Israel: Schabas resignation cannot ‘whitewash’ bias in UN war crimes inquiry

Israel/Palestine
on 62 Comments

Since last August when professor of international law William Schabas was appointed as the head of a United Nations war crimes inquiry into violations committed in Gaza over the summer, Israel repeatedly sought to remove him. Two weeks ago, Israel won. Schabas stepped down from the inquiry amid allegations of bias in a favor of the Palestinian government. He has been replaced by New York state Supreme Court Justice Mary McGowan Davis. Davis previously chaired the United Nations Committee of Independent Experts, which was a follow-up to the Goldstone Report and reviewed violations committed during Operation Cast Lead.

In 2012 Schabas was paid $1,300 for consultancy work with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). He provided a legal analysis regarding the Palestinian bid for non-member observer status. In his resignation letter (published in full below), Schabas said Israel claimed he was incapable of neutrality, but he stressed that advising governments is quite common in his line of work. Their argument, Schabas indicated, was that he was still beholden to the Palestinians, perhaps even seeking future financial compensation.

McGowan has been seen as more favorable to Israel. Norman Finkelstein noted on his blog that in McGowan’s last post reviewing Israeli war crimes, she agreed with Israel that it handled its own investigations into war crimes responsibly, mooting the need for an United Nations inquiry. Finkelstein also said McGowan was responsible for Richard Goldstone reversing some of his original findings in 2009.

Yet even with Schabas gone and McGowan in, Israel has rejected in advance any findings from the Gaza inquiry. It said Schabas’s “resignation cannot whitewash the fundamental and inherent bias of the commission itself,” in a statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs released last week.

“The removal of one symptom does not cure the disease,” Israel said, continuing, “Schabas’ imprint on the final report – to be delivered next month – cannot be purged after he directed and conducted the five-months-long research and evidence-gathering phases, with the drafting work already begun.”

But Israel’s discontent for Schabas runs deeper than his contract work for the PLO. Even before his term began it had called for Schabas to quit the commission.

Last July Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a factsheet on the inquiry. At that time Schabas had not formally accepted a position with the human rights commission. Still Israel said Schabas should be scrapped because he had said in past interviews Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former President Shimon Peres should be investigated for war crimes. The dossier also asserted Schabas had exercised bias by participating in the 2012 Russell Tribunal, an activist war crimes inquiry modeled after a South African investigation. Moreover, Israel said Schabas had already made up his mind on the war, then still in progress, because he said to the BBC (per the Israeli ministry of Foreign Affairs), “There are huge numbers of civilian casualties on one side and virtually no civilian causalities on the other, and so prima facie, there is evidence of disproportionality in the response that Israel is undertaking in order to protect itself.”

Then in November Israel announced it would not comply with the United Nations investigation, citing Schabas by name as the source of both “an obsessive hostility towards Israel,” and “the committee’s one-sided mandate and the publicly expressed anti-Israel positions.” Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs labeled the inquiry “the Schabas committee” and added it was rife with “foregone conclusions pretending to conduct an investigation.” The declaration of Israel’s non-cooperation went on to list five examples of Schabas’s criticisms of Israel and its leaders. Effectively, Israel’s announcement that it would not participate in the commission was placed on Schabas’s shoulders.

Later the same month, speaking at a Holocaust memorial at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem Netanyahu decried the Gaza inquiry in a speech where he equated Hamas to the Nazis. “Across the region, dictatorial regimes and brutal movements brutalize their peoples – suppressing women, lynching gays, forcing Christians to live in fear,” he said. “And who does the Human Rights Council of the United Nations condemn? Israel.”

Then one day before Schabas resigned, Netanyahu met with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and again relayed his opposition to the Gaza inquiry, stating it is a “dangerous step that could undermine regional stability.”

The commission has said it will continue with the investigation and it is still expected to publish its findings next month. However, Israel will not accept whatever conclusions it produces. Despite those strong words, Reuters reported last week that Israel was indirectly participating. Israel has even turned over documents to the United Nations committee. Some Israelis have flown to Geneva to testify about how Hamas rocket fire affected them.

The Schabas resignation is not enough for Israel. It wants the entire investigation scrapped and the international community to look into Hamas “and not the actions of those defending themselves from terrorists,” said the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. While the inquiry has not disclosed the scope of its investigation, the fact that Israelis testified last month does indicates that it intends to examine Hamas’s actions.

The resignation letter:

 

2 February 2015

HE Joachim Rücker
President, Human Rights Council

Your excellency,

On 13 January 2015, the Jerusalem Post reported that attempts to discredit the Chair will be part of Israel’s campaign against the Commission of Inquiry on the Gaza Conflict. Two weeks later Israel made a formal complaint to the President of the Human Rights Council calling for my removal. On 2 February 2015, the Bureau of the Human Rights Council, which operates as its executive or standing committee between regular sessions, decided to examine the complaint and to request a legal opinion from United Nations Headquarters in New York.

The complaint concerns the fact that in October 2012, I prepared a legal opinion for the ‘Negotiations Affairs Department/Palestinian Negotiations Support Project’ of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. The legal opinion was to consider the consequences of a UN General Assembly resolution upgrading Palestine’s status to that of a non-member state on the declaration that was lodged by Palestine with the International Criminal Court in January 2009. It also addressed whether accession should include acceptance of the amendments to the Statute adopted at Kampala and how the territorial jurisdiction of the Court might be applied. These are matters on which, as one of the academic specialists on the subject of the Rome Statute, I have frequently expressed myself in lectures and in publications. A 7-page opinion was provided on 28 October 2012 and I received remuneration of $1,300, as previously agreed. I have done no other consultation and provided no other opinions for the State of Palestine, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation or any other related body.

The complaint about my brief consultancy, as I understand it, is not about the content, which is of a technical legal nature, but the implication that in some way I am henceforth beholden to the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Perhaps there is also the suggestion that I might tailor my opinions in one direction in order to generate more such consulting for remuneration. If I were indeed motivated by financial gain, it would be hard to explain why I would have accepted the position as Chair of the Commission of Inquiry, to which I have gladly devoted several months of work and for which there is no remuneration whatsoever.

Over the past decades I have done a huge amount of professional consulting for governments as well as for individuals and organisations. I have also published an enormous body of scholarly work, including many books, journal articles and book chapters. The legal opinion for the Palestine Liberation Organisation was a tiny part of this body of material.

When I was appointed to be Chair of the Commission of Inquiry in August 2014, I made an undertaking to act with independence and impartiality. I have fully respected that undertaking.

As a scholar engaged in international human rights, I have regularly condemned perpetrators of violations. Over the years, I have frequently criticized many of the world’s leaders, including those of permanent members of the Security Council. In addition to academic writing and lecturing, I have signed petitions and statements and contributed in other ways to advancing the advocacy of human rights.

In early August 2014, when I was asked if I would accept a nomination to the Commission of Inquiry, I was not requested to provide any details on any of my past statements and other activities concerning Palestine and Israel. Of course, my views on Israel and Palestine as well as on many other issues were well known and very public. My curriculum vitae was readily available indicating public lectures and writings on the subject. My opinions were frequently aired on my blog. This work in defence of human rights appears to have made me a huge target for malicious attacks which, if Israel’s complaint is to be taken at face value, will only intensify in the weeks to come.

The Commission of Inquiry is at a decisive stage in its work. It has largely completed the task of gathering material and listening to victims and other witnesses, including experts. The work on the drafting of the report is beginning. I believe that it is difficult for the work to continue while a procedure is underway to consider whether the Chair of the Commission should be removed. Normally, a judicial or quasi-judicial body would resolve such a challenge before proceeding further. Yet the Commission cannot delay its work as it must produce its report in a matter of weeks. Under the circumstances, and with great regret, I believe the important work of the Commission is best served if I resign with immediate effect.

Yours sincerely,

William Schabas OC MRIA

c.c. HE High Commissioner for Human Rights

About Allison Deger

Allison Deger is the Assistant Editor of Mondoweiss.net. Follow her on twitter at @allissoncd.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

62 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    February 10, 2015, 2:31 pm

    Good report. Sad to think the American jurist might give Israel an easy pass.

    • Giles
      February 10, 2015, 4:04 pm

      When everybody in the world is biased toward you, maybe you ought to consider the possibility that it is your actions and attitudes that you need to examine.

      • Mayhem
        February 12, 2015, 6:48 am

        @Giles, sounds like a rephrasing of the old anti-semitic meme where the anti-semite says there must be something wrong with the way Jews behave because there is so much anti-semitism. 

      • Giles
        February 13, 2015, 8:24 am

        Mayhem. I am a little confused over how this anti-Semitism thing works. Maybe you can explain it to me. It is some kind of what, disease, that for some unknown reason rears it head wherever Jewish people go? It arises out of where, the ether?

        The beauty of it, of course, is that the pro Israel crowd can do anything it wants, secure in the knowledge that their actions and attitudes cannot be wrong and cannot be criticized because all criticism clearly arises out of this odd phenomena called anti-Semitism.

    • Donald
      February 10, 2015, 4:14 pm

      It’d be a minor disaster if the American jurist gives Israel a pass. All this talk of how biased against Israel the UN is would just give this a man bites dog quality that the press couldn’t resist, even apart from the fact that they tend to give Israel a pass anyway (in the US, that is).

      My problem with these official investigations is this whole notion that there is some serious doubt about what happened, so that we need someone “impartial” to figure it out. In most cases involving human rights, we already know what happened from the investigations of the human rights groups plus whatever honest reporting occurred. In this case, Hamas fired rockets into civilian areas and from civilian areas and Israel bombed and shelled civilian areas (and shot civilians too), killing over 2000 people, the vast majority civilian. They precisely targeted homes with families inside. There’s no great mystery here. There almost never is with war crimes. I don’t know how you’d pick someone who didn’t have a strong opinion on this, unless they were living under a rock last summer.

      • oldgeezer
        February 11, 2015, 1:19 am

        ” Hamas fired rockets into civilian areas and from civilian areas”

        I have no confirmation of that other than GoI statements which have proven to be less than honest in the past.

        During the latest Israeli slaughter, Hamas tweeted the launch of all their rockets and identified military forces they were targetting with those rockets.

        I would welcome an investigation which matched the location of said Israeli military units with the general location that rockets landed. I say general as Hamas rockets are not very accurate. During Cast Lead, Israeli located many of their artllery batteries in close proximity to Arab towns.

        I cannot claim, and do not claim, their innocence but have seen no evidence of their guilt either.

        Even if guilty they are prepared to let the ICC investigate. And so it should.

        There is only party here who tries to hide their activities. That is not evidence but a strong indication of guilt. Israel.

      • oldgeezer
        February 11, 2015, 1:30 am

        I missed the edit period but I should have qualified my statement wrt to the absence of evidence or proof to the locations targeted by Hamas. I think there is ample evidence of the locations they fired from.
        ]

      • Walid
        February 11, 2015, 2:02 am

        ” Hamas fired rockets into civilian areas and from civilian areas”

        These are Zionist buzzwords, oldgeezer. Gaza is 32 miles by 7 miles and has about a million and a alf people living on top of each other there. So there are no military bases or areas and if Hamas is to fire anything from there, it has to be from a civilian area.

  2. eljay
    February 10, 2015, 2:38 pm

    “The removal of one symptom does not cure the disease,” Israel said …

    Zio-supremacists might want to keep this in mind the next time they try to claim that because it removed itself from Gaza, Israel is not an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and religion-supremacist “Jewish State”.

  3. eGuard
    February 10, 2015, 3:05 pm

    As the Finkelstein link says: [McGowan] expected to be more balanced toward Israel.

