Apartheid label will stick

italy4_432_1In a world characterized by the ubiquity of rapid mass communication the apparent degree of coordination among members of the American Zionist leadership shouldn’t be very impressive. Yet, it is impressive. And it also indicates something about those leaders’ perspective on strategy.

John Kerry’s decision to identify apartheid for what it is – the qualifier, “could be,” is just so much ornamentation – is commendable. And it’s already drawn bilious condemnations from the ADL, AIPAC, Congress and other Zionist strongholds in America.

The condemnations read:

ADL: “It is startling and deeply disappointing that a diplomat so knowledgeable and experienced about democratic Israel chose to use such an inaccurate and incendiary term.”

AIPAC: ‘”Any suggestion that Israel is, or is at risk of becoming, an apartheid state is offensive and inappropriate. The Jewish state is a shining light for freedom and opportunity in a region plagued by terror, hate and oppression.” AIPAC also said that is “shares President Obama’s perspective that while there is a political conflict between Israel and the Palestinians that needs to be resolved, the use of the term “apartheid” to characterize Israel is inaccurate and unhelpful.”‘

Eric Cantor: “The use of the word apartheid has routinely been dismissed as both offensive and inaccurate, and Secretary Kerry’s use of it makes peace even harder to achieve.”

Is the statements’ similarity coincidental? The answer is almost certainly No.

Moreover, one word, “inaccurate” recurs more frequently than any other. That suggests something about the logic that underpinned the frantic discussion that preceded the distribution of talking points to members of the leadership. Mainly, that the “danger” here is that the charge will stick – and that the word “apartheid” may come to be regarded as more-or-less accurate shorthand for what the Jewish-Israelis are perpetrating in Palestine.

Finally, J Street, the center-right Zionist lobby organization, lauded Kerry’s recognition while exhibiting a fundamental inability to abandon life beyond the Looking-Glass. Running fast to go nowhere they seem to remember the future:

“Israel today is not an apartheid state, and that’s not what John Kerry is saying,” said Ben Ami. “For over a year now, Kerry has argued that, without a two-state solution, Israel is risking its future and its values as it moves toward permanent rule over millions of Palestinians without equal rights. Former Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert have used the ‘apartheid’ term as well to describe this possible future.”

 

About Ahmed Moor

Ahmed Moor is a Palestinian-American who was born in the Gaza Strip. He is a PD Soros Fellow, co-editor of After Zionism and co-founder and CEO of liwwa.com. Twitter: @ahmedmoor
Posted in Israel/Palestine

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

  1. pabelmont says:

    J-Street comes close to accuracy and at least acknowledges that Israeli leaders have used the same word, and made the same (fearful and hard-sounding) prognostication. Even Kerry did not say that Israel’s governance of Israel-48 (or the OPTs) were TODAY apartheid in nature. It’s all an elaborate argument about what MIGHT LATER happen.

    Pooh. Someone ought to ask these guys what set of facts (whether now or in future) would persuade them that “apartheid” had in fact arrived.

    • JeffB says:

      @pabelmont

      Someone ought to ask these guys what set of facts (whether now or in future) would persuade them that “apartheid” had in fact arrived.

      No problem.

      1) If Palestinians agreed they were Israelis.
      2) If Israeli Arabs (which would be all the Palestinians which accepted Israel as their state) weren’t allowed to use the same public transit, hospitals, homes go to Israeli schools, serve in the army….
      3) If discrimination were based on race (though I’d be OK with saying substantial institutional religious discrimination is “similar”).

      • Sumud says:

        Resorting to home brew definitions of apartheid might ease your conscience JeffB but I don’t think it has legs.

        The Crime of Apartheid as defined by the UN:

        International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, Article II:

        For the purpose of the present Convention, the term ‘the crime of apartheid’, which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhumane acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:

        a. Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person
        i. By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
        ii. By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
        iii. By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;

        b. Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;

        c. Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognised trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;

        d. Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;

        e. Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;

        f. Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.

        The ICC classifies the Crime of Apartheid as a Crime Against Humanity.

        Within the 1948 armistice lines Israel is practicing apartheid and within the OPT (including and especially Gaza) Israel is practicing de facto apartheid – a majority of Palestinians in the OPT have lived their entire lives under the Israeli jackboot.

        • JeffB says:

          @Sumud and Hostage –

          The question was what would Zionists consider crossing the line. The UN and the ICC are mostly anti-Zionist. Their line is going to be different. You then take your aggressive interpretations and that’s going to move the line even further. That wasn’t the question though.

          But Sumud you notice the word “race” over and over and over. That’s key. That was my point (3). You’ll notice the state has to prevent participation. That was point (1). So the definition you gave agrees with me. I understand the UN has then changed the definition so the words don’t mean anything like what they say so that race means just about everything… But the definition there is clear. Hostage covers the distortion well and I don’t disagree with his post.

          • Hostage says:

            @Sumud and Hostage – The question was what would Zionists consider crossing the line.

            No, the Palestinians can ask the ICC to prosecute Israeli officials who have committed the crime of apartheid on their territory. It is truly irrelevant whether Zionist agree or try to raise the 3 defenses you proposed.

            You then take your aggressive interpretations and that’s going to move the line even further.

            Israel and the US helped draft the ICERD. Both countries help elect the panels of legal experts who write the consensus findings that I quoted. They cited Article 3 concerns regarding both housing and education.

            That wasn’t the question though.

            I actually addressed all three defenses that you offered. You are just not too perceptive.

          • Sumud says:

            The UN and the ICC are mostly anti-Zionist.

            Israel is being asked only to adhere to the laws and treaties it accepted when it chose to apply and then become a member of the UN. Serial defiance of those laws suggest it is zionists which are opposed to the UN. Why does’t Israel withdraw from the UN since they hate it so much and have ignored it from day one?

            That wasn’t the question though.

            Referring to the actual definition of the crime apartheid is relevant – the only way you or zionists in general can avoid admitting Israeli is practicing apartheid NOW is by inventing a new definition of it.

            I suggest the world is going to look to the UN for a definition, not JeffB or the active perpetrators of the Crime Against Humanity.

            But Sumud you notice the word “race” over and over and over.

            So discrimination by race is bad but by religion is fine. It’s in no-one’s long term interests – not even zionist jews – to pursue that line of thinking. When Israel decides on what or who a jew is, let me know eh?

            In the meantime lots of people claim jews to be a race and the nationality of jews in Israel is “jewish” not “Israeli”. Those living under Israeli rule who don’t belong to this ‘race’ or ‘nationality’, live in apartheid.

          • talknic says:

            JeffB “The UN and the ICC are mostly anti-Zionist.”

            False on two counts.
            1)There are no UNSC resolutions against Zionism. Zionism and Zionists are not states and not UN Members.
            2)In respect to Israel, the UNSC has given Israel hundreds of OPPORTUNITIES to adhere to the law. The State of Israel has failed to take those opportunities , failed to adhere to its legal obligations. The power company is not biased for issuing REMINDER notices when one fails to meet one’s contractual obligations.

          • Shingo says:

            The UN and the ICC are mostly anti-Zionist.

            The same UN that not only admitted Israel as a member, but created Israel in the first place?

      • Hostage says:

        No problem. 1) If Palestinians agreed they were Israelis.

        Okay: 1) There have always been hundreds of thousands of refugees and their descendants who satisfy that very criteria, since Israel didn’t adopt a new nationality law until 1950. FYI, denial of nationality is a constituent act of the crime of apartheid. 2) Please go read the 1970 ICJ Advisory Opinion which condemned South Africa’s occupation regime and its imposition of apartheid policies in the neighboring state of Namibia. Long story short, the group you systematically oppress can be citizens of another country or state.

        2) If Israeli Arabs (which would be all the Palestinians which accepted Israel as their state) weren’t allowed to use the same public transit, hospitals, homes go to Israeli schools, serve in the army….

        Okay, you were on a very short roll there, until you said “(which would be all the Palestinians which accepted Israel as their state). There was never any such procedure available to them in the applicable Israeli laws on Nationality/Citizenship/Entry Into Israel/or Return. You really lost your train of thought when you said “weren’t allowed to use the same . . . homes go to Israeli schools”. The CERD panel cited the Article 3 prohibition of racial segregation and apartheid in its latest report in that very same connection:

        The Committee notes with increased concern that Israeli society maintains Jewish and non-Jewish sectors, which raises issues under article 3 of the Convention. Clarifications provided by the delegation confirmed the Committee’s concerns in relation to the existence of two systems of education, one in Hebrew and one in Arabic, which except in rare circumstances remain impermeable and inaccessible to the other community, as well as separate municipalities: Jewish municipalities and the so-called “municipalities of the minorities”. The enactment of the Admissions Committees Law (2011), which gives private committees full discretion to reject applicants deemed “unsuitable to the social life of the community”, is a clear sign that the concerns as regards segregation remain pressing (Articles 3, 5 and 7 of the Convention).

        link to www2.ohchr.org

        3) If discrimination were based on race (though I’d be OK with saying substantial institutional religious discrimination is “similar”).

