        March 30, 2014, 11:40 pm

        I still don’t understand why some of israeli land gained through conquest is ok to you and some isn’t what so special about telling everyone beforehand your planning on taking it? The israeli declaration of ” independence” some makes claim land that not theirs and they have no legal claim to became theirs simply because they said so?

      • talknic
        March 31, 2014, 12:26 am

        pjdude “The israeli declaration of ” independence” some makes claim land that not theirs and they have no legal claim to became theirs simply because they said so?”

        If the legitimate majority in a territory wish to claim and/or declare independence they are entitled to do just that under the notions of self determination.

        It is however arguable that the Jewish population were a legitimate majority. There was after all a considerable number of illegal Jewish immigrants.

      • pjdude
        March 31, 2014, 3:48 am

        A majority of like what 2% that only existed due to gerrymandering is hardly legitimate. Secondly it has been repeatedly upheld that territorial integrity trumps a minority seceding from a territory even if they are the majority of the population in that subset. The territory was Palestine. The moment the mandate ended the full force of sovereignty lay with the Palestinian people. To divide Palestine against the wishes of the majority of those people is a violation of the principles if self determination and going by the crimes listed in the charter of the Nuremberg trials a war crime in being a crime against the peace the moment military action was used to enforce such a division. Not that we can undo it now but I don’t think we should pretend it was perfectly legal. Not to mention it was generally agreed none of the former colonial possessions were to be divided( which is why Africa is so screwed up) so I fail to see the efforts to give a special benefit to conquers here should be viewed as legal

    • Annie Robbins
      March 29, 2014, 10:08 pm

      The third objective of the American BDS movement of promoting the right of return

      could you link to some of this american promotional material please. because i am part of the bdsmovement, i am in america, and thus far i have not seen this promotional material.

      and can you link to ” the BDS in the United States”? who do you mean? i thought there was just one palestinian led bds movement. and could you link to the european bds movement that makes this ‘clear distinction’ you’re referencing? thanks.

      It basically confirms my point: focusing on the settlements, which is what is being done in Europe, is effective. Spending time trying to divest in HP, GE, etc. … is a waste of time and energy.

      sooo, those people in europe who are part of the bds movement pressuring corporations to pullout of the settlements, focusing on say bds veolia, soda stream, or GS4

      here’s italy

      On December 27, the town council of Villar Focchiardo, in the province of Torino, voted unanimously to approve a resolution condemning Pizzarotti & Co SpA of Parma for its involvement in the Israeli high-speed railway crossing the occupied West Bank. – See more at: link to bdsmovement.net

      others:

      - Security company G4S faced mounting international criticism and lost contracts worth millions of dollars with public bodies in South Africa and across Europe due to its role providing services to Israel’s checkpoints and settlements and prisons where Palestinian political prisoners are held without trial and tortured.

      – French multinational Veolia lost contracts worth millions of dollars across the US, UK and in France, and announced that it was pulling out completely of running bus lines for Israeli settlers in occupied Palestinian territory. Veolia still operates the illegal Jerusalem Light Rail project.

      – See more at: link to bdsmovement.net

      so how is europe focusing on settlements and not bds? i don’t understand what you’re saying. what’s the different between HP, Pizzarotti & Co SpA of Parma, and veolia in terms of how they are being targeted?

      • MSeveral
        March 30, 2014, 2:57 am

        Maybe I’m wrong Annie, but I thought the BDS movement in this country had three goals. BDS was a tactic to achieve the three goals. Does BDS have any goals? I could also be wrong in thinking the BDS movement in this country was being promoted by non-Palestinians and well as Palestinians. The example you give about how successful the BDS movement is in Europe are very interesting. The one in Villar Focchiardo is awesome. According to Wikipedia, it has a population of a little over 2000. The impact of their condemnation of a company building a high speed rail through the occupied Palestinian Territory leaves me breathless. Unless G4S is an Israeli company, the loss of business doesn’t impact Israel. And Veolia’s problems are because of its involvement with the SETTLEMENTS, and not because Jews are privileged in Israel or because it won’t let 7 million Palestinians move to Israel. Maybe the BDS people in this country should target Microsoft and Apple because they are doing business with Israel. Probably some of their business involves “security” issues that impact the movement of persons and goods in the oPT. What is so great about targeting those companies, you can take action by yourself. You don’t have to wait to have some student council to pass a resolution.