  4. tripledobe
    February 10, 2015, 3:51 pm

    I wonder if anybody can help me to answer the following statement with quotes, documents and links that counter the written argument by my opponent. I know there are a lot of people here that would be able to find them off the top of their heads quickly. I could do that as well but it will take me awhile. I am looking for early Zionist views: Herzl, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, Chaim Weizmann, Menachem Begin, etc.

    […]

    • Annie Robbins
      February 10, 2015, 4:33 pm

      hi triple. i’m not going to clear your 20 paragraph plus “statement and rebuttal”. try using your on words (iow rephrase using original text) and just ask the question you want to ask.

      • tripledobe
        February 10, 2015, 4:43 pm

        Ok, basically, I am looking for documents (hopefully Jewish origin to avoid the ‘it is all lies of antisemites’ factor to disprove the following:
        “Zionism never did and does not call for “colonization” of any land (in a sense of expelling other people from it). Do you know that first Zionists including Hertzl seriously considered Uganda (its empty territories at the time) as an alternative to Palestine? And no, they never envisioned Arab resistance to Jewish immigration into British Palestine. Vice versa, Arabs and Jews were very well getting alone there until 1930s when Arab sheikhs realized that Jews who started building a civil society, schools, hospitals, modern cities – were setting “bad” example for their fellow Arabs, and this is when they started incitement and provocations against Jews.” So far I found the Iron Wall by jabotinsky. I know there are quotes from Herzl dairies that illustrate his intentions to suppress the arab resistance in Palestine but could not find it so far. There is I am sure more evidence but the trick is it has to be coming from the Jews to be able to prove anything. I think I read some Jewish historians that have written about that period as well. I know it’s a lot to ask and do appreciate any help.
        P.S.
        If this is not a proper place or format to ask this question please let me know what it would be.

      • JLewisDickerson
        February 10, 2015, 10:37 pm

        RE: “And no, they never envisioned Arab resistance to Jewish immigration into British Palestine.” ~ tripledope

        FROM WIKIPEDIA [Iron Wall (essay), as of 12/09/13]:

        [EXCERPT] . . . [Ze’ev] Jabotinsky argued that the Palestinians would not agree to a Jewish majority in Palestine, and that “Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.”[1] The only solution to achieve peace and a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, he [Ze’ev Jabotinsky] argued, would be for Jews to unilaterally decide its borders and defend them with the strongest security possible. . .

        SOURCE – http://web.archive.org/web/20131209232359/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Wall_%28essay%29

        ENTIRE ‘IRON WALL’ ESSAY: “The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)”, By Vladimir Jabotinsky, 1923 – http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/ironwall.htm

        P.S. ALSO SEE: “The Ethics of the Iron Wall”, By Vladimir Jabotinsky, 1923 – http://www.jabotinsky.org/multimedia/upl_doc/doc_191207_181762.pdf

      • JLewisDickerson
        February 10, 2015, 11:20 pm

        RE: “And no, they never envisioned Arab resistance to Jewish immigration into British Palestine.” ~ tripledope

        REPLY: Unlike the case of “French Algeria” where France ostensibly made coastal Algeria a part of France, Palestine was never made part of “Britain”. Palestine was never “British”. There was never such a legal entity as “British Palestine”.

        British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)

        Mandatory Palestine – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

        “The Story of Palestinian Nationhood Thwarted After the League of Nations Recognized It”, by Juan Cole, Informed Comment, 03/16/10

        [EXCERPT] . . . But because of the rise of the League of Nations and the influence of President Woodrow Wilson’s ideas about self-determination, Britain and France could not decently simply make their new, previously Ottoman territories into mere colonies. The League of Nations awarded them “Mandates.” Britain got Palestine, France got Syria (which it made into Syria and Lebanon), Britain got Iraq.
        The League of Nations Covenant spelled out what a Class A Mandate (i.e. territory that had been Ottoman) was:

        “Article 22. Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory [i.e., a Western power] until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.”

        That is, the purpose of the later British Mandate of Palestine, of the French Mandate of Syria, of the British Mandate of Iraq, was to ‘render administrative advice and assistance” to these peoples in preparation for their becoming independent states, an achievement that they were recognized as not far from attaining. The Covenant was written before the actual Mandates were established, but Palestine was a Class A Mandate and so the language of the Covenant was applicable to it. The territory that formed the British Mandate of Iraq was the same territory that became independent Iraq, and the same could have been expected of the British Mandate of Palestine. (Even class B Mandates like Togo have become nation-states, but the poor Palestinians are just stateless prisoners in colonial cantons) . . .

        ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.juancole.com/2010/03/map-story-of-palestinian-nationhood.html

      • Walid
        February 11, 2015, 2:12 am

        Annie, tripledobe is making statements much more than asking questions”

        “… Arabs and Jews were very well getting alone there until 1930s when Arab sheikhs realized that Jews who started building a civil society, schools, hospitals, modern cities – were setting “bad” example for their fellow Arabs, and this is when they started incitement and provocations against Jews…”

        In short, tripledobe believes that the atavistic Palestinian Arabs hated the Jews for having brought modern cities, schools, hospitals and a civil society to the land and is perplexed as to why the rest of us haven’t yet figured this out.

      • gamal
        February 11, 2015, 6:38 am

        This argument reminds me of the late Ygael Gluckstein, later well known as Tony Cliff founder member of the SWP in the UK, born in Palestine in 1917 or so, his views may well have changed however you can read some his 30’s etc stuff here, these articles were much lauded by the SWP as the final word on Palestine, I disagreed and we fell out over it, the old effendi gambit, i resisted the urge to lecture and denounce the “left”. Gluckstein usually links the “feudal” Arabs to the British, i find his approach unconvincing, but he was there and his articles are sometimes rich in detail. He was very effective in the UK and the SWP owed a good deal of its early success to his leadership, he was much loved and respected in the UK for his local activism, since his death the SWP has fallen on hardtimes and is going the way of the ridiculous WRP, not to mention the absurd AWL. This “class based” analysis was a popular line during the civilizing mission.

        https://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/

    • JLewisDickerson
      February 10, 2015, 10:45 pm

      RE: “I wonder if anybody can help me to answer the following statement with quotes” ~ tripledope

      http://www.rense.com/general77/disturb.htm

      Disturbing Quotes From
      Leading Zionists
      From Wikipedia
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_racism
      (Note – Wikipedia is ‘considering removal’ of this page as of 8-21-7)
      8-21-7

      There are some pretty choice quotes from shockingly honest Zionists.

      1. “We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs and we are building here a Hebrew, a Jewish state; instead of the Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the names of those villages, and I do not blame you because these villages no longer exist. There is not a single Jewish settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab Village.” ­ Moshe Dyan, March 19, 1969, speech at the Technion in Haifa, quoted in Ha’aretz, April 4, 1969.

      The State of Israel was built after a movement called Zionism.The term Zionism first came to public attention as a result of the works of Viennese Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl, who argued in his 1896 book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) that the best way of avoiding anti-Semitism in Europe was to create an independent Jewish state or national homeland. (He was originally thinking of Uganda or South America). The movement eventually culminated in establishing the State of Israel in 1948 in Palestine. Some 700,000 Palestinians became refugees and a similar number of Jews arrived in the new state. Since then, the term “Zionism” properly refers to supporters of the Israeli state.

      The term racism refers to discriminatory beliefs and practices that presume inherent and significant differences exist between different human races; that assume these traits can be measured on a scale of “superior” to “inferior”; and that can result in the social, political and economic advantage of one group in relation to others.

      In November 1975, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 declared that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” In December 1991, the General Assembly rescinded this resolution through Resolution 4686. At the time, the Soviet Union, a major sponsor of the “Zionism is racism” doctrine (see Zionology), had completed its rapid collapse. Israel made revocation of resolution 3379 a condition of its participation in the Madrid Peace Conference.

      Some Racist statements by main Israeli and Zionist figures

      * “The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more”…. Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time – August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000.

      * ” (The Palestinians are) beasts walking on two legs.” Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the Beasts”. New Statesman, 25 June 1982.

      * “The Palestinians” would be crushed like grasshoppers … heads smashed against the boulders and walls.” ” Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988.

      * “When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.” Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.

      * “How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.” Golda Maier, March 8, 1969.

      * “There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed.” Golda Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969.

      * “The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war.” Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha’aretz, 19 March 1972.

      * Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : “We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians) never do return.” Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes. “The old will die and the young will forget.”

      * “We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel… Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.” Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces – Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.

      * “We must do everything to ensure they (the Palestinian refugees) never do return” David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar’s Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.

      * “We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai.” David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

      * “We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.” Israel Koenig, “The Koenig Memorandum.”

      * “Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist… There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.” Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.

      * “We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said ‘Drive them out!'” Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

      * Rabin’s description of the conquest of Lydda, after the completion of Plan Dalet. “We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters” Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion’s special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960. From “The Arabs in Israel” by Sabri Jiryas.

      * “There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a high percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our surveillance; and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that it is easier to carry out surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than over those of a tenant. [I] tend to support the latter view and have an additional argument:…the need to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish…with a non-Jewish minority limited to 15 percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary.” Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency’s Colonization Department. From Israel: an Apartheid State by Uri Davis, p.5.

      * “Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours… Everything we don’t grab will go to them.” Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

      * “It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism,colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.” Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.

      * “Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment… Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.” Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine,Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry.
      * “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” — Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 (Source: N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1).

      * “We will establish ourselves in Palestine whether you like it or not…You can hasten our arrival or you can equally retard it. It is however better for you to help us so as to avoid our constructive powers being turned into a destructive power which will overthrow the world.” (Chaim Weizmann, Published in “Judische Rundschau,” No. 4, 1920).

      Arie Dayan: “The Debate over Zionism and Racism: An Israeli View”; Haaretz, 27 December 1991; translated in Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 22, No. 3. (Spring, 1993), pp. 96-105.
      Michael Adams: “Israel’s Treatment of the Arabs in the Occupied Territories”; Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2. (Winter, 1977), pp. 19-40.
      Janice J. Terry: “Zionist Attitudes toward Arabs; Journal of Palestine Studies”, Vol. 6, No. 1. (Autumn, 1976), pp. 67-78.
      Roselle Tekiner: “Race and the Issue of National Identity in Israel”; International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 23, No. 1. (Feb., 1991), pp. 39-55.

      Right of return

      The Israeli law of the right of return which, despite Israel’s otherwise restrictive immigration policies, grant every Jew in the world the right to settle in Israel. This is especially agitating for the Palestinian refugees, who were expeled from their lands that is modern Israel, but are denied their right to return.

      The Article 11 of the UN General Assembly Resolution 194, “resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property…”. Like many other resolutions by UN, Israel still refuse to comply with this resolution.

      Many opponents of Zionism declare that Zionism is racist, and compare its continuation to the reform of Germany’s former ‘Blood Laws’, which had allowed ethnic Germans to claim citizenship, even if they were nationals of another country.

      Zionism Racism Against Some Jews

      Zionists hold that any person may choose to become a Jew, after meeting the necessary requirements, and enjoy all the benefits and responsibilities of membership. Since anyone can (i.e., regardless of race, ethnicity or nationality) both join the Jewish people and equally enjoy the benefits of membership, Zionists conclude that Zionism is anti-Racist among jews at least. Even this claim was challenged all over the history of Israel. The jews of Eastern origins (called Sephardim or Mizrahim) suffered from various kinds of racism by Ashkenazic Jews.

      The Jewishness of many jewish minorities in Israel (like the Ethiopian Jews, the Russian Jews and Indian Jews) has been always questioned by the religious authorities[1].