        The first UN convention that prohibited apartheid (and still does) is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Article 1 defined the term “racial discrimination” for the purposes of international law:

        In this Convention, the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

        link to ohchr.org

        So the objections you raised present “No problem” to anyone who thinks apartheid has already arrived.

        • JeffB says:

          @Hostage

          There have always been hundreds of thousands of refugees and their descendants who satisfy that very criteria

          They most certainly have not agreed they were Israelis.

          ) Please go read the 1970 ICJ Advisory Opinion which condemned South Africa’s occupation regime and its imposition of apartheid policies in the neighboring state of Namibia. Long story short, the group you systematically oppress can be citizens of another country or state.

          In many countries rebel territory and non-rebel territory live under different laws. That’s not apartheid.

          Okay, you were on a very short roll there, until you said “(which would be all the Palestinians which accepted Israel as their state). There was never any such procedure available to them in the applicable Israeli laws on Nationality/Citizenship/Entry Into Israel/or Return.

          I agree. I think it is a problem that Israeli Arabs have never requested such a procedure and I think it is a problem that Israel has never created such a procedure. I think Israel has heading in that direction till about 1980. But there certainly is room to criticize Israel on not having done a good enough job of incorporating Israeli Arabs.

          As for the commission being opposed to two school systems…. assuming the Israeli Arabs agreed to disband theirs I couldn’t agree more on the goal of joint education. I think that would be fantastic and fully support it. As far as minority municipalities, same thing.

          As for the UN defining “race” to not mean race… that’s very similar to defining “ability to stand alone” to not mean “ability to stand alone”. It is one of my central problems with the UN all-together. But remember the challenge was for Zionists to say what criteria they believe it would take not what the UN thinks.

          • Hostage says:

            It’s always a pleasure deconstructing your empty arguments and exposing the oceans of historical ignorance needed to keep them afloat.

            As for the UN defining “race” to not mean race … … that’s very similar to defining “ability to stand alone” to not mean “ability to stand alone”.

            Your arguments are nothing but tautologies. There never was any scientific foundation underpinning actual instances of racism. The UN adopted an agreed upon definition that was consistent with existing unscientific, legal usage of the term “race” in the laws of the member states at the end of the colonial era and required the contracting parties to eliminate legal discrimination against the targeted groups. FYI, many of us here grew-up in that era, hearing far-fetched and unscientific justifications for legal distinctions, exclusions, and restrictions against the so-called descendants of Ham, based upon the “table of nations” or lists of descendants contained in Genesis Chapter 10.

            Anyone who has ever read the testimony before the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission or the UNSCOP Commission knows perfectly well that the terms “Jewish race” and “Arab race” were constantly employed to justify or propose legal distinctions, exclusions, and restrictions. Likewise, there was an actual history among member states of legal discrimination based upon alleged differences of race determined by a person’s color, descent, or national or ethnic origin.

            In a similar fashion, the states that actually drafted and ratified the Covenant of the League of Nations didn’t re-define what they originally meant by “the ability to stand alone,” when they adopted the resolution on the criteria for the termination of a mandate regime. First and foremost among the qualities they required for self-government was the willingness to accept the principle of legal equality for members of national or racial minority groups and an attitude of non-aggression toward other states. It did not include the ability to defend a territory against armed external aggression. Even the great Imperial powers had required a multitude of foreign allies to defend the territories they governed during WWI. Mutual defense and a joint response to aggression was one of the benefits members derived from the establishment of the LoN and UN. That’s why the resolutions that emancipated the mandates contained minority treaties and invitations to join the organization.

          • Shingo says:

            In many countries rebel territory and non-rebel territory live under different laws. That’s not apartheid.

            False argument on all counts.

            1. PA administered re territories are not rebel held. Israel created the PA and recognizes it as political entity.

            2. Israel imposes two sets of laws with territories they control and applies those seperate laws toJews and on Jews.

            That is apartheid.

          • RoHa says:

            @Hostage:

            “It’s always a pleasure deconstructing your empty arguments and exposing the oceans of historical ignorance needed to keep them afloat.”

            Even if your erudition were not sufficient, this delightful sentence alone would make your (very occasional) misuse of commas forgivable.

  2. Kay24 says:

    There is desperation in how they are lashing out. The world is closing around them, they try as much as they can to control the US and what is happening here, but signs are not looking good for the zionists elsewhere. The EU and colleges are looking at boycotts, the majority of the world voted to give the Palestinians partial recognition at the UN, and the reconciled parties including Hamas and Fatah, are accepted by many, even the EU says it can be workable. So simply observe the obedient servants in Congress, come on zionist US media, and criticize Kerry for speaking what the rest of the world knows is the truth, watch how they do the bidding of their masters in Israel, though their lobbies, and be amazed that the world’s greatest superpower is in the hands of a devious alien nation, who can call the shots, and make their American puppets dance when it so demands. John Kerry unleashed the word “Apartheid”, and it will not go away.

  3. NormanF says:

    Every Arab country including Palestine is an apartheid regime. They have zero tolerance for Jews and Christians and they segregate men and women and none of them have democratic and liberal governments.

    Secretary Kerry applied the apartheid slur to the only democratic and liberal government in the Middle East. Its unworthy of him. Arabs in Israel have equal rights and a better standard of living than the Arabs governed by Fatah and Hamas do and they participate in Israeli society. There is no segregation in the Israeli Jewish society.

    The truth is exactly the reverse of that averred by Kerry with so many of the other things he consistently gets wrong about the Middle East.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      See you’re still sticking to your lies, eh, Norm?

    • Bahaha no no arab state have different laws for arabs/jews. You are quite disgusting defending apartheid in Israel “NormanF”.

      • Mayhem says:

        Bahaha no no arab state have different laws for arabs/jews

        @Justpassingby, you don’t need different laws for arabs/jews when you
        haven’t got any Jews because they have been ethnically cleansed.

        • Hostage says:

          @Justpassingby, you don’t need different laws for arabs/jews when you
          haven’t got any Jews because they have been ethnically cleansed.

          The Jews in Tunisia enjoy constitutional equality, but the Tunisians still don’t give a damn for Israeli tourists after the IDF bombed the PLO headquarters there. See
          * Tunisia Makes Progress on Minority Rights — And the World Ignores It link to forward.com
          * Tunisia approves entry of Israeli tourists despite opposition link to jpost.com

          • hophmi says:

            Yes, I’m glad to hear Tunisia’s tiny Jewish community of 1500 Jews is doing well. The official religion of the Constitution is still Islam, and a tiny community, which is completely urbanized, does not prove all that much.

          • Hostage says:

            Yes, I’m glad to hear Tunisia’s tiny Jewish community of 1500 Jews is doing well. The official religion of the Constitution is still Islam, and a tiny community, which is completely urbanized, does not prove all that much.

            It proves that Tunisians are regular smart asses compared to people like yourself. Ignorance just means you don’t know (yet). Stupidity means you never will.

            They figured out how to include equal rights for minorities in their constitution lickety-split and grabbed a headline in the Jewish Daily Forward when they got the job completed. Meanwhile the best minds in Israel are completely stumped and can’t figure out where to even begin the task of doing the very same thing after 65 years (and still counting). Monkey see, monkey do, maybe a Tunisian can diagram it for you.

          • hophmi says:

            “It proves that Tunisians are regular smart asses compared to people like yourself. Ignorance just means you don’t know (yet). Stupidity means you never will.”

            No, it proves that, as in Europe, it’s easy peasy to claim that you’re friendly toward your Jews when there are a few of them, instead of the considerably bigger population you killed off or forced out. Most Jews left Tunisia in 1956 after a series of anti-Jewish government decrees. There was plenty of unrest after that as well. The community is around 1500 today; it was 105,000 before the war. Don’t tell me about how great things are for Jews in Tunisia.

            “They figured out how to include equal rights for minorities in their constitution lickety-split and grabbed a headline in the Jewish Daily Forward when they got the job completed. ”

            Bravo. Slow down, cowboy, and let me how the situation is 25 years from now. You just don’t seem to get that two years of doing the right thing is not going to simply wipe out three generations of doing the wrong thing.

            “Meanwhile the best minds in Israel are completely stumped and can’t figure out where to even begin the task of doing the very same thing after 65 years (and still counting). Monkey see, monkey do, maybe a Tunisian can diagram it for you.”