      • Hostage
        March 30, 2014, 11:49 am

        The example you give about how successful the BDS movement is in Europe are very interesting.

        The goals and methods of the BDS movement and the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott are the same here in the USA as they are in Europe. The results there are different because the majority of countries happen to be ICC member states who aim to harmonize their national laws with the Rome Statute and to complement its jurisdiction. The UN and UNESCO recognition of Palestine as an occupied state has more immediate repercussions for the EU and its corporations than the USA in light of Palestine’s Article 12(3) declaration and its announced intention to hold individuals and businesses criminally responsible for illegal profiteering from settlement activities.

      • MSeveral
        March 30, 2014, 1:26 pm

        If I understand your point, (which I’m not sure I do because your citation again refers to “settlement activities”) what is taking place in Europe is not just because of the settlements, but is in equal measure because Jews are privileged in Israel and because Israel is not allowing 7 million Palestinian refugees to move into their country. If so, I am quite surprised because everything I’ve read (which isn’t a lot) about what actions have been taken in Europe focus on the settlements, financial support of the settlements, etc. Maybe I’m just wrong, but I thought the BDS movement had three objectives:
        1. Ending Israel’s occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall.
        2 Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality.
        3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

        If these are the goals, are you asserting that what is taking place in Europe is to pressure Israel to recognize the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality, and to pressure Israel to respect, protect and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes? If that is your assertion, that is news to me. I would welcome any links to information that confirms your assertion.

      • Hostage
        March 30, 2014, 2:09 pm

        If I understand your point, (which I’m not sure I do because your citation again refers to “settlement activities”) what is taking place in Europe is not just because of the settlements, but is in equal measure because Jews are privileged in Israel and because Israel is not allowing 7 million Palestinian refugees to move into their country. If so, I am quite surprised because everything I’ve read (which isn’t a lot) about what actions have been taken in Europe focus on the settlements, financial support of the settlements, etc. Maybe I’m just wrong, but I thought the BDS movement

        The BDS movement is based in part upon the 2005 call for activists to pressure their respective states to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel, because they and the UN were not functioning correctly and had taken no actions in line with the applicable laws cited in the 2004 ICJ advisory opinion. But in the recent case of the UN settlement fact finding mission’s conclusions and recommendations regarding the culpability of EU-based corporations and business in illegal settlement activities, and the fact that the majority of pending cases in the ICC involve charges of pillaging, it really has not been the grass roots BDS movement that started the ball rolling. It’s the imminent threat that the situation in Palestine will be the subject of ICC prosecutions and requests for asset freezes and forfeitures. In short, “the system” and “the establishment” might actually start working in favor of the Palestinians for a change.

      • talknic
        March 30, 2014, 5:13 pm

        MSeveral “If I understand your point, (which I’m not sure I do ….”

        The fact that you duck and weave shows you do understand. Your answers are familiar and typical of stupid argumentative apologists for Israel’s illegal expansionism and typical of the tactics used by pathological liars and abusers

        ” Veolia’s problems are because of its involvement with the SETTLEMENTS “

        Indeed. You appear to be tripping up..

        ” and not because Jews are privileged in Israel or because it won’t let 7 million Palestinians move to Israel”

        Someone is asking for 7 million Palestinians move to Israel ? Who? Quote them … I’ll wait … link to talknic.files.wordpress.com

        “Maybe the BDS people in this country should target Microsoft and Apple because they are doing business with Israel” Are they based in illegal settlements? Illegally using Palestinian resources? Mis-branding their products?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 30, 2014, 3:21 pm

        you can take action by yourself. You don’t have to wait to have some student council to pass a resolution.

        obviously. as individuals we can all take action ourselves, and many people do.

        Maybe I’m wrong Annie, but I thought the BDS movement in this country had three goals.

        so that would be a no. you cannot link to some of this american promotional material to back up your statements nor “the BDS in the United States” but you carry on in the exact same vein referencing goals of “the BDS movement in this country “.

        why the framing mseveral?

        Does BDS have any goals?

        you just listed them yourself:

        Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;
        Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
        Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

        what is taking place in Europe is to pressure Israel to recognize the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality, and to pressure Israel to respect, protect and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes?

        not all over europe, but of course. there are lots of people and states who are pressuring israel in their own way not affiliated with the BDs movement. or people who participate in ways they deem appropriate.

        like any grassroots movement it’s full of individuals. barghouti said ‘if you want to boycott and egg boycott an egg’.

        your continued mantra about bds is the US or bds in europe as if there are these monolith orgs setting the terms and anyone who signs on agrees to everything is not a reflection of reality.

      • talknic
        March 30, 2014, 4:58 pm

        @ MSeveral link to mondoweiss.net WOW!! What a big flatulent ‘no you can’t link to some of this american promotional material’

        You inability is quite common to supporters of Israel’s illegal expansionist policies. They make statements, then can’t back them up. Stupidly revealing themselves to be nothing more than liars, false accusers, coveters of other folks property, all of which are against the basic tenets of Judaism.

      • MHughes976
        March 30, 2014, 5:37 pm

        The legion of Electronic Illegal Expansionists seems to be assaulting our ramparts in greater numbers at the moment, spreading mind-numbing verbiage, a potentially lethal threat to reasonable conversation if you have to wade through it. There must be dozens more all waiting to go over the top in every sense. Something needs to be done.

      • MSeveral
        March 30, 2014, 10:00 pm

        My comment about 7 million Palestinians relates to the goal of the BDS movement of promoting the right of return. Isn’t that what the right of return involves: the right of the 7 million Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in what is now Israel? Maybe I’m wrong, and it involves something else. Please enlighten me.

      • Citizen
        March 31, 2014, 12:01 am

        @ talknic
        Against the basic tenets of the Babylonian Talmud? Really?

      • talknic
        April 1, 2014, 7:48 am

        @ MSeveral ” … Isn’t that what the right of return involves: the right of the 7 million Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in what is now Israel?”

        No. It isn’t. The majority have RoR to non-Israeli territory Israel has either illegally acquired by war link to pages.citebite.com by 1949/50 and has never legally annexed link to wp.me and other non-Israeli territory under Israeli occupation.

        “Maybe I’m wrong”

        No maybe about it pal.

        ” Please enlighten me”

        Impossible. It’s not a part of an Israeli propagandists brief.

    • pjdude
      March 30, 2014, 11:34 pm

      You’d have a point if israel as a whole didn’t fund the settlements. When most of the money supporting them comes from israel proper( not that any of that was aquired legally) you need to hit the whole to cut off the pipe line of funding

      • Citizen
        March 31, 2014, 12:05 am

        @ pjdude
        Quite a bit of the funding for the settlements comes from US taxpayers, both directly via the $3.1B per year plus interest, and indirectly, by at least that much more from American Jewish charities, donations tax-deductible.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 31, 2014, 12:23 am

        26 Billion Bucks: The Jewish Charity Industry Uncovered, and lots of it goes to israel, this doesn’t even include donations thru synagogues. link to forward.com

      • irishmoses
        March 31, 2014, 10:11 am

        Annie,
        The $26 billion is the total assets of the various groups. The annual donations to Israel-related causes was a bit over $3 billion a year if memory serves.

      • Citizen
        March 31, 2014, 1:59 pm

        Here’s the next article in the Forward series–about government funding to Jewish charities while Jewis donate more to Israel:
        link to forward.com

  35. Citizen
    March 29, 2014, 12:58 pm

    On Fox News channel now: Key republicans gather in Vegas with Sheldon Adelson. He’s looking for a mainstream advocate for Israel more effective than those he bought in the past with a ton of money. First Primary?

    • MRW
      March 30, 2014, 2:16 am

      That’s going to make for some great town halls. We get to grill the candidates on their love of Israel over the USA?

  36. Citizen
    March 29, 2014, 12:58 pm

    Who will be the next Zionist chabbes goy?

    A Shabbos goy, Shabbat goy or Shabbes goy (Yiddish: שבת גוי, shakos goy Modern Hebrew: גוי של שבת goy shel shabat) is a non-Jew who performs certain types of work (melakha) for a Jew on the Biblical Sabbath, work which Jewish Law (Halachah) enjoins the Jew from doing on the Sabbath.

    We already know who the bipartisan court jews are. Amazing how feudal times just puts on new masks. One thing for sure: the serfs never change, nor does the totally selfish character of the elite 1% goys and their tribal Zionist funders.

  37. talknic
    March 29, 2014, 2:17 pm

    BULLSH*T 101 don’t they know anything else?

    “the BDS movement is not targeting the occupation per se. Its goal is the end of the State of Israel itself. . . .

    WOW! If states adhere to the law, which is actually what the BDS movement asks, they end, self implode, disappear or something. AMAZING. Say why haven’t New Zealand and other law abiding states all disappeared?

    “In other words, millions of the descendants of the original Palestinian refugees could return not just to the West Bank or Gaza but to Israel itself…”

    Ahhh, in “other words”. Not in the actual words of the BDS movement. Interesting.

    Who’s “other words”? The words of some schmuck who thinks Israel should be allowed to break the law perhaps?

    In fact, some could return to the West Bank and/or Gaza and other Palestinian territories Israel has illegally acquired by war link to wp.me and some could return to Israel.

    But first, what territory is actually sovereign to Israel? Legally, only what was proclaimed by the Israeli Govt May 15th 1948 and immediately recognized link to trumanlibrary.org . Israel has never legally annexed any further territory and it has been illegal to acquire territory by war since at least 1933 link to pages.citebite.com

    Let’s do a little simple maths. Take these numbers from the Jewish virtual library: There were roughly 600,000 Jews and 350,000 Arabs residing in the Jewish state created by partition link to pages.citebite.com and some numbers from WikI/Pedia, surely they’re right given the intense editing perpetrated by Israel’s supporters. Roughly 156,000 remained link to en.wikipedia.org

    From those figures 350,000 less 156,000 we see some 194,000 fled territory actually sovereign to Israel.

    However, according to official UN estimates there were approximately 711,000 refugees created by the war link to pages.citebite.com

    711,000 – 194,000 = 517,000 or so. 517,000 is by far the majority and they have RoR to territory illegally acquired by war by Israel by 1949/50. None of which has ever been legally annexed to or recognized as Israeli. link to wp.me

    Let’s say for arguments sake the 194,000 who had RoR to Israel been allowed to return. Their original 350,000 number was in fact swiftly outweighed by the almost immediate influx of 500,000 Arab Jews from the Arab states (600,000 + 500,000 = 1,100,000) plus 140,000 Holocaust survivors (1,100,000 + 140,000 = 1,240,000)

    Not counting the other numerous Jewish immigrants who flooded into Israel during and immediately following the war, there is already a ratio of 1,240,000 : 350,000 I.e., a non Jewish population of 28%. With the other Jewish immigrants that percentage was even lower. How was that a demographic threat to Israel? Fact is …. it wasn’t.

    Nor is it today. The Jewish population of Israel since 1948 through Holocaust survivors, refugees from Arab States, new Jewish immigrants and their procreation, has increased far beyond what the 194,000 who fled and the 156,000 who remained have been able to procreate. Unlike Israel, they’ve had no new immigrants to add to their numbers and;
    life expectancy in 1950 was only 47yrs so most of the 194,000 original refugees have passed away, roughly some 30,000 remain. So we can take some 164,000 off the top of the potential non-Jewish figure if the remainder and all the lineal descendants were allowed to return to territory actually sovereign to the State of Israel. So they’d still not be a threat.

    The real ‘threat’ is in the territories the Jewish state has illegally acquired by war and is determined to keep, where the 517,000 non-Jews and all their lineal descendants have a legal RoR and where Israelis have no legal right to be at all and; not being Israeli territory, it’s still not a threat to Israeli demographics.

    “essentially reversing the independence Israel achieved in 1948″

    What nonsense. Israel, even if it was to have an non-Jewish majority, would still be an independent state.

    “As far as Israeli towns and villages, they would be “property” returned to the Palestinians. Hence, no more Israel. . . .

    A) an admission it was Palestinian property B) The above figures show there would still be a Jewish majority

    “Israel is not going to dismantle itself”

    No one is asking it to

    ” and Jews will not be the first people in the world to relinquish the right to self-determination”

    That right has already been exercised. Now instead of writing bullsh*t we should exercise that right to insist that our homeland state be law abiding.

    • pjdude
      March 30, 2014, 11:55 pm

      I still don’t understand why some of israeli land gained through conquest is ok and some isn’t what so special about telling everyone beforehand your planning on taking it? The israeli declaration of ” independence” some makes claim land that not theirs and they have no legal claim to became theirs simply because they said so?

    • W.Jones
      March 31, 2014, 2:34 am

      This is a helpful analysis to show that in the territory declared by the UN there was a Jewish majority even before the Nakba, so if we were to “reverse” the Nakba and allow the Right of Return for refugees (and I assume for their descendants), it would not stop there from being a Jewish majority in the UN’s territorial division. This is a major fact that I did not notice despite paying attention for years to the issue.

      In other words, the Right of Return is possible and compatible with the idea of a two state solution!

      • Hostage
        March 31, 2014, 11:57 pm

        This is a helpful analysis to show that in the territory declared by the UN there was a Jewish majority even before the Nakba

        Not at all. The numbers cited in the Jewish Virtual Library article do NOT agree with the figures from either the UNSCOP report or the corrected figures supplied by the mandatory government to the Ad Hoc Committee. It’s a propaganda piece that falsely claims Tranjordan comprised 80 percent of the original Jewish home, despite the fact that the Torah says that Moses died there because God wouldn’t let him enter the promised land and the fact that all of the territory east of the line from Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo had always been included in the territory High Commissioner McMahon was instructed by Foreign Minister Grey to promise to the Arabs.

        The British government was appalled when the UNSCOP majority report did not include the Beersheba Bedouins in the population of Palestine and attempted to portary them as nomads, despite the fact that they had been settled on the land for generations and had more land devoted to grain production alone than the total land holdings of the Jewish community combined. The government had the RAF perform an aerial survey that was used to estimate the population figures used by the UNSCOP Committee.

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

        I’ve pointed out a number of times that Israel acquired millions of additional dunams during the war that were inhabited by Palestinian Arabs. So it was always an imperative that they be driven into exile before the first elections and kept away until a Jewish majority could be established.

        During the 20th Sitting of the first Knesset Ben Gurion explained that annexing the Triangle and Hebron would add 500,000 to 800,000 Arabs to the population of the State of Israel. He noted that the Arabs would outnumber the Jews and that they would have to be given the vote. The Herut MKs replied that there were millions of Jews elsewhere in the world that would be willing to immigrate. Ben Gurion replied that the new Arab Knesset would adopt laws that would prevent them from ever coming.

        If there hadn’t been any ethnic cleansing, that would have been the first order of business for the Palestinian Arab majority in the greatly enlarged “Jewish state”. See “The Armistice Agreements with the Arab States”, in Netanel Lorch (ed), Major Knesset Debates 1948-1981, Vol. 2, JCPA/University of America Press, 1993, pages 514-515 (pdf file page 94 of 186) link to jcpa.org

      • talknic
        April 1, 2014, 3:06 am

        W.Jones “This is a helpful analysis …”

        Careful tho, the first two numbers I used are Israeli figures :-) showing that Israeli figures, like all Hasbara, simply don’t add up :-) …. As Hostage points out, the Bedouin were not accounted for.

        However, with the Bedouin population included and had return been allowed, the Jewish population of Israel swiftly surpassed what would have been the total non-Jewish population.

        Unlike the Jewish population, neither the Bedouin or the remaining and/or returning Arab population in Israel would have increased thru the influx and procreation of new immigrants, refugees from other states and/or the likes of Holocaust survivors.

        Re-visit the numbers : From the Ad Hoc Committee report – 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews
        Roughly 156,000 remaining in Israel according to wikI/Pedia
        From those figures 509,780 less 156,000 = 353,780 fled Israel’s actual “proclaimed” and recognized territory

        UN estimate approximately 711,000 refugees fled territories “controlled” by Israel

        711,000 – 353,780 (from Israeli territory) = 357,220 who fled non-Israeli territories under Israeli occupation, added to which;
        up to 800,000 who stayed in the Triangle and Hebron (just some of the territory never “proclaimed as”, recognized as or legally annexed to Israel )

        800,000 + 357,220 = 1,157,220 + many more non-Jews in other territories never legally acquired by Israel. But what occurs in territories “outside the State of Israel” ..”in Palestine” is entirely irrelevant to the demographics in the territory of the State of Israel.

        The demographic threat has always been by Israel to non-Jewish demographics, in Israel and in non-Israeli territory.

      • W.Jones
        April 1, 2014, 2:57 pm

        Talknic,

        Hostage’s claim seems to be that the area given to Israel in 1947 by the UN had in reality an Arab majority. What do you think of that claim? Is it correct?

        He concludes that with an Arab majority, a democratic Jewish state would not have allowed in the waves of Jewish immigrants that would give it a Jewish majority. What do you think of Hostage’s claims?

        Personally, I still think they could have drawn the boundaries so that they had a Jewish majority someplace.

  38. MRW
    March 30, 2014, 2:13 am

    Looks like it’s going to be up to the Gentiles to say you can’t do that to the Palestinians, and they may well do it by turning on the Jews who think it’s OK to persecute them.

    • Citizen
      March 31, 2014, 12:12 am

      @ MRW
      Yeah, that’s been working so well via the US UN SC veto, how many times now? 50?
      Or do you mean Dick and Jane will wake up? After a war on Iran or Syria or Russia?
      Or when they no longer like being indentured servants of Wall St? Might take all of the above to wake up.

  39. kalithea
    March 30, 2014, 3:15 am

    Never trust a Zionist of any stripe. Their true colors will eventually surface. “Liberal” Zionists are the worst because their mission is to deceive pretending they promote liberal values when in fact on Zionism they get amnesia and forget all they’ve been preaching and pretending. These types of Zionists are the most hurtful to Palestinians because they keep resurrecting the two-state when they know perfectly well that option is doa – dead on arrival, but they just can’t let it go; their denial is so overwhelming. They’re disingenuous by pretending so much concern for Palestinians and feigning horror for the occupation, when in fact they know their comrades in the settlements will never budge and are doing the good dirty work for them!

    Their whole concern mantra is pure bullshet meant to delay justice while their settler comrades feverishly build and build those settlements knowing that the jig will soon be up for their more progressive kin and they’ll be exposed for the lying hypocrites they really are. Rabid settlers everywhere are grateful for all the time these liberal progressive idiots have given them to accomplish the mission, but they trash them anyway every chance they get a) to make it look good, and b)because they too for other reasons can’t stomach their hypocrisy and besides they make these other Zionists doing all the heavy lifting for all Zionists look bad, when in the end when the goal of ridding the Palestinians of their land is achieved, everyone on all sides will breathe a sigh of relief and it’ll be kumbaya, ribbon cutting by the uber progressive Zionist Scarlett to christen more SS settlement openings and champagne all around for Zionists of all stripes.

    BDS is their common nemesis because all Zionists, left and right cling to the supremacist ideology that is Zionism and it is nothing more than that as all the mountains of evidence proves it to be.

    • Citizen
      March 31, 2014, 12:14 am

      Anybody have a clue just how many Israeli settlers came from US? And how many of those sport dual citizenship? Like to see %

      • Annie Robbins
        March 31, 2014, 12:17 am

        i’d guess at least 1/2

      • Hostage
        March 31, 2014, 4:38 am

        Anybody have a clue just how many Israeli settlers came from US? And how many of those sport dual citizenship? Like to see %

        Sara Yael Hirschhorn Ph.D., “City on a hilltop: The participation of Jewish-American immigrants within the Israeli settler movement, 1967–1987″, The University of Chicago, 2012 link to gradworks.umi.com used confidential information obtained from the US Consul in Jerusalem that indicated around 44,000 US citizens are living in the West Bank settlements which was about 10% percent of the population at the time.

        All of them who aren’t public office holders are presumably dual citizens. Afroyim v. Rusk established that the federal government has no constitutional authority to revoke anyone’s citizenship without their consent. I believe that Israel makes its top officials renounce their foreign citizenship, before they can take office.

  40. W.Jones
    March 30, 2014, 5:30 pm

    She says that she worked for refugees, but she emphasizes that 75,000 people were not expelled, they left “for a variety of reasons”. Isn’t that true for refugees in many places who nonetheless have a right to return home? Why does she emphasize that no all of the people denied their homes were forcibly expelled if she is supposed to be someone taking the side of refugees?

  41. david sp
    March 30, 2014, 6:45 pm

    If an Arab wants to emigrate to spain, to become a Spaniard, it is a no go. And yet is it not true that his people invaded and occupied the country for hundreds of years until the ethnic cleansing of 1492? It does not matter one whit. Spain is for the Spanish.

    • Hostage
      March 31, 2014, 12:58 pm

      If an Arab wants to emigrate to spain, to become a Spaniard, it is a no go. And yet is it not true that his people invaded and occupied the country for hundreds of years until the ethnic cleansing of 1492? It does not matter one whit. Spain is for the Spanish.

      Since Spain just announced that it was adopting a law of return for descendants of Jews expelled in 1492, I’d shut-up about that situation if I were you. It destroys your line of argumentation, since “Sephardic” Jews are implicitly Spanish and have a national home there, which is not particularly Israeli. link to ynetnews.com

      The fact is that the post WW-II German constitution restored the citizenship of both their “Ashkenazi” Jews and their descendants who would have otherwise been German nationals, if not for the affects of the Nazi era Nuremberg race laws. If Israel’s in-gathering of the so-called “exiles” is added to the exhibits, there is a lot of powerful evidence of state practice that can be applied to argue for the Palestinian right of return to their national home, regardless of the number of generations that have elapsed.

    • talknic
      April 1, 2014, 3:16 am

      david “If an Arab wants to emigrate to spain, to become a Spaniard, it is a no go”

      Weird. Can you quote the Spanish Law and does the same apply to all the Arabs and Jews who have immigrated to the US and become American Jews or American Arabs?

      “Spain is for the Spanish”

      Indeed. For all its citizens, no matter what their religion, racial or ethnic background or where they immigrate from. Just like the USA.

  42. pjdude
    March 30, 2014, 10:33 pm

    I find the arrogance and hypocrisy in the “liberal” Zionist view point terrible. Their worse than those to the right of them and the extremists at least their honest about their goals.

    “Their narrative rejects my self determination”
    well guess what your narrative rejects their right to self dermination which unlike yours was based on a want and was based on you know actually residing in Palestine. Why does your self determination trump theirs? Cause you have bigger guns that allowed you to conquer their country?

    ” jews will not be the first people to relequish their right to self determination”

    Ok even if they did and even if their version of self determination is accurate their are ready plenty of people who have more or less given up those rights. And by the way why can’t you give them up but it’s ok for you to demand the Palestinians do?

  43. ronnie
    March 31, 2014, 7:46 pm

    so-called liberal Zionists have always been the greatest threat to Palestinian rights and those ones who stand at the forefront of protecting Israeli apartheid. this goes with no exception.

    it is no coincidence that such pseudo-leftists are also the best ambassadors as far as the Israeli propaganda machine (Hasbara) is concerned. take a look at Amos Oz, David Grossman or Achinoam Nini (Noa) to name a few.

  44. Yitzgood
    April 1, 2014, 11:14 am

    Different strokes for different folks….not everyone agrees on what is brilliant and what isn’t.

    I decided years ago that the works of Heidegger are not my cup of tea, but I try to be modest and humble about that fact–perhaps if I had put more effort into understanding and appreciating his works, that effort would have been rewarded. I wouldn’t have any respect for someone who put down the statements of his political opponents by calling them “a bunch of Heidegger.”

Leave a Reply