      In many Israeli settlements they refuse to accept Falasha jews and The Falasha rabbis privileges are not recognized in Israel[2] and the unemployment rate among them is at least three times the Israeli average[3].

      According to prof. Esther Herzog: The Falasha jews where brought to Israel to work in the inferior jobs… and they are considered as third class citizens (after the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim)[4].

      Falasha used to complain from the systematic racism against them everywhre in Israel because of their origin and black colour. In the last few years Falasha demonstrations erupted after the exposure of the scandal of throwing the blood donated by Falasha in the Israeli hospitals and medical clinics[5].

      The modern founder of Zionism Theodor Herzl once said:

      “It is essential that the sufferings of Jews. . . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-semites shall be our best friends”.[6][7]

      UN resolutions

      Main articles: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 and UN General Assembly Resolution 4686

      On November 10, 1975 the United Nations General Assembly adopted, by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), Resolution 3379, which stated that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.”

      However, on 16 December 1991, it was rescinded by Resolution 4686, with a vote of 111 to 25 (with 13 abstentions). The resolution 4686 was acheived under a severe pressure from US and Israel. Israel made it a condition to participate in the Peace process in the Middle East.

      SOURCE – http://www.rense.com/general77/disturb.htm

  5. JLewisDickerson
    February 10, 2015, 10:27 pm

    RE: “Israel: Schabas resignation cannot ‘whitewash’ bias in UN war crimes inquiry”

    MY COMMENT: So the racist Likud government of Israel is accusing the UN of a “whitewash”. That’s rich!

  6. traintosiberia
    February 10, 2015, 11:30 pm

    How do Ross,Indyk,or Solarz ever could get to the committee or conference or liaison office to articulate American position or get to mediate between Palestine and Israel as American representative after working all their lives furthering and promoting Israeli interests?
    How come Men,ended or Kirk get to table Israelis demands on Iran as a bill after receiving thousands of dollars from the Zionists?

  7. DaBakr
    February 11, 2015, 4:49 am

    shabas has nobody but himself to blame for the credibility problem the UN is having with this so-called investigation. in other words- many months ago-many could have predicted that shabas’s bias and ego was going to come back and bite his council in the ass and thats exactly what it did. he could have played it much smarter and taken himself out of the spotlight and simply advised the commission but as usual- a middle age european man’s ego trumps all sense of proportion and rational. in the end…he’s just another egotistical fool who couldn’t see his forrest through the trees. don’t believe me? ask his co-commisioners.

    • oldgeezer
      February 11, 2015, 1:07 pm

      Except he is Canadian and not European. A world renowned expert.

      The rest of your analysis is even more shoddy and delusional.

      • DaBakr
        February 12, 2015, 1:08 am

        @gz
        thats what you have? a distinction between a canadian and european when the implication was white? ok. your out of air old geezer.

        @pj
        hey ‘dude’…i’m not bitching at all. i couldn’t be more pleased. plenty of ‘experts’ in the world. too many in fact. i have no problem with ‘ego’ per se but when it gets in the way of accomplishing what you want to accomplish-your an egotistical ass. i read that his fellow committee members mostly agreed with this but because of his so-called eminence and the general tolerance of ineptitude and lack of harsh criticism to fellow UN members-they wouldn’t go on record.

        i think he is till miffed that he can’t be the next falk. and i have heard rumors that it was Zionists who invented ‘ego’ so maybe you might want to bds that?

        @sf-you have obviously never been to Israel-or worse-never met a woman…period. they ALL think for themselves no thanks to us men.

    • pjdude
      February 12, 2015, 12:34 am

      really a zionist bitch about someone else’s ego. I’ve never met a zionist without an ego and a sense of entitlement

      • seafoid
        February 12, 2015, 12:35 am

        I have never met one who can think for herself

      • Giles
        February 13, 2015, 12:28 pm

        Classic DeBakr.

        Misidentifies Schabas as European and, when corrected, attacks oldgeezer for allegedly nitpicking as clearly Debakr was using the term European to mean all whites and we the ignorant ones for not knowing this. I mean, doesn’t everyone identify whites as European even those who are citizens of Canada, or the USA, or wherever?

      • DaBakr
        February 13, 2015, 2:14 pm

        @[email protected]

        yes, many people do identify europeans as the white people that colonized the ‘new’ world from europe. i guess you never heard the term euro-centrism. but I’ll play your stupid game:
        I sincerely apologize for mis-identifying Shabas as a euro when he is clearly a Canadian.

        as for his religion-i never knew what it was until you made the claim but it would appear his mother was not jewish so he isn’t jewish in the traditional sense unless he converted. In any case-none of the idiotic parsing the two of you have done has any baring on what I said about the man and his ego. that you both support him is your right but it doesn’t make him effective.

    • oldgeezer
      February 13, 2015, 12:48 pm

      @DaBakr

      He’s white? But he’s Jewish and according to either hophmi or yonah Jewish people aren’t white. Especially European Jewish people.

      Oh you wild and crazy guys. Always moving goalposts and redefining words as suits your means.

      You wouldn’t need to do that if you had anything of substance to actually base your positions on.

      Oh and he is a member of the Jewish Human Rights group René Cassin.

      • DaBakr
        February 13, 2015, 7:55 pm

        @gz @gl

        so then you think vey little of the term ‘eurocentric.’? if yountwo are going to rage on a mischaracterization of shabas as a european white guy because he’s canadian then i wonder f you think because his father is askanazi he should ‘go back to poland’?

        also-afaik his mother wasn’t a Jewess so he technically is not a Jew though it hardly matters and as proof –I like his idol Falk even less and I believe Falk is Jewish.
        Btw- citing his membership in ReneCassin as if it means anything more then being in JVP means that there is anything particularly ‘jewish’ about the group. Its not a ‘Jewish’ group. Its an anti-Zionist group. The name was always a credibility stunt and only the naive think otherwise.

  8. Mayhem
    February 11, 2015, 9:06 am

    Whoever can say something like “There  are huge numbers of civilian casualties on one side and virtually no civilian causalities on the other, and so prima facie, there is evidence of disproportionality in the response that Israel is undertaking in order to protect itself” is showing himself to be biased.

    The absurd and amoral disproportionality charge is dispensed with as follows:
    “This proportionality indictment is not only absurd but amoral. When a democracy launches a just war, its moral obligation to its citizens and soldiers is to apply overwhelming force against the enemy, to secure peace quickly and authoritatively.”
    “The fact that Germany suffered over 10  times the number of war dead than Americans did in World War II does not change that war’s moral calculus. One can only imagine William Schabas on D-Day, counting German casualties without acknowledging German guilt. Americans were fighting a savage war – as all wars are – against a particularly heinous regime.” as Hamas is perceived to be.

    • Annie Robbins
      February 11, 2015, 10:12 am

      quoting propaganda hack gil troy??

      • Mooser
        February 11, 2015, 12:55 pm

        Is there anybody like those two for persistence!
        They go where Hophmi and Yonah fear to tread.

      • seafoid
        February 12, 2015, 12:40 am

        And bringing up the Nazis but only in support of Israeli carnage- don’t bring it up in relation to Israeli human rights abuses or Yonah will be on your case

        #incoherence

      • DaBakr
        February 12, 2015, 1:14 am

        i suggest a 10yr moratorium on ALL references to nazis-including Mel Brooks and Quentin Tarantino but the suffering will be worth it.

    • pjdude
      February 12, 2015, 12:37 am

      not one’s expecting an exact percentage match but when the side with precision weaponery is killing civilians at a percentage at best 3 or 4 times and at worst 10 times that of the side with imprecise weaponery the accusation is based in fact and is perfectly moral. you just don’t like it that your terrorists and and war criminals are being called out on it. if the numbers were reversed i doubt you’d blink an eye about the “amoral” disporportionality. their is noting just about Israel’s wars of conquest and retribution.

    • seafoid
      February 12, 2015, 12:37 am

      Mayhem

      When Israel’s enemies launch what they say is a just war against Israel and Israel is overwhelmed and overpowered will you still be trotting out that verbiage ?

      Rules and conventions are IMPORTANT FOR JEWS.

    • talknic
      February 12, 2015, 11:29 am

      @ Mayhem “The absurd and amoral disproportionality charge is dispensed with as follows:
      “This proportionality indictment is not only absurd but amoral. When a democracy launches a just war, its moral obligation to its citizens and soldiers is to apply overwhelming force against the enemy, to secure peace quickly and authoritatively.””

      A) Israel is not a democracy. It doesn’t even rate a mention in the declaration of statehood. Furthermore Israel has; B) never had a legally elected Government under the legally required and promised constitution and; C) there is nothing ‘just’ in Israel’s 67 years of war for more than its allotment of Palestine.

      “The fact that Germany suffered over 10 times the number of war dead than Americans did in World War II does not change that war’s moral calculus.”

      True. Nor where it was and WASN’T fought. No US citizens lost their lives in the war to Germany in the USA because the war wasn’t anywhere near US soil.

      “Americans were fighting a savage war – as all wars are – against a particularly heinous regime.” as Hamas is perceived to be.”

      The Palestinians aren’t fighting a savage war against one of the most modern and best equipped military forces in the world serving a regime that has the distinction of being in ” flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War” … ” a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;” ? WOW! I wonder if they know.

      Israeli bullets, fletchettes, bombs, cluster bombs, 100 ton bombs, dime weapons, missiles, artillery and white phosphorus (in day light in areas where there were no Israeli soldiers to hide behind the smoke) are so cute. Pleasant even. I must be a pleasure to be subjected to them. To die by them or be maimed for life and to lose one’s land to the Jewish state at the same time must be the ultimate sacrifice Palestinians can make for Israelis. The Palestinians are so ungrateful!

    • eljay
      February 12, 2015, 11:46 am

      || Mayhemeee: … When a democracy launches a just war, its moral obligation to its citizens and soldiers is to apply overwhelming force against the enemy, to secure peace quickly and authoritatively. … One can only imagine William Schabas on D-Day, counting German casualties without acknowledging German guilt. … ||

      1. There’s a difference between a “just war” in which a country (not just a democracy) defends itself against attackers, and Israel’s 60+ years, on-going and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction, torture and murder.

      2. One can only imagine what Mr. Schabas might have done, but one can see quite clearly how Zio-supremacists constantly fail to acknowledge – and to demand justice and accountability for – Israel’s past and ON-GOING (war) crimes.

      (I cannot imagine Mr. Schabas advocating German supremacism, while Zio-supremacists openly advocate Jewish supremacism in a supremacist “Jewish State”.)

    • lyn117
      February 13, 2015, 9:55 am

      “Whoever can say something like “There are huge numbers of civilian casualties on one side and virtually no civilian causalities on the other, and so prima facie, there is evidence of disproportionality in the response that Israel is undertaking in order to protect itself” is showing himself to be biased. ”

      If you count all the dead in WWII, I’m not sure Germany lost more. Are you saying all the dead people in Polish concentration camps don’t matter in the calculus, all the dead Russians, French, and British? Or perhaps you are claiming the German attack on surrounding European countries was a just war?

      Oh, no you’re claiming Israel’s attack on neighboring states, to acquire territory by force of war and replace the native people with immigrant Jews, was a just war, and therefore killing 1000s of civilians to do so is justified.

    • Giles
      February 13, 2015, 12:37 pm

      When the Occupier with one of the world’s most weaponized militaries kills well over a thousand noncombatants trapped inside a small piece of land that has no military to defend it — allegedly in response to the killing of NONE of its citizens, only the most brainwashed racist fool concludes that the Occupier is merely defending itself and is justified in its actions.

  9. JeffB
    February 11, 2015, 2:36 pm

    @tripledobe

    The best historian for early Zionism Netanyahu’s father Benzion.

    “Zionism never did and does not call for “colonization” of any land (in a sense of expelling other people from it).

    Mostly the early Zionists didn’t have an expulsion plans. You have to remember the 1st wave of Zionists were colonialists and so viewed the colonized people as benefitting from Western Civilization. The 2nd wave were overwhelming Communists and believed that the Palestinians Proletariats would unify with their Jewish cousins against the Turkish capitalists…. Certainly you can find transfer being discussed as an option but overwhelmingly it is rejected. Any fair read of the evidence is going to show that it really isn’t until about 1942 gets discussed by leadership as a serious policy and not until 1948 till it is widely carried out.

    Do you know that first Zionists including Hertzl seriously considered Uganda (its empty territories at the time) as an alternative to Palestine?

    Yes. He also considered much more seriously Argentina. He disliked Palestine as an option personally but was persuaded that Palestine alone would unify with the Jews.

    And no, they never envisioned Arab resistance to Jewish immigration into British Palestine.

    That’s false. Hertzl himself wrote on this issue in his critiques of other followers of Pinsker. That’s why Hertzl and Noradau opposed the gradual immigration strategy of most Zionists.

    Arabs and Jews were very well getting alone there until 1930s when Arab sheikhs realized that Jews who started building a civil society, schools, hospitals, modern cities – were setting “bad” example for their fellow Arabs, and this is when they started incitement and provocations against Jews.”

    There were genocidal attacks in the 1920s. Tel Aviv was the result of one of these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots). The getting along all during the 1920s and the early 1930s was at the same time as the building of a civil society. Certainly the Arab leaders and anti-colonialists in Syria in particular very early realized the danger that Zionism presented and started organizing the Palestinians starting around 1920. So that much is true but the dates are wrong.

    So far I found the Iron Wall by jabotinsky. I know there are quotes from Herzl dairies that illustrate his intentions to suppress the arab resistance in Palestine but could not find it so far.

    You aren’t going to find much by Herzl on that. He pictures the Arabs getting along with the Jews mostly.

    There is I am sure more evidence but the trick is it has to be coming from the Jews to be able to prove anything.

    How about you stop trying to prove stuff and just read the early Zionists? Try and figure out what they actually did say in the contexts in which they considered these questions and only after understanding them in their context try and apply 2015 political categories to them.

    • seafoid
      February 12, 2015, 12:38 am

      I love that Western civilisation shtick.
      The Palestinians didn’t have shopping centres so they had to be dispossessed for their own good.

      • straightline
        February 12, 2015, 1:53 am

        You know the, possibly apocryphal, Gandhi story, seafoid?

        Journalist: What do you think of Western civilization?
        Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

    • pjdude
      February 12, 2015, 12:39 am

      do you ever get tired about lying about history? your attempts to show how history exonerates the zionists for their crimes only showscases your own bigotry and biases.

      • Kay24
        February 12, 2015, 1:06 am

        No they don’t get tired of lying about, making up, or erasing, history. Unfortunately, they may be able to get the hasbara to convince some naive person about it, but historically, there are documents that can disprove the lies. They have used the Bible to justify the land grabs and they have played victim, to get that “defending” themselves act going, to justify the massacres that go on like last summer. Of course we have seen the statements by their blood thirsty, land grabbing, leaders, that called for getting rid of the Arabs that were there before them, by terrorism, assassination, intimidation, and land confiscation, among other “wonderful” criminal acts against the Arabs, and the shrinking map of Palestine (again undisputed documents) show how far their master plan has worked. All that said, these brainwashed comments seem pathetic here especially, it might work on the Fox news website or some pro zionist site, but not here for sure.

      • JeffB
        February 13, 2015, 5:36 pm

        @pjdude

        I don’t find rude people convincing. If you disagree with what I’ve said just indicate where I’m wrong. Otherwise I’m not the one lying about history.

      • pjdude
        February 13, 2015, 10:19 pm

        @jeffb
        I’m sorry but after your fiasco of trying to claim jews weren’t allowed in palestine for 2000 years when the facts disagree with you I’m not going to make the attempt so save it trying to accuse me of lying. facts don’t matter to you propganda. you may not find rude people convincing but I don’t find people who lie very convincing.

    • Walid
      February 12, 2015, 1:31 am

      “Zionism never did and does not call for “colonization” of any land (in a sense of expelling other people from it). (Benzion the Islamophobe)

      I don’t know about the first Zionists but as to recent ones, what are the 600,000 Zionists doing in East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank?

      • Kay24
        February 12, 2015, 2:17 am

        Great question Walid. Why indeed are they then contradicting their words, and doing exactly what they apparently did not call for? Actions speak louder than words and all that.

      • JeffB
        February 13, 2015, 5:41 pm

        @Walid

        Just as a point your are mixing my response and the quote from the questioner. Benzion never said that tripledobe did.

        I don’t know about the first Zionists but as to recent ones, what are the 600,000 Zionists doing in East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank?

        Judaizing it. Shifting the population from a Palestinian Muslim population to an Israeli Jewish population. The 3 criteria to own territory in the real sense:

        1) An army in control of territory X.
        2) A government in control of that army.
        3) A population in territory X loyal to that government.

        The IDF can occupy territory but only the Israeli civilians can make it Israel.

        Expulsion is not needed however. As you can see from both Jerusalem and the West Bank settlements pre-1st (and more specifically pre 2nd intifada). The populations can move in next to one another and if the Palestinians were willing to become Israeli (like the Israeli Arabs) then they wouldn’t need to be expelled for Israel to incorporate the territory. The crazy levels of violence (resistance) are however going to push towards expulsion.

    • straightline
      February 12, 2015, 3:37 am

      The issue of early Zionist colonialism was discussed in MW a few years ago.

      http://mondoweiss.net/2010/09/actually-herzl-was-a-colonialist

      It’s an interesting read – featuring the famous Mr Witty.

      At some point this website was linked.

      http://chaimsimons.net/index.html

      As Donald says in the MW discussion:

      “My guess about the rabbi is that he’s trying to find justification for his own monstrous beliefs by showing that the early Zionists had similar ones, but I’d have to read more of his articles to be sure that’s where he is going. It’s hard to imagine what else he might be trying to demonstrate.”

      And by David Samel

      “This rabbi clearly favors forced transfer of Palestinians from the lands God promised the Jews. To defend that proposition, he has undertaken historical research to show that transfer has always been an integral part of the Zionist plan from the very beginning, as if to show that his present position in the 21st century is authorized by these giants of history.”

    • Keith
      February 12, 2015, 7:12 pm

      JEFFB- “Zionism never did and does not call for “colonization” of any land (in a sense of expelling other people from it).”

      The early Zionist leaders most certainly did have plans for colonization which they lied about in their public statements. How would it be possible to have a Jewish state without expelling Arabs? Are you seriously suggesting that it was some sort of accident? Jabotinsky was at least honest about it.

      • JeffB
        February 13, 2015, 5:32 pm

        @Keith

        The early Zionist leaders most certainly did have plans for colonization which they lied about in their public statements. How would it be possible to have a Jewish state without expelling Arabs? Are you seriously suggesting that it was some sort of accident?

        Well if you are going to start arguing that you know their real thoughts based on the psychic friends network and not based on their public or private writings and speeches then their isn’t much I can say. But if we go based on the documentary record we can see the development of the idea of transfer.

        As for how it would be possible to have a Jewish state
        1) You have to remember the early Zionists often didn’t want a Jewish state but would often settle for a Jewish homeland i.e. unlimited Jewish immigration as a matter of right. They assumed this would be in an existing empire.

        2) When you are talking about the early Zionists they mostly didn’t themselves live in democracies. There was no clarity early on that Israel would be a democracy

        3) Even among those who pictured a democracy and pictured Jewish rule most pictured a colonial democracy. That is a a democracy for Jews ruling over the primitives.

        4) The Palestinian population underwent an explosion between 1870 and 2000. The Jewish population didn’t undergo a similar explosion and due to not having a state 1/3 of it was slaughtered off in the 1940s. The ratio between the two group’s populations has shifted dramatically since the time of the early Zionists. Even more dramatically has been the shift between Eastern European Jews (for whom the state was originally planned) and Palestinians.

        While the Zionists anticipated a mega-pogrom (i.e what happened with Hitler) they did not anticipate that much damage that fast. If there were 10m Eastern European Jews living in Israel and 2m Palestinians the democracy problems that existed in the late 1940s wouldn’t have been present. You can’t assume perfect foreknowledge when reading history.

        Jabotinsky was at least honest about it.

        Jabotinsky was anti-transfer all during the debates in the 1920s. He thought the problems of expelling 1m Arabs for Israel would far outweigh the problems of governing them. His turning point was the 1936 revolt. So Jabotinsky is a specific example of how the idea of transfer gradually emerged.

        Are you seriously suggesting that it was some sort of accident?

        No an accident of history perhaps. I’m suggesting that it was a policy option which was mostly rejected early and as time progressed and other options failed it began to be seen as one “least bad option”. Then in the 1947-9 war everything lined up for the advocates of transfer to make it quick and cheap and thus it was mostly carried out. That’s the way most peoples make most choices: they have options lying around and then choose ones that seem practical.

        The situation in 1880 – 1936 is much like the situation today. Transfer is on the table as an option but is overwhelmingly rejected. For some for moral reasons but for most it is not near the top because of the practical problems. But were other options to become more painful as they did in 1936-9 then likely the Israeli government would start making practical plans (assuming they haven’t already) just like what happened in 1942. If an opportunity under those conditions arose where the practical problems diminished (1947-9) …

      • Keith
        February 13, 2015, 11:59 pm

        JEFFB- “Well if you are going to start arguing that you know their real thoughts based on the psychic friends network and not based on their public or private writings and speeches then their isn’t much I can say.”

        I am not a psychic who can determine what their “real thoughts” were, nor do I place much credence on their public statements, nor on selected snippets of their private writings. The facts on the ground speak for themselves. This, along with elementary logic, tells me that there was a rather obvious intent to expel the indigenous Arabs to create a Jewish state. When Herzl, in selling his idea to Western imperial powers including anti-Semites, described the future Israel as a villa in the jungle, it takes a rather warped mind to suggest that he proposed to share this Western oriented villa with the natives. Deny all you want, provide selected quotes all you want, but the fact remains that the facts on the ground are only consistent with expulsion and colonization.

  10. JeffB
    February 13, 2015, 8:56 am

    @Giles

    Mayhem. I am a little confused over how this anti-Semitism thing works. Maybe you can explain it to me. It is some kind of what, disease, that for some unknown reason rears it head wherever Jewish people go? It arises out of where, the ether?

    3 main causes

    1) Circumcision. Many groups object to this practice considering it a horrible violation of the sanctity of persons. Most of the classic anti-Semtism came from this.

    2) Henotheism. Jews have historically be unwilling to adopt the gods of the territories in which they reside into their own practice. That is quite often considered rude and creates friction. More generally Jews historically demonstrated many of the cultural characteristics of an alien nation and become thought of as invaders not citizens.

    3) Christian anti-Semitism. Because the Christians directly adopted so much of Judaism they have a peculiar relationship to it. Jews become entities of cosmic importance and associated with the dark forces in their own lives and thoughts. For Christians Jewish actions take on such disproportionate attention and focus. This is underlying motivation of the European obsession with Israel. Rationally it a small country, far away that has only limited trade and cultural contact with them. Ideologically it is the epicenter of their own impurities the externalization of their own sins.

  11. Vera Gottlieb
    February 13, 2015, 3:17 pm

    Why such a bad conscience, israel??? If you have nothing to hide…

Leave a Reply