            Hey Hostage, maybe Israel should just do what Tunisia did. Discriminate against the minority population (who, unlike the Jews of Tunisia, are allied with another national movement that is basically at war with Israel) until, instead of 20 percent, it gets down to one or two percent. Then, I can assure you, there will be a beautiful Constitution that recognizes equal rights for all. Or maybe it should do what Iran did. Pass whatever Basic Law or Constitution that sounds good, tell everybody that discrimination is over (the same way Iran tells people that there are no homosexuals in Iran), and then just disregard it like the dictatorships do.

            One day, maybe you’ll understand the difference between a law and nice-sounding language despots place in their legal documents to make themselves look good. It seems that the only people who get confused by desirderata masquerading as law are naive leftists or despots and their friends.

        • talknic says:

          @ Mayhem ” you don’t need different laws for arabs/jews when you
          haven’t got any Jews because they have been ethnically cleansed”

          So there are no illegal settlers in the Palestinian West Bank. WOW!!! I wonder if they know they don’t exist!!

          The Israeli embassy in Jordan is run by non Jews? That’s amazing! I guess they best re-write the Jordan/Israel peace treaty, just so it fits your bullsh*t! link to mfa.gov.il

          The numerous Synagogues being refurbished in Syria with the help of the Assad Government before the civil war erupted were gonna be attended by Muslims? Christians?

          In Lebanon there’s a Synagogue being rebuilt for Muslims? Christians? Or maybe Jews who haven’t heard your bullsh*t!

          Say…. just how much bullsh*t have you been shovel fed?

          • eljay says:

            >> NormanFeee: Every Arab country including Palestine is an apartheid regime.
            >> Mayhemeee: … you don’t need different laws for arabs/jews when you
            haven’t got any Jews because they have been ethnically cleansed.
            >> hophmeee: Yes, I’m glad to hear Tunisia’s tiny Jewish community of 1500 Jews is doing well. The official religion of the Constitution is still Islam, and a tiny community, which is completely urbanized, does not prove all that much.

            The solution to any injustice is justice and accountability, not an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine.

            It never ceases to amaze me that Zio-supremacists look to the worst – rather than the best – examples of human behaviour for guidance and inspiration.

    • Hostage says:

      Every Arab country including Palestine is an apartheid regime. They have zero tolerance for Jews and Christians and they segregate men and women and none of them have democratic and liberal governments.

      That’s odd, since Israeli Courts have been advising Jewish spouses of Palestinians to go live in the occupied territories ever since 2003.

      • Kay24 says:

        Good point Hostage, apparently Jews are not allowed to live with their Arab spouses in this wonderful “democratic” nation called Israel either, and even if they marry outside, their marriage is not recognized in Israel.
        “For, while touted as the only “democracy” in the Middle East, Israel does not offer its citizens the option of civil marriage. Since 1953, the only marriages recognized as legal by the Jewish state are Orthodox Jewish marriages, and civil marriages performed outside Israel. While it does not prohibit interfaith and other religious marriages, Israel does not recognize them as legal unions.” Ifamericansknew.org.
        Equal rights?

    • pjdude says:

      Israel isn’t liberal. Israel’s actions are anthma to liberalism. So take you israel is liberal bs elsewhere

      • Hostage says:

        Israel isn’t liberal. Israel’s actions are anthma to liberalism. So take you israel is liberal bs elsewhere

        Yeah, getting a lecture from AIPAC claiming “The Jewish state is a shining light for freedom and opportunity in a region plagued by terror, hate and oppression.” is like listening to Jimmy Swaggart extol the virtue of chastity in a region plagued by adultery.

  4. hophmi says:

    “Finally, J Street, the center-right Zionist lobby organization”

    How is J Street a center-right organization? You make this up as you go along.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “How is J Street a center-right organization?”

      It favors the continued existence of an ethno-religious apartheid state.

    • Hostage says:

      You make this up as you go along.

      Like your own nonsensical excuses for the abject failure of the State of Israel to adopt UN-mandated constitutional guarantees of equality for 65 years (and still counting):

      A couple of lawmakers stated that in a DEBATE. Do you understand what a debate is, Hostage? It’s a forum where people exchange views. Let me know when such a debate takes place in an Arab parliament.

      link to mondoweiss.net

      Answer: The fact is that the Constituent Assembly of Israel gave up trying to adopt a constitution with guarantees of equality and turned itself into a Knesset, with a permanent Committee on the Constitution, Law, and Justice. For 65 years, the members who oppose the adoption of constitutionally entrenched equal rights have always won the debate. A five year old could cut and paste the necessary language from resolution 181(II) in a matter of seconds, but Israel’s most brilliant scholars can’t come up with a working legal definition for the phrase “Jewish and democratic” after decades of failed attempts.

      Since you asked to be advised when an Arab Parliament debated equal rights, try this one: Title Two – Public Rights and Liberties, Article 9, Palestinians shall be equal before the law and the judiciary, without distinction based upon race, sex, color, religion, political views or disability. — 2003 Amended Basic Law of Palestine link to palestinianbasiclaw.org

      • hophmi says:

        I could care less about your predictable technique of changing the subject when you don’t want to concede a point. I was talking about proclaiming J Street a center-right organization, which is a deceitful way of making most Jews in the world appear to be extremists.

        It is clear that you are incapable of admitting any ill in the Arab world and incapable of admitting any good in the Jewish state, which you’ve make clear that you hate.

        You continue to benefit from a community of dittoheads here who do not scrutinize your verbosity, which always turns out to be less than meets the eye on a close reading.

        • Hostage says:

          I could care less about your predictable technique of changing the subject when you don’t want to concede a point. I was talking about proclaiming J Street a center-right organization

          Even a threadjacking troll, like yourself, can see that the subject of the article, “Apartheid label will stick” is not J Street. My comment was on topic, since it explained that the members of the Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee who oppose the adoption of constitutionally entrenched equal rights have always won the elections and the debates in Israel for the last 65 years.

          In addition, I was killing two birds with one stone by responding to one of your earlier written requests to “Let me know when such a debate takes place in an Arab parliament.” by pointing out that the Palestinians already had debated and adopted a Basic Law in 2003 that guaranteed equal rights under the law, without distinction based upon race, sex, color, religion, political views or disability. One of the main problems is that the Zionists prevented the Palestinians from having a Parliament in the first place. Dr. Mustafa al Khalidi served on the Appeals Court and High Court of Justice before he was appointed Mayor of Jerusalem. In mid-1935 he discussed the rights of naturalized Jewish immigrants with his future deputy and future Mayor Daniel Oster (aka Auster):

          “We must recognize facts. The Jews have entered the country, become citizens, have become Palestinians, and they cannot be thrown into the sea. Likewise, they have bought land and received deeds in exchange for money and we must recognize them. There is no point in closing our eyes about such clear things. See Hillel Cohen, “Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948″, University of California Press, 2008, pages 84-85.

          The problem that this article and others like it highlight, is in getting Jewish mayors, jurists, and lawmakers to adopt the same sort of views regarding the equal protection of Palestinian rights under the law. J Street is only an onlooker from the sidelines of that debate.

          • Zofia says:

            Sorry for the delay- didn’t have the time to do it earlier, and now I can’t reply in the original thread, so I am doing it here, hope you don’t mind…
            About the relation between Palestinian State, PLO and PNA
            What you wrote doesn’t explain this Palestinian issues (I repeat):
            Dr Hanna Eisa, a Palestinian professor and expert in international law:
            “The PNA was created following the Oslo Accords signed between the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Israel in 1994. “An end to the Israeli occupation in the Palestinian Territories is what really matters, not the change of the names – which can also create serious problems from a legal perspective,” he said.
            From a legal perspective, Dr Eisa said that Palestinian presidential decree has essentially abolish the PNA. “The question now is that are we ready to abolish the PNA TOTALLY? (my emphasis)” he asked.
            “The relevant presidential decree should therefore be followed by another one that abolishes the PNA and announces an immediate end to the Oslo Accords,” he stressed.
            link to m.gulfnews.com

            What I write here in not about which institution is an anachronism, but that till this day there are problems with the “PA” and PLO…the “PA” issue didn’t disappear, and still it demands serious work on the Palestinian side to deal with the issue, to get rid of it once and for all.

            That is why Abbas said he will dissolve the PA and disband Palestinian security forces operating in the West Bank if peace negotiations with Israel fail. I think Yedioth Ahronoth reported that citing Palestinian sources… or link to timesofisrael.com
            Palestinian leaders call for ‘liberation’ from Oslo Accords, link to maannews.net well that is old news from 2012

            And again US intervenes in this matter:US WARNS PALESTINIANS NOT TO DISMANTLE PA
            link to haaretz.com
            link to ynetnews.com

            Erekat: Palestinians have no intention of dismantling PA
            link to ynetnews.com

            Why the White House and Tel Aviv Fear the Dismantling of the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian Reconciliation
            link to nsnbc.me

            AND:
            The PLO is the independent body who is the legal representative of the Palestinian People, and its presence, functions and actions are independent of those of the PA. The PA on the other hand, receives its legitimacy and mandate from the PLO and the agreements with Israel. All of the significant agreements with Israel were signed by the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian People, THE IMPLEMENTATION was however carried out by the PA. Since the PA is subordinate to the PLO, and it receives its legitimacy from it, and since there is a widespread recognition of the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian People, it could be said that the PLO is the most senior body, and it is the body that is authorized to negotiate and sign a peace treaty, and that the PA is only a means or an arm of the PLO to bring about a smooth transfer of powers to a future Palestinian State. The dissolving of the PA does not affect the existence or the independence of the PLO. ON THE OTHER HAND, the PA is restricted to act in the areas and the fields that were explicitly transferred to it from Israel by virtue of the agreements.
            link to transparency.aljazeera.net

            As the Palestinian professor and expert in international law (Eisa) asked:The question now is that are we ready to abolish the PNA TOTALLY? THE PNA WAS REPLACED NOT ABOLISHED ENTIRELY, and that is why Abbas and Erekat said what they said about it, and why the US reacted the way it did. The Oslo Agreements despite their failure weren’t abolished by the Palestinians, that is why they say what they say about it now. That is why Palestinians had to shift from PLO to PA even after the deadline passed for creating the state…As John V. Whitbeck says ( international lawyer who has served as a legal adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel): president of the State of Palestine and chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, signed “Decree No. 1 for the year 2013 BUT as he says the PNA has been ["only"] absorbed and replaced by the State of Palestine NOT ABOLISHED- THAT IS WHY ABBAS SAID HE WILL DISSOLVE THE PA AND DISBAND PAL. SECURITY FORCES OPERATING IN THE WEST BANK IF PEACE NEGOTIATIONS WITH ISRAEL FAIL- Palestinian State inherited the PA’s burdens, because ot only changed the name and replaced the PA, it didn’t abolished TOTALLY the the PA and its institutions- as Eisa said.

            The establishment of a ‘State of Palestine’ was proclaimed with the Algiers Declaration of 15 November 1988 and it was recognized by many former communist states and developing countries which entered into diplomatic relations with the representatives of this state. HOWEVER, this ‘State of Palestine’ does not fulfill one of the essential criteria under international law for the existence of a state because there IS NO EFFECTIVE SOVEREIGN CONTROL over the territory and population claimed to form the basis of the ‘State of Palestine’.This does not mean that the Israel-PLO agreements cannot be treaties under international law. It is true that the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties only applies to treaties concluded between states. But that does not affect, as expressly acknowledged in Article 3 of the Convention, the legal validity of, and the application of international rules on the law of treaties to, agreements concluded between states and other ‘subjects of international law’. Independently of the attitude taken by Israel towards the PLO in the past, in international practice the latter has become recognized as a national liberation movement with the right to self-determination, which, although it does not exercise effective territorial jurisdiction, is a partial subject of international law with the legal capacity to maintain diplomatic relations with states and international organizations recognizing it and to conclude treaties. As a partial subject of international law, the PLO is not equal to a state, but that does not affect the validity of a treaty it concludes with a state.
            link to ejil.org

            So the PLO had NO EFFECTIVE SOVEREIGN CONTROL over the territory, but the PNA had- at least to some extent, we all know about the problems with the zones A, B and C. THAT is WHY all of the significant agreements with Israel were signed by the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian People, BUT THE IMPLEMENTATION was however carried out by the PA, and it worked even after the Oslo failed, despite the fact that the PA receives its legitimacy and mandate from the PLO- PLO NEVER ABOLISHED PNA- THAT IS WHAT ABBAS AND EREKAT ARE REFERING TO AND AS WAS WRITTEN BEFORE: PA was only a means or an arm of the PLO to bring about a smooth transfer of powers to a future Palestinian State- BUT PLO HASN’T DONE THAT PROPERLY YET AS EISA SAID AND OTHERS. THE PALESTINIAN STATE ONLY REPLACED WHAT WAS BEFORE, the old problems remained.

            If Palestinians say themselves there is still work to do about it all, and Abbas and others use this ambiguous situation so the issue isn’t resolved yet…

          • hophmi says:

            “by pointing out that the Palestinians already had debated and adopted a Basic Law in 2003 that guaranteed equal rights under the law”

            LOL, yeah. After beginning with a Basmala, it says the following:

            Article I: “Palestine is part of the larger Arab world, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab nation. Arab unity is an objective that the Palestinian people shall work to achieve.”

            Article IV:

            “Article 4
            Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect for the sanctity of all other divine religions shall be maintained.
            The principles of IslamicShari’a shall be a principal source of legislation.
            Arabic shall be the official language.”

            link to palestinianbasiclaw.org

            So I’d say that the Palestine this Constitution envisions is one that celebrates Arab ethnic exclusivity and Islamic supremacy. And I’d ask what people here think about the fact that the Palestinians see themselves as part of the “Arab nation.”

            The Iranian Constitution includes clauses that say: ” no one may be molested or taken to task simply for holding a certain belief”

            It also protects freedom of the press, as does the Palestinian Basic Law, in Article 27.

            link to en.wikipedia.org

            So let’s stop citing the Palestinian Basic Law as if it meant anything in practice.

  5. Kay24 says:

    Here is how brutal Israel can be….Gaza Ark, supposed to be leaving from Gaza, to bring world attention to, and protest, the blockade, has been hit by a blast. One guess which mean, evil, and occupying military power, is behind this crime.
    If an Israeli vessel had been hit, the precision bombs would have hit homes in Gaza by now. Oh the arrogance of occupiers!

    “Blast strikes protest boat docked in Gaza, activists say Israel to blame
    ‘Gaza’s Ark,’ set to sail to Europe to protest Israel’s blockade of Gaza, was hit by a blast early Tuesday; IDF: We don’t respond to such reports.

    link to haaretz.com

    • Citizen says:

      @ Kay24
      Yes. The Gaza Ark was set to export Palestinian goods for sale, to bring world attention to the Israeli blockade. Somebody blew it up. Won’t make the nightly US news.

      • Kay24 says:

        Did not make the news at all, now imagine this was an Israeli boat, the cries of victimization, more pleas for aid, and deafening outrage, would make the rounds in our zionist media. These poor Palestinians do not have a megaphone like the zionists, and do not whine like them either.

  6. lysias says:

    The Jewish state is a shining light for freedom and opportunity in a region plagued by terror, hate and oppression.

    That’s what the defenders of apartheid South Africa said about South Africa’s position in sub-Saharan Africa.

  7. Shmuel says:

    The headline of Haaretz’ unsigned editorial yesterday was “Apartheid in Planning” (אפרטהייד תכנוני), referring to the extreme discrimination in construction planning between Jews and Palestinians in Area C (where Israel should not even be settling its citizens in the first place). It’s no big deal any more.

  8. Chespirito says:

    Thank you for accurately describing J Street as “center right” (and great piece).

  9. Pixel says:

    [The] Apartheid label will stick

    +1 :o)

  10. JeffB says:

    @Shingo

    JeffB: The UN and the ICC are mostly anti-Zionist.

    Shingo: The same UN that not only admitted Israel as a member, but created Israel in the first place?

    The UN didn’t create Israel, the Jewish people did by moving there and fighting for it. They beat the Palestinians and then made the British occupation incredibly expensive. That is what created Israel. What the UN did was try and broker an agreement to prevent an all out civil war that failed. Since then the UN has been mildly hostile.

    • Hostage says:

      They beat the Palestinians and then made the British occupation incredibly expensive.

      Correction: The Jews were still a small dependent minority during the Arab rebellion. There was an 80,000 man armed force that British Generals, like Montgomery and Wingate, relied upon to put down the Arab uprising. They eventually employed the Arab Legion as a large peace keeping force, with garrisons in Gaza and Rafah. But like the Nazis, the British had used concentration camps, false confessions obtained by torture, and summary executions to accomplish their aims. See:
      * Matthew Hughes, The Banality of Brutality: British Armed Forces and the Repression of the Arab Revolt in Palestine, 1936 – 39, English Historical Review Vol. CXXIV No. 507, Oxford University Press, 2009, link to ehr.oxfordjournals.org
      *Prof. Susan Pedersen, The Meaning of the Mandates System: An Argument link to aiscibhistory.wikispaces.com
      *Segev, Shlaim, and other historians document the fact that when Major General Bernard Montgomery was given command in Palestine to put down the Arab revolt, the British forces were given standing orders on how to handle rebels: kill them.

      • hophmi says:

        ” The Jews were still a small dependent minority during the Arab rebellion. ”

        Not really. They were already about 30% of the population by 1936. That’s hardly a small minority.

  11. JeffB says:

    @Sumud

    JeffB: But Sumud you notice the word “race” over and over and over [in the definition of Apartheid]

    Sumud: So discrimination by race is bad but by religion is fine.

    No but it is not Apartheid. That’s a different thing all together. Lots of states have had state churches, probably most have some sort of religious establishment.

    It’s in no-one’s long term interests – not even zionist jews – to pursue that line of thinking. When Israel decides on what or who a jew is, let me know eh?

    Israel has decided. They have a government agency that law to that effect.

    In the meantime lots of people claim jews to be a race and the nationality of jews in Israel is “jewish” not “Israeli”.

    Nationality and race are not the same things. All countries discriminate on the basis of nationality.

    Those living under Israeli rule who don’t belong to this ‘race’ or ‘nationality’, live in apartheid.

    No they don’t. Apartheid is about race.

    • Feathers says:

      So is that why it is inappropriate to think of the Islamic Republic of Iran as parallel to the Jewish state of Israel, because in Iran, Islamic is a genuinely creedal designation, while “Jewish” means many things, from ethnicity to culturicity to religion.

      • JeffB says:

        @Feathers

        So is that why it is inappropriate to think of the Islamic Republic of Iran as parallel to the Jewish state of Israel, because in Iran, Islamic is a genuinely creedal designation, while “Jewish” means many things, from ethnicity to culturicity to religion.

        Shiite is kinda the same thing. Most people born to Shiite parents are Shiite and one can convert into or out of Shiite. Iran has a non-democratic super structure (Supreme Leader of Iran, Guardian Council..) which has power over the democratic government. If the state church were answerable to the government rather than the other way around then Iran would be a democracy with a state church.

        Beyond that I’m not sure if I understand the question.

    • Hostage says:

      Sumud: So discrimination by race is bad but by religion is fine. No but it is not Apartheid.

      No, that’s not correct. Religious beliefs about “nationality” and “descent” were an integral part of South African apartheid and Article III of the Apartheid Convention explains that criminal liability arises whenever anyone commits the acts outlined or enumerated in Article II “regardless of the motive involved.” I’ve already pointed out that racial discrimination, based upon superstitious religious beliefs about “descent” or “nationality”, was, and still is, a historical fact right here in the United States. It’s still the “Table of Nations” in Genesis Chapter 10 and the ancient propaganda contained in Genesis 12:1-3 that underpins the simple-minded political science of Christian Zionism to this very day. FYI, the Dutch Reformed Church has apologized for its role in helping to perpetrate and perpetuate South African apartheid:

      The final day of hearings of the Truth Commission in South Africa into the role played by the churches during the apartheid years has heard an apology from the Dutch Reformed Church which supported the system of racial segregation in the country. The Church said it hoped to re-unite the Dutch Reformed white, black and mixed race sister churches which were separated decades ago. Richard Downes reports from Johannesburg.

      “The Dutch Reform Church was the most powerful religious institution in South Africa. Most of the country’s Presidents and Prime Ministers during the apartheid years were members and it was only in 1992, two years after the release of Nelson Mandela from prison, that the Church acknowledged apartheid as a sin.

      link to news.bbc.co.uk

      So its still the crime of apartheid, even if you try and excuse or support it by appeals to religious superstitions about your Jewish ancestry, homeland, or descent. Racism is not a birthright.

      • JeffB says:

        @Hostage

        I’m not saying racial discrimination based on religious belief isn’t racism. We agree it is. I’m saying that religious discrimination is not racial discrimination. People can change their religion but not their race. Race is an intrinsic characteristic.

        Genesis Chapter 10 and the ancient propaganda contained in Genesis 12:1-3 that underpins the simple-minded political science of Christian Zionism to this very day.

        No it does not. Christian Zionism isn’t race based. Christian Zionism is based on concepts like the chorus of 144000 righteous Jews who welcome the 2nd coming from Revelation. It also based on later chapters where God grants Israel to the Jews, a dispensation to use Darby’s language.

    • JeffB: But Sumud you notice the word “race” over and over and over [in the definition of Apartheid]

      Sumud: So discrimination by race is bad but by religion is fine.

      No but it is not Apartheid.

      jeff, you’re wrong. “race” as it applies to the legal definition of the crime of apartheid link to en.wikipedia.org

      Legal

      The UN does not define “racism”; however, it does define “racial discrimination”: According to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,

      the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.[25]

      This definition does not make any difference between discrimination based on ethnicity and race, in part because the distinction between the two remains debatable among anthropologists.[26] Similarly, in British law the phrase racial group means “any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin”.[27]

      also here see here: crime of apartheid Definition of racial discrimination link to en.wikipedia.org

      • JeffB says:

        @Annie

        I understand the UN’s definition as I’ve said elsewhere. I think it is tortured and reject it. Racial discrimination is about race. What the UN is doing is expanding the concept beyond reason. Nationality is something all countries discriminate on the basis of. Visitors to America don’t have the same rights as Americans because they belong to a different nationality. Visitors to Canada don’t have the same rights as Canadians because they belong to a different nationality….

        • Shingo says:

          I think it is tortured and reject it. Racial discrimination is about race.

          No it’s not, it’s common sense. Racism is based on fear or hatred or those different to them. The Nazis spoke equally ill of Jews, people of color, homosexuals etc. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to include race, ethnicity, religion etc. within the definition of racism.

          Nationality is something all countries discriminate on the basis of.

          No. Nationality is accepted as an identity that it tied to a state.

          Visitors to America don’t have the same rights as Americans because they belong to a different nationality.

          False. Visitors to America don’t have the same rights as Americans because they are not American citizens. The minute they become American citizens, they are afforded the same rights.

          Same goes with Canada.

          • JeffB says:

            @Shingo

            No it’s not, it’s common sense. Racism is based on fear or hatred or those different to them.

            No it isn’t. It is based on fear or hatred of races different than them. Hence the distinction between “racism” and other forms of bigotry.

            The Nazis spoke equally ill of Jews, people of color, homosexuals etc. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to include race, ethnicity, religion etc. within the definition of racism.

            People of color — racism.
            Jews — The Nazis had a racial theory of Judaism. That’s borderline racism because of their racial theories but if someone wanted to exclude it I wouldn’t have a problem
            Homosexuals — Obviously not racism, nothing racial was involved.

            No. Nationality is accepted as an identity that it tied to a state.

            How are you disagreeing with what I wrote?

            False. Visitors to America don’t have the same rights as Americans because they are not American citizens.

            Citizenship in America is mostly the same thing as being in the American nation. The two mostly overlap.

            The minute they become American citizens, they are afforded the same rights.

            Part of becoming an American citizen is declaring a desire to join the USA, “I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen… I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law…”

            Part of it is also passing an exam proving some degree of knowledge about America. Moreover the United States has a very good long history of changing people’s nationality within a few generations immigrants lose almost all their cultural ties. The oath of citizenship is expressing a willingness to go through this process.

        • eljay says:

          >> Visitors to America don’t have the same rights as Americans because they belong to a different nationality. Visitors to Canada don’t have the same rights as Canadians because they belong to a different nationality….

          Visitors to Israel – including Jewish visitors – shouldn’t have the same rights as Israelis because they belong to a different nationality.

          All Israeli citizens – and immigrants, ex-pats and refugees – should have the same rights, however.

          Supremacist “Jewish State” remains an affront to equality in Israel.

          • JeffB says:

            @eljay

            Visitors to Israel – including Jewish visitors – shouldn’t have the same rights as Israelis because they belong to a different nationality.

            Agreed and they don’t. Jews have to make a declaration of nationality that they are moving to Israel (immigrating) and through that process become citizens.

            All Israeli citizens – and immigrants, ex-pats and refugees – should have the same rights, however.

            Of course all Israeli citizens should have the same rights. If by refugees you mean non-citizens who reject the state and live somewhere else then they should be offered admittance providing they agree to live within the laws of the state. If you mean the great grandchildren of people who once resided there, no that’s an insane Palestinian demand. They should be citizens where they were born and raised. Ethnic Palestinians in Los Angeles are as American as I am.

        • Hostage says:

          I understand the UN’s definition as I’ve said elsewhere. I think it is tortured and reject it. Racial discrimination is about race.

          Once again, your answer is a tautology that illustrates your ignorance of the subject. There were and still are many countries, including Palestine, that employed a plethora of laws which said that a person’s race was determined by skin color, descent, or national or ethnic origin. The Jewish Agency and the British mandatory administration of Palestine were prime examples. Ordinances, policies, and practices based upon the existence of separate Jewish and Arab races, as determined by descent (ancestry, national or ethnic origin) were proposed and adopted. I’ve already cited the verbatim minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission and UNSCOP Commission which establish that fact beyond any doubt. In addition those records illustrate that Jewish and British officials felt that those competing racial claims were reflected in the terms of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate.

          • seanmcbride says:

            Hostage,

            I still wish that you would set up a wiki which organizes your rich collection of documents and makes them browsable and searchable.

            Such a website would provide many advantages over a random stream of comments — although your comments are very valuable — I am a great believer in the power of dialectic.

  12. JeffB says:

    @Sumud

    Israel is being asked only to adhere to the laws and treaties it accepted when it chose to apply and then become a member of the UN. Serial defiance of those laws suggest it is zionists which are opposed to the UN. Why does’t Israel withdraw from the UN since they hate it so much and have ignored it from day one?

    Israel complies with lots of UN treaties just not the stuff MW cares about. For example I work on international MPLS (telco) which runs through the UN. Israeli carriers and Israeli divisions of international companies are fully compliant. Similarly with airline regulations… It is mainly Palestinian stuff that presents a problem.

    That being said, more broadly Israel is not a world leader they have to follow other countries: USA, Japan, China… lead on most international issues.

    Referring to the actual definition of the crime apartheid is relevant – the only way you or zionists in general can avoid admitting Israeli is practicing apartheid NOW is by inventing a new definition of it.

    Not really. I gave 3 criteria that I think are a huge problems with applying that term. The definition doesn’t apply it is just another of the “let’s use mean words to describe Israel” type attacks.

    • Feathers says:

      Yes, Israel diverges from international norms on Palestinian matters, but also, and in a very devious way, on nuclear matters.

      Another Nail in the Coffin of NPT.

      Israel actually enjoys extensive participation in development of nuclear technology, and as Prof. Dan Joyner warned, stands to gain even more rights and ability to do business with suppliers of nuclear devices and technology, all without having to abide by Comprehensive Safeguards that NPT signatory states must conform to.

      Of course, no one resents Israel for making end runs around international treaties, while simultaneous Hurting, Hanging, Suffocating and Starving Iran which IS a signatory to NPT and IS subject to constant monitoring of its compliance with Comprehensive Safeguards.

      • JeffB says:

        @Feathers

        Israel actually enjoys extensive participation in development of nuclear technology, and as Prof. Dan Joyner warned, stands to gain even more rights and ability to do business with suppliers of nuclear devices and technology, all without having to abide by Comprehensive Safeguards that NPT signatory states must conform to.

        The world right now wants Israel to be ambiguous about its degree of nuclear power. I don’t think they want an open discussion of how far Israel has gone (IMHO they likely have ICBMs and if not they are very close). One of the things I think the west is doing is allowing the people in countries like Pakistan, Iran, North Korea… to convince their population they are “on par” when they aren’t even close. Hopefully a situation won’t arise when they have to realize the difference between 1940s quality weapons and 1980s quality weapons.

        Of course, no one resents Israel for making end runs around international treaties, while simultaneous Hurting, Hanging, Suffocating and Starving Iran which IS a signatory to NPT and IS subject to constant monitoring of its compliance with Comprehensive Safeguards.

        Well yes. Iran is a PIA for western powers for 3 decades and a bit reckless when it comes to funding terrorism so they aren’t anxious for them to have nuclear weapons. Israel conversely is a USA vassal.

        • libra says:

          JeffB: Israel conversely is a USA vassal.

          Though perversely a vassal with ICBMs according Jeff – and who’d be qualified to doubt him?

          Let’s just hope those ICBMs can’t reach DC if Congress ever gets uppity.

        • Feathers says:

          JeffB —

          The world right now wants Israel to be ambiguous about its degree of nuclear power. I don’t think they want an open discussion of how far Israel has gone

          Disagree.
          In 1995 when negotiations for permanent extension of NPT took place, Egypt, Iran and other states in the region were persuaded by Ambassador Richard Butler to agree to the extension, with the promise that a conference to discuss a nuclear-free zone in Middle East, with Israel’s nukes very much on the table. (see Penn State Symposium . )

          To date, that promise has not been kept.

          My statement that “no one resents Israel ….” was sarcasm, not reality.

          US/West/Israel rely on BS responses to “why do they hate us” in order to obfuscate the facts about the offenses those same parties have, indeed, committed and continue to commit against states, like Iran and Egypt, that have done what they could to promote nonviolent resolutions to conflicts in the region such as sign extensions of NPT.

          Well yes. Iran is a PIA for western powers for 3 decades and a bit reckless when it comes to funding terrorism so they aren’t anxious for them to have nuclear weapons.

          1. Iran does not want to have nuclear weapons; that argument is as bogus as WMD in Iraq.

          2. Iran has been subjected to closer nuclear scrutiny than any other NNWS or NWS.

          3. Recklessness in funding terrorism? Iran funded the 9/11 operatives?? The shoe bomber?? The xerox cartridge scheme? Please list the terror actions Iran has funded. Line them up alongside Israel’s terrorizing of Palestinians.

          • JeffB says:

            @Feathers

            Disagree. In 1995 when negotiations for permanent extension of NPT took place, Egypt, Iran and other states in the region were persuaded by Ambassador Richard Butler to agree to the extension, with the promise that a conference to discuss a nuclear-free zone in Middle East, with Israel’s nukes very much on the table. (see Penn State Symposium . ) To date, that promise has not been kept.

            And given that this promise hasn’t been kept how does that contradict a policy of deliberate ambiguity?

            1. Iran does not want to have nuclear weapons; that argument is as bogus as WMD in Iraq.

            Iran has a nuclear power program inconsistent with just trying to generate power. It has refused to allow nuclear powers to conduct the enrichment for it, to weaken suspicions and it has refused additional inspections. Those are not bogus arguments.

            Besides your side can’t consider the UN to be the gospel on Israel and then ignore it on Iran.

            2. Iran has been subjected to closer nuclear scrutiny than any other NNWS or NWS.

            Probably true, I don’t know but likely.

            3. Recklessness in funding terrorism? Iran funded the 9/11 operatives?? The shoe bomber?? The xerox cartridge scheme? Please list the terror actions Iran has funded. Line them up alongside Israel’s terrorizing of Palestinians.

            The question for the USA is not if Israel is mean to the Palestinians but whether they are problematic for the USA. Lots of countries that are USA allies are mean to other countries and peoples that aren’t.

            As far as Iran the most recent offense was their actions against the USA military in destabilizing Iraq via attacks on USA military personnel, Iraqi government and Iraqi civilians when the USA was aiming to stabilize the country. That is classic state sponsored terrorism. They also provide money for Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, PFLP. Iran has refused to cooperate in sharing information about Al Qaeda operatives and leadership they have captured.

            In 2012 India concluded that Iran had conducted a terror operation in New Delhi. Kenya has captured 2 Iranian operatives which were organizing an attack against the United States. The Africans were livid.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “The world right now wants Israel to be ambiguous about its degree of nuclear power.”

          Utter nonsense. The world either finds Israel’s position to be a silly joke, as everyone knows that they have the weapons; a damnable violation of the principles of non-proliferation; or an stupidly risk-filled strategy.

          “One of the things I think the west is doing is allowing the people in countries like Pakistan, Iran, North Korea… to convince their population they are “on par” when they aren’t even close. ”

          That doesn’t even make a shread of sense. North Korea is irrelevant; Pakistan’s strategic thinking on nuclear matters is centered on India; and Iran likely knows with high certainty what Israel’s capabilities actually are; this charade isn’t fooling them.

          But more to the point, the world’s interest, especially the West’s, in this arena is with non-proliferation. Any state who is basing a nuclear strategy around Israel’s capabilities are not going to be deterred by its nuclear ambiguity, (and your nonsense about what they’re telling their people is gibberish at best.) Any state in the region which is seeking to deter Israel by possessing nuclear weapons already knew enough about Israel’s offensive capabilities long ago to be either encouraged or deterred and nothing Israel does moving forward would change that one whit. Why would Iran give a damn if Israel developed an ICBM?? The Jericho II, Israel’s MRBM, which the Israelis have had since the late 1980s, can hit Iran and Iran knows it. What Iran wants to know about is the missle defense systems (which Israel, stupidly, has been steadily providing with every fire cracker that someone from Gaza or Lebanon fires.)

          “Hopefully a situation won’t arise when they have to realize the difference between 1940s quality weapons and 1980s quality weapons.”

          LMAO. No one’s developing 1940′s (or even 1980′s) quality weapons, but even if they did, the threat of the damage that Fat Man or Little Boy would do to Tel Aviv would stay the hand of the hawkiest hawk in Israel.

          • JeffB says:

            @Woody

            “The world right now wants Israel to be ambiguous about its degree of nuclear power.”

            Utter nonsense. The world either finds Israel’s position to be a silly joke, as everyone knows that they have the weapons; a damnable violation of the principles of non-proliferation; or an stupidly risk-filled strategy.

            See Hostage’s response. He addressed this quite well.

            Why would Iran give a damn if Israel developed an ICBM?? The Jericho II, Israel’s MRBM, which the Israelis have had since the late 1980s, can hit Iran and Iran knows it. What Iran wants to know about is the missle defense systems

            Iran doesn’t have a missile program good enough to hit Israel accurately from Iran proper. They would have to give a non conventional warhead to an ally like Hezbollah at this point. Though of course that can change.

          • Shingo says:

            Iran doesn’t have a missile program good enough to hit Israel accurately from Iran proper.

            Not yet.

          • Woody Tanaka says:

            “See Hostage’s response. He addressed this quite well. ”

            Yes, in a way that utterly destroys your points. Hysterical that you don’t even see it.

            “Iran doesn’t have a missile program good enough to hit Israel accurately from Iran proper.”

            You’re out of your mind. Iran has a very sophisticated program; amazing, really, given the sanctions on the countries and the limitations it faces internationally. For love of Pete, they have a home-grown, solid-fuel, two-stage rocket with a 2,000 km range and an active space-launch program. They could probably have an ICBM in 10 years or less, if they want one, but they don’t seem to. That’s not, by definition, an unsophisticated program.

            They do have accuracy issues, but given the rockets’ deterrence role, they don’t need to be better right now; it’s like a third tier issue for them. Even if Iran sought to become a nuclear power, the accuracy issue is of way lesser imporance than payload capacity and range. If they developed a nuclear weapon capable of being mounted to the current Sejil-2 (in itself a challenge), their targeting is easily good enough to act as a deterrent.

            And regardless of whether their program remains conventional or not, their biggest issue right now, both in terms of engineering and tactical planning, is countermeasure evasion and defeating Israel’s ABM systems. That requires data on Israel’s ABM system, their capabilities and limitations, which the Israelis are stupidly feeding to the Iranians on a regular basis.

            “They would have to give a non conventional warhead to an ally like Hezbollah at this point. Though of course that can change.”

            The “Iran will smuggle a nuke to Hezbollah” nonsense is a fantasy concocted by those who want Israel to commit more war crimes against the Lebonese, and good for nothing but feeding the paranoid delusions in Tel Aviv and in AIPAC offices in the US.

          • Hostage says:

            See Hostage’s response. He addressed this quite well.

            It’s always good advice to see my response, but I agreed with Woody Tanaka. Nothing I said implied that the private US/Israeli modus vivendi was tantamount to a shared “world” opinion on the subject. I pointed out that the US is no longer a driving force on the subject, since Vanunu had long-since spilled the beans that Israel is a nuclear weapons state for the purposes of the NPT and that information about Israel’s capabilities can be obtained from Jane’s and NTI. I’ve also commented here in the past that world opinion was reflected in the Security Council resolution that condemned the premeditated attack on Iraqi nuclear facilities as an act of aggression in clear violation of the UN Charter and international norms by a vote of 15-0; and called for Israel to immediately place its own nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the IAEA. See S/RES/487 (1981) link to un.org

            If you need any further help, you’ll find I’m really ready to “addressed this quite well.”

        • Hostage says:

          The world right now wants Israel to be ambiguous about its degree of nuclear power.

          I reserve high praise for Herzl and Pinkser, as persons who’ve said some of the stupidest damn things that I’ve ever heard. But you are inching your way into the limelight. The rest of the world has no such motivation and could care less about Israel’s homegrown, and ineffective policy of nuclear ambiguity. This statement is idiotic reframing/pilpul that deceives no one.

          The USA’s 30 year declassification rule has already made the motive behind Israel’s so-called ambiguity crystal clear. It’s a condition imposed by the USA to quell the public outcry over its protection of Israel’s arms program in the UN and its failure to enforce the Symington Amendment sanctions on nuclear non-proliferation in the case of Israel’s nuclear weapons program. The US has long-since lost interest, since Vanunu and Olmert spilled the beans. The number of nukes is irrelevant under the NPT. It would categorize Israel as a nuclear weapons state, even if it only possesses one such weapon.

          In any case we can all read about the range of Israel’s submarines, aircraft, and the Jericho 2 and 3 cruise missile capabilities today with its estimated 300 warheads, in sources like Jane’s Information Group or the Nuclear Threat Initiative.

          • JeffB says:

            @Hostage

            The USA’s 30 year declassification rule has already made the motive behind Israel’s so-called ambiguity crystal clear. It’s a condition imposed by the USA to quell the public outcry over its protection of Israel’s arms program in the UN and its failure to enforce the Symington Amendment sanctions on nuclear non-proliferation in the case of Israel’s nuclear weapons program.

            That’s agreeing with what I said above, not disagreeing.

            The number of nukes is irrelevant under the NPT. It would categorize Israel as a nuclear weapons state, even if it only possesses one such weapon.

            Agreed.

          • Hostage says:

            That’s agreeing with what I said above, not disagreeing.

            No that’s not. The US view isolated it in the world community, until it voted in favor of a Security Council resolution demanding that Israel immediately place its nuclear program under the IAEA regime of safeguards.

        • Shingo says:

          The world right now wants Israel to be ambiguous about its degree of nuclear power.

          That’s demonstrably false. Both the UN and IAEA have called for Israel to sign the NPT. The Arab League has called for a nuclear free middle East.

          Both would require Israel to come clean and give up it’s nukes.

          • JeffB says:

            @Shingo

            Both the UN and IAEA have called for Israel to sign the NPT. The Arab League has called for a nuclear free middle East. Both would require Israel to come clean and give up it’s nukes.

            The NPT doesn’t require Israel to give up its nukes if it is admitted as a nuclear power. What it would require is Israel to disclose the extent of its program. Which would instantly make it clear how far ahead Israel is, which would play badly with the Arab public which would then demand a buildup ….

          • Shingo says:

            The NPT doesn’t require Israel to give up its nukes if it is admitted as a nuclear power.

            No state has been admitted as a nuclear power into the NPT. The nuclear powers were recognized from the onset and the NPT makes it clear that no one else will be allowed to become one under the NPT.

            What it would require is Israel to disclose the extent of its program. Which would instantly make it clear how far ahead Israel is, which would play badly with the Arab public which would then demand a buildup ….

            Not at all. Everyone knows where Israel is, and it’s no secret. The Arab public has already expressed the opinion that they believe a nuclear armed Iran would be a positive development in the Middle East.

          • LeaNder says:

            which would play badly with the Arab public which would then demand a buildup

            You have an amazing ability to read the mind of the Arab public. They still don’t have any other desires but drive “Israel into the sea” collectively? Well if so, how would building an atom bomb bring them any closer to this aim?

            Which would instantly make it clear how far ahead Israel is,

            Arthur Schopenhauer: “Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.”

            I forget who put this slightly shorter, somewhat like nationalism is the pride of fools.

            Something you should read, JeffB:
            Google Books: Sander L. Gilman, Smart Jews. The Construction of the Image of Jewish Superior Intelligence.

    • David Samel says:

      Israel complies with lots of UN treaties just not the stuff MW cares about.
      Are you serious, JeffB? Israel complies with international telecommunications and airlines conventions, so why is MW squawking about mundane matters like human rights? Wow, I hope you were smiling when you wrote that one.

      • MHughes976 says:

        I keep to some moral rules. That does not prove that I’m a good person.

      • Hostage says:

        Are you serious, JeffB? Israel complies with international telecommunications and airlines conventions

        I seem to recall that one of the highlights of the Madrid Conference, that the Israeli MFA hosted on its own website, was a speech by the Syrian representative. He had reminded the diplomatic conference that PM Shamir had a hand in the assassination the UN Mediator and that Israel had hijacked a Syrian civilian aircraft and shot down a Libyan aircraft. link to web.archive.org

        The UN Security Council also condemned Israel for its repeated and wanton destruction of the Beirut airport, including its interruption of international civil air traffic, and ordered it to pay compensation. Of course the first warning simply caused the IDF to destroy it again and again. link to unispal.un.org

        The IDF also destroyed the Palestinians only airport in Dahaniya during the second intifada. So JeffB’s nebulous comment certainly doesn’t apply to Israel’s compliance with key treaties on the subject of international civil aviation or the UN Charter.

        • JeffB says:

          @Hostage

          You are talking about international relations treaties having to do with war not telco and airline treaties. Real telco treaties are about details of billing for carrier charges and protocol handoffs between carriers / operators.

          So for example an International route is defined as: Technical facilities and installations located in different countries and used for telecommunication traffic between two international telecommunication terminal exchanges or offices. It recognizes the duty of telcos to act in accordance with national law, period. All countries have equal sovereignty over those telcos they are able to regulate. Old fashioned 19th century international law the ability to govern commerce makes you the government.

          The treaty then instructs governments, defined this way to “ensure that administrations* cooperate in the establishment, operation and maintenance of the international network to provide a satisfactory quality of service.

          You are trying to have this both ways. If the West Bank is Palestine and the Palestinians are the government then any non compliance with international agreements would be the responsibility of the Palestinian government. The treaty is crystal clear that it is the territory of operation not the territory of ownership that has responsibility for bringing companies into conformity with the treaty.

          Similarly airline treaties are about standards of maintenance, signaling, air traffic control… Totally unlike the nonsense treaties you are talking about.

          • Shingo says:

            You are trying to have this both ways. If the West Bank is Palestine and the Palestinians are the government then any non compliance with international agreements would be the responsibility of the Palestinian government.

            Not if the West Bank is occupied and the Israeli refuse to allow the Palestinian government the right to control their own electromagnetic radio spectrum,.

            The treaty is crystal clear that it is the territory of operation not the territory of ownership that has responsibility for bringing companies into conformity with the treaty.

            Not when the territory of operation is under the control of a foreign power.

          • Hostage says:

            You are talking about international relations treaties having to do with war not telco and airline treaties. Real telco treaties are about details of billing for carrier charges and protocol handoffs between carriers / operators. You are trying to have this both ways. If the West Bank is Palestine and the Palestinians are the government then any non compliance with international agreements would be the responsibility of the Palestinian government.

            I think you are having a basic literacy problem in understanding the meaning of joint peacetime powers of administration over telecommunications networks, airports, sea ports, & etc. in the UN plan for Economic Union and Transit contained in resolution 181(II). The majority of post-WWII UN decisions to draft conventions and declarations regarding customary law, as well as the actual conventions and declarations themselves, are ordinarily contained in a series of resolutions of the General Assembly. There are various UN databases and reports that list the multitude of Declarations, Treaties, and Conventions Contained in League of Nations and General Assembly Resolutions. For example, Resolution 181(II) was cataloged in 1950 as part of a survey of legal instruments containing minority protection treaties E/CN.4/367, Date: 7 April 1950 link to un.org (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) Here is another one that covers UN Conventions and Declarations contained in Resolutions that employs multiple pages and views under the subheadings: 2000 – present; 1990–1999; 1980–1989; 1970–1979; 1946–1969 & etc. link to un.org

      • JeffB says:

        @David

        Are you serious, JeffB? Israel complies with international telecommunications and airlines conventions, so why is MW squawking about mundane matters like human rights?

        That’s not what I said, nor remotely close to what I said. What I said was that Israel was in compliance with most UN treaties hence there was no reason for them to withdraw completely. They aren’t in compliance on I/P issues.

    • Hostage says:

      Israel complies with lots of UN treaties just not the stuff MW cares about. For example I work on international MPLS (telco) which runs through the UN. Israeli carriers and Israeli divisions of international companies are fully compliant. Similarly with airline regulations… It is mainly Palestinian stuff that presents a problem.

      Israel never complied with the terms of the agreement on Economic Union and Transit that it accepted as part of “The Plan for the Future Government of Palestine”, which it promised in-turn to help implement, during the Ad Hoc Political Committee hearings on its application for membership in the UN. The way that it uses cellphone system licenses and the expired Oslo Accords to blackmail or sanction the State of Palestine violates the applicable UN conventions you mentioned in your comment. The original UN plan was supposed to implement joint regional Jewish/Arab/International governance of common transportation and telecommunications networks, the international ports, airports, and joint development of resources, irrigation systems, & etc. to benefit the inhabitants of the international corpus separatum and the two states of Palestine, one Jewish and one Arab. If you read all of the many invitations contained in UN treaties, for other states, including Palestine, to become contracting parties, then you’ll realize Israel has never had any intention of complying with any of them with respect to its Arab neighbors.

      Palestine, as a whole, was the subject of a sacred international trust. The LoN had already explained to the British and French in no uncertain terms, that Ottoman Asia wasn’t “up for grabs” or annexation to their Empires. But you keep talking as if Israel has somehow revived the law of conquest for the Zionists with the UN’s blessing. We all know that isn’t the case. During the hearings on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations, it was explained to Mr. Eban, time and again, and without objection, that the UN organization had created the State of Israel, when it partitioned Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, and a corpus separatum. The government of Israel agreed and Eban even said that the UN had “summoned Israel into existence”. Well it summoned the Arab state, Palestine into existence too. While it only had a minority population of 10,000 Jews vs. 500,000 in Israel, both countries were required to make declarations acknowledging equal rights of minorities and to refrain from threats or the use of force against the other state. In the Boundary Dispute Case (Burkina-Faso v Mali), the ICJ ruled that the doctrine of uti possidetis applies in all cases where non-self governing territories are emerging as newly independent states in order to prevent fratricidal wars provoked by the challenging of frontiers following the withdrawal of the administering power. It’s hard to see how the customary rule applies in “all cases”, if it doesn’t apply to Palestine. It has been part of customary international law, since 1810, and was an integral part of the Monroe Doctrine cited in Article 21 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. So I doubt the ICJ could rule-out its application to Palestine, if it were ever asked to advise on that particular question.

      Starting the 2nd of May, the UN and the other contracting states have a treaty obligation to make Israel comply with its obligation respecting Palestine as a state capable of concluding treaties on communications, airports, sea ports, and establishing diplomatic and consular relations. Israel has already stated its intention to violate every one of the 15 UN treaties by denying the existence of the neighboring state of Palestine. So you can save your breath about it’s hypothetical compliance with any of the others.

      • Starting the 2nd of May, the UN and the other contracting states have a treaty obligation to make Israel comply with its obligation respecting Palestine as a state capable of concluding treaties on communications, airports, sea ports, and establishing diplomatic and consular relations.

        3 days! how do you think they will “make Israel comply”?

        • Hostage says:

          3 days! how do you think they will “make Israel comply”?

          Most of the remaining treaties are rules-based conventions that require simple reciprocity among the member states. They contain specific legal sanctions or remedies for non-compliance in most cases. They are not political organs of the UN. If Israel doesn’t abide by the rules, it will incur sanctions, may lose its membership, and any benefits it derives from the organizations.

          The US and Israel say that they want to avoid being further isolated in the international community, and being delegitimized. They will start to pay a price if they continue to violate their international obligations to treat Palestine as a state party that enjoys sovereign and juridical equality.

        • brenda says:

          “Starting the 2nd of May, the UN and the other contracting states have a treaty obligation to make Israel comply with its obligation respecting Palestine as a state capable of concluding treaties on communications, airports, sea ports, and establishing diplomatic and consular relations.”

          Hostage, can we hear more along this line please? Is there a link for this kind of breaking news?

  13. eljay says:

    >> Israel complies with lots of UN treaties just not the stuff MW cares about. … Israeli carriers and Israeli divisions of international companies are fully compliant. Similarly with airline regulations… It is mainly Palestinian stuff that presents a problem.

    The rapist complies with a lot of rules and regulations, just not the stuff “do-gooders” care about. He always pays his property taxes in full and on time. Similarly with his utility bills. It is mainly the woman he has chained up in his basement that presents a problem.

  14. JeffB says:

    @Shingo

    Shingo: No state has been admitted as a nuclear power into the NPT. The nuclear powers were recognized from the onset and the NPT makes it clear that no one else will be allowed to become one under the NPT.

    When one talks about Israel joining NPT they mean under realistic scenarios. Israel has a more developed nuclear program than either the UK, China or France. Bring Israel into the NPT would be part of bringing: India, Pakistan, and likely North Korea into the fold.

    If you mean nuclear disarmament Israel will never agree to become party to the agreement. And of course Arab countries would love Israel to get rid of their nuclear weapons. They probably would love them to get rid of their conventional weapons too. So what? Israel will never disarm itself. Dimona was incredibly expensive when Israel did it. Israel didn’t make those sacrifices for nothing.

    Not at all. Everyone knows where Israel is, and it’s no secret.

    Really? Does Israel have Thermonuclear weapons or just nuclear weapons? If so how many? Do Israeli missiles have multiple warheads?

    Are all 5 Dolphin-class subs nuclear armed? Does Israel have any additional subs that are active nuclear?

    Do Israeli rockets contain a single weapons package or do they have MIRVs?

    etc… No everyone does not know where Israel is.

    The Arab public has already expressed the opinion that they believe a nuclear armed Iran would be a positive development in the Middle East.

    For them it probably would be.