‘Why do I not cry out for the right of return?’ — an exchange between Uri Avnery and Salman Abu Sitta

Middle East
on 160 Comments

Uri Avnery is a co-founder of the Israeli “peace bloc” Gush Shalom, a former Knesset member and a journalist. In his youth, he was a member of the paramilitary group the Irgun, known for its terrorist attacks on Palestinians and the British Mandate authorities. He is the first Israeli to have met with the late Chairman of the PLO, Yasser Arafat. 

Salman Abu Sitta is a Palestinian who became a refugee at age 10 during the Nakba, the expulsion of Palestinians during the 1947-49 war. He is a foremost scholar on mapping Palestinian villages before the Nakba, and is the founder of the Palestine Land Society, a group that drafted practical plans for implementing the Palestinian Right of Return. 

This exchange of correspondence took place from 2014 to 2017 and was given to Mondoweiss by Abu Sitta. 

From Salman to Uri:

7 May 2014

Dear Uri

I read with great interest your interview in Haaretz about your rich and eventful life. You stuck to your principles since the early fifties when you found that the old doctrine was neither workable nor moral.

I remember vividly our chat over dinner in Paris with your kind wife Rachel, bless her soul [at a UN conference on the Palestinian refugees]. You described your early days as a young German by the name of Helmut, when you joined the terrorist organization, the Irgun, and when you, carrying a machine gun on a hilltop at Huleigat (where now there is a war memorial to “honour” those soldiers) watched the sea of humanity of expelled refugees march towards Gaza by the sea shore.

I also told you my story; how I became a refugee without ever seeing a Jew in my life and how I spent years to find out who did it by name, face and battalion.

I remember asking you ‘would you agree to my return to my house if it is next to you?’

You said emphatically NO.

I wrote all this in my memoirs to be published this year in Europe and USA.

I am reminded of a similar story but with a different ending. I refer to (Reflections of a Daughter of the “‘48 Generation”) by Dr. Tikva Honig-Parnass. It is a moving account of how truth and reality faced her, as a Palmach soldier, with the grave injustice done to Palestinians. Since then she spends her energy to defend their rights, including the Right of Return.

I saw no trace or hint of retraction in your interview of what I have hoped, namely your recognition of the Right of Return, or the atonement and remedy of the greatest sin: the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Would it not be a fitting last station of a long life (and I wish you more of it) for you to stand at hilltops (again) and shout for all to hear, summing up all your life experiences, saying: the refugees must return, we must repent the sin of ethnic cleansing?

Is this too much to ask for a principled man like you to do this?  I am not asking this on behalf of the Palestinians, because no doubt they WILL return. I am hoping that it would be a crown to your life achievements in the Israeli milieu.

As I wrote repeatedly: The history of the Jews will not be marked any more by the alleged killing of Christ nor by the Nazi atrocities in WWII, but will be indelibly marked by what they have done to Palestinians, deliberately and constantly, without remorse, regret or remedy, thus reflecting that side of the human spirit which does not learn from history and that which empty itself of its own moral posture.

Best regards.
Salman Abu Sitta

Salman Abu Sitta (center, back row) in the village of al-Ma’in with his family, 1944. This photograph was used at the cover image of his book “Mapping My Return: A Palestinian Memoir.” (Photo: Salman Abu Sitta/Al Jazeera English)

Uri replies to Salman in his weekly column on 17 May 2014:

 

DEAR SALMAN,

I was profoundly moved by this letter. It took me days to find the courage to answer. I try to do so as sincerely as possible.

I also vividly remember our conversation in Paris, and wrote about it in the second part of my memoirs, which will appear in the course of this year. It may be interesting for the readers to compare our two descriptions of the same conversation. About the scene near Hulayqat I have written in the first part, which has already appeared in Hebrew.

When I was wounded in the 1948 war, I decided that it would be my life’s mission to work for peace between our two peoples. I hope that I have been true to that promise.

Making peace after such a long and bitter conflict is both a moral and a political endeavor. There is often a contradiction between the two aspects.

I respect the few people in Israel who, like Tikva, completely devote themselves to the moral side of the refugees’ tragedy, whatever the consequence for the chances of peace. My own moral outlook tells me that peace must be the first aim, before and above everything else.

The war of 1948 was a terrible human tragedy. Both sides believed that it was an existential battle, that their very life was hanging in the balance. It is often forgotten that ethnic cleansing (not a familiar expression in those days) was practiced by both sides. Our side occupied large territories, creating a huge refugee problem, while the Palestinian side succeeded in occupying only small Jewish areas, like the Old City of Jerusalem and the Etzion settlement bloc south of Bethlehem. But not a single Jew remained there.

The war, like the later Bosnian war, was an ethnic war, in which both sides tried to conquer as large a part of the country as possible – EMPTY of the other population.

As an eyewitness and participant, I can testify to the fact that the origins of the refugee problem are extremely complex. During the first seven months of the war, the attacks on the Arab villages were an absolute military necessity. At that time, we were the weaker side. After a number of very cruel battles, the wheel turned and I believe that a deliberate policy of expulsion was adopted by the Zionist leadership.

But the real question is: Why were the 750,000 refugees not allowed home after the end of the hostilities?

ONE HAS to remember the situation. It was three years after the smokestacks of Auschwitz and the other camps had gone cold. Hundreds of thousands of wretched survivors crowded the refugee camps in Europe and had nowhere to go but to the new Israel. They were brought here and hastily put into the homes of the Palestinian refugees.

All this did not obliterate our moral obligation to put an end to the terrible tragedy of the Palestinian refugees. In 1953 I published in my magazine, “Haolam Hazeh”, a detailed plan for the solution of the refugee problem. It included (a) an apology to the refugees and the acknowledgment in principle of the right to return, (b) the return and resettlement of a substantial number, (c) generous compensation to all the rest. Since the Israeli government refused to consider the possibility of the return of a single individual, the plan was not even discussed.

WHY DO I not stand on a hilltop and cry out for the return of all the refugees?

Peace is made between consenting parties. There is absolutely no chance that the vast majority of Israelis would freely agree to the return of all the refugees and their descendants, who amount to six or seven million people – the same number as Israel’s Jewish citizens. This would be the end of the “Jewish state” and the beginning of a “bi-national state”, to which 99% of Israelis strenuously object. It can be imposed only by a crushing military defeat, which is currently impossible because of Israel’s infinite military superiority, including nuclear arms.

I can stand on the hilltops and shout – but it would not bring peace (and a solution) one step closer.

To my mind, waiting for a solution in a hundred years, while the conflict and the misery continue, is not really moral.

DEAR SALMAN, I have listened attentively to your presentation.

You say that Israel could easily absorb all the refugees by putting them into the Negev, which is almost empty. That is quite true.

The vast majority of Israelis would reject that, because they are fiercely resolved to have a large Jewish majority in Israel. But I also ask myself: What is the logic of that?

When I met with Yasser Arafat in Beirut during the war of 1982, I also visited several Palestinian refugee camps. I asked many refugees whether they wanted to return to Israel. Most said that they wanted to return to their villages (which were eradicated long ago) but not anywhere else in Israel.

What is the sense of putting them into the harsh conditions of the desert in a Zionist dominated and Hebrew speaking country, far from their original homes? Would they want that?

Arafat and his successors limit their aim to a “just and AGREED solution”, giving the Israeli government a veto right. That means, in practice, at most the return of a symbolic number.

My latest proposal is for the Israeli president to apologize and express the profound regret of the Israeli people for its part in the creation and prolongation of the tragedy.

The Israeli government must recognize the moral right of the refugees to return.

Israel should organize the return of 50,000 refugees every year for ten years. (I am almost alone in Israel in demanding this number. Most peace groups would reduce that to 100,000 altogether.)

All the other refugees should receive compensation on the lines of the compensation paid by Germany to the Jewish victims. (No comparison, of course.)

With the foundation of the State of Palestine, they would receive Palestinian passports and be able to settle there, in their country.

In the not too distant future, when the two states, Israel and Palestine, shall be finally living side by side, with open borders and with their capitals in Jerusalem, perhaps within a region-wide framework, the problem will lose its sting.

IT HURTS me to write this letter. For me, the refugees are no abstract “problem”, but human beings with human faces. But I will not lie to you.

I would be honored to live next to you (even in the Negev desert)

Salamaat,

uri.

Two years later after miscellaneous correspondence, from Salman to Uri 10 June 2016:

Dear Uri

Just finished reading your article today (Friday 10 June 2016).

I am amazed at how many stories, anecdotes, religious, historical and personal references and insights you marshal in your writings, particularly this one,  on Tin disguised as Gold.

A wealth of knowledge. I printed it.

You certainly do not live in the Israeli bubble of denial, those who committed the Nakba crimes and who refuse to talk about them, even close the archives describing them.

You obviously do not belong to the present generation who do not know that these crimes have happened; nobody told them. It is taboo.

Israelis live in a drugged world. But you do not, you could not.

This begs the question: why do not you, then,  publicly support the natural right of Palestinians, the natural inhabitants of Palestine, to live freely in their homes?

I do not care a hoot about a two state solution or umpteenth state solution. State recognition is a political act, which could be revoked, expanded or cancelled. Look at Europe or the legacy of Sykes-Picot. Look at Israel. It existed by virtue of political recognition, mostly Western, not by international law.

But Human Rights are fundamental, permanent, non negotiable, unless humanity is for sale or bartering.

On which side are you?

Best regards.

Salman

PS did you receive your copy of my book “Mapping my Return”?

From Uri to Salman 11 June 2016:

Dear Salman,

Good to hear from you.

I have not yet seen your new book. Am very interested.

Israelis at large do not want Israel proper to turn into an Arab-majority country. They have toiled for five generations to create a Hebrew-speaking country.

This is a fact of life, so the other vision can only be achieved by a bloody war. This may change in a few generations, though I doubt it.

So those who want peace have to look for another solution, probably a complicated one, in the framework of the two states plan.

All the very best

uri

From Salman to Uri 30 Sept 2016:

Dear Uri

As usual, your article on Peres last week and Abu Mazen this week are spot on. At least from your perspective which is widely accepted.

I had a debate at Tokyo University, Japan in Sept 2013 with the late Ron Pundak on Oslo and I said that Abbas government is a Vichy government. He was upset, not because Abbas was not Petain but because Israel is not Nazi Germany.  I pointed out that in 1941 the Nazis signed “Paris Economic Protocol” with Vichy for the same purpose and name that Israel signed fifty years later with Abu Alaa —who now say, oh… oh, Oslo was a big disaster.

I am not going to ask you if you read my book. First edition was sold out and a paperback edition is due in November. It was reviewed a dozen times including by the Guardian.

It describes my uprooting from my village Al Ma’in (60,000 dunums) on which now is perched Nirim, Nir Oz, Ein Hashlosha and Magen Kibbutzim. My extended family is now 10,000, mostly living in refugee camps 2 km away, not forgetting once their right to return.

Nirim lies on my father’s land with 174 Kibbutz members plus their children etc.

I have a suggestion, a mere suggestion.

Could you contact these four Kibbutzim and ask them, do you know how they got there in 1948? do you know the owners still insist on return? If yes or no, what are you going to do about it?

I know their existence is precarious hanging by a thread (the gun). That is why they hide in their denial bubble, afraid to face the fact.

Is there any one of them brave enough to shout and say we were wrong?

Some would say about them; if they were brave, not cowards,  they would have fought the Nazis who pulled them out of their homes and killed them, not attack, with the army strength of a battalion, a small village far away in Palestine, armed with a rusty dozen rifles and then butcher and expel its people. If they were brave and with a conscience, they would not call ethnic cleansing “a war” of any thing, let alone of “independence”.

Could you act on my suggestion?

I hope so.

Salman

No reply from Uri. A renewed note from Salman to Uri 27 Jan 2017 :

Dear Uri

Reading your weekly article became a ritual for me. It is full of knowledge and appreciation of facts and understanding of the lessons of history. In all matters and about all countries. Except Palestine.

You did not respond to my last letter. Perhaps you thought it was strong and harsh. But it was true. Sometimes truth cannot be answered.

You did not read my book or did not wish to comment. That is not a problem.

Europeans of Jewish faith gave Europe a lot of culture, philosophy, science and ideals of liberation. That was not because they read the Torah daily, but because they were the product of European “civilization”. Einstein, Lenin, Marx did that and the world should be grateful to them as decent human beings.

Those Europeans, Ashkenazim, aka Israelis, when they descended upon Palestine, acted against every humanitarian principle they espoused when they were in Europe. They smashed children’s brains (Dawayima), bayoneted pregnant women’s stomachs (Dayr Yassin), burnt old men alive (Lajjun), shot farmers in ditches they were forced to dig as graves (Tantoura), threw them in a well (Sa’sa and Ayn Zeitoun), put a village ablaze and threw grenades at people inside their homes (Bureir).

Above all, they depopulated 600 Palestinian localities, the worst event in Palestine’s 5000-year history.

They were terrorists of the worst kind. Those who should know better did these awful things.

You belonged to Irgun, the “worst” terrorist group, if grading can be made.

I know you have spent years calling for “peace”. But your peace meant that the killer should be forgiven, the thief should run away with the stolen goods and those expelled from their homes should be thrown a few pieces of silver to shut up.

No remorse, nor repentance, no justice done, no remedy. Just empty words.

How could those settlers live with this double life, liberty in Europe and crime in Palestine?

The answer is schizophrenia. The European Jews, aka Israelis, live in a bubble of denial. A fake world. They shut the world of crime out of their minds and the minds of the adoring West. And preach peace, democracy, science and art, instead.

No Nakba. Perish the thought. No word “Palestinian”. No flag. Oh yes. There are no refugees. Those were Arabs who drifted from Arabia Deserta to the land of milk and honey, created by the European settlers who came to this empty desert land and made it a paradise.

They are cowards. I say this again.

Some years ago, my nephew, now a professor in Berlin, visited my birthplace Al Ma’in, with his uncle showing him the places he knew. My nephew told me this story. While they were walking around, an older settler with a little girl came by in a car and asked: where are you from?  The uncle said: ‘from here’ and pointed to the land. The settler said: Then you are Abu Sitta?

His teenage daughter or granddaughter was curious, leaned over, looked at them and asked her grandfather: who are they?

He pushed her away and drove fast. The little girl must have discovered the fraud in the old man’s tale.  He did not have the courage to explain. He hid in his bubble.

How long will this last? The bubble will burst one day.

Would the European Jews amend their ways? Was their preaching in the Age of the Enlightment a big hoax?

Time will tell. At a price.

Salman

No reply from Uri again. From Salman to Uri 18 Feb 2017:

Dear Uri

I realize you did not wish to reply to my letters. They are either painful or could not be rebutted.  Certainly they are not irrelevant.

I keep writing to you since we met in Paris over a decade ago because I think you have unique characteristics.

You have been a terrorist. You witnessed al Nakba, so you cannot deny it. You tried to forge peace with Palestinians (only on Zionist terms). You have a grasp of all the facts. So you cannot claim “I did not know”.

Then WHY you are still in a Denial Bubble?

Say it clear and loud. Al Nakba is near-complete ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Israel is a colonial project and its umbilical cord is colonial powers.

God-given  Palestine or empty uninhabited Palestine is a hogwash.

Say it.

Say it as a last minute CONFESSION. It purifies the soul and gives a good scent to memory.

I am waiting. Because I have hope in human redemption.

Salman

From Uri to Salman 18 Feb 2017:

Alas, the story is much more complicated,

All the best

uri

 

The end

 

 

 

About Mondoweiss Editors

Other posts by .


Posted In:

160 Responses

  1. amigo
    April 21, 2017, 12:25 pm

    “Alas , the story is much more complicated.”Uri Avnery.

    Avnery is just another liberal zionist posing as a man of peace seeking a just solution .

    Kudos to Salman for outing this fraud.

    • Sibiriak
      April 21, 2017, 1:29 pm

      No, Avnery doesn’t claim to seek a “just solution”. He’s more honest than that: he says peace and full justice are not compatible.

      • festus
        April 21, 2017, 4:10 pm

        “The war of 1948 was a terrible human tragedy. Both sides believed that it was an existential battle, that their very life was hanging in the balance. It is often forgotten that ethnic cleansing (not a familiar expression in those days) was practiced by both sides.”

        Give me a break. This was not a battle between two sides with equal power and equal rights to the land. The Zionists came from elsewhere to take Palestinian land and were fully militarized. This was a war of aggression and land theft by the Zionists — no matter what they may have believed.

        “As an eyewitness and participant, I can testify to the fact that the origins of the refugee problem are extremely complex. During the first seven months of the war, the attacks on the Arab villages were an absolute military necessity. ”

        Wow. What a sickness this Zionism is!

        “At that time, we were the weaker side.”

        Nonsense. Obvious nonsense.

        “But the real question is: Why were the 750,000 refugees not allowed home after the end of the hostilities?

        ONE HAS to remember the situation. It was three years after the smokestacks of Auschwitz and the other camps had gone cold.”

        Ah, the Holocaust again — justification for everything and anything the Zionists do. Sorry, the Palestinians had nothing to do with what went on in Europe.

        “Hundreds of thousands of wretched survivors crowded the refugee camps in Europe and had nowhere to go but to the new Israel.”

        Really? Not America?

        “They were brought here and hastily put into the homes of the Palestinian refugees”.

        Yet no Pals were placed hastily into any Jewish homes.

        “In 1953 I published in my magazine, “Haolam Hazeh”, a detailed plan for the solution of the refugee problem. It included (a) an apology to the refugees and the acknowledgment in principle of the right to return, (b) the return and resettlement of a substantial number, (c) generous compensation to all the rest.

        WHY DO I not stand on a hilltop and cry out for the return of all the refugees?

        Peace is made between consenting parties. There is absolutely no chance that the vast majority of Israelis would freely agree to the return of all the refugees and their descendants.”

        Well, if the Israelis won’t consent to it I guess that’s it. What Israel wants rules, forget international law, forget justice, forget UN Resolutions.

        Avnery is nothing more than a racist apologist for his tribe.

      • YoniFalic
        April 21, 2017, 5:21 pm

        Peace and just are fully compatible. The white racist genocidal European settler colonist invaders (like my family and Avnery) as well as their lackeys can be removed from Palestine and relocated throughout the world in under two years.

        Rehabilitation and resettlement of the displaced natives might take a little longer but is completely feasible in terms of cost with the seizure of all Zionist assets (including the personal assets of international Zionist leaders like Sheldon Adelson). Such a seizure would probably remedy some of the problems of the US democratic system.

        Only with this approach will the international anti-genocide and anti-Apartheid legal regimes be taken seriously.

        After Auschwitz the actions of Avnery and my grandfather in committing post-Auschwitz genocide to found a racist settler-colonist state were simply vile and criminal.

        Avnery is just like my grandfather in that he believes “Jews” get to keep goods and property stolen “fair and square” from non-Jews. (To be fair, in recent times “Jewish” Slavo-Turks of Yiddish linguistic heritage have tended to treat Jews of other ethnicities just as they treat non-Jews.)

        I have commented on this point previously on Mondoweiss.

        Racist Eastern Europeans did not invade Palestine for religious reasons. The invasion of Palestine was an act of 19th century style genocidal colonialism.

        As I pointed out previously, my grandfather became a Zionist because he believed (1) that gentile antisemites were mostly correct about Jews, (2) that gentiles were becoming less tolerant of bad Jewish behavior, and (3) that Jews could only reform themselves if they had their own country — something that now seems completely untrue to me.

        If we assume that (3) was simply rationalization for the injustice that Zionists intended to commit against Palestinians and have committed to this day, my grandfather was just saying that not only were German, Polish, Belorussian, and Ukrainian peasants getting tired of Jewish exploitation and cheating, but the peasantries were also getting strong enough to do something about Jewish misbehavior, and the gentile elites that in the past had protected their Jewish subcontractors no longer needed Jews and were unwilling to protect them.

        Thus Eastern European Jews, who wanted to maintain their standard of living and their traditional exploitative economic practices, had to relocate to a place where the local population would not be strong enough to stand up to Jewish rapaciousness. That place was Palestine, which also had intrinsic value as the Holy Land important to Christians throughout the world — the perfect real estate to steal.

        From the standpoint of greedy robbers, Palestine was just low hanging fruit at the end of the 19th and early 20th century. (My grandfather definitely believed that a Jew should get to keep anything stolen fair and square from a goy. So much for reforming Jews.)

        The Temple Mount and the Western Wall are just symbols of ethnic assertiveness of the invaders over the natives . In Jewish hands they serve as distractions from the crimes that E. European invaders committed against the natives.

        To tell the truth, if we look at the Talmud, which is scripture for Rabbinic Judaism, we find that the sages express a great deal of skepticism toward the holiness of the Jerusalem Temple.

        Just take a look at Yoma 69B.

        A priestly Temple elite would obviously undercut the authority of Talmudic sages or Rabbinical scholars.

      • Mooser
        April 21, 2017, 8:49 pm

        “Peace and just are fully compatible. The white racist genocidal European settler colonist invaders (like my family and Avnery) as well as their lackeys can be removed from Palestine and relocated throughout the world in under two years.”

        And once they are relocated, I would bet they feel a whole lot better about themselves. Of course, I wouldn’t expect any gratitude from them, they will never admit it.

      • catalan
        April 26, 2017, 4:54 pm

        “There are no moves contemplated, either unilateral or induced, toward ’48 lines.” – Sibiriak
        I am now utterly confused as to what the true borders of Israel are. Talknic, eljay, and mooser have strong arguments that the partition borders are the ones. Sibiriak says it is 1967 or the Green Line. Then Echinococcus and YoniFalic say that all of Israel is occupied territory. Pabelmont and Fincham says it is something less than partition but more than nothing. What is an honest soul like me to make of this? It’s like we are all still at square one after all that ink.

      • echinococcus
        April 27, 2017, 2:17 am

        “Catalan”

        I am now utterly confused as to what the true borders of Israel are

        Why don’t you ask the Zionists? Ask them to be precise.

      • eljay
        April 27, 2017, 7:23 am

        || catalan: … I am now utterly confused as to what the true borders of Israel are. Talknic, eljay, and mooser have strong arguments that the partition borders are the ones. Sibiriak says it is 1967 or the Green Line. Then Echinococcus and YoniFalic say that all of Israel is occupied territory. Pabelmont and Fincham says it is something less than partition but more than nothing. … ||

        What do you and your Zionist co-collectivists say are the true borders of Israel? Are they:
        – the Partition borders (“PB”) borders along which Israel demanded recognition;
        – PB + territory illegally acquired by war in ’67 (“TIA”);
        – PB + TIA + additional colonies established since then (“AC”);
        – PB + TIA + AC + remainder of geographic Palestine (“RGP”); or
        – PB + TIA + AC + RGP + some other expanse of territory?

      • Mooser
        April 27, 2017, 10:35 am

        “What is an honest soul like me to make of this?”

        “catalan”, don’t worry about it.

        If you are not doing anything positive and material to aid Zionism, you might as well be a dedicated anti-Zionist. You can ask any Zionist about that.

        As far as you are concerned, Israel’s only purpose is to help you supply “hits” and “UPVs” to an anti-Zionist blog. Hey, whatever turns you on, pal.

      • catalan
        April 27, 2017, 12:31 pm

        “What do you and your Zionist co-collectivists say are the true borders of Israel? “- eljay
        Myself, I defer to smarter people on the subject of borders, I am not an international law expert. However, I am still confused eljay, why does Sibiriak say 1967 and you say parition borders?

      • eljay
        April 27, 2017, 12:46 pm

        || catalan: … eljay Myself, I defer to smarter people on the subject of borders, I am not an international law expert. … ||

        You don’t have to be an international law expert to have an opinion. So, c’mon, tell me what you think Israel’s borders should be. Please and thank you. :-)

        || … However, I am still confused eljay, why does Sibiriak say 1967 and you say parition borders? ||

        I’m of the opinion that Israel should (be required to) abide by its internationally-recognized borders. Sibiriak has made the point that the Palestinians have accepted ’67 borders (which Israel has yet to accept).

      • echinococcus
        April 27, 2017, 2:58 pm

        Eljay,

        Internationally “recognized” in violation of the UN Charter and accepted procedure by colonialist powers and fellow criminals against humanity, against the express will of the Palestinians, sole owners of the sovereignty over the land.

        Also “recognized” by the PA, US+Zionist entity puppets who, since the Oslo catastrophe, have taken over the policing of the occupied population on behalf of the occupier.

        Recognize away, but state what exactly you are recognizing.

      • eljay
        April 27, 2017, 3:19 pm

        || echinococcus: Eljay … ||

        echinococcus.

        || … Recognize away … ||

        Don’t mind if I do. :-)

      • Maghlawatan
        April 27, 2017, 3:22 pm

        Israel’s borders relate to an area defined by Lodz, Vilnius and Kiev. Moving the story to the Middle East was insane.

      • Mooser
        April 27, 2017, 5:22 pm

        “I am now utterly confused as to what the true borders of Israel are.”

        Where do you think they need to be “catalan”? After all, that land was made for you and me!

    • Mooser
      April 21, 2017, 1:32 pm

      Oh well, thought he was a Yoda, but he turned out to be just a yonah.

    • Blake
      April 22, 2017, 2:55 am

      Yes nothing complicated about it.

  2. David Samel
    April 21, 2017, 4:20 pm

    This is a fascinating exchange. “Liberal Zionists” come in a number of different varieties. Avnery, Derfner, Beinart, Slater are among the best, with Avnery perhaps topping the list. His contributions to the debate, framed by his general honesty about horrible behavior of the Israeli “right”, are considerable.

    But in this debate, Avnery gets destroyed by Salman Abu Sitta, whose unflinching but respectfully-presented arguments are simply unrebuttable. “Liberal Zionists,” who sincerely believe in universal principles such as equality, justice, freedom, etc., are willing to carve out this single exception as a (perhaps unfortunate?) necessity. “It’s too bad, but Palestinians will just have to accept some measure of reduced human rights.” Honesty compels LZs to acknowledge the problem, but in the end their tribalism triumphs over the common decency of refusing to impose on others what they would find intolerable.

    Avnery is surely correct when he says that Israelis “do not want Israel proper to turn into an Arab-majority country,” though his estimate of 99% strikes me as grossly exaggerated. Avnery’s fear that a single (or binational) state “can only be achieved by a bloody war” is most probably sincere, but it may very well be mistaken and certainly is no reason to oppose what is morally right. I recall a 1980 meeting conversation with a young man who had emigrated from South Africa to Australia, who told me that apartheid may be doomed but could only be destroyed in a very bloody civil war. He was very convincing, but fortunately turned out to be wrong. Yes, most Israeli Jews would claim that they are willing to kill and die to preserve Jewish supremacy and domination over Palestinians, but there is every reason to hope that they, like white South Africans a quarter-centure ago, can be persuaded to relinquish their ethno-religious advantages.

    In fact, Israeli Jews are in a much better position than white South Africans, constituting about half the population of the land rather than less than 20%. If Israeli Jews fear retaliatory violence, those very same fears had a much stronger foundation in SA.

    Most importantly, Avnery’s tragic flaw is his ultimate reliance on military might rather than moral principle to determine not just the resolution of the issues but his own opinion of the desirable outcome. If he could answer Salman’s passionate but immaculately reasoned analysis, he would have done so. If he could not, he should have conceded that Salman is right but argued that the excessive violence he anticipates is too much to bear. That would at least be a step in the right direction.

    • JeffB
      April 21, 2017, 6:12 pm

      @David Samel

      certainly is no reason to oppose what is morally right.

      Of course mass slaughter is a reason to oppose what is morally right. The purpose of morality is generally to achieve some sort of earthly good. Once the level of violence gets high enough whatever earthly good the morality would have get created is completely outweighed by the costs of conflict. The victory of the democratic forces, and the protection of neutrals in World War I was morally right. But people at the time and since question whether the 17 million who died (and if you count plagues many more), and 20 million wounded was worth achieving those moral goods.

      but there is every reason to hope that [Israeli Jews], like white South Africans a quarter-centure ago, can be persuaded to relinquish their ethno-religious advantages.

      Given the level of violence Israel employs against moderate resistance today, the fact that the Israeli economy makes little use of Palestinian labor (unlike the South African economy’s dependence) and the history of responding to ethnic civil war with aggressive counter attack why is there any reason to hope much less “every reason to hope”?

      • David Samel
        April 22, 2017, 10:25 am

        No, Jeff. If Avnery decides that Salman is morally correct, he should not hesitate to say so just because there are well-armed Israelis who will unleash terrible violence to defend the immoral status quo. If Uri does not find Salman’s arguments to be compelling, he should explain why, but he is unable to do so. This third ground, of standing by an immoral position because of the military superiority of those who insist on maintaining it, is indefensible. It would have defended apartheid, slavery, and virtually every historical abomination that was enforced by arms.

    • MHughes976
      April 21, 2017, 6:50 pm

      The anger and horror are deeper than in SA, I think, because to a significant extent religion comes into it. All Zionism is connected to the idea of a donation of the land of Canaan by God, which since it has this unique authority sets everything else in second place.

      • Mooser
        April 22, 2017, 11:03 am

        “All Zionism is connected to the idea of a donation of the land of Canaan by God, which since it has this unique authority sets everything else in second place.”

        And excuses anything. Hell “this unique authority” (which can only be approached through the Holy Books, God choosing to remain silent at present) condones anything. Especially those things connected with settler-colonialism.
        Isn’t that convenient? Isn’t it wonderful how God works in the affairs of men?

      • Maghlawatan
        April 23, 2017, 6:23 pm

        Zionism fetishises the land but so does Judaism. Every prayer in the land is holier. And the problem with that is that the land is easy to attack cos it is flat. Zionism figured this out in the 50s. Hence the occupation. Which introduces problems of ethics.

        There’s a hole in the bucket.

      • YoniFalic
        April 24, 2017, 7:16 am

        Judaism in ancient forms and in pre-Zionist more modern forms is not much different from Islam, which is far closer to the popular Judean Judaism of Jesus’ time than Rabbinic Judaism is from the Medieval through the modern period.

        Eretz Yisrael and Mecca are important because of the pilgrimages.

        Even a towering figure like Philo never seems to have been interested in visiting Palestine. He seems to have been content with making pilgrimages to the Egyptian Judaic Temple at Leontopolis.

        When the Messiah comes, the Holiness of Jerusalem is supposed to spread through all Eretz Yisrael, and the Holiness of Eretz Yisrael through the whole world. The Jews of the Diaspora don’t return to Eretz Yisrael. Eretz Yisrael comes to them.

        It is important to keep in mind that there is no aspect of Zionism, which is not a lie.

  3. Stephen Shenfield
    April 21, 2017, 5:00 pm

    Salman refers to a memoir entitled Reflections of a Daughter of the “‘48 Generation” by Dr. Tikva Honig-Parnass. Does anyone know who the publisher is or how to obtain it?

  4. jon s
    April 21, 2017, 5:21 pm

    All of us on the Israeli Left owe a huge debt to Uri Avnery. Indeed, I can’t even a imagine the Left without his groundbreaking efforts. In the aftermath of the 1967 war, proposing a Palestinian state co-existing with Israel (what’s called today “the 2 state solution”) was considered a weird idea of the lunatic fringe of the Left. Today that idea that he promoted 50 years ago is at the center of an international consensus.
    He’s 93 years old now, respected as the founding father of the Israeli peace movement (and of modern Hebrew journalism in Israel!)
    I still remember the huge impact his writing had on me as a teenager.

    • YoniFalic
      April 21, 2017, 5:56 pm

      The Israeli left is leftist in the way Mussolini’s fascism is leftist, but one must qualify that the Zionist left has always been more racist than Mussolini, who apparently had a “thing” for Jewish women and who was genuinely quite popular among Italian Jews until he gave into German Nazi demands to enact anti-Jewish laws.

      Zeev Sternhell points out that fascism (including Labor Zionism — despite Sternhell’s intellectually dishonest analysis) is a nationalist revision of Marxism. According to this revision, national revival overcomes the class conflict.

      One can see the racist fascist nature of Labor Zionism most clearly in the writings of Chaim Arlosoroff and Dov Ber Borochov, who were Labor Zionist leaders and ideologues.

    • Mooser
      April 21, 2017, 7:04 pm

      “All of us on the Israeli Left…”

      Oh yes, especially the line you absorbed as a teenager, and practiced saying in the mirror til you got it just right:

      “Alas, the story is much more complicated…”

      Gosh, why do I find the idea of an “Israeli history” teacher at a settlement being involved with Left wing organisations and activities just a trifle hard to credit?

      “Blah, blah, blah, two-state…Today that idea that he promoted 50 years ago is at the center of an international consensus.”

      RORFLMSJAO! Yeah, too bad Israel isn’t in it.

    • Marnie
      April 22, 2017, 3:00 am

      “All of us on the Israeli Left owe a huge debt to Uri Avnery. ”

      Try speaking for yourself jon s, it’s a lot more honest (I realize this is a bit of a reach for you) and certainly you don’t expect anyone to believe you speak for the israeli left?

      “I still remember the huge impact his writing had on me as a teenager.” I see you’ve found your scapegoat. I’m sure avnery would be touched. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/William_Holman_Hunt_-_The_Scapegoat.jpg/1024px-William_Holman_Hunt_-_The_Scapegoat.jpg

    • jon s
      April 22, 2017, 5:09 am

      I wonder what Uri Avnery, author of “Israel Without Zionists” (1968), thinks of the irony of being considered a Zionist.

      • YoniFalic
        April 22, 2017, 10:03 am

        Avnery calls himself a post-Zionist and rejects the label anti-Zionist.

        http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1343412021/

      • David Samel
        April 22, 2017, 10:35 am

        Jon, the term “Zionist” has many meanings to different people. The general consensus here is that one who believes that a Jewish State should exist, despite its inherent discrimination against non-Jews, is a “Zionist.” Avnery necessarily fits that definition. A “liberal Zionist” is one who professes that the destructive effects inherent discrimination should be minimized. Perhaps Avnery in 1968 was describing Zionists as those who don’t care or favor complete expulsion of the indigenous population. No matter. Your impression of Avnery’s sense of irony is really irrelevant to the discussion here.

      • Sibiriak
        April 22, 2017, 11:08 am

        David Samel: … one who believes that a Jewish State should exist, despite its inherent discrimination against non-Jews, is a “Zionist. Avnery necessarily fits that definition.
        ——————–

        But Avnery has explicitly rejected the idea that Israel should exist as a “Jewish state”.

        He writes:

        ——————–

        Critics of Israel accuse it of practicing “Apartheid”, the South African racist doctrine. This analogy may be partly misleading. Unlike Apartheid, Zionism is not based on race, but on a mixture of ghetto mentality and 19th century European nationalism.

        Ghetto mentality is the spirit of a persecuted, isolated community, which saw the whole world as divided between Jews and Goyim (gentiles). European nationalism strove for a homogeneous national-ethnic state.

        The Jewish demographic state has absorbed both these elements: a homogeneous Jewish national-ethnic state, with as few non-Jews as possible.

        In Europe, where classical nationalism was born, it is giving way to the modern American outlook, which considers that every holder of a US passport belongs to the American nation, irrespective of race and ethnic origin. This has helped it becoming the most powerful state in the world, culturally, economically, and militarily. European nation-states are gradually ceding sovereignty to the European Union, and their citizenship is accorded to foreign immigrants, too, who contribute to their economy and safeguard their social welfare system. In Germany, children of immigrants born in the country receive citizenship, Britain and France are even more liberal.

        Israel is faced with a historical choice: to go back to being a Jewish ghetto, with demographic anxieties and state trappings, or to go forwards towards a new national outlook, on the American-European model.

        Zionism was the last European national movement. Israeli colonialism, too, has come 200 years too late. So it is perhaps natural that the challenge of adopting a new national outlook comes rather late.

        But in the end, I hope, the Jewish Demographic State will be replaced by the Israeli Democratic Republic, for the welfare and security of its citizens.

        [emphasis added]

        http://www.mediamonitors.net/uri91.html

        ——————————

        Calling for the “Jewish Demographic State” to be replaced by an “Israeli Democratic Republic” based on the American-European liberal-democratic model is simply not compatible with Zionism– that, or the meaning of the term becomes so broad as to render it useless.

      • eljay
        April 22, 2017, 2:38 pm

        || jon s: I wonder what Uri Avnery, author of “Israel Without Zionists” (1968), thinks of the irony of being considered a Zionist. ||

        It’s not ironic if he – like you – believes that people who choose to be/come Jewish are entitled to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

      • jon s
        April 23, 2017, 1:47 pm

        A personal memory:
        When I was 13 years old I read Uri Avnery’s “The Other Side of the Coin”, his unexpurgated account of his battleground experience. I read it cover-to -cover in one night and it had a huge , life-changing impact on me. After that , I read his weekly editorials, volunteered for his party and eventually met him in person. So maybe I’m not quite objective writing about him but I do think that he’s an example of unwavering commitment to the ideal of Israeli-Palestinian peace. It’s amazing that he’s still around after all those years.

      • Mooser
        April 23, 2017, 4:13 pm

        “A personal memory…”

        “Jon s”, you are having those idiotic memories again.
        So let me get this straight, so we all can understand it.

        You have no empathy, no compassion, for an Israeli IDF vet injured fighting in your name, to protect your settlement, now that he’s hurt, you want to ‘turn him over to Hamas’.
        All you have for him is condemnations and accusations.

        But you want us to believe you have some kind of empathy for the Palestinians? Maybe I’ll believe that if I saw your charity start at home, know what I mean?

        You can’t refrain from attacking any Jews you disagree with, and I’m supposed to believe you will be reasonable with Palestinians?
        Sure, okay “Jon s”.

      • talknic
        April 23, 2017, 7:39 pm

        @ jon s April 23, 2017, 1:47 pm

        “I do think that he’s an example of unwavering commitment to the ideal of Israeli-Palestinian peace. It’s amazing that he’s still around after all those years.”

        Indeed! Even mention of peace is enough

        https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Uri%20Avnery%20%22in%201975,%20he%20was%20the%20victim%20of%20an%20assassination%20attempt%22 The perpetrator was insane of course…

      • echinococcus
        April 24, 2017, 12:15 am

        John S is again surpassing himself –literally.

        He starts by invoking “the irony” (I suppose he fuzzily means some situational irony, just like any US teenager) of Uri Avnery “being considered a Zionist”.

        Immediately after what he informs us that he had a life-changing experience reading that same guy –and we all know what his changed life looks like. Personal meeting and admiration by this rabid Zionist of the unfairly-considered-a-Zionist Irgun veteran.

        Oh yes, Avnery is “an example of unwavering commitment to the ideal of Israeli-Palestinian peace” without justice. Peace, and John the American invader pirate keeps is house while the owners of the place can disappear.

      • Mooser
        April 24, 2017, 11:23 am

        “It’s amazing that he’s still around after all those years.”

        Isn’t it, tho? He attributes his longevity to employing good bodyguards and security procedures.

      • Sibiriak
        April 25, 2017, 12:29 am

        eljay: It’s not ironic if he [Uri Avnery] – like you – believes that people who choose to be/come Jewish are entitled to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

        —————————-

        FYI, Avnery rejects and ridicules the notion of Israel as a “Jewish State”. He wants to see Israel transformed from ethno-theocratic state into a non-discriminatory liberal-democractic state.

        ———————–

        “The State of Bla-Bla-Bla” By Uri Avnery

        […] IF I were asked to swear allegiance to the “Nation-State of the Jewish People”, I would have to respectfully decline. Perhaps by then a law will be in force that will cancel the citizenship of Israelis who refuse this demand, and I shall be demoted to the status of permanent resident devoid of civil rights.

        I would have to refuse so as to avoid lying.

        First of all, I don’t know what the “Jewish people”, to which the state of Israel supposedly belongs, is. Who is included? A Jew in Brooklyn, a citizen of the Nation-State of the American People, who served in the Marines and votes for the American president? Richard Goldstone, who is denounced by the leaders of Israel as a liar and self-hating traitor? Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister, who was told this week by Lieberman to solve the Burka problem in France instead of poking his (Jewish) nose into our affairs?

        And how does the ownership of Israel by these Jews express itself? Will they be able to vote for our government (after this right has been taken away from a million and a half Arab citizens)? Will they determine the policy of our government – joining the Jewish billionaires, casino and brothel owners, who own our newspapers and TV stations and buy our politicians wholesale or retail?

        No Israeli law has defined what the “Jewish people” is. A religious community? An ethnic group? A race? All these together? Does it include all those professing the Jewish religion? Everybody who has a Jewish mother? Does it include a non-Jew married to someone with one Jewish grandparent, who today enjoys the automatic right to come to Israel and become a citizen?

        If 100 thousand Arabs were to convert to Judaism tomorrow, would the state belong to them, too?

        And what about the confusion between “Nation” and “People”? Does the Nation-State belong to the “Nation” or to the “People”? According to what scientific or juridical definition? Does the German “Nation-State” belong to the German “People” – which, according to some, also includes the Austrians and the German-speaking Swiss?

        We have here a knot of concepts, terms and semantic confusions, a knot that cannot be unraveled. […]

        http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1287228746/

      • Sibiriak
        April 25, 2017, 12:34 am

        @eljay

        Avnery, btw, agrees with your notion of actually-existing Zionism as a fundamentally religion-based– supremacist construct.

        I see little if any difference between his views and yours.

        ———————————
        “Another Theocracy in the Heart of the Muslim World” by Uri Avnery

        I am fed up with all this nonsense about recognizing Israel as the “Jewish state.”

        It is based on a collection of hollow phrases and vague definitions, devoid of any real content. It serves many different purposes, almost all of them malign.

        ****

        […]Any talk about the Jewish state leads inevitably to the question: What are the Jews—a nation or a religion?

        Official Israeli doctrine says that “Jewish” is both a national and a religious definition. The Jewish collective, unlike any other, is both national and religious. With us, nation and religion are one and the same.

        The only door of entry to this collective is religious. There is no national door.

        Hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish Russian immigrants have come to Israel under the Law of Return with their Jewish relatives. This law is very broad. In order to attract the Jews, it allows even distant non-Jewish relatives to come with them, including the spouse of the grandchild of a Jew. Many of these non-Jews want to be Jews in order to be considered full Israelis, but have tried in vain to be accepted. Under Israeli law, a Jew is a person “born to a Jewish mother or converted, who has not adopted another religion.”

        This is a purely religious definition. Jewish religious law says that for this purpose, only the mother, not the father, counts.

        It is extremely difficult to be converted in Israel. The rabbis demand that the convert fulfill all 613 commandments of the Jewish religion—which only very few recognized Israelis do. But one cannot become an official member of the stipulated Jewish “nation” by any other door. One becomes a part of the American nation by accepting U.S. citizenship. Nothing like that exists here.

        We have an ongoing battle about this in Israel. Some of us want Israel to be an Israeli state, belonging to the Israeli people, indeed a “state of all its citizens.” Some want to impose on us the religious law supposedly fixed by God for all times on Mount Sinai some 3,200 years ago and abolish all contrary laws of the democratically elected Knesset. Many don’t want any change at all.

        But how, in God’s name (sorry), does this concern the Palestinians? Or the Icelanders, for that matter?

        ————————————————-

        The demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as “the Jewish state” or as “the nation-state of the Jewish people” is preposterous.

        http://original.antiwar.com/avnery/2011/06/19/another-theocratic-state-in-the-heart-of-the-muslim-world/

      • eljay
        April 25, 2017, 8:00 am

        Thanks for that information, Sibiriak. :-)

      • Mooser
        April 25, 2017, 12:01 pm

        “He wants to see Israel transformed…”

        I want a Shetland pony. A nice one, too.

      • Sibiriak
        April 25, 2017, 12:16 pm

        BDS won’t get you that pony.

      • Mooser
        April 25, 2017, 5:06 pm

        “BDS won’t get you that pony”

        You and I have vastly differing opinions on Zionist Israel’s resiliency.

      • Sibiriak
        April 25, 2017, 9:01 pm

        Mooser: You and I have vastly differing opinions on Zionist Israel’s resilience…
        ————————-

        How resilient is Zionist Israel?

        I support BDS, and other strategies and tactics. For a reason.

      • Maghlawatan
        April 26, 2017, 4:04 am

        Netanyahu pulls out of a meeting with the German foreign minister

        The groupthink rejected it. Zionism v reality.

        https://www.ft.com/content/de264094-29c8-11e7-bc4b-5528796fe35c

  5. W.Jones
    April 21, 2017, 5:21 pm

    It’s kind of like if your nice multimillionaire neighbor’s dog comes over and bites your kid on the back of the neck and you ask for restitution and they reply “It’s complicated”.

  6. YoniFalic
    April 21, 2017, 5:45 pm

    At the end of WW2, the correct approach would have been dividing up the Jewish Displaced Person (DP) population (probably < 350K) between the British Empire and the USA. Then the New Yishuv (most of whose members had no real interest in living in Palestine and which was smaller than the DP population) could be dispersed, and the natives would receive independence in conformance to the American principles of Wilsonian democratic self-determination.

    History didn't happen this way mostly because the the Palestinian Zionist leadership and sympathetic Jewish journalists throughout the world waged a scare campaign to convince world leaders that there were millions of Jewish DPs needing resettlement.

    A good book that addresses Zionist dishonesty in the aftermath of WW2 is In the Shadow of the Holocaust The Struggle Between Jews and Zionists in the Aftermath of World War II by Grodzinsky.

  7. MHughes976
    April 21, 2017, 6:40 pm

    It is valuable to have the point made so clearly by Avnery that the real question is why the 750,000 were excluded. It is true that many of the victims of Auschwitz etc. were still unsettled three years postwar, but it is not true
    a) that it was a dire postwar emergency and that their lives were hanging by a thread – if they were still there after three years emergency provision had already been made
    b) that there was nowhere else for them to go – many were making new lives, some in the United States, some even in their old homes
    c) that the policy of exclusion of traditional residents, with its infliction of misery, could be justified by the needs of new arrivals. There could be no security for any of us in the human race if neighbours were allowed to exclude us from our homes in order to make way for their friends or relatives.
    Avnery’s main argument about himself, as he chooses not to respond to increasingly angry challenges, seems to be that there is no duty to attempt the impossible – and it is impossible to get an Israeli hearing for the RoR. I actually have some sympathy for this argument, since ‘ought presupposes can’ is plausible. However, the argument is presented as if another, more constructive possibility is indeed open, which turns out to be the 2ss in very liberal form: but is this really a possibility? If Avnery has been campaigning for it since 1953 and got nowhere his own experience maybe suggests that it is not. And it seems horrible that he sets out to make peace with the angered Palestinians, treating them as morally significant people, but finds that when pressed by one of them to support his claims he responds, perhaps must respond, with a deaf ear and stony silence, committing them, in effect, to as much moral insignificance as they have in the Netanyahu worldview.

    • JeffB
      April 21, 2017, 9:53 pm

      @MHughes76

      I think you know me well enough to know that Avnery is way to my left. But he has had substantial success. Jon S’ comment, even though it is being mocked here, is quite correct. From ’75-82 he had a huge impact on normalizing the idea of a Palestinian state in Israeli discourse. He normalized Arafat as a negotiating partner. He probably deserves something like 5-10% of the credit for the negotiations of the 90s and 00s. He has consistently tried to present the Palestinian moderate position in a way acceptable to Israelis. As the 2SS is getting less popular he’s been a major player in trying to keep dialogue alive on both sides.

      His frustration with this settler-colonial RoR narrative is simply that he knows this kills any chance for agreement. It pushes the debate back to where it was in the 1950s, the Arabs want terms that are completely unacceptable to the Israelis and thus the Israelis have no choice but to war. I think he’s making it clear to this Palestinian interlocker that there is no chance of getting agreement on what Sitta considers a fair offer. The options that exists are some sort of 2SS, probably slightly to moderately to the right of what Avnery supports or one of the even more rightwing solutions being discussed. Even someone who has a lifetime of evidence of being in the leftmost 2% of Israeli politics wouldn’t go as far as Sitta wants.

      Ultimately I don’t think a 2SS solution is likely. The two sides disagree too much on the details. But I think Avnery sent the message that needs to be sent. If the asking price for peace is RoR, Israelis choose war. His 500k comment is key. That number is far higher than most 2SS supporters would agree to and it is far short of 7m.

      • MHughes976
        April 22, 2017, 4:49 pm

        Thanks for useful information, Jeff.

      • Marnie
        April 23, 2017, 1:23 am

        The 2SS isn’t likely because both sides disagree too much about details but because the zionists are steadily stealing more and more land from what was intended to be part of the palestinian state. Everyone knows that.

        I think the only people who are trying to keep the 2SS ‘alive’ are the people who a) Never, ever want to see an independent Palestine and b) Love the status quo and wouldn’t change it for anything. They also would rather die and see their dear progeny die than live in a secular democratic state with equal rights for all which is stupid, but people are stupid.

      • G. Seauton
        April 24, 2017, 11:29 pm

        “Interlocker” — nice word. I like that. Your own personal contribution to the English language?

    • echinococcus
      April 24, 2017, 10:41 am

      Hughes,

      Avnery’s main argument about himself, as he chooses not to respond to increasingly angry challenges, seems to be that there is no duty to attempt the impossible

      But there is a duty to ask for the (so-called) impossible if it is your right. It’s an absolute precondition to obtaining anything.

      • MHughes976
        April 25, 2017, 9:41 pm

        I don’t contest that, echino

  8. Talkback
    April 21, 2017, 7:28 pm

    It’s quite shocking how dishonest Avnery is when it comes to 48 and the expulsion of Palestinians. Especially his attempt to create a fake symmetry to distract from Zionist settler colonialism and its need to expell the natives for demographic reasons.

    • MHughes976
      April 24, 2017, 9:34 am

      That is an interesting critique, Vacy – I sometimes think (though others here have questioned it) that the reluctance to say ‘Palestinian’ goes all the way back to the Septuagint translators’ making ‘Philistines’ into ‘foreigners’. Somehow the adjectivd ‘Palestinian’ never quite gained the currency of the noun ‘Palestine’. However, it might be that Avnery is using ‘Arab’ so as not to induce an immediate defensive response from those he seeks to persuade. Your ‘clue number 1’, where he mentions the non-agricultural use of (actually) Palestinian land by settlers, seems to me to expose, as well as any one sentence written by any one person ever has, the ungenuine, creepy nature of the Zionist attachment to ‘the Land’.

  9. Maghlawatan
    April 21, 2017, 10:48 pm

    Amira Hass told Amy Goodman that she felt like a failure because for years she thought that if she presented the facts to Yossi Israeli there would be a response. So did Avnery. He is pretty much as good as it gets in Zionism.
    But Yossi and Yossita didn’t listen to Hass or Avnery.

    Because there is no space for Palestinians in Zionism. And it is very complicated. Not because of the demographics but because Zionism has all of the guns and offers nothing. So the light has to break through somehow else .
    And the war continues on the moral front. Where the guns are useless.
    Maybe if Israel had thrown the Palestinians a few scraps Avnery might have been vindicated.

    But Israel is driven by the trauma of the Shoah, which recognises no reason. You can see no reason cos there are no reasons. Tell me why I don’t like Palestinians.

    Benoît Mandelbrot was born around the same time as Avnery . He died in 2010. He was a mathematician who developed the field of fractal maths. In nature objects occur in recognisable shapes which may be replicated in the same form on many different levels. Psychology is similar. And Zionist thinking on all levels is based on the logic that Jew is greater than Palestinian.

    The overwhelming military power is a reflection of the coding. The coding is the source of all the lies. It’s why hasbara is necessary. It’s why the peace process was a joke.

    Avnery can’t admit that Abu Sitta is right. He can’t admit that the Zionist fractal is wrong.

    Israel ploughs on. At some stage it will fall over. Another mathematici an, Rüdiger Dornbusch, observed that the crisis takes longer than you would think to develop and then happens much faster than you would have imagined.

  10. Blake
    April 22, 2017, 2:54 am

    That ‘complicated’ copout.

  11. Marnie
    April 22, 2017, 3:02 am

    As I wrote repeatedly: The history of the Jews will not be marked any more by the alleged killing of Christ nor by the Nazi atrocities in WWII, but will be indelibly marked by what they have done to Palestinians, deliberately and constantly, without remorse, regret or remedy, thus reflecting that side of the human spirit which does not learn from history and that which empty itself of its own moral posture. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/comment-page-1/#comment-877115

    How could anyone argue this; besides the regulars?

  12. Marnie
    April 22, 2017, 3:14 am

    But the real question is: Why were the 750,000 refugees not allowed home after the end of the hostilities? ONE HAS to remember the situation. It was three years after the smokestacks of Auschwitz and the other camps had gone cold. Hundreds of thousands of wretched survivors crowded the refugee camps in Europe and had nowhere to go but to the new Israel. They were brought here and hastily put into the homes of the Palestinian refugees. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/comment-page-1/#comment-877116

    What is that god-awful stench? Oh, it’s the paragraph above. The zionists had enough money and backing before 1948 to build housing on the land they’d already stolen to prepare for what they’d planned – masses of jews from all over to their jewish state. But instead got so damn many of the ‘wretched survivors’ (nice wording avnery – but that’s how they were seen by the ‘beautiful ones’ the zionist version of the aryan) who didn’t deserve new housing at all and could just move right into the homes of the Palestinian owners (some even with a meal on the table); what would they care, right?

    I can’t get over how blase’ avnery ziosplains, as if it would suffice to anyone.

  13. Marnie
    April 22, 2017, 3:20 am

    “You belonged to Irgun, the “worst” terrorist group, if grading can be made. I know you have spent years calling for “peace”. But your peace meant that the killer should be forgiven, the thief should run away with the stolen goods and those expelled from their homes should be thrown a few pieces of silver to shut up. No remorse, nor repentance, no justice done, no remedy. Just empty words. How could those settlers live with this double life, liberty in Europe and crime in Palestine? – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/comment-page-1/#comment-877117

    Honesty is so easy, so brief, not paragraphs of nonsense that, when boiled down to their essence is basically wish we could change things, but we can’t so deal with it.

    Did anyone read this? A heartfelt apology to Haaretz readers – Opinion – Israel News …
    http://www.haaretz.com › Opinion

  14. talknic
    April 22, 2017, 3:38 am

    With due respect to Uri Avnery “There is absolutely no chance that the vast majority of Israelis would freely agree to the return of all the refugees and their descendants, who amount to six or seven million people – the same number as Israel’s Jewish citizens. This would be the end of the “Jewish state” and the beginning of a “bi-national state”, to which 99% of Israelis strenuously object.”

    For sure the vast majority would object to it. However, it’s simply not what the Palestinians are asking.

    The six or seven million Palestinian refugees wanting to return to Israel is a fallacy. We can see it repeated again and again. This example in the dialogue of Judith Lapidoth where her statement pushes the same fallacy on the Israeli Government web site.

    “According to Palestinian sources, there are about 3.5 million Palestinian refugees nowadays registered with UNRWA. If Israel were to allow all of them to return to her territory, this would be an act of suicide on her part, and no state can be expected to destroy itself.”

    Is she, a professor, really that ignorant? Of course she isn’t. The ambiguity of her assertion shows she is engaged in typical propaganda modus operandi. Planting the seeds of panic in order that there be no RoR at all. She does not say the Palestinians demand that all lineal descendants have RoR, she only says “there are about 3.5 million Palestinian refugees nowadays registered with UNRWA “….she then slyly adds…. If Israel were to allow all of them to return to her territory…etc”

    “If” This is a typical. Enough to make people think it is the Palestinian demand. It isn’t and has never been their demand.

    The Palestinian claim is based on UNGA res 194 of 1948 which cannot possibly be referring to an UNRWA definition or figure for the simple fact that UNRWA didn’t exist in 1948. Furthermore UNRWA’s mandate doesn’t extend to final status. Its definition is only to ascertain who qualifies for “Works and Assistance” while they are refugees

    This is the official United Nations explanation of a refugee under UNGA res 194 http://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/UNISPAL.NSF/0/418E7BC6931616B485256CAF00647CC7

    Not “all the refugees and their lineal descendants”, as Uri Avnery has put it, have a right to return to the territory proclaimed by the Israeli Government in their plea for recognition. Only non-Jewish Israelis have that right, being those who Israel pleaded with to sta in its declaration of statehood even as they were being dispossessed. One would have to be rather naive to believe the drafters of the declaration didn’t know about Plan Dalet.

    Now a little simple maths. Thru natural attrition, the actual number of original non-Jewish Israeli refugees has been steadily decreasing since Israel proclaimed its borders in order to be recognized. Yes they have lineal descendants. However the base number has not increased in 69 years, whereas the number of Jews has increased. In fact, it increased immediately. By 1952 some extra 500,000 Arab Jews from the surrounding Arab States alone, PLUS those from elsewhere in the world, some refugees some not. This number has continued to grow, swelling their lineal descendants. Israel long ago passed the point where there was any demographic threat.

    There is of course a demographic threat to the territories Israel has acquired by war since proclaiming its borders. Rightly so. It Israeli by any agreement.

    • echinococcus
      April 22, 2017, 10:01 am

      Talknic,

      If I read it right, essentially it is about keeping the illegal immigration by invaders flowing, while at the same time continuing to prohibit the free circulation of Palestinians from either side of the “green line” in their own country.

      And, of course, making the right of return request sound as a tiny, cuddly one that shouldn’t scare or threaten the Zionist entity –just some select few who want to come live under better material conditions (as long as they shut up): it’s under the boot of the stranger anyway, on either side of the fence.

      This is supposed to be another application of the principle of the prohibition of right of conquest, I take it.

      • talknic
        April 22, 2017, 12:56 pm

        @ echinococcus April 22, 2017, 10:01 am

        “If I read it right, essentially it is about keeping the illegal immigration by invaders flowing, while at the same time continuing to prohibit the free circulation of Palestinians from either side of the “green line” in their own country.”

        That seems to be the Zionist MO

        “And, of course, making the right of return request sound as a tiny, cuddly one that shouldn’t scare or threaten the Zionist entity –just some select few who want to come live under better material conditions (as long as they shut up): it’s under the boot of the stranger anyway, on either side of the fence.”

        Uh? Just some select few? Why not all who have the right to return to the territory in which they once resided? They and their their lineal descendants have long ago been out numbered by Jewish Israelis.

        In the first two years some 500,000 new Jewish arrivals from the Arab States alone PLUS hundreds of thousands of others from all around the world. Some refugees, some not. The non-Jewish base number hasn’t increased. In fact thru natural attrition it has decreased. The demographic threat to Israel within its self proclaimed borders is bullsh*t.

        “This is supposed to be another application of the principle of the prohibition of right of conquest, I take it.”

        I have no idea of WTF you’re on about

      • echinococcus
        April 23, 2017, 1:48 am

        You have no idea? Really?

        “Select few” because all Palestinians have the right to go anywhere they wish within Palestine (which, I’ll remind you, is the entirety of Palestine, not what’s left from the Zionist conquest.)

        In the first two years some 500,000 new Jewish arrivals from the Arab States alone PLUS hundreds of thousands of others from all around the world.

        Those are almost all illegally immigrated and and/or their presence anywhere in Palestine is illegal, so why should we be even mentioning the interlopers? They should be out (in the absence of a fully representative plebiscite, of course, an absence that you seem to recognize.)

        By limiting the right of “return” to only some Palestinians, you interfere with the most basic right of Palestinians from both sides of the so-called green line to go wherever they want in Palestine. An overwhelming majority of the invaders (ie of those that you improperly call “Jewish”) have no right to be there at all.

        And it is an application of the old-fashioned right of conquest to imagine that any invader can have the right to stay.

      • talknic
        April 23, 2017, 8:09 pm

        @ echinococcus April 23, 2017, 1:48 am

        “Select few” because all Palestinians have the right to go anywhere they wish within Palestine (which, I’ll remind you, is the entirety of Palestine, not what’s left from the Zionist conquest.)”

        Problem. Palestine has been recognized as declared.

        // In the first two years some 500,000 new Jewish arrivals from the Arab States alone PLUS hundreds of thousands of others from all around the world.//

        “Those are almost all illegally immigrated and and/or their presence anywhere in Palestine is illegal..”

        Irrelevant to the point being made, i.e., the demographic threat is nonsense

        ” so why should we be even mentioning the interlopers?”

        Call them what you will, simple maths shows the claim of a potential demographic threat to be ridiculous

        ” They should be out (in the absence of a fully representative plebiscite, of course, an absence that you seem to recognize.)”

        Like it or not Palestine was declared and recognized. A plebiscite can only be legally applicable to the legitimate inhabitants of territories NOT declared by Israel and not actually recognized as being Israeli, that once belonged to the provisionally recognized State of Palestine under the LoN Mandate.

        “By limiting the right of “return” to only some Palestinians, you interfere with … “

        YOU said “just some select few” I said “Why not all who have the right to return to the territory in which they once resided? ”

        “…. the most basic right of Palestinians from both sides of the so-called green line to go wherever they want in Palestine”

        Palestine was declared and recognized by the Green line. Israel was declared and recognized by the borders of UNGA res 181. Legal or illegal, they’re the facts you refuse to accept.

      • echinococcus
        April 23, 2017, 11:40 pm

        Like it or not Palestine was declared and recognized. A plebiscite can only be legally applicable to the legitimate inhabitants of territories NOT declared by Israel and not actually recognized as being Israeli, that once belonged to the provisionally recognized State of Palestine under the LoN Mandate

        Like it or not, the occupation of Kenya by the British Empire was declared and universally recognized. Any objections can only be legally applicable to the legitimate inhabitants of territories NOT declared by Her Majesty’s Government and not actually recognized as being British possessions.

        Like it or not, the occupation of Europe by the IIIrd Reich was declared and recognized. All protests are only valid for territories not declared occupied by the Reich.

        Did I tell you what i think you should do with your stupid pretend-legalist BS?

      • talknic
        April 24, 2017, 8:56 am

        @ echinococcus April 23, 2017, 11:40 pm

        “Like it or not, the occupation of Kenya by the British Empire was declared and universally recognized.”

        Kenya has been an independent country for 54 years

        “Any objections can only be legally applicable to the legitimate inhabitants of territories NOT declared by Her Majesty’s Government and not actually recognized as being British possessions”

        You’re spouting nonsense.

        “Like it or not, the occupation of Europe by the IIIrd Reich was declared and recognized. “

        The Nazis were booted.

        “All protests are only valid for territories not declared occupied by the Reich”

        You’re spouting nonsense.

        “Did I tell you what i think you should do with your stupid pretend-legalist BS?”

        Tch tch.

      • echinococcus
        April 24, 2017, 10:25 am

        Yes, Talknic, colonies have kicked out imperial invaders only because people have ignored people like you, who preach recognition and acceptance of self-declared acts of conquest by invaders.

        There have been a lot of Talknics in those times, too, talking against the “excesses” of colonialism while trying their damnedest to ensure the colonials kept a solid foothold. We know your kind.

      • talknic
        April 24, 2017, 1:14 pm

        @ echinococcus April 24, 2017, 10:25 am

        Yes, Talknic, colonies have kicked out imperial invaders only because people have ignored people like you, who preach recognition and acceptance of self-declared acts of conquest by invaders. … talking against the “excesses” of colonialism while trying their damnedest to ensure the colonials kept a solid foothold. “

        It is a FACT that Palestine has been declared. It is also a FACT that Israel has been declared.

        The maths behind RoR and where they have a right to return, is simply maths

        The illegality and responsibility for pre-state Jewish terrorist actions has not changed by my stating facts nor has the illegality and responsibility of the actions of the State of Israel changed

        “We know your kind”

        You’re barking up an empty tree. I’m not responsible for either situation, go yap at something else

      • Mooser
        April 24, 2017, 2:15 pm

        This argument over whether the ’48 lines, the Statehood lines, are Israel’s “briar patch*” or Israel’s “tar baby*” has been going on a while.

        *”The helpless, but cunning, Br’er Rabbit pleads, “Please don’t throw me in the briar patch,” prompting Fox to do exactly that. As rabbits are at home in thickets, the resourceful Br’er Rabbit escapes”

        *”The Tar-Baby is the second of the Uncle Remus stories published in 1880; it is about a doll made of tar and turpentine used by the villainous Br’er Fox to entrap Br’er Rabbit. The more that Br’er Rabbit fights the Tar-Baby, the more entangled he becomes.” And Br’er Rabbit is trapped.

      • talknic
        April 26, 2017, 3:06 am

        ooops

      • talknic
        May 1, 2017, 2:31 am

        @ echinococcus April 23, 2017, 1:48 am

        “You have no idea? Really?”

        Really.

        T: In the first two years some 500,000 new Jewish arrivals from the Arab States alone PLUS hundreds of thousands of others from all around the world.

        “Those are almost all illegally immigrated and and/or their presence anywhere in Palestine is illegal, so why should we be even mentioning the interlopers? They should be out (in the absence of a fully representative plebiscite, of course, an absence that you seem to recognize”

        My argument is against the notions presented by the Hasbara narrative. They claim the Palestinians want RoR for 6-7 million refugees to Israel. Its not what the Palestinians themselves actually claim.

    • Talkback
      April 22, 2017, 10:07 am

      Talknic: “The Palestinian claim is based on UNGA res 194 of 1948 which cannot possibly be referring to an UNRWA definition or figure for the simple fact that UNRWA didn’t exist in 1948.”

      Refering to UNGAR 194 doesn’t ecxlude refering to the later UNWRA definition of a refugee. There are actually more who fled or were expelled than those who acquired refugee status based on UNWRA’s definition since it only considers those who are refugees who are helped by UNWRA installations in some neighbouring countries IIRC.

      “Only non-Jewish Israelis have that right, being those who Israel pleaded with to sta in its declaration of statehood even as they were being dispossessed.”

      I guess what you actually want so say is that only the (“nonjewish”) refugees (and their descendants who acquired refugee status) who were habitually resident inside what became Israel according to borders of the partition plan (in which it wanted to be recogniized immediately after its proclamation) have a right to return to THIS very same territory.

      Talknic: “There is of course a demographic threat to the territories Israel has acquired by war since proclaiming its borders.”

      Which territories are you talking about? According to your reasoning not the territories that were illegaly acquired before its existence, right? So I guess only East Jerusalem and the Golan Hights?

      Oh no, sorry I made a mistake. Not even these territories, because Israel only pleaded for recognition within 1848 borders, right?

      • Talkback
        April 22, 2017, 10:32 am

        I meant 1948 borders, not 1848.

      • talknic
        April 22, 2017, 12:36 pm

        @ Talkback April 22, 2017, 10:07 am

        “Refering to UNGAR 194 doesn’t ecxlude refering to the later UNWRA definition of a refugee. “

        UNRWA has no final status mandate. It’s definition is not about who has RoR. It is only to ascertain who qualifies for assistance whilst a refugee

        Is UNRWA involved in the Middle East peace negotiations and in the discussions on a solution to the refugee issue?

        No. UNRWA is a humanitarian agency and its mandate defines its role as one of providing services to the refugees. However, UNRWA highlights the international community’s obligation to provide a just and durable solution for Palestine refugees.
        https://www.unrwa.org/who-we-are/frequently-asked-questions

        “There are actually more who fled or were expelled than those who acquired refugee status based on UNWRA’s definition since it only considers those who are refugees who are helped by UNWRA installations in some neighbouring countries IIRC.”

        Highly likely. That doesn’t change the UNRWA mandate or where they have a right to return to

        //“Only non-Jewish Israelis have that right, being those who Israel pleaded with to sta in its declaration of statehood even as they were being dispossessed.”//

        “I guess what you actually want so say is that only the (“nonjewish”) refugees (and their descendants who acquired refugee status) who were habitually resident inside what became Israel according to borders of the partition plan (in which it wanted to be recogniized immediately after its proclamation) have a right to return to THIS very same territory”

        In effect, yes. Entirely practical to the exact place were Israel to comply, no. Too much has been destroyed. But certainly within Israel’s declared territories

        //Talknic: “There is of course a demographic threat to the territories Israel has acquired by war since proclaiming its borders.”//

        “Which territories are you talking about? According to your reasoning not the territories that were illegaly acquired before its existence, right?”

        Whatever Israel didn’t declare and were not recognized as Israeli. The Israeli plea for recognition and its subsequent recognition set those parameters. How and/or when Israel acquired those territories and the fact that Israel can’t be indicted for what transpired before it existed as a state, doesn’t change the fact that they are not Israeli.

        “So I guess only East Jerusalem and the Golan Hights?”

        Nope. These territories https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B9Vis_gBvX6aYTA0ZDVhMTctZmUzNS00MzU1LTlmMzEtNGI1ZDMwNGIwNDNh&hl=en_GB

      • YoniFalic
        April 22, 2017, 1:00 pm

        In International Criminal Law states are not indicted.

        The first charge of the Nuremberg indictment of the former German Nationalist Socialist Government officials belongs to customary international anti-genocide law. It comes close to an indictment of a state but isn’t. It makes the following accusation (International Military Tribunal, vol. 1, p. 63).

        In certain occupied territories purportedly annexed to Germany the defendants methodically and pursuant to plan endeavored to assimilate these territories politically, culturally, socially, and economically into the German Reich. They endeavored to obliterate the former national character of these territories. In pursuance of their plans, the defendants forcibly deported inhabitants who were predominantly non-German and replaced them by thousands of German colonists.

        Obviously, it makes much more sense to charge (former) government officials than a state which may no longer exist.

        Note that German Nazi Germanization and “Jewish” Zio Judaization are for all intents and purposes identical crimes of genocide with minor label changes.

      • talknic
        April 22, 2017, 8:26 pm

        YoniFalic April 22, 2017, 1:00 pm

        “In International Criminal Law states are not indicted.”

        To be clear, I mean/t a state cannot be censured by the UN or brought to book for crimes committed before the state existed.

      • Talkback
        April 23, 2017, 7:37 am

        Talknic: “UNRWA has no final status mandate. It’s definition is not about who has RoR.”

        Nobody made the claim. The right ro return for Palestinan refuees INCLUDES the refugees who have a refugee status under UNWRA.

        Talknic: “That doesn’t change the UNRWA mandate or where they have a right to return to.”

        Nonbody made that claim. Your claim is that “that the six or seven million Palestinian refugees wanting to return to Israel is a fallacy.” Your claim is based on your other claim that no UN member which recognizes Israel and not even Israel itself considers territories like Ashdod, Jaffa, Acre. etc. to be part of Israel. Which of course is the actual fallacy, cause when Israel talks about the right to return it denies the right to return to every territory it controlled before 1967 and Jerusalem therafter and probably also all settlements it considers to be included in a peace treaty. Which explains the high number and that this is seen as a demographic threat.

        Talknic: “Whatever Israel didn’t declare and were not recognized as Israeli. How and/or when Israel acquired those territories and the fact that Israel can’t be indicted for what transpired before it existed as a state …”

        You wrote about the “territories Israel has acquired by war SINCE proclaiming its borders”. That are not the territories that were acquired by Israel through war BEFORE 15 May. So what is it now? Territories that lie beyond recognized borders or territories that were acquired after 15 May? And by what legal mechanism did the Goverment of Israel acquire the territories for its state that were illegaly acquired before 1948 by its pre state actors? Stolen property doesn’t become legal through transfer of ownership, if you want to argue that the pre Israel “People’s council” is different from the “Provisional State Council” which was the same organisation just by a different name.

        Talknic: “Nope. Nope. These territories”

        A link to a kmz file, are you nuts? Which territories were acquiredthrough war by Israel AFTER it came into existence? There were territories that were illegaly acquired through war before May 1948 and you claim that Israel can’t be held responsible for thisd, but that they were somehow legally acquired by Israel if they are within partition borders.

      • talknic
        April 24, 2017, 1:58 am

        @ Talkback April 23, 2017, 7:37 am

        “Nobody made the claim. “

        Uh? Uri Avnery

        “There is absolutely no chance that the vast majority of Israelis would freely agree to the return of all the refugees and their descendants, who amount to six or seven million people – the same number as Israel’s Jewish citizens. This would be the end of the “Jewish state” and the beginning of a “bi-national state”, to which 99% of Israelis strenuously object.”

        Six or seven million people is the UNRWA figure bandied about at the time he made that statement

        However, the Palestinians are not claiming six or seven million people have RoR to Israel. The Palestinian claim is per UNGA res 194 by which time Israel’s borders were limited by its plea for recognition. Only non-Jewish Israeli refugees whose normal place of residence was in territories that became Israeli in its plea for recognition have RoR to those territories. The rest simply is not Israeli

        “The right ro return for Palestinan refuees INCLUDES the refugees who have a refugee status under UNWRA.”

        Correct. But they do not ALL have RoR to the same territories. Some to the territories Israel proclaimed in its plea for recognition, others to territories outside that limit

        “Your claim is based on your other claim that no UN member which recognizes Israel and not even Israel itself considers territories like Ashdod, Jaffa, Acre. etc. to be part of Israel. Which of course is the actual fallacy, “

        A ) I cannot for the life of me find, nor has anyone been able to provide, an actual official document by ANY state recognizing ANY territories acquired by war by Israel to be Israeli. I have been shown opinions, theories, everything but an official document of state to that effect. As far as I am aware it would be illegal for any state to recognize any territories acquired by any coercive measure by any other thru having settled them state, even if Jewish. http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897#art11

        B) I’ve never made a claim even remotely similar to “not even Israel itself considers territories like Ashdod, Jaffa, Acre. etc. to be part of Israel”. The territories outside of Israel’s declared and recognized borders that Israel most certainly “considers” are its own thru settling them, have yet to be transferred any agreement. That they are Israeli is the fallacy. Israel has yet to agree to any limitations on its final territorial status/or ambitions. Thus far more than enough has never been enough

        C) What I have said is: Israel has yet to agree to a final status/borders despite the Palestinian willingness to cede 78% of their rightful territories for peace. Israel has refused to accept this position. It is not even recognized by Israel FFS

        “cause when Israel talks about the right to return it denies the right to return to every territory it controlled before 1967 and Jerusalem therafter and probably also all settlements it considers to be included in a peace treaty. Which explains the high number and that this is seen as a demographic threat.”

        Precisely. But its a fallacy. Those territories “outside the State of Israel” are quite simply not yet Israeli as there has never been a final status agreement where Israel has accepted any final territorial limitations

        “You wrote about the “territories Israel has acquired by war SINCE proclaiming its borders”. That are not the territories that were acquired by Israel through war BEFORE 15 May. So what is it now?”

        A) Although the State of Israel cannot be held responsible or censured for the actions of Jewish terrorists before the State of Israel came into existence, that doesn’t mean the territories beyond the borders recommended by UNGA res 181 that were controlled by Jewish terrorists under Plan Dalet magically became Israeli. Nor have those territories been accepted by agreement with Palestine as a territorial limitation by Israel.

        B) The State of Israel can only be held responsible for acquiring territories illegally by war after it came into existence.

        ” by what legal mechanism did the Goverment of Israel acquire the territories for its state that were illegaly acquired before 1948 by its pre state actors?”

        Pre-state Jewish terrorists slaughtered and cleansed non-Jews from within the territories slated for the Jewish state and from territories outside of those slated for the Jewish state during a civil war. Crimes, but not crimes of the Jewish State because at that time the state didn’t exist.

        Israel’s refusal to allow RoR to non-Jewish Israeli refugees dispossessed during the civil war and; its refusal to allow RoR of Palestinian to territories outside the state and; Israel’s settling of any territories beyond those in its plea for recognition, are all crimes of state

        “Stolen property doesn’t become legal through transfer of ownership..”

        Indeed it doesn’t. There is no actual transfer of ownership. There’s a transfer of possession. Possession is 9/10ths of the law. 90% of thieves are convicted for possession. Where states are concerned territory is owned thru declaration. http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897#art3

        There’s also no territorial acquisition thru buying ‘real estate’ BTW http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yr

        “if you want to argue that the pre Israel “People’s council” is different from the “Provisional State Council” which was the same organisation just by a different name”

        Pre-state, they were not ‘State Actors”. A State can’t be held responsible for non-state actors’ pre-state crimes. Individuals could have been tried for their pre-state crimes even had they later been in government positions

        “A link to a kmz file, are you nuts? “

        Show me a more accurate and detailed map, aligned as close as possible to Google earth that can be transparent allowing one to see today and the borders declared in 1948

        “Which territories were acquired through war by Israel AFTER it came into existence? “

        The territories in RED in the kmz file https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B9Vis_gBvX6aYTA0ZDVhMTctZmUzNS00MzU1LTlmMzEtNGI1ZDMwNGIwNDNh&hl=en_GB

        or HERE https://talknic.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/notannexed.gif

        “There were territories that were illegaly acquired through war before May 1948 and you claim that Israel can’t be held responsible for this, but that they were somehow legally acquired by Israel if they are within partition borders”

        More precisely : there were territories controlled by pre-state Jewish terrorists during the civil war that were beyond those recommended and eventually declared and recognized as Israeli.

      • talknic
        April 24, 2017, 5:24 am

        On edit : corrections

        1 – The territories outside of Israel’s declared and recognized borders that Israel most certainly “considers” are its own thru having settling them, have yet to be transferred to Israel by any agreement

        2 – As far as I am aware it would be illegal for any state to recognize any territories acquired by any coercive measure by any other thru having settled them state, even if Jewish.

      • Talkback
        April 24, 2017, 7:32 pm

        Talknic: “Uh? Uri Avnery”

        He wasn’t talking about the UNWRA mandate at all. You made these straw man arguments.

        Talknic: “The Palestinian claim is per UNGA res 194 by which time Israel’s borders were limited by its plea for recognition.”

        The Palestinians don’t claim, that only those refugees should exercise this right who fled or were expelled from partition territory.

        “Talknic: A ) I cannot for the life of me find, nor has anyone been able to provide, an actual official document by ANY state recognizing ANY territories acquired by war by Israel to be Israeli.”

        You yourself wrote: “The Palestinians under the leadership of Arafat, declared statehood, CEDING 78% of their rightful territories to the State of Israel.”

        And I allready told you that there’s no need for an EXPLICITE document of recognition, if states act accordingly. There’s not a single state who recognizes Israel, but treats Ashod, its port or its coastal waters as occupied/blockaded Palestinan territory until a final agreement is made.

        Talknic: “I’ve never made a claim even remotely similar to “not even Israel itself considers territories like Ashdod, Jaffa, Acre. etc. to be part of Israel”. ”

        Really? You refered to Israel`s statement to the UN SEC May 1948 to counter the argument that Israel had incorporated these territories.

        Talknic: “The territories outside of Israel’s declared and recognized borders that Israel most certainly “considers” are its own thru settling them, have yet to be transferred any agreement. ”

        So how were the territories inside these borders were legally “transfered” to or acquired by Israel?

        Talknic: “Those territories “outside the State of Israel” are quite simply not yet Israeli as there has never been a final status agreement where Israel has accepted any final territorial limitations.”

        Israel has incorporated them.That’s not a “limitation” and Palestine doesn’t contest these territories to be Israeli.

        Talknic: “Pre-state Jewish terrorists …”

        You don’t answer the question. By what legal mechanism did the Goverment of Israel acquire the territories for its state that were illegaly acquired before 1948 by its pre state actors?

        Talknic: “Indeed it doesn’t. There is no actual transfer of ownership. There’s a transfer of possession.”

        So Israel doesn’t own the territories that its pre state actors possessed before 15 May 1948. To be more precise. Israel doesn’t own any territory at all, because every inch of its territory was acquired through war whether within partition borders or beyond whether by it or its pre state actors.

        Talknic: “Pre-state, they were not ‘State Actors”. A State can’t be held responsible for non-state actors’ pre-state crimes.”

        It can be held responsible for illegaly taking over territory that was illegaly acquired by pre state or foreign actors. And the pre state actors and what came after are just the same Junta. The People’s Council rebranded themselves as the Provisional State Council after they proclaimed their state. So what’s next Talknic? Israel bears no responsibility for the Palestinians that were expelled before 15 May 1948? Only for the Palestinians that were expelled by Israel and who lived within partition borders?

        Talknic: “Show me a more accurate and detailed map, aligned as close as possible to Google earth that can be transparent allowing one to see today and the borders declared in 1948”

        Maps like these?
        http://www.passia.org/images/pal_facts_MAPS/MODIFIED_arab_territories_seized_by_israel.gif
        http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Partition-Armistice.gif

        Talknic: “More precisely : there were territories controlled by pre-state Jewish terrorists during the civil war that were beyond those recommended and eventually declared and recognized as Israeli.”

        So these actually weren’t acquired through war by Israel? And there were also territories acquired through war by these pre-state actors that actually were within partition borders. So how did Israel legally aquire the territories within partition borders which had been illegaly acquired by its pre state actors?

      • talknic
        April 25, 2017, 9:15 am

        @ Talkback April 24, 2017, 7:32 pm

        OK you as you wish

        “He wasn’t talking about the UNWRA mandate at all..”

        I didn’t claim he was. What I wrote is still there. He mentioned a 6 or 7 million figure, which is a ZioNonsense using the UNRWA figure at the time he made that statement. It’s propaganda to spout a figure as though it’s evidence for Palestinians wanting to return all 6 or 7 million refugees to Israel. It is quite simply NOT what UNGA res 194 (1948) calls for. Some were from the territory that Israel declared and some were not. They all have RoR to their specific territory

        “The Palestinians don’t claim, that only those refugees should exercise this right who fled or were expelled from partition territory”

        As I have already stated. Here I’ll state it another way.. Not ALL Palestine refugees came from the territory that was declared and recognized as Israel in 1948. There are also those dispossessed from outside of Israel’s declared borders.

        “You yourself wrote: “The Palestinians under the leadership of Arafat, declared statehood, CEDING 78% of their rightful territories to the State of Israel.””

        That’s right. Israel has yet to accept. There has yet to be an agreement by/with Israel! whereby Israel itself recognizes limitations to any borders beyond its original May 15th 1948 declaration and plea for recognition

        “And I allready told you that there’s no need for an EXPLICITE document of recognition, if states act accordingly. There’s not a single state who recognizes Israel, but treats Ashod, its port or its coastal waters as occupied/blockaded Palestinan territory until a final agreement is made”

        And I already said Israel has yet to agree to any limitations to any borders beyond its original May 15th 1948 declaration and plea for recognition. There has been no agreement between the key players even though one is willing to forgo territory for peace with the other. The other, Israel, has yet to agree

        “You refered to Israel`s statement to the UN SEC May 1948 to counter the argument that Israel had incorporated these territories.”

        That’s correct, however I was addressing this specifically: “ your other claim that no UN member which recognizes Israel and not even Israel itself considers territories like Ashdod, Jaffa, Acre. etc. to be part of Israel. “

        It’s quite simply not my claim. ‘considers’ and ‘considered’ have two different meanings.

        On 22nd May 1948 by its statements to the UNSC they were ‘considered’ by Israel to be under military control, i.e., occupation. I.e., not Israeli. And Israel was still attempting to claim them in Aug 1949 by that attempt, Israel considered they were not yet Israeli and the commission by its reply also considered that they were not Israeli. Today Israel ‘considers’ those territories to be its own even tho there is not yet an agreement with Israel on any change of border since Israel’s borders were proclaimed effective by the Israeli Government

        “So how were the territories inside these borders were legally “transfered” to or acquired by Israel?”

        By declaration per the Montevideo Convention of the Rights and Duties of States (1932) states come into being. Israel is no exception surely.

        “Israel has incorporated them.That’s not a “limitation” and Palestine doesn’t contest these territories to be Israeli.”

        Israel has created facts on the ground in territories the Israeli Government stated on may 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel”. De facto, not de jure by any agreement. Israel has refused to accept the Palestinian declaration of statehood. It has thus far refused any limitation on its borders with Palestine except those it proclaimed in its plea for recognition May 15th 1948

        “You don’t answer the question. “

        I did in fact. Here, let’s do it again “By what legal mechanism did the Goverment of Israel acquire the territories for its state that were illegaly acquired before 1948 by its pre state actors?”

        A) Israel ‘acquired’ its territories by declaration per the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1932). The pre-state Jewish terrorists in the civil war, ‘controlled’ territories of the provisionally recognized State of Palestine. It wasn’t until after Israel was declared that it existed and was able, as a state, to control or occupy or acquire anything at all, within or outside of its proclaimed borders. Nor could it commit a crime before it existed.
        B) Governments administrate a State. Governments can change by election, revolt et al. A dictatorship might be replaced by a democracy, theocracy, whatever. Governments of states do not own any territory. The state does and the state and the territory belongs to all its rightful inhabitants whether they own, lease, rent real estate or live under a bridge

        “So Israel doesn’t own the territories that its pre state actors possessed before 15 May 1948. To be more precise. Israel doesn’t own any territory at all, because every inch of its territory was acquired through war whether within partition borders or beyond whether by it or its pre state actors.

        Oh FFS my reply to this “Stolen property doesn’t become legal through transfer of ownership”, was this “Indeed it doesn’t. There is no actual transfer of ownership. There’s a transfer of possession.” I then explained possession is grounds for criminal charges. Now I’ll answer to your further statement.

        A) Israel’s territories were proclaimed to the world in its plea for recognition which complied with the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, like it or not. It’s a fact.
        B) States cannot be charged with crimes committed by non-state actors before the state existed, like it or not. It’s a fact.

        Talknic: “Pre-state, they were not ‘State Actors”. A State can’t be held responsible for non-state actors’ pre-state crimes.”

        “It can be held responsible for illegaly taking over territory that was illegaly acquired by pre state or foreign actors”

        Those territories outside of its self delineated borders of UNGA res 181, yes. However, prior to Israeli statehood, it was a civil war. Pre-state Jewish terrorists occupied and dispossessed people from territories that were in the provisionally recognized state of Palestine. A state that didn’t exist at the time cannot possibly be held responsible for crimes committed before it existed

        “And the pre state actors and what came after are just the same Junta. The People’s Council rebranded themselves as the Provisional State Council after they proclaimed their state.”

        Indeed. Becoming an active member of a Government doesn’t prevent prosecution for pre-state crimes. Their actions were not however the actions of a state. A state can’t be censured for crimes committed before the state came into existence. Furthermore only one of the signatories on the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was from the region http://wp.me/pDB7k-1cE .

        ” So what’s next Talknic? Israel bears no responsibility for the Palestinians that were expelled before 15 May 1948? Only for the Palestinians that were expelled by Israel and who lived within partition borders?”

        If you say so. I haven’t. A) Israel is solely responsible for preventing the legal Right of Return of all Palestine refugees regardless of which area they originated from and regardless of why they fled and/or who they were dispossessed by.
        B) Under the Law, Israel is required to withdraw from all non-Israeli territories, negotiations or not. Within its borders it is required to allow RoR of folk who originated from that territory. RoR to areas outside of Israel simply isn’t Israel’s business.

        Will it happen? I doubt it. Israel cannot now afford to adhere to the law, it would be sent bankrupt and likely explode into civil war in predominantly non-Israeli territories. That might be an underlying cause for Uri Avnery’s determination. He should well know that a civil war of the Occupying State’s citizens in territories not belonging to the occupying state will be a complete blood bath and the UN and/or any other power would have the right to step in as the Arab States did in 1948.

        A negotiated settlement is preferable. The Palestinian do not have any moral, legal or ethical obligation to forgo any of their legal rights, not even in negotiations and Israel has no legal right to claim any territory outside of its only accepted and Internationally recognized borders. Israel has no right to demand Palestine be disarmed. Israel has no legal right to demand recognition. Recognition isn’t mandatory. Nor does Israel have a right to demand a peace treaty before ending occupation of all non-Israeli territories. Israel doesn’t have a legal right to ANYTHING it demands of the Palestinians

        “Maps like these?”

        OK for a glance. But why look at a small minimally drawn map with no detail when one can use a big, detailed map based on the original used in the Cease Fire Agreement 30 November 1948 signed by Abdullah al-Tal / Moshe Dayan. A big map where you can see the roads old villages and terrain. A map that can be overlayed in Google Earth and by adjusting the transparency, one can see today and how those villages no longer exist. A map that’s accurate to within a few metres. A map that shows all the information of those you supplied and a whole lot more

        BTW as a point of interest, the ‘Green Line’ itself didn’t depict all the Armistice Demarcation Lines set by the four later Armistice Agreements (old discussion in WikI/Pipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3A1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War%2FArchive_16?oldformat=true#The_Green_Line_was_not_the_result_of_the_Armistice_Agreements )

        Talknic: “More precisely : there were territories controlled by pre-state Jewish terrorists during the civil war that were beyond those recommended and eventually declared and recognized as Israeli.”

        “So these actually weren’t acquired through war by Israel?”

        Israel DIDN’T EXIST until it declared itself to exist whereby it agreed to the territorial limitations in its plea for recognition. As the Zionist Movement and Jewish Agency legal advisors would have been well aware, the state cannot be censured and does not bear responsibility for crimes committed before it existed. The individuals who committed crimes during the civil war could of course have been prosecuted for the crimes they committed.

        “And there were also territories acquired through war by these pre-state actors that actually were within partition borders”

        Pre-state Jewish terrorists didn’t acquire’ any territories in the civil war. The territories remained part of Palestine throughout the civil war. They controlled areas in various parts of Palestine during the civil war, some of which were eventually declared as Israeli. Territories occupied by the State of Israel outside of its borders were not and are not yet Israeli by any agreement

        “So how did Israel legally aquire the territories within partition borders which had been illegaly acquired by its pre state actors?”

        You’re basically asking the same question over and over. It’s stupid.

        Palestine will get nothing from pre-state actors. A state on the other hand can be held responsible for crimes it has committed and be made to withdraw and to pay compensation

      • echinococcus
        April 25, 2017, 11:46 am

        However, prior to Israeli statehood, it was a civil war. Pre-state Jewish terrorists occupied and dispossessed people from territories that were in the provisionally recognized state of Palestine.

        Civil war my ass. The colonial overlord, instead of truly administering its mandate per the ostentated principles of the LoN, had filled it to the brim with declaredly hostile settlers that were let loose on the only legitimate population.

        A state that didn’t exist at the time cannot possibly be held responsible for crimes committed before it existed

        Shysterly bullshit. That state is the planned result of the colonial aggression and consisted of the same actors. Where do you think you are, in some courtroom where such nonsense acrobatics may be accepted by some sold judges? Go tell this crap to the masses massacred and expelled since 1948 and let’s see how convinced they are!

        It’s propaganda to spout a figure as though it’s evidence for Palestinians wanting to return all 6 or 7 million refugees to Israel.

        And what would be wrong with that? They are all Palestinian and it’s their right to settle anywhere in Palestine if they so choose. The illegal immigrants are everywhere and the Palestinians have every right to ask them to get out.

        It is quite simply NOT what UNGA res 194 (1948) calls for

        It’s nice to ask for implementation of UN resolutions and that one is better than nothing but it still isn’t one the Palestinian people agreed to.

      • Talkback
        April 25, 2017, 3:43 pm

        Talknic: “I didn’t claim he was.”

        I wrote that nobody claimed what you were trying to counter with refering to the UN mandate and you suddenly wrote that Averny was.

        Talknic: “That’s right. Israel has yet to accept. ….”

        This also wasn’t the issue. You claimed that nobody has recognized Israel within 67 lines while inherently claiming that Palestine did with their declaration.

        Talknic: “And I already said Israel has yet to agree to any limitations to any borders beyond its original May 15th 1948 declaration and plea for recognition.”

        Again. this wasn’t the issue. You claimed that states that recognize Israel would not recognize Ashod, etc. to be a part of Israel, because there was not explicite document of recognition. And I eplained to you why that isn’t ncessary.

        Talknic: “By declaration per the Montevideo Convention of the Rights and Duties of States (1932) states come into being. Israel is no exception surely.”

        The Montevideo Convention of the Rights and Duties of Stateses has nothig to do with. This was a special treaty between the US and other states. Legal experts sometime refer to its statehood criterias as one of possible tests to identify statehood.

        One cannot simply become the souvereign (owner) of a territory by declaring statehood on it. You too are totally ignoring the right to self determination of the country’s sovereign which is its population. And that they were not consulted and didn’t give their consent. Israel even lacks an internal legitimation. Not only because it even had a nonjewish majority within partition borders and about half of the Jews were not citizens of Palestine.

        Talknic: “Israel has refused to accept the Palestinian declaration of statehood.”

        Doesn’t change the fact that Palestine doesn’t contest Ashdod and other territories beyond partition borders to be a part of Israel.

        Talknic: “Those territories outside of its self delineated borders of UNGA res 181, yes.”

        Nope. Territories inside the borders came into posession through war, too. And Israel’s Goverment(s) can be held responsible for claiming them as state territory.

        Talknic: “Their actions were not however the actions of a state. A state can’t be censured for crimes committed before the state came into existence.”

        States actually cannot act at all. State actors can. And the leading pre state actors and the leading state actors are in most cases the same. And the following state actors continue the same crime. So yes, Israel (its state actors) can be held responsible for continuing the crime of its pre state actors and building the state that illegal came into their posession as much as denying the Palestinians including the refugees their right to self determintion in all of historic Palestine. and maintaing a state which territory was taken ONLY through violence and without ANY consent of its population.

        Talknic: “RoR to areas outside of Israel simply isn’t Israel’s business.”

        That’s basically what I was saying. So according to you it has no “business” with the RoR to Ramle, Lydda, Acre, Jaffa, Ashdod and so on. Do you also want to claim that this is the UN’s position and not only your private?

      • talknic
        April 25, 2017, 9:20 pm

        @ echinococcus April 25, 2017, 11:46 am

        “Civil war my ass. The colonial overlord, instead of truly administering its mandate per the ostentated principles of the LoN, had filled it to the brim with declaredly hostile settlers that were let loose on the only legitimate population.”

        The British restricted the intake of Jewish immigrants in accordance with the Mandate. It’s was a sore point with the Zionist federation, the Jewish agency et al who assisted illegal immigration above the numbers the British allowed. The British limitation is still cited by the Zionist nonsense merchants drumming up hatred for anyone who gets or got in their way. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=British%20limits%20to%20jewish%20immigration%20palestine

        ” That state is the planned result of the colonial aggression and consisted of the same actors.”

        Indeed. I agree. However a state that didn’t exist at the time of their crimes, cannot be censured or held responsible for actions that took place before it existed. The individuals can of course be prosecuted. They could not however pay a the compensations due or do anything to reverse the situation that now exists or make Israel withdraw or bring justice to the people of Palestine, they are for the main part dead. A state can be made to withdraw. It can be made to pay compensation, it can be made to do a number of things dead people can’t do.

        “Where do you think you are, in some courtroom where such nonsense acrobatics may be accepted by some sold judges?”

        I thought I was at a place where one could engage in rational discussion sans completely ridiculous accusations. Ask ANY legal person if a crime committed before an entity existed can be attributed to that entity.

        “Go tell this crap to the masses massacred and expelled since 1948 and let’s see how convinced they are!”

        A) One can’t tell anything to people who’ve been massacred B) I have every sympathy. However, it makes no difference to the law how they’d react

        You’re still barking up an empty tree. The events had nothing to do with me. I didn’t make the law, I didn’t invade Palestine. I don’t support colonization and I don’t support Zionism or any of its aims. Stating the facts does not necessarily mean I agree with how events came about.

        // It’s propaganda to spout a figure as though it’s evidence for Palestinians wanting to return all 6 or 7 million refugees to Israel.//

        “And what would be wrong with that?”

        Fine by me. However, it’s A) not what UNGA res 194 calls for. The Palestinians call for RoR under UNGA res 194. By the time UNGA res 194 was adopted, Israel existed. B) They didn’t all come from the same territory.

        ” They are all Palestinian and it’s their right to settle anywhere in Palestine if they so choose. “

        I’d agree except, however it came about, like it or not, illegal or not, the State of Israel now exists. Only it can end the occupation. Only it can pay compensation. Like it or not, Palestine was declared. Both states now exist, both have limitations to their borders. Palestine accepts the situation, Israel does not. It wants more

        “The illegal immigrants are everywhere and the Palestinians have every right to ask them to get out.”

        see previous

        “It’s nice to ask for implementation of UN resolutions and that one is better than nothing but it still isn’t one the Palestinian people agreed to”

        It’s what their official representatives call for. Nothing to do with me. Go bark somewhere else

      • echinococcus
        April 26, 2017, 1:15 am

        Talknic,

        Something in all this of course has to do with you. If your philosophy of the idololatry of the fait accompli and recognized/established states had been listened to by the people, we would still have the Belgians in the Congo, the English all over the place and the Boers playing soccer with severed heads.

        What you just said, you’ve said it hundreds of times without ever responding to the objections to it. In fact, I believe you can’t even see it as relevant at all: it’s only about the negligible colonial people, something outside your world limited to treaties and formal law.

      • talknic
        April 26, 2017, 3:30 am

        @ talkback April 25, 2017, 3:43 pm

        You’re kidding ..

        “I wrote that nobody claimed what you were trying to counter with refering to the UN mandate and you suddenly wrote that Averny was.”

        What I wrote is still there. Uri Avnery was using the UNRWA figure touted by Zionist propaganda. I mentioned the UNRWA mandate to show the Zionist shills wrong. That simple. They’re wrong and Avnery is wrong to use the 6 or 7 million number returning to Israel because it is simply NOT what the Palestinians call for under UNGA res 194.

        Not all Palestine refugees have RoR to Israel. Those from outside the borders of Israel (1948) have RoR to territories outside the state of Israel

        Talknic: “That’s right. Israel has yet to accept. ….”

        “This also wasn’t the issue. You claimed that nobody has recognized Israel within 67 lines while inherently claiming that Palestine did with their declaration.”

        It is entirely the issue in respect to the recognition of territories acquired by war by the State of Israel from 00:01 May 15th 1948 onwards. One of the main players, Israel, has not accepted any limitations on its borders since its original plea for recognition. There is no agreement between Israel and Palestine. Therefore Israel’s only recognized borders are those it proclaimed in its plea for recognition.

        The 1949 Armistice Agreements (none of which were with Palestine) specifically state that the Armistice Demarcation Lines are not to be construed as borders and UNSC resolutions on 1967 tell us the territories acquired by Israel during that war are also not Israeli.

        Answer me this. Why do you think Israeli sh*ts itself at the thought of Palestinian independence and Membership in the UN? It can then, as a state, challenge in the UN, the ICJ and ICC every illegal move Israel has made since it became a state

        “… You claimed that states that recognize Israel would not recognize Ashod, etc. to be a part of Israel, because there was not explicite document of recognition. And I eplained to you why that isn’t ncessary”

        I asked to see a document of recognition. None was produced. The goal posts then shifted to there doesn’t have to be explicit recognition. If one of the players DOESN’T recognize any limitations to its borders with Palestine, THERE IS NO AGREEMENT on where the borders are

        “The Montevideo Convention of the Rights and Duties of Stateses has nothig to do with. This was a special treaty between the US and other states. Legal experts sometime refer to its statehood criterias as one of possible tests to identify statehood.”

        The convention is reflected in the UN Charter and subsequent relative conventions on self determination.

        “One cannot simply become the souvereign (owner) of a territory by declaring statehood on it”

        It is how states are declared. South Sudan for example. It is how Palestinian statehood was declared statehood, recognized by the majority of the world’s states. It was how Israel was declared, also recognized by the majority of the world’s states at the time

        “You too are totally ignoring the right to self determination of the country’s sovereign which is its population. “

        I’m not. I’ve written about it quite extensively on MW and elsewhere. Israel ignored it and the majority of the International Community of Nations ignored or were ignorant of it. Balfour himself spoke of it. Illegal or not, agree with it or not, the State of Israel now exists

        “And that they were not consulted and didn’t give their consent. “

        As I have said numerous times, so too Balfour. However states have a right to secede. Which is what Israel did in effect.

        Talknic: “Israel has refused to accept the Palestinian declaration of statehood.”

        “Doesn’t change the fact that Palestine doesn’t contest Ashdod and other territories beyond partition borders to be a part of Israel.”

        Correct. However there is still no agreement between Israel and Palestine. Israel wants more and refuses to recognize any limitations on its borders between Palestine and Syria and Lebanon. There is yet to be an agreement on any borders other than those of in Israel’s plea for recognition

        Talknic: “Those territories outside of its self delineated borders of UNGA res 181, yes.”

        “Nope. Territories inside the borders came into posession through war, too”

        They were in possession/occupied in a civil war prior to Israel’s existence. There was no transfer of ownership. Crimes committed before a state exists cannot possibly be the responsibility of a state that didn’t exist at the time. Only the individuals who committed the crimes can be prosecuted.

        “And Israel’s Goverment(s) can be held responsible for claiming them as state territory”

        A state can only be held responsible A) from the time it comes into existence and B) after becoming a state for illegally settling and/or occupying territories and /or illegally acquiring territories outside of that state’s declared and recognized borders

        Talknic: “Their actions were not however the actions of a state. A state can’t be censured for crimes committed before the state came into existence.”

        “States actually cannot act at all. State actors can.”

        UNSC Res 476 tells us a state can be held responsible and is required to take actions to remedy issues created by the state. Individuals/state actors are not mentioned.

        “And the leading pre state actors and the leading state actors are in most cases the same”

        Pre -state actions by non-state actors, legal or not, are not the actions of a state or state actors that didn’t exist at the time the crimes were committed. Individuals can be prosecuted for their pre-state crimes. The state cannot. Pre-state actors can be prosecuted for pre-state crimes and; for crimes they commit as state actors once the state exists.

        ” And the following state actors continue the same crime. So yes, Israel (its state actors) can be held responsible for continuing the crime of its pre state actors and building the state that illegal came into their posession as much as denying the Palestinians including the refugees their right to self determintion in all of historic Palestine. and maintaing a state which territory was taken ONLY through violence and without ANY consent of its population.”

        States cannot be held responsible for illegal actions committed by non-state actors before the said state existed. The individuals concerned can of course be prosecute for any crimes they committed at any time, even if they become state actors. Please read what I’ve been writing.

        Talknic: “RoR to areas outside of Israel simply isn’t Israel’s business.”

        “That’s basically what I was saying. So according to you it has no “business” with the RoR to Ramle, Lydda, Acre, Jaffa, Ashdod and so on.

        What I said is quite clear. Israel’s borders were declared in its plea for recognition. Non-Jewish refugees dispossessed from those territories have RoR to those territories. Palestine refugees from territories outside the state of Israel do not have RoR to territories within Israel’s declared and recognized borders. They do have RoR to territories other than those declared and recognized as Israeli. All 6 or 7 million refugees do not have RoR to Israel nor do they claim RoR to Israel.

        “Do you also want to claim that this is the UN’s position and not only your private?”

        It was Israel’s position on May 22nd 1948. It was Israel’s and the UN’s position in Aug 1949 by which time Israel was a UN Member. There has yet to be any agreement between Israel and Palestine on those territories between what Israel declared and what Palestine declared. No agreement with Israel = no agreement = impossible to recognize those territories as Israeli.

        The UN cannot and has never censured non-member states by name for their illegal actions prior to becoming UN Members. In past challenges on this topic I’ve been shown governments of non-member states being censured, but not the states themselves.

        Aside from the application for UN Membership, Israel was not mentioned in any UNSC resolution on the question of Palestine until it became a UN Member. It’s acquisition of territory by war beyond those borders declared in its plea for recognition occurred before it became a UN Member. It lied about adhering to International Law and the UN Charter in respect to territories it acquired by war as a state.

      • YoniFalic
        April 26, 2017, 8:12 am

        It is normal in national and international law for successor entities to be held responsible for the obligations, violations, and liabilities of preceding entities. Usually only a degree of continuity need be established, and the Israeli state organization clearly derives from pre-state colonial organizations.

        Indeed. I agree. However a state that didn’t exist at the time of their crimes, cannot be censured or held responsible for actions that took place before it existed. The individuals can of course be prosecuted. They could not however pay a the compensations due or do anything to reverse the situation that now exists or make Israel withdraw or bring justice to the people of Palestine, they are for the main part dead. A state can be made to withdraw. It can be made to pay compensation, it can be made to do a number of things dead people can’t do.

      • talknic
        April 26, 2017, 9:50 am

        @ echinococcus April 26, 2017, 1:15 am

        “Something in all this of course has to do with you”

        Accepting the facts does not in any way mean one condones or likes or agrees with how those facts came about.

        ” If your philosophy of the idololatry of the fait accompli …”

        LOL You’re spouting garbage

        ” and recognized/established states had been listened to by the people, we would still have the Belgians in the Congo, the English all over the place and the Boers playing soccer with severed heads.”

        I see. If one advocates as I do, that states adhere to their legal obligations, don’t ethnically cleanse, don’t dispossess, don’t covet other folks territories, don’t start wars, treat people equally, stick to their word, there is a problem.

        I suggest a chill pill. No. I suggest a whole bottle of chill pills

        “What you just said, you’ve said it hundreds of times without ever responding to the objections to it.”

        You’re delusional. Now please drop your insane accusations. Thx

      • talknic
        April 26, 2017, 11:02 am

        YoniFalic April 26, 2017, 8:12 am

        “It is normal in national and international law for successor entities to be held responsible for the obligations, violations, and liabilities of preceding entities. Usually only a degree of continuity need be established, and the Israeli state organization clearly derives from pre-state colonial organizations.”

        What/who was the preceding entity?

        Leading up to and during the civil war in Palestine, there was no preceding government or state entity other than Palestine, a conditionally recognized state, and its British administrator. The British adhered to the mandate up until the point where, if both parties mentioned in the partition plan adhered to the law, partition seemed to be a way of stopping the violence, where upon it had to end its administrative occupation of Palestine so that either party could declare independence if they so wished (Unlike statehood, independent statehood can not be declared under occupation. Likewise independence is not and cannot be mandatory, nor can it require a co-signatory)

        At the time Israel declared independence it obliged itself to adhere to the law and to obligations outlined in the partition plan. At the time Israel declared, Jewish forces under Plan Dalet were in control of territories outside those slated for and accepted by the Zionist Movement and proclaimed by the Israeli Government in its plea for recognition. The ‘Arab state’ could not have declared independence even if they’d wanted to for the simple fact that they were not independent of Israeli control.

        Unfortunately the Zionist Movement, Jewish Agency were liars who had absolutely no intention of adhering to any legal, moral or ethical obligations.

        They lied their way from 1897 to partition, claiming the partition was binding on the Jewish people and that co-signing was not necessary. Friday, 19 March 1948 Rabbi Silver replacing Mr. Shertok at the Council table as representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine stated:

        “We are under the obligation at this time to repeat what we stated at a [262nd meeting] meeting of the Security Council last week: The decision of the General Assembly remains valid for the Jewish people. We have accepted it and we are prepared to abide by it. If the United Nations Palestine Commission is unable to carry out the mandates which were assigned to it by the General Assembly, the Jewish people of Palestine will move forward in the spirit of that resolution and will do everything which is dictated by considerations of national survival and by considerations of justice and historic rights.” “The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State.”

        And again Security Council S/PV.271 19 March 1948 The representative of the Jewish Agency, Rabbi Silver:

        “The statement that the plan proposed by the General Assembly is an integral plan which cannot succeed unless each of its parts can be carried out, is incorrect. This conception was never part of the plan. Indeed, it is contrary to the statement made by the representative of the United States during the second session of the General Assembly. The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State. Mr. Herschel Johnson, representing the United States delegation, speaking in a sub-committee of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question on 28 October 1947, stated, in discussing this very matter in connexion with economic union: “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.”

        They lied their way into the UN claiming they were “strictly adhering to international regulations “ in respect to territories “under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel”

        They’re still lying. Can they be prosecuted under International Law today? I doubt it.

        If Palestine were to be accepted into the UN however, a special tribunal might be set up (see the Nuremberg trials) however, most of the pre-state Jewish terrorists are already dead. The same might be also set up to try individuals for crimes committed in the service of the State of Israel

      • Talkback
        April 26, 2017, 12:03 pm

        Talknic “You’re kidding ..”

        Not at all. Have a look at your funny claim:

        You: “UNRWA has no final status mandate. It’s definition is not about who has RoR”
        Me: Nobody made the claim
        You: “Uh? Uri Avnery”

        Talknic: “They’re wrong and Avnery is wrong to use the 6 or 7 million number returning to Israel because it is simply NOT what the Palestinians call for under UNGA res 194.”

        I agree, they don’t. They call for a general right to return. BUT everybody understands that this includes returning to parts of historic Palestine that Israel considers to be its own, whether recgonized or not. And to use your fatalistic killer argument: ‘That’s the reality, whether you like it or not’. Avnery’s argument is based on this understanding. And everybody also understands that if the conflict is resolved by two state solution bthen it is ased on 67 lines, not on 48 lines. Which means that Avnery is theoretically right, allthough only a tiny fragment actually wishes to return.

        Talknic: “Those from outside the borders of Israel (1948) have RoR to territories outside the state of Israel ”

        Which in reality are considered to be Israel, whether you like it or not.

        Talknic: “Therefore Israel’s only recognized borders are those it proclaimed in its plea for recognition.”

        Please try to counter my argument that this is not international state practice. The countries that recognize Israel don’t consider Ashdod to be occupied and act accordingly. Neither does the State of Palestine which declared itself within 67 lines. Nobody who recognizes Israel contests its claim to souvereignity over Ashdod, Jaffa, Bersheeba, Acre, Nazareth, etc. Isn’t it obvious to you how the UN members treat Jerusalem by comparison? Was there ever a security council resolution that declared Israel’s incorporation of Ashdod to be “null and void” like in the case with Jerusalem or the Golan Hights? No!. That’s the reality, Talknic, whether you like it or not.

        Talknic: “Answer me this. Why do you think Israeli sh*ts itself at the thought of Palestinian independence and Membership in the UN? It can then, as a state, challenge in the UN, the ICJ and ICC every illegal move Israel has made since it became a state”

        Here’s my answer. Palestine’s statehood was recognized within the UN in 2012. And the ICC is open to all states that sign the Rome Statue not only to UN members. And so the State of Palestine signed it. Answer me his. How couldn’t YOU know that?

        Talknic: “I asked to see a document of recognition. None was produced.”

        Please try to counter my arguments instead of constanty repeating yourself. No such documents are necessary, if states act accordingly. It’s up to them HOW they recognize a state or its borders. If states accept that the port of Ashdod is within Israel and therefore accept Israeli port regulations than they recognize Ashdod to be a part of Israel.

        Talknic: “The convention is reflected in the UN Charter and subsequent relative conventions on self determination.”

        The criterias for statehood may be. But not what you claim. And the convention doesn’t even deal with states under occupation. Further down you even admit that Israel ignored the right to self determination.

        Talknic: “It is how states are declared.”

        The question is not how states are declared, but how states aquire their state territory. Not by pre state actors simply declaring statehood.

        Talknic: “South Sudan for example.”

        You want to compare a state which became independent, because 98,3% of its population voted for it in a referendum with Israel? ROFL.

        Talknic: “Israel ignored it ….”

        Yeah, but f*** the right to self determination as long as Israel is recognized, right?

        Talknic: “However states have a right to secede. Which is what Israel did in effect.”

        No, there’s no such thing as a right to secede. If that was the case than their statehood would be recognized automatically. But they aren’t. See Kosovo. And states have especially not a riight to secede without the consent of its population. So on the one hand you claim that Israel violated or “ignored” the right to self determination with its “secession”, but on the other you want to claim that it had the right to do so by this secession. You are making a case for the violation of the right to self determination. Sounds pretty Zionist to me.

        Talknic: “However there is still no agreement between Israel and Palestine.”

        So what? The question was who recognizes Ashdod to be part of Israel. You claim that nobody does (besides the state that don’t recognize Israel at all) allthough Palestine declared statehood within 67 lines and doesn’t contest Ashdod to be a part of Israel. See all of their negotiations and proposed maps.

        Talknic: “There was no transfer of ownership.”

        Exactly. Israel doesn’t own any territory, because neither its pre-state actors nor its state actors owned or legally aquired the territory which was owned collectivelly by the citizens of Palestine who didn’t tranfer anything. Neither its mandatory Goverment.

        Talknic: “A state can only be held responsible A) from the time it comes into existence …”

        Yep Israel can be held responsible for claiming state territory which came only into its posession through war and expulsion either by itself or its pre state actors and by violating the right to self determination of the territory’s population.

        “UNSC Res 476 tells us a state can be held responsible and is required to take actions to remedy issues created by the state. Individuals/state actors are not mentioned.”

        Doesn’t need to be mentioned Everybody understands that it’s the states state actors who commit these national crimes. A state is just an “abstraction”, a collective of state actors.

        Talknic “Please read what I’ve been writing.”

        Theres’ no way to escape your constant repetition of the same claim and your failure to engange my counter arguments.

        Israel’s pre state actors and the state (and its pre state actors) were and still are the same criminal enterprise, the same criminal project, the same criminal continuum, the same criminal organisation. The only difference is that this organisation acquired a national status. But this doesn’t absolve it for its pre national crimes. But no, these crimes are not Israel’s business, right?

        Talknic: “What I said is quite clear.”

        Yep, too clear for my taste. You literally wrote: “RoR to areas outside of Israel simply isn’t Israel’s business.”

        So the RoR to Ramle, Lydda, Acre, Jaffa, Ashdod and so on isimply isn’t srael’s business according to you.

        Talknic: “It was Israel’s position on May 22nd 1948. It was Israel’s and the UN’s position in Aug 1949 by which time Israel was a UN Member.”

        Is it still the UN’s position that the refugees of Ramle, Lydda, Acre, Jaffa, Ashdod and so are not Israel’s “business”.

        Talknic: “The UN cannot and has never censured non-member states by name for their illegal actions prior to becoming UN Members.”

        It can by not recognizing it or allowing it to become a member state. And Israel’s didn’t need only one request to become a member. But according to you it seems that we have to accept Israel’s recognition like Apartheid South Africa’s. You are a true advocate of … Israel’s business, aren’t you?

        Why don’t you make a case for Apartheid Greater Israel? You could just say Yeah, that’s a violation of international law and a violation of the right to self determiation and blah blah, but it is what it is. That’s a fact, it’s reality whether we like it or not. And that this has nothing to do with you … nor is it Israel’s business.

      • Mooser
        April 26, 2017, 12:30 pm

        This discussion mystifies me.
        Isn’t it pretty much established that any moves toward the ’48 lines and legal Statehood.( either unilateral or induced) for Israel will ignite a civil war?

        For that purpose, those lines might be very useful. Everybody should concur in them, since Israel never will.

      • Sibiriak
        April 26, 2017, 1:33 pm

        Mooser: Isn’t it pretty much established that any moves toward the ’48 lines and legal Statehood.( either unilateral or induced) for Israel will ignite a civil war? For that purpose, those lines might be very useful…
        —————

        More like: any moves toward the ’67 lines (aka “Green Line”)and legal statehood would ignite a civil war. ETC.

        (There are no moves contemplated, either unilateral or induced, toward ’48 lines.)

      • Mooser
        April 26, 2017, 2:35 pm

        “More like: any moves toward the ’67 lines (aka “Green Line”)…”

        Right you are, of course, Thanks for correction. I was very careless. Next I’ll be saying the “1848 borders”.

      • talknic
        April 27, 2017, 7:18 am

        @ talkback April 26, 2017, 12:03 pm

        Uri Avnery’s figure came from somewhere. If not from the UNRWA definition, where? A definition by an organization that didn’t exist when UNGA res 194 was adopted in 1948 the resolution under which the Palestinians make their claim. UNGA res 194 cannot possibly have been referring to the definition of an organization that didn’t exist in 1948. Plus it’s definition made under a mandate that DOES NOT reflect Uri’s claim or the Ziononsense demographic threat mantra of 6 to 7 millions “to Israel”

        We agree and I’ve been saying this much from the outset, Palestine refugees have a right to return to where they came from both within Israeli territories and outside of Israel’s territories. So what are you arguing about?

        ” BUT everybody understands that this includes returning to parts of historic Palestine that Israel considers to be its own, whether recgonized or not. And to use your fatalistic killer argument: ‘That’s the reality, whether you like it or not’.”

        ‘considered’ doesn’t make something legal, also a reality whether you like it or not. The earth was once considered flat. Israel itself has yet to agree to limitations on any borders beyond those it declared in 1948 in its plea for recognition.

        All territories Israel now claims beyond its declared and recognized borders were acquired by war. The acquisition of territories by war was prohibited under International Law before Israel was declared. International Law is applicable to all states, UN Member States and non-members. So how did the territories Israel acquired by war become Israeli for them to be considered Israeli?

        Israel sh*ts itself at the thought of Palestinian independence and UN Membership. Palestine would then be in reach of launching proceedings at all four the UN, UNSC, ICJ and ICC for crimes committed by anyone, any body, any state and/or any state or non-state actor, at any time, pre-Israel’s declaration and post. Even against Uri Avnery himself

        Also brought within reach is the possibility of a tribunals; to assess the legality of Israel’s ‘considered’ territories; to assess compensation due under International law, far more than Israel can afford.

        Israel has been led up a blind alley by Zionist aims. The only legal out for Israel is a plea bargain with Palestine who has no obligation what so ever to forgo any of its legal rights at any stage to anyone. Instead, Israel continues its illegal activities ignoring all but Deuteronomy 20:15 et al

        “Avnery’s argument is based on this understanding”

        We agree his understanding is nonsense.

        “And everybody also understands that if the conflict is resolved by two state solution bthen it is ased on 67 lines, not on 48 lines. Which means that Avnery is theoretically right, allthough only a tiny fragment actually wishes to return”

        IF IF IF. “whether you like it or not” , the issue is not yet resolved. A) NOW the only territorial limitation Israel has ever agreed to is in its plea for recognition; there is no demographic threat to Israel within the territorial limitations Israel announced in its plea for recognition. NOW Israel wants more. NOW Israel hasn’t itself accepted or recognized or agreed to any limitation to its borders with Palestine. NOW there is no agreement. B) Only based on what Israel ‘considers’ to be Israeli is Uri Avnery theoretically right.

        “Isn’t it obvious to you how the UN members treat Jerusalem by comparison? Was there ever a security council resolution that declared Israel’s incorporation of Ashdod to be “null and void” like in the case with Jerusalem or the Golan Hights? No!. That’s the reality, Talknic, whether you like it or not. “

        It’s very obvious to me and I have from the outset given the reasons why it is obvious. The territories were outside of Israel’s declared borders and acquired by war and no other legal agreement. However, the UN doesn’t censure non members (only states become members), nor do they censure UN Members for crimes committed prior to becoming A) States and/or B) UN Member States.

        The prohibition of acquiring territory by war is a law the UN insists should be observed. The law itself exists separate to the UN and it is an obligation on all states, UN Members or not, recognized or not, censured by the UN or not. Until Israel agrees to the limits to its territories, the only teritories it has accepted and declared and that have been recognized are those of UNGA res 181

        Know who you’re dealing with. The Jewish Agency and Zionist movements legal advisors had a half century experience at leaping from loophole to loophole. They were and still are fully aware of the law and its implications. Fully aware of the machinations of the UN. Fully aware that a state cannot be held responsible for the actions of non-state actors prior to a state’s existence. Yes the individuals could be prosecuted, but they’d have the protection and legal resources of the state behind their defense. Unless of course they became too costly to the cause. There’s only so much honour amongst Zionist thieves

        “The question is not how states are declared, but how states aquire their state territory. Not by pre state actors simply declaring statehood.”

        Declaration over territories under their control is in fact how their territories are determined. Israel didn’t declare all the territories under its control, only those recommended in UNGA res 181

        “You want to compare a state which became independent, because 98,3% of its population voted for it in a referendum with Israel? ROFL.”

        Self determination is not the particular point in question. how it acquired its territory is. How did South Sudan acquire its territory?

        Talknic: “Israel ignored it ….”

        Yeah, but f*** the right to self determination as long as Israel is recognized, right?”

        You’re cherry picking. It was also ignored by the states who recognized Israel. A fact, whether you or I like it or not.

        “No, there’s no such thing as a right to secede. If that was the case than their statehood would be recognized automatically. But they aren’t. See Kosovo. And states have especially not a riight to secede without the consent of its population.”

        Secession is by the party who want to split from a larger entity. The population of the territories declared in the Israeli plea for recognition as alloted the Jewish state under UNGA res 181 was predominantly Jewish

        “You are making a case for the violation of the right to self determination. Sounds pretty Zionist to me”

        See above. Recognizing what came about and how it came bout doesn’t automatically mean one agrees with what came about or how it came about. Your accusation is a nonsense.

        Talknic: “However there is still no agreement between Israel and Palestine.”

        “So what? “

        So Israel hasn’t recognize any territorial limits other than those of UNGA res 181 as declared and recognized 1948. Having it your way = one endless land grab based on simply acquiring territory by war and convincing states to consider it to be Israeli without any legal process having taken place that transfered those territories acquired by war to Israel. It happened by magic. Right?.

        Talknic: “There was no transfer of ownership.”

        “Exactly. Israel doesn’t own any territory, because neither its pre-state actors nor its state actors owned or legally aquired the territory which was owned collectivelly by the citizens of Palestine who didn’t tranfer anything. Neither its mandatory Goverment.”

        A) You’re cherry picking again. I said there was no transfer of ownership during the civil war. B) The Mandatory Government didn’t exist at 00:01 May 15th 1948 C) secession is by those leaving the larger entity D) the majority population in the territories allotted the Jewish state under UNGA res 181 whether we like it or not, were Jewish.

        Talknic: “A state can only be held responsible A) from the time it comes into existence …”

        “Yep Israel can be held responsible for claiming state territory which came only into its posession through war and expulsion either by itself or its pre state actors and by violating the right to self determination of the territory’s population.”

        Israel didn’t exist when pre-state Jewish terrorists committed their crimes.

        Talknic: “UNSC Res 476 tells us a state can be held responsible and is required to take actions to remedy issues created by the state. Individuals/state actors are not mentioned.”

        Doesn’t need to be mentioned Everybody understands that it’s the states state actors who commit these national crimes. A state is just an “abstraction”, a collective of state actors.

        The state is held to the law even if the state actors who ordered crimes be committed by the state are dead.

        “Theres’ no way to escape your constant repetition of the same claim and your failure to engange my counter arguments”

        A) Facts don’t change. Perceptions, presumptions and what is ‘considered’ do change. B) Our exchange has been entirely an engagement in counter arguments.

        “Israel’s pre state actors and the state (and its pre state actors) were and still are the same criminal enterprise, the same criminal project, the same criminal continuum, the same criminal organisation.”

        Yes.

        “The only difference is that this organisation acquired a national status. But this doesn’t absolve it for its pre national crimes”

        It doesn’t absolve the pre-state actors. The state didn’t exist. Entities that don’t exist cannot commit crimes.

        “But no, these crimes are not Israel’s business, right?”

        If you say so. It’s not what I wrote.

        “You literally wrote: “RoR to areas outside of Israel simply isn’t Israel’s business.”

        You’re cherry picking again, omitting entirely for some weird reason the premise on which I based that statement

        Talknic: “The UN cannot and has never censured non-member states by name for their illegal actions prior to becoming UN Members.”

        “It can by not recognizing it or allowing it to become a member state”

        A) The UN doesn’t recognize states. They’re recognized by the International Comity of Nations before being recommended as already recognized states for UN Membership by the UNSC. The UN then admits, or not, already recognized states. B) Too late. Right or wrong whether we agree with their decision Israel is already a member. It lied to gain membership. It has not adhere to its legal obligations

        ” And Israel’s didn’t need only one request to become a member. But according to you it seems that we have to accept Israel’s recognition like Apartheid South Africa’s. You are a true advocate of … Israel’s business, aren’t you?”

        Accepting the facts doesn’t mean one agrees with or condones how they came about. Your accusation is ridiculous.

      • talknic
        April 27, 2017, 4:17 pm

        On edit:

        “You are making a case for the violation of the right to self determination. Sounds pretty Zionist to me””

        I am not ‘making the case’ for it. I’m describing how the Zionist Movement/Jewish Agency used the fact that a State cannot be held responsible for crimes committed before that state existed.

        I’m describing how they used the fact that the UN does not directly censure non-member states for their illegal actions or the illegal actions of non-state actors prior to the state’s existence and/or prior to UN Membership.

        I’m describing how the Zionist Movement/Jewish Agency lied its way into the UN, by saying the state would adhere to the law and UN Charter. It simply has not.

        Your accusations against me are nonsense.

        —————–
        If you claim Israel should not exist at all, then you’re against the notions of BDS who base their demands on the Palestinian Declaration of Statehood (which Israel has yet to accept)
        ——————

        Instead of arguing to prove I’m supportive of Zionist tactics, we could be working at honing statements that clearly show the Zionist Federation and Jewish Agency and every Government of the State of Israel, none of which have ever been legally elected under a constitution, to be blatant liars.

        We’re in the same boat, row instead of hitting me with your paddle :-)

      • Talkback
        April 27, 2017, 4:20 pm

        Talknic: “Uri Avnery’s figure came from somewhere. If not from the UNRWA definition, where?”

        He thinks that this is the total number of refugees that have a right to return to Israel within borders that would be the result of two state solution based on 67 lines.

        Talknic: “So what are you arguing about?”

        Me? Who started calling Avnery’s assumption a fallacy, because of his position that Israel only exists within 48 lines?

        Talknic: “‘considered’ doesn’t make something legal.”

        Correct, but not the point of issue. The issue was that Avnery’s claim is understood by everyone who considers these parts to be within Israel, too. And my claim is that this is the majority of UN members who don’t contest that places like Ashod lare parts of Israel Especially not, if they support a two state solution based in 67 lines or the State of Palestine which declared statehood within 67 lines or act accordingly in their daily state business. So regarding Ashdod etc. there’s no need for an agreeent, because there’s noone who disputes this, except some countries that don’t recognize Isael at all. Does it make any sense to you to endlessly repeat your position about Israel’s borders to challenge this?

        Talknic: “Israel sh*ts itself at the thought of Palestinian independence and UN Membership. Palestine would then be in reach of launching proceedings at all four the UN, UNSC, ICJ and ICC for crimes committed by anyone, any body, any state and/or any state or non-state actor, at any time, pre-Israel’s declaration and post. Even against Uri Avnery himself.”

        It’s strange that you also have to ignore the fact that the UNGAR recognized Palestine’s statehood by upgrading it to a non-member-state in 2012 which allowed the State of Palestine to sign the Rome statue of the ICC in 2015.

        Non-member States … State of Palestine
        http://www.un.org/en/sections/member-states/non-member-states/index.html

        International Criminal Court welcomes Palestine as State Party to the Rome Statute
        http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=50477

        Talknic: “We agree his understanding is nonsense.”

        And “we” is you and who else? I understand the context in which he makes his statements. I also understand that if his numbers represent the numbers of refugees who wish to return to their homes within territories that would be within Israel according to a two state solution based on 67 lines than this would create a demographic challenge for Israel. But the actual fallacy is not about Israel’s present borders, but his inherent claim that all the refugees want to return allthough their number is insignificant. Avnery is making a fake claim to undermine the right of return in general. Does it make any sense to you to endlessly repeat your position about Israel’s borders to challenge this?

        Talknic: “B) Only based on what Israel ‘considers’ to be Israeli is Uri Avnery theoretically right.”

        The problem is that not only Israel doesn’t dispute that Ashdod is within Israel. Even the Palestinans don’t by declaring their state within 67 lines and thereby not contesting Ashdod’s nationality.

        Talknic: “However, the UN doesn’t censure non members (only states become members), nor do they censure UN Members for crimes committed prior to becoming A) States and/or B) UN Member States.”

        But it can. By denying g a proclaimed created state to become a member of the UN. 2.) By denying the proclaimed state Non-member-state status which implies denying the recognition of its statehood (which the UN did with Palestine from 1988 until 2012).

        Talknic: “Until Israel agrees to the limits to its territories, the only teritories it has accepted and declared and that have been recognized are those of UNGA res 181.”

        Israel’s point of view is that it has legally “accepted and declared” the territories by issuing the Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance and the Proclamation No. 1 of the Israel Defense Forces Government in the Land of Israel. We don’t have to dicuss whether this was legal or not. You know, that I don’t recognize Israel to have legally acquired ANY territory. When Israel wanted to become a UN member they made some statements as you know. And one of them was that the (final) boundaries would be the result of negotiations. So if you need to refer to 48/49 that this was Israel’s point of view back then: Ashdod is a part of Israel until negotiated otherwise. Needless to say how hollow their phrases were and that they would never negotiate otherwise when it comes to the territories within 67 lines.

        But the point of issue is that (unfortunately) no state which recognizes Israel contests these territories to be Israeli, not even the State of Palestine. And this implies that all these states inherently accept and thereby recognize these territories to be Israeli.Does it make sense to claim that they don’t, because there is no explicite official document of recognition? Does it make any sense to you to endlessly repeat your position about Israel’s borders to challenge this?

        Talknic: “Declaration over territories under their control is in fact how their territories are determined.”

        Determined, but not necesseraly legally acquired. Can ISIL legally acquire state territory by simply declaring statehood or simply determining its territory, too?

        Talknic “Self determination is not the particular point in question. how it acquired its territory is. How did South Sudan acquire its territory?”

        Self determination is actually the key point, when 98,3% of the population of a territory vote for secession.

        Talknic: “You’re cherry picking. It was also ignored by the states who recognized Israel.”

        Where’s the cherry picking? I never questioned that there are more morons who value recognition over self determination to make a case for Israel.

        Talkmic: “Secession is by the party who want to split from a larger entity. The population of the territories declared in the Israeli plea for recognition as alloted the Jewish state under UNGA res 181 was predominantly Jewish.”

        To the contrary. The Nonjews were the majority :
        “t will thus be seen that the proposed Jewish State will contain a total population of 1,008,800, consisting of 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews. In other words, at the outset, the Arabs will have a majority in the proposed Jewish State.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Sub-Committee_2

        And bear in mind how many Jews hadn’t even acquired Palestinan citizenship and therefore actually had not right to exercise a right to self determination within Palestine. IIRC it was Henry Cattan who estimated these to be half of all Jews in Palestine.

        Talknic: “Recognizing what came about and how it came bout doesn’t automatically mean one agrees with what came about or how it came about. Your accusation is a nonsense.”

        Allow me to remind you that you argued that there’s a right to secession and that Israel violated the right to self determination when it ceceded. So you inherently claim that Zionist have the right to violatie the right to self determination.I that’s not ultra-Zionist, what is?

        Talknic: “So Israel hasn’t recognize any territorial limits ….”

        For the second time: The question was who recognizes Ashdod to be part of Israel. See above.

        Talknic: Having it your way = one endless land grab based on simply acquiring territory by war and convincing states to consider it to be Israeli without any legal process having taken place that transfered those territories acquired by war to Israel. It happened by magic. Right?.

        ROFL. That is actually your way when it comes to the 48 borders. I don’t recognize Israel to have legally acquired any territory for its state. Truly antizionist, don’t you think?

        Talknic: “A) You’re cherry picking again. I said there was no transfer of ownership during the civil war.”

        Neither pre nor post state. And in any way without consent or referendum.

        Talknic: “A state can only be held responsible A) from the time it comes into existence …”

        Talknic: “States cannot be held responsible for illegal actions committed by non-state actors before the said state existed. ”

        You admitted that Israel and its pre state actors are the same criminal organisation. So its obvious that an organisation is responsible for the crimes it committed. That this organisation acqured national status as a result of these crimes neither changes its criminality nor responsibility. No try to counter this argument without repeating the same line over and over again.. That is if you actually have any argument.

        Talknic: “Our exchange has been entirely an engagement in counter arguments.”

        No, it’s more like echinococcus said: “What you just said, you’ve said it hundreds of times without ever responding to the objections to it.”

        Talknic: “You’re cherry picking again, omitting entirely for some weird reason the premise on which I based that statement.”

        There’s no need to omitt anything. Your premise is as weird as your statement. If Israel would accept the RoR for some Palestians who don’t wish to return, but to compensated, because the terrorist Zionist didn’t leave anything to return than the conclusion based on your premise is that Israel doesn’t have to compensate them, if they were expelled outside of the partition borders by Israel’s pre state actors.

        Talknic: “Accepting the facts doesn’t mean one agrees with or condones how they came about.”

        So what keeps you from accepting the fact of Apartheid Israel? Or its occupation? It’s illegal annexation and settlements? Besides the fact that it is not the same with what you need everybody to accept as a “fact”

      • echinococcus
        April 27, 2017, 8:19 pm

        Talkback,

        I never questioned that there are more […] who value recognition over self determination to make a case for Israel

        Best and pithiest wording of the problem; thank you.

      • echinococcus
        April 27, 2017, 8:36 pm

        Talknic,

        If you claim Israel should not exist at all, then you’re against the notions of BDS who base their demands on the Palestinian Declaration of Statehood (which Israel has yet to accept)

        That’s absurd. Boycotting and its objectives is every individual’s choice. You cannot have missed the fact that a sizable portion of the “BDS” people are Zionists intent on a) getting control of the “official” BDS movement to limit the extent of the boycott, b) saving the Zionist entity from guaranteed ruin at the hands of the frank fascists and ensuring it a soft landing with some residual legitimacy and right to remain, preferable as “2-state” (a little like you are doing with your 48 borders saw.) Also, you cannot have missed the fact that the “official” BDS movement is headquartered in Zionist-occupied Palestine, under control by the occupation military and the Zionist police of the PA collaborators. That collaborationist abomination is what you call “State of Palestine” –nice state, eh? The Zionists count on it. If you expect them to do anything to benefit Palestinian resistance (I mean resistance) you’d be too naive to cross the street on your own.

        So count on more and more unsubordinated people, who will insist in boycotting the Zionist entity as long as it is alive as such. We never needed an official BDS with headquarters under enemy occupation to boycott the Zionist entity. I have done so since 1960.

      • talknic
        April 28, 2017, 4:04 am

        @ Talkback April 27, 2017, 4:20 pm

        “He thinks that this is the total number of refugees that have a right to return to Israel within borders that would be the result of two state solution based on 67 lines.”

        That’s not conveyed in the article

        “Who started calling Avnery’s assumption a fallacy, because of his position that Israel only exists within 48 lines?”

        A) The ’67 borders aren’t stated by Uri Avnery B) When and by what legal agreement did Israel acquire any territories outside of those it accepted and declared and was recognized by in 1948? ‘considered’ simply does not answer the question

        “It’s strange that you also have to ignore … … … the Rome statue of the ICC in 2015.”

        I didn’t ignore it. I mentioned all four would be in reach, the UN, UNSC, ICJ and ICC

        “I also understand that if his numbers represent the numbers of refugees who wish to return to their homes within territories that would be within Israel according to a two state solution based on 67 lines”

        You might ‘consider’ that to be the case. It’s not conveyed in the article

        “Avnery is making a fake claim to undermine the right of return in general”

        So ‘we’ do agree. The same fake claim made by Zionists who cite the UNRWA figure as if that is the Palestinian demand, when it clearly is not

        ” Does it make any sense to you to endlessly repeat your position about Israel’s borders to challenge this?”

        OK. You word the challenge?

        “The problem is that not only Israel doesn’t dispute that Ashdod is within Israel. Even the Palestinans don’t by declaring their state within 67 lines and thereby not contesting Ashdod’s nationality.”

        No. The problem is the fact that Israel has yet to agree to accept ANY limitations to its borders other than those it declared per UNGA res 181, effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time). Israel has not recognized Palestine’s borders. There is no agreement. The territories outside of Israel’s borders some how magically became Israeli by what legal process in agreement with who?

        “But it can. By denying g a proclaimed created state to become a member of the UN. “

        Hate to tell you this, right or wrong, legal or illegal, the UN DID allow Israel Membership. That’s the reality. Israel has failed to live up to its legal obligations.

        ” 2.) By denying the proclaimed state Non-member-state status which implies denying the recognition of its statehood (which the UN did with Palestine from 1988 until 2012).

        Too late! Like it or not Israel is a UN Member State. The Jewish Agency et al lied to get into the UN. They’re a still lying

        “Israel’s point of view is that it has legally “accepted and declared” the territories …”

        Not by any legal agreement with Palestine

        Talknic: “Declaration over territories under their control is in fact how their territories are determined.”

        “Can ISIL legally acquire state territory by simply declaring statehood or simply determining its territory, too?”

        Jewish terrorists did. Arafat was also considered a terrorist. Any legitimate majority representative can. Do ISIL represent any legitimate majority in any territory?

        “Self determination is actually the key point.”

        How the territory was acquired was the particular point at issue

        “Where’s the cherry picking? “

        Right where you left it.

        “Nonjews were the majority :
        “t will thus be seen that the proposed Jewish State will contain a total population of 1,008,800, consisting of 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews. In other words, at the outset, the Arabs will have a majority in the proposed Jewish State.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Sub-Committee_2

        The ad hoc committee made changes to the boundaries which increased the Jewish percentage in the Jewish state to 61% before UNGA voted

        “And bear in mind how many Jews hadn’t even acquired Palestinan citizenshiip.”

        Indeed. I already mentioned it. Another illegality committed by non-state actors before the State of Israel existed and for which the State could not be prosecuted.

        ” So you inherently claim that Zionist have the right to violatie the right to self determination.I that’s not ultra-Zionist, what is?”

        No one has the right to violate any rights at any time. Your accusation about what I inherently claim is ridiculous

        “You admitted that Israel and its pre state actors are the same criminal organisation. So its obvious that an organisation is responsible for the crimes it committed. That this organisation acqured national status as a result of these crimes neither changes its criminality nor responsibility. No try to counter this argument without repeating the same line over and over again.. That is if you actually have any argument.”

        A snake can’t bite before it exists. Go yell at the Zionist organizations for using the law to protect the State from crimes committed towards but prior to its existence.

        ““What you just said, you’ve said it hundreds of times without ever responding to the objections to it.””

        The record shows otherwise.

        “There’s no need to omitt anything. “

        But you did.

        “Your premise is as weird as your statement.”

        It wasn’t my premise

        “If Israel would accept the RoR for some Palestians who don’t wish to return, but to compensated, because the terrorist Zionist didn’t leave anything to return than the conclusion based on your premise is that Israel doesn’t have to compensate them, if they were expelled outside of the partition borders by Israel’s pre state actors.”

        If you say so. I certainly haven’t.

        “So what keeps you from accepting the fact of Apartheid Israel? “

        Uh? What makes you make a completely baseless accusation

        “Or its occupation? “

        You’re crazy – http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=Israel%2C+the+occupying+power

        “It’s illegal annexation and settlements? “

        Off your rocker – http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=illegal+annexation 0-0 http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=illegal+settlements

      • talknic
        April 28, 2017, 5:41 am

        @ echinococcus April 27, 2017, 8:36 pm

        BDS movement https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds

        I’m not interested in arguing with what appears to be a bile junkie

      • talknic
        April 28, 2017, 5:47 am

        On edit:

        “Avnery is making a fake claim to undermine the right of return in general”

        So ‘we’ do agree. The same fake claim made by Zionists who cite the UNRWA figure all returning to Israel, as if that is the Palestinian demand, when it clearly is not

      • YoniFalic
        April 28, 2017, 1:03 pm

        Talknic’s understanding of international law and practically all national law as well as case law in both types of legal system with respect to preceeding and acquired entities seems practically nil.

        The Haganah and other terrorist organizations in the pre-state period committed terrorism and genocide. The Haganah became the IDF. That means that the IDF would be in origin a terrorist and genocidal organization even if it did not commit terrorism and genocide to this day — something to which I can attest as an IDF veteran.

        Because the IDF is in origin a terrorist and genocidal organization and because it is part of the Israeli state apparatus, the State of Israel is founded in genocide and in terrorism (after Auschwitz and the Nuremberg IMT, which is terminus a quo for international anti-genocide law).

        International anti-genocide law is meaningless if there are statute of limitations or laches with respect to genocide violations. Thus, I consider this argument mainly meaningless. If we really wish to have an international anti-genocide legal regime, the State of Israel must be dismantled, the outlaw genocidal invader population must be removed, and the Streicher precedent of the Nuremberg IMT must be applied liberally to people like the Adelsons, Saban, the Bronfmans, Lauder, Martin Peretz, (especially) Foxman, (epecially) Alan Dershowitz, etc.

        As for the issue of transfer of liabilities from a preceeding organization to a successor organization, just consider the acquisition of a debt-ridden organization by a financially sound organization. The financially sound organization must pay off the debts. The debts don’t vanish.

        In the case of the State of Israel, the New Yishuv had all the characteristics of a government in formation. Thus the State of Israel was born in the original sin of genocidal Zionist ideology and remains completely and irredeemably contaminated by that original sin to this day.

      • echinococcus
        April 28, 2017, 1:34 pm

        Bile? I do support any boycott, and I support the official BDS movement as long as it does something. Pointing out the very serious limitations and risks is not bile.

        Besides, each person goes hisher own way in matters of boycott –are you trying to hold me to the same boycott (or other action, too?) rules as the Zionist partial-only-post-67-boycotters?

      • talknic
        April 28, 2017, 3:24 pm

        @ YoniFalic April 28, 2017, 1:03 pm

        “The Haganah and other terrorist organizations in the pre-state period committed terrorism and genocide. The Haganah became the IDF. “

        They’re not the State. Military organizations can cease to exist while the State remains. Libya for example

        As to pre-state crimes I’ve already noted pre-state actors can of course be prosecuted. Even Uri Avnery

      • YoniFalic
        April 28, 2017, 4:58 pm

        I can only reply that Talknic needs to attend an adequate law school.

        Entities which did not exist at the time of tort, damage, or crime can certainly bear civil or criminal responsibility for acts related to the tort, damage, or crime (including the original tort, damage, or crime) both in international law and also in all modern legal systems that I know, and I have studied many.

        I am making such a basic point that I may have to put talknic in the category of ignoramus.

        In any case, I consider the debate uninteresting.

        The continued existence of the State of Israel and the lack of prosecution of Israeli and international Zionists puts the international anti-genocide legal regime and the whole system of International Law into question.

      • talknic
        April 28, 2017, 8:42 pm

        @ YoniFalic April 28, 2017, 4:58 pm

        “Entities which did not exist at the time of tort, damage, or crime can certainly bear civil or criminal responsibility for acts related to the tort, damage, or crime (including the original tort, damage, or crime) both in international law and also in all modern legal systems that I know, and I have studied many.”

        I have said as much numerous times throughout this conversation. However, an entity such as the Jewish Agency or IDF are not the State

        Israel sh*ts itself at the thought of Palestinian independence and UN Membership. Palestine would then be in reach of launching proceedings at all four the UN, UNSC, ICJ and ICC for crimes committed by anyone, any body, any state and/or any state or non-state actor, at any time, pre-Israel’s declaration and post. Even against Uri Avnery himself

        Also brought within reach is the possibility of a tribunals; to assess the legality of Israel’s ‘considered’ territories; to assess compensation due under International law, far more than Israel can afford.
        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-176638

        The individuals who committed crimes during the civil war could of course have been prosecuted for the crimes they committed. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-176638

        Individuals can be prosecuted for their pre-state crimes. The state cannot. Pre-state actors can be prosecuted for pre-state crimes and; for crimes they commit as state actors once the state exists. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-176638

        The individuals concerned can of course be prosecute for any crimes they committed at any time, even if they become state actors. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-176638

        Yes the individuals could be prosecuted, but they’d have the protection and legal resources of the state behind their defense. Unless of course they became too costly to the cause. There’s only so much honour amongst Zionist thieves – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-176638

      • talknic
        April 28, 2017, 9:26 pm

        echinococcus April 28, 2017, 1:34 pm

        “Pointing out the very serious limitations and risks is not bile”

        Your unwarranted accusations against me are driven by something. It certainly isn’t love or logic

        “Besides, each person goes hisher own way in matters of boycott “

        Indeed.

        No law can force individuals to recommend or buy Israeli goods and;
        No law can stop individuals from not buying Israeli goods and;
        No law has yet been passed that prevents anyone from saying certain goods are produced in illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=can+force#sthash.2Flgzp2E.dpuf

        However, the US UNSC veto can’t stop individuals, companies or other countries from boycotting, divesting or sanctioning Israel – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=individuals#sthash.4cfGJKe1.dpuf

        I have come to the same conclusion in the past four years.

        The State of Israel is in breach of its legal obligations.

        Boycott the state and any business or person/s profiting from the state’s illegal actions in any non-Israeli territories
        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=boycott#sthash.2re3FnrV.dpuf

        I contend that people be shown that it is the proclaimed and only Internationally recognized border and;
        armed with that knowledge as a starting point people can eventually arrive at an informed opinion, understand the real cause of the situation, why the UN is not biased against Israel and why Israel is deserving of at least sanctions, boycott and even UN approved military action. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=boycott#sthash.2re3FnrV.dpuf

        a sports boycott can shine a spotlight, no, a BIG spotlight , no, a VERY BIG spotlight , no a, GIGANTIC spotlight no, BILLIONS of spotlights on the apartheid policies of the State of Israel in every country in the world and empower billions of people to act and no law can stop them! – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=boycott#sthash.2re3FnrV.dpuf

        “–are you trying to hold me to the same boycott (or other action, too?) rules as the Zionist partial-only-post-67-boycotters?”

        I’m not trying to hold you to anything. You’re making baseless accusations against me by inference. Cute, but really quite stupid and very tiresome

      • echinococcus
        April 28, 2017, 9:52 pm

        Talknic,

        Mountains out of molehills. The only accusation is your legitimizing the totally illegal existence of the Zionist entity in any size or location.
        As for the BDS organization, no reflection on the courage and dedication of the leaders –the fact that they are working under direct control of the occupier is just geographic and unavoidable.
        No need discussing further.

      • YoniFalic
        April 28, 2017, 11:25 pm

        Talknic is truly dense. The acquired subunit creates liability or responsibility in the whole. If Bank of America acquires a small mortgage company that was committing crimes, Bank of America is indicted.

        Under the international anti-genocide regime, states have not yet been indicated, but states have certainly been charged in other types of proceedings at the ICJ. With regard to the wall, the ICJ has recommended that the UN take action with respect to the Israeli separation wall, and the UN certainly has the ability to sanction states or to order attacks on them.

        The State of Israel was formed out many subunits that were either openly or covertly engaged in genocide during the pre-State period.

      • talknic
        April 29, 2017, 12:01 am

        echinococcus April 28, 2017, 9:52 pm

        “The only accusation is your legitimizing the totally illegal existence of the Zionist entity in any size or location.”

        What legitimization? Israel exists. Illegal or not. Like it or not. The State of Israel, agree with the legality of how it came to exist or not, is now the reality the world has to contend with, not some fantasy of what sh/could have or should not have happened.in the past

        As to your ridiculous accusations. I’ve been pointing out the Zionists planned to colonize Palestine in 1897 via a vile money making scheme, targeting specifically Jews, specifically poor Jews, loaning them money specifically at interest on condition they specifically settle in Palestine specifically on the front lines endangering themselves and their families in order to eventually dispossess non-Jewish Arabs in Palestine

        If that’s pro Zionist, YOU need a shrink

        I’ve been pointing out, long before you appeared on MW the fact that the Balfour declaration, which wasn’t even debated in the British Parliament, didn’t mention a state and how Balfour himself questioned the legitimacy of the partition plan ( despite his being supportive of a Jewish state );

        Pointing out the LoN Mandate for Palestine Article 7 which doesn’t mention a state;. Contrary to Zionist lies.

        Pointing out the illegality of Plan Dalet and the illegal actions of pre-state Jewish terrorists;

        Pointing out the illegality of Israel’s actions after it came into existence via the lies of the Jewish Agency and Zionist Federation pre-state and post state;

        I’ve pointed out the illegality of Israel acquiring territories by war outside of its self proclaimed borders. Contrary to Zionist lies.

        The illegality of not recognizing RoR. The illegality of settlements. There’s nothing in what I’ve written supportive of the Zionists, Zionism, their plan or their actions

        If you can’t accept the ugly reality of Israel’s existence, it’s your problem. It has SFA to do with me

      • Talkback
        April 29, 2017, 7:14 am

        Talknic: “That’s not conveyed in the article.

        A) The ’67 borders aren’t stated by Uri Avnery ”

        So your claim is that this is not the s logical conclusion given the numbers he claims to have a right to return, his claim that it would be the end of a “Jewish state” and your assupmtion that he’s not talking about 48 borderrs allthough he didn’t state so?

        “B) When and by what legal agreement did Israel acquire any territories outside of those it accepted and declared and was recognized by in 1948? ‘considered’ simply does not answer the question”

        I allready explained to you that a legal agreement is not necessary, if noone else contests these territories (any longer). Not even the State of Palestine challenges this.

        Talknic: I didn’t ignore it. I mentioned all four would be in reach, the UN, UNSC, ICJ and ICC.”

        Yeah sure. After you failed with your inherent claim that Palestine was not a state and therefore couldn’t go to the ICC allthough it allready has become a state party to the Rome statue you simply changed your argument to “at all four” and added the UNSC. As if the US wouldn’t veto every anti-Israel move or the UNGA and its long majority recognition and majority support for a two state solution based on 67 lines would allow any request of an advisory opinion which would challenge Israel’s legitimacy or support your 48-borders-approach.

        Talknic: “You might ‘consider’ that to be the case. It’s not conveyed in the article.”

        Let me guess. You need a document in which he explicitely states that his argument is based on 67 lines, because this again is something you logically cant extract from the context. ROFL.

        Talknic: “So ‘we’ do agree.”

        Not regarding the way he wants to undermine RoR.

        Talknic: “OK. You word the challenge?”

        My question is, if it makes ANY SENSE TO YOU to endlessly repeat your position about Israel’s borders to challenge this. Given your evading response and any lack of an argument it seems that it doesn’t.

        Talknic: “No. The problem is the fact that Israel has yet to agree to accept ANY limitations to its borders other than those it declared per UNGA res 181, effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time). Israel has not recognized Palestine’s borders. There is no agreement. ”

        It’s also a fact that this NOT the problem that Israel or the State of Palestine have regarding the territories beyond 48 borders but within 67 lines (excluding Jerusalem). It’s not contested between these two parties.

        Talknic: “The territories outside of Israel’s borders some how magically became Israeli by what legal process in agreement with who?”

        The same “legal process” and agreement you claim to exist for Israel within 48 borders? Your alleged right to self determination in this case? So after the Nonjews were expelled the majority of the rest of the population in these territories wanted to merge with Israel?

        Talknic: “Hate to tell you this, right or wrong, legal or illegal, the UN DID allow Israel Membership.”
        Talknic: “Too late! Like it or not Israel is a UN Member State. The Jewish Agency et al lied to get into the UN. They’re a still lying”

        Yeah, hate to tell you again, that there are examples of your many straw arguments The question was, IF the UN can censure non members or UN Members for crimes committed prior to becoming A) States and/or B) UN Member States. You denied this and I wrote that it can by not recognizing statehood or denying full UN membership.

        Talknic: “Not by any legal agreement with Palestine …”

        Again, not the pont of issue. I was refering to your claim that Israel did not “accept” territories beyond partition borders and I explained to you even how it did according to its laws and orders from its pseudo legal point of view.

        Talknic: “Jewish terrorists did.”

        So according to you if JSIL did, so can ISIl legally acquire territory by simply declaring statehood on it. Is there anyone who supports your ridiculous claim?

        Talknic: “Do ISIL represent any legitimate majority in any territory?”

        Neither did JSIL.

        Talknic: “How the territory was acquired was the particular point at issue.”

        It didn’t need to be acquired. Nobody needed to be expelled to achieve a majority. 98,3% choose to exercise their right to self determination to have their own state. And as in any other legal case for secession the nationality of the newly created state was transfered to everyone living in this territory.

        Talknic: “The ad hoc committee made changes to the boundaries which increased the Jewish percentage in the Jewish state to 61% before UNGA voted ”

        A claim without any citation.

        Talknic: “Another illegality committed by non-state actors before the State of Israel existed and for which the State could not be prosecuted. ”

        Doesn’t change the fact that the number of Jews who had the right to self determination in Palestine were far below 50%. Maybe around 25%-30%.

        Talknic: “No one has the right to violate any rights at any time. Your accusation about what I inherently claim is ridiculous ”

        Really? Your claims:
        “… states have a right to secede.”
        “Israel ignored it” [The right to self determination].

        Now I would claim that there is no right to create (or “secede”) a state while violating the right to self determination which contradicts the latter right. You obviously don’t, if you claim that states (generally) have a right to secede, whether they violate the right to self determination or not.

        Talknic: “A snake can’t bite before it exists. Go yell at the Zionist organizations for using the law to protect the State from crimes committed towards but prior to its existence.”

        Really? A flawed comparision and another repetition? That’s your argument? Ok. A snake can bite before and even after it shed its skin. It’s the same snake. You also seem to ignore that there are crimes that the pre state organisation started and the same organisation continued or even continues after it acquired national status. With the repetition of your argument you only repeat the same false premise:

        Talknic: “The record shows otherwise”.

        ROFL. I lost the count of your repetitions which don’t response to objections. I will start from now.

        Talknic: “If you say so. I certainly haven’t.”

        1.) Does Israel according to you have to compensate refugees that do not whish to return, but to be compensated, if their origin is outside of Israel proclaimed borders as a result of state action?
        2.) Does Israel according to you have to compensate refugees that do not whish to return, but to be compensated, if their origin is outside of Israel proclaimed borders as a result of PRE state action?

        Talknic: “Uh? What makes you make a completely baseless accusation.”

        OMG. Why DON’T you accept Israel’s Apartheid, its occupation, its illegal annexation and illegal settlemetns? These are all facts and you seem to make a case for accepting “facts” when it comes to Israel, whether I like them or not.

      • Talkback
        April 29, 2017, 7:22 am

        Talknic: “If you can’t accept the ugly reality of Israel’s existence, it’s your problem.”

        That’s your way of supporting the ugly reality of Israel’s existence. By suggesting that the main problem is not its ugly existence, but if we don’t accept it.

        I can finally understand the main problem of everyone who had a problem with Nazi Germany, Apartheid Southafrica or any other ugly existence: It just was their own non-acceptance. ROFL.

      • talknic
        April 29, 2017, 8:58 am

        @ YoniFalic April 28, 2017, 11:25 pm

        “The acquired subunit creates liability or responsibility in the whole. If Bank of America acquires a small mortgage company that was committing crimes, Bank of America is indicted.

        A) Commercial Law. B) If the bank makes restitution and compensates for the crimes of its acquisition, the bank isn’t indicted. C) If it doesn’t it is indicted.

        “Under the international anti-genocide regime, states have not yet been indicated, but states have certainly been charged in other types of proceedings at the ICJ.”

        Of course States have proceedings against their actions. I’ve not said otherwise.

        If territory were stolen/occupied/cleansed by pre-state actors before a State existed and were that State after having declared its borders to return those stolen/occupied/cleansed territories, the State would not be guilty of accepting stolen goods. The criminals would still be guilty of stealing/terrorism/ethnic cleansing et al, not the State.

        If the State takes the stolen/occupied/cleansed territories for itself through creating illegal facts on the ground, it’s crime is being in possession of stolen territories and creating illegal facts on the ground. The criminals are still guilty of stealing/terrorism et al.

        Other states accepting a de facto situation doesn’t make it legal. de facto recognition is not de jure. de jure can only come about by agreement between Israel and Palestine. An agreement might include waiving the right to pursue the State and/or pre-state actors for their past crimes. However, the crimes were still committed and other States might one day take an interest in pursuing any of the parties

        ” With regard to the wall, the ICJ has recommended that the UN take action with respect to the Israeli separation wall, and the UN certainly has the ability to sanction states or to order attacks on them.”

        talknic November 12, 2013 at 11:26 pm The crime of the wall was committed by the State after the state came into existence!

      • talknic
        April 29, 2017, 1:13 pm

        @ Talkback April 29, 2017, 7:14 am

        “So your claim is that this is not the s logical conclusion given the numbers he claim … ?”

        Shall we go on what he said or what he didn’t say? Uri Avnery gave the UNRWA 6-7million figure as returning “to Israel”. It’s a Zionist propaganda mantra. The Palestinians do not claim RoR for all 6-7 million refugees “to Israel”. The Palestinian claim is made under UNGA res 194 of 1948 BEFORE UNRWA existed and before Israel made its unsuccessful claim (Aug 1949) to any territories it had previously stated on May 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel”.

        “I allready explained to you that a legal agreement is not necessary, if noone else contests these territories ….”

        Israel hasn’t yet accepted any limits to its borders with Palestine. The other states acceptance of a de facto situation doesn’t make it legal. An agreement between Palestine and Israel would. There isn’t one between Palestine and Israel even though the Palestinians have said they’re willing to cede 78% of their territory for peace with Israel and have declared their borders accordingly in a show of good faith, Israel has yet to agree to any limitations to its expansion, the only borders it has ever accepted are those it declared in its plea for recognition.

        ” After you failed with your inherent claim that Palestine was not a state and therefore couldn’t go to the ICC”

        Quote me. Unwarranted and baseless accusations are an unusual way of discussion

        “allthough it allready has become a state party to the Rome statue you simply changed your argument to “at all four” and added the UNSC”

        I originally gave the UN, ICJ and ICC as being within reach. One only has a limited time to edit a post. So I included the UNSC it next chance I got. Big deal. The notion that there’s some deception on my part is a fantasy. I didn’t mention I’m wearing thermals either

        “As if the US wouldn’t veto every anti-Israel move or the UNGA … … “

        Do you really think I’m not aware of the vile use of the US veto vote.

        http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=UNSC+Veto#sthash.i7ImSFYU.dpuf

        http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=UNSC+Veto#sthash.i7ImSFYU.dpuf

        http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=UNSC+Veto#sthash.i7ImSFYU.dpuf

        “Let me guess. You need a document in which he explicitely states that his argument is based on 67 lines, because this again is something you logically cant extract from the context. ROFL.”

        It ISN’T in or inferred in the article and his statement is prefaced with the same “if” used by Ziopanic merchants to prevent any RoR

        Talknic: “So ‘we’ do agree.”

        “Not regarding the way he wants to undermine RoR.”

        Make up your mind. Hes repeating a ZioNonsense.

        Talknic: “The territories outside of Israel’s borders some how magically became Israeli by what legal process in agreement with who?”

        “The same “legal process” and agreement you claim to exist for Israel within 48 borders etc etc …”

        Uh? Israel by it’s own admission stated the territories “outside the State of Israel” were under military occupation. http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk The Occupying power has a sacred trust under Chapt XI of the UN Charter. Israel instead created illegal facts on the ground. de facto is not de jure doesn’t matter how many states give de facto recognition

        “The question was, IF the UN can censure non members or UN Members for crimes committed prior to becoming A) States and/or B) UN Member States. You denied this and I wrote that it can by not recognizing statehood or denying full UN membership.”

        Where did I deny it? Of course it can. But it DIDN’T! Don’t you get it yet? Legal or not, whether we like it or not Israel is a UN Member state and as such it has committed crimes, witnessed by the hundreds of UNSC resolutions against it.

        “So according to you if JSIL did, so can ISIl legally acquire territory by simply declaring statehood on it. Is there anyone who supports your ridiculous claim?”

        Jewish terrorists did, it’s a fact. I’ve never agreed with how it came about. Does ISII represent a majority? In both cases it’s no.
        Your accusation against me is completely stupid. Go whine to the States who recognized Israel, and the UN for admitting Israel and the US for protecting Israel and to states for blindly accepting a de facto situation.

        “It didn’t need to be acquired. Nobody needed to be expelled to achieve a majority. 98,3% choose to … etc …”

        No one needed to be expelled from the territories that became Israel either. Everyone should have had a transferred nationality. Israel ignored its legal obligations as a state, to the UN Charter and to its own declaration.

        Talknic: “The ad hoc committee made changes to the boundaries which increased the Jewish percentage in the Jewish state to 61% before UNGA voted ”

        A claim without any citation” y

        http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/united-nations-special-committee-on-palestine-unscop

        http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/un_general_assembly_resolution_181#cite_note-domino.un.org-21

        Talknic: “Another illegality committed by non-state actors before the State of Israel existed and for which the State could not be prosecuted. ”

        “Doesn’t change the fact that the number of Jews who had the right to self determination in Palestine were far below 50%. Maybe around 25%-30%.”

        It certainly doesn’t. Go whine to the states that recognized Israel and the UN for admitting Israel as a Member, the Zionist Federation and the Jewish agency for lying.

        Talknic: “No one has the right to violate any rights at any time. Your accusation about what I inherently claim is ridiculous ”

        “Really? Your claims:
        “… states have a right to secede.”
        “Israel ignored it” [The right to self determination]”

        Go whine to Israel for ignoring it’s obligations, the Jewish Agency for lying. . Whine at the states for foolishly believing Jewish Agency lies and the UN for admitting Israel as a Member state. Not me. Illegal or not, like it or not Israel now exists. I didn’t do it, I don’t agree with how it came about .

        “Now I would claim that there is no right to create (or “secede”) a state while violating the right to self determination which contradicts the latter right. “

        Me too. I agree. You’ve left out the majority representative part of my statement BTW

        “You obviously don’t, if you claim that states (generally) have a right to secede, whether they violate … etc …”

        Problem. No one has a right to violate anything. You’re needlessly fabricating accusations. It’s tiresome

        ” Ok. A snake can bite before and even after it shed its skin. It’s the same snake”

        A snake doesn’t have a skin to shed before it exists. The state is guilty of the crimes it commits after it comes into existence

        .“You also seem to ignore that there are crimes that the pre state organisation started and the same organisation continued or even continues after it acquired national status. :”

        I’ve described exactly that AND how by committing those crimes before the state was declared they avoided censure of the State. The State is guilty of accepting stolen goods, not of stealing them.

        “1.) Does Israel according to you have to compensate refugees that do not whish to return, but to be compensated, if their origin is outside of Israel proclaimed borders as a result of state action?”

        The State of Israel is responsible for preventing RoR to its declared territories and to territories outside those it declared. As such it is entirely responsible for ALL compensations resulting from its actions outside its borders and to those who were dispossessed from within its borders. 60 years is one hell of a a lot of resources illegally used, pain and suffering on top of compensation for property, loss of business, artworks, books. It cannot afford to adhere to the law. If the truth be known the only legal out for Israel is a plea bargain with the Palestinians

        “2.) Does Israel according to you have to compensate refugees that do not whish to return, but to be compensated, if their origin is outside of Israel proclaimed borders as a result of PRE state action?”

        Israel has to compensate because Israel, since it came to exist, has accepted stolen goods and refused RoR for over half a century. See previous

        “OMG. Why DON’T you accept Israel’s Apartheid, its occupation, its illegal annexation and illegal settlemetns? These are all facts and you seem to make a case for accepting “facts” when it comes to Israel, whether I like them or not.”

        Strange, I’ve been writing AGAINST occupation et al since I arrived at MW and for a long long time before.

        “That’s your way of supporting the ugly reality of Israel’s existence. By suggesting that the main problem is not its ugly existence, but if we don’t accept it.”

        What support for Israel’s existence? It’s simply a fact. Like it or not the State of Israel exists in all its ugliness. Whether it came about legally or illegally it is now a UN Member and in breach of its legal obligations as a state and as a UN Member

        “I can finally understand the main problem of everyone who had a problem with Nazi Germany, Apartheid Southafrica or any other ugly existence: It just was their own non-acceptance. ROFL”

        If you say so. Accepting that something has happened doesn’t mean one agrees with it or how it came about.

      • YoniFalic
        April 30, 2017, 6:07 am

        Talknic equates pretrial settlements and plea bargains that might eliminate need for trials with lack of culpability or guilt. Such settlements and bargains hardly negate the liability or culpability of the later organization. In fact, they generally imply acceptance of such liability or culpability.

        A) Commercial Law. B) If the bank makes restitution and compensates for the crimes of its acquisition, the bank isn’t indicted. C) If it doesn’t it is indicted.

        The State of Israel certainly bears criminal and civil responsibility for many pre-state actions and events. The Israeli state and all white racist genocidal European colonial settler invaders (along with their non-European lackeys) should be treated as criminally benefiting from the international crime of genocide even if much of said genocide happened before the official founding of the state. (Of course, a lot of the acts of genocide have been committed since the official founding of the state.)

        There is no reason to treat the Israeli state as a “done deal”. Lots of states have vanished from history. In general, decent human beings have a duty to treat with scorn the State of Israel, Zionist invaders, and all supporters of Zionism. Protests of Zionist organizations and of Zionist individuals should never cease until Israel ceases to exists and the invaders leaves.

        The conquest of Algeria took place from 1830-1847. Algerian independence was achieved in 1962. Practically all the invaders have left including the indigenous Algerian Jewish community, whose members European Jews educated and socialized to serve as native collaborators like indigenous Polish Jews in Hapsburg and Hohenzollern Poland.

        A similar outcome is inevitable in Palestine, but activists must work for prosecution of international Zionists along with seizure of all international Zionist assets. I consider the JNF to be ripe for legal attack.

      • talknic
        April 30, 2017, 10:21 am

        @ YoniFalic April 30, 2017, 6:07 am

        “Talknic equates pretrial settlements and plea bargains that might eliminate need for trials with lack of culpability or guilt”

        What a strange accusation This is what I’ve written

        If territory were stolen/occupied/cleansed by pre-state actors before a State existed and were that State after having declared its borders to return those stolen/occupied/cleansed territories, the State would not be guilty of accepting stolen goods. The criminals would still be guilty of stealing/terrorism/ethnic cleansing et al, not the State.

        If the State takes the stolen/occupied/cleansed territories for itself through creating illegal facts on the ground, it’s crime is being in possession of stolen territories and creating illegal facts on the ground. The criminals are still guilty of stealing/terrorism et al.

        Other states accepting a de facto situation doesn’t make it legal. de facto recognition is not de jure. de jure can only come about by agreement between Israel and Palestine. An agreement might include waiving the right to pursue the State and/or pre-state actors for their past crimes. However, the crimes were still committed and other States might one day take an interest in pursuing any of the parties

        ” With regard to the wall, the ICJ has recommended that the UN take action with respect to the Israeli separation wall, and the UN certainly has the ability to sanction states or to order attacks on them.”

        The crimes relating to the wall were committed by the State after the state came into existence!

        http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-176638

        ” Such settlements and bargains hardly negate the liability or culpability of the later organization. In fact, they generally imply acceptance of such liability or culpability.”

        You’ve just reflected what I’ve said. Your accusation against me is ridiculous

        “There is no reason to treat the Israeli state as a “done deal”

        1) Where have I? 2) No State is a done deal

        ” In general, decent human beings have a duty to treat with scorn the State of Israel, Zionist invaders, and all supporters of Zionism. Protests of Zionist organizations and of Zionist individuals should never cease until Israel ceases to exists and the invaders leaves.”

        That would be for Palestinians to decide surely

      • Talkback
        April 30, 2017, 12:16 pm

        Talknic: “Shall we go on what he said or what he didn’t say? Uri Avnery gave the … 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel”

        Yawn. You allready made that argument. This is one of your countless repetition. You are still not able to respond to the fact, that Avnery is making an argument based on a two state solution within 67 lines which is supported by the majority of UN members who recognize Israel. You just repeat your initial claim to repeat your 48-borders-position.

        Talnic: “Israel hasn’t yet accepted … in its plea for recognition.”

        Yawn. Another of your countless repetitions. It doesn’t change the fact that nobody, not even the State of Palestine, contests Ashod to be in Israel. Since Israel is the only claimant there’s no need for any explicite recognition or agreement. What’s next, another repetition?

        Talknic: “Quote me. Unwarranted and baseless accusations are an unusual way of discussion.

        Being dishonest, too. You wrote: ” Why do you think Israeli sh*ts itself at the thought of Palestinian independence and Membership in the UN? It can then, as a state, challenge in the UN, the ICJ and ICC every illegal move Israel has made since it became a state.”

        So you failed with your inherent claim that Palestine was not a state, and therefore couldn’t go to the ICC and then you changed your argument to distract from this failure. Interestingly enough, you didn’t even quote my first response and just repeated your altered argument as if nothing had happend before.

        Talknic: “Do you really think I’m not aware of the vile use of the US veto vote”

        No. But but your whole argument is nonsense. On the one hand Palestine is allready a state party of the Rome Statue of the ICC and on the other it doesn’t gain anything by becoming a full UN member given US veto politics regarding Israel. So why would Israel “sh** itself”, if Palestine would become a full UN member? Or independent, which it can only become, if Israel ends its occupation?

        Talknic: “It ISN’T in or inferred in the article and his statement is prefaced with the same “if” used by Ziopanic merchants to prevent any RoR.”

        To be precise: Given the numbes of refugees he provides YOU cannot infere that he’s talking about Israel based on 67 lines.

        Talknic: “Make up your mind. Hes repeating a ZioNonsense.”

        I’m talking about a different ZioNonsense than you. I hope that you can infer that from what I explicitely wrote.

        Talknic: “Uh? Israel by it’s own admission …”

        Doesn’t make its aquistion of territory within 48 borders more legal than that beyond these borders.

        Talknic: “Where did I deny it? Of course it can. But it DIDN’T! ”

        Again, your are changing your statement. You wrote: “the UN DOESN’Tt censure non members”. It was safe to assume that you meant that it can’t, because it doesn’t have the power or other possibilities to do so.

        Talknic: “Jewish terrorists did, it’s a fact.”

        Exactly. And your initial claim was that JSIL legally acquired territory by simply declaring statehood on it. According to this position ISIL could do the same.

        Talknic: “Does ISII represent a majority?”

        Give it some time to expell or massacre everyone who doesn’t support its national goals and let it then declare statehood when it has become a slight majority. Would that be ok for you? And according to you an organisation like JSIL or ISIL is not longer responsible for the crimes its members commited after it acquires national status.

        Talknic: “No one needed to be expelled from the territories that became Israel either.”

        What a fake argument. You very well know that Israel (at least de facto) expanded its territory beyond partition borders and ad least therefore had to expell Palestinians to become a majority and to be able to establish a “Jewish democracy”.

        Talknic: “A claim without any citation” y”

        Why don’t you simple quote from the links you provide? Do you really expect anyone to read through the whole documents?

        Talknic: “t certainly doesn’t.”

        So the Jews who had a right to self determination (having aqcuired Palestinian citizenship) in the territory that was recommended by the UN is far below the numbers of Nonjews and mirrored the ratio between Jewish and Nonjewish Palestinians in all of Palestine. So what makes you claim that Jews had a right to seced, if they were a 1:2 minority in the territory they wanted to secede?

        Talknic: “Go whine to Israel for ignoring it’s obligations, …”

        So far your most stupid comment, Talknic since I was proving to you that you claimed that Jews had a right to violate the right to self determination of Nonjews, because according to you a state has a right to cecede and you admitted that the right to self determination was ignored, in the case of Zionist secession. But be assured that I may make a simiiar remark when you bring up your 48-whineries.

        Talknic: “Me too. I agree.”

        Oh, so you do actually don’t accept Israel secession and

        Talknic: “You’ve left out the majority representative part of my statement BTW”

        What part? The part I have allready adressed by mentioning that Jews with Palestinian citizenship were a minority?

        Talknic: “Problem. No one has a right to violate anything. You’re needlessly fabricating accusations. It’s tiresome.”

        Really? Just answer this question with yes and no, if you think that someone would deliberately misinterprate your contantly changing positions to fabricate accusations.

        If Israel violated the right to self determination (as you claimed initially) than it didn’t have the right to secede and therefore did not legally acquire territory by declaring a state within any borders. Yes or no?

        Talknic: “A snake doesn’t have a skin to shed before it exists. The state is guilty of the crimes it commits after it comes into existence.”

        That’s your fallacy. That you need to suggest that “the state” (the organsation with state status) is not the same organisation like the organisation which porclained and acquired this state status. You are only repeating yourself, so let’s leave it with that.

        Talknic: “Israel has to compensate because Israel, since it came to exist, has accepted stolen goods and refused RoR for over half a century.”

        The question was about refugees who don’t wish to return. I forgot to add this is about the cases where there’s nothing left to return to since more than 400 villages were destroyed and what was not destroyed may have been looted by pre state actors which kept the posession for themselves. So it’s irrelevant if Israel would not allow them to return. Does Israel have to compensate them for being expelled and their property destroyed by its pre state actors and outside its proclaimed borders?

        Talknic: “Strange, I’ve been writing AGAINST occupation et al since I arrived at MW and for a long long time before. ”

        Yes, VERY strange, because I’ve been asking you now for the third time what keeps you FROM accepting the occupation, allthough it is a fact? Or in other words: Why DO you write AGAINST the occupation, allthough the occupation is a fact? Isn’t it YOUR problem, that you can’t accept the fact that the occupation exists?

        Me: “That’s your way of supporting the ugly reality of Israel’s existence. By suggesting that the main problem is not its ugly existence, but if we don’t accept it.”
        Talknic: “What support for Israel’s existence? It’s simply a fact.”

        I could say that this is just one of your your “it is what it is” tautology which is just a logicaly fallacy and means that you lost the argument. But if you also claim that not a status quo which was the result of injustice and is injustice itself is the real problem, but that we don’t accept it, as if it was immutable, than you are not different from anyone who supports injustice with this kind of reasoning.

      • YoniFalic
        April 30, 2017, 4:24 pm

        Each of talknic’s comments wrt law is sillier or more vacuous than the preceding.

        “Talknic equates pretrial settlements and plea bargains that might eliminate need for trials with lack of culpability or guilt”

        What a strange accusation This is what I’ve written

        If territory were stolen/occupied/cleansed by pre-state actors before a State existed and were that State after having declared its borders to return those stolen/occupied/cleansed territories, the State would not be guilty of accepting stolen goods. The criminals would still be guilty of stealing/terrorism/ethnic cleansing et al, not the State.

        Criminal law does not work this way at all in most legal systems.

        Generally an individual (including organizations) found guilty of receiving stolen goods is required to make restitution as part of judgment but there would probably also be a fine and imprisonment (if applicable). If restitution took place before judgment, the tribunal might take it into account during sentencing.

        With receiving stolen property there might be an issue of bona fide purchase for value, and various legal systems disagree whether mens mala superveniens nocet — generally the legal system attempts to distinguish among a fence (a crooked middleman), a crooked end purchaser, and an honest purchaser.

        1) Where have I? 2) No State is a done deal

        ” In general, decent human beings have a duty to treat with scorn the State of Israel, Zionist invaders, and all supporters of Zionism. Protests of Zionist organizations and of Zionist individuals should never cease until Israel ceases to exists and the invaders leaves.”

        That would be for Palestinians to decide surely

        Total blather. International criminal law works mostly like national criminal law systems. In criminal cases officials of the governing regime decide whether to proceed to trial and not the alleged victims even if the alleged victims reach some sort of settlement with the perpetrator.

        In the case of genocide such as the Nakba or the Holocaust many or most of the victims may not even be alive.

        In the Holocaust and the Nakba as part of each genocidal program endeavored to wipe out traces of cultures subjected to genocide. This aspect of genocide damages or destroys part of the intellectual and cultural inheritance of the entire human race.

        German Nazi and Jewish Zio Nazi genocidaires like the German Nazi and the Jewish Zio regimes can never be forgiven but must be hated and scorned forever, for not only Jews (former case) or Palestinians (latter case), but in fact all members of the human race are victims of any crime of genocide.

      • talknic
        April 30, 2017, 8:16 pm

        @ YoniFalic April 30, 2017, 4:24 pm

        ” “Talknic equates pretrial settlements and plea bargains that might eliminate need for trials with lack of culpability or guilt””

        In each of the three situations I gave, culpability and guilt are attributed to the appropriate actor.

        “Criminal law does not work this way at all in most legal systems.”

        It’s exactly how the law works. A person who refuses to accept stolen goods isn’t charged with having received stolen goods. The thief is still guilty of theft. Here it is again

        If territory were stolen/occupied/cleansed by pre-state actors before a State existed and were that State after having declared its borders to return those stolen/occupied/cleansed territories, the State would not be guilty of accepting stolen goods. The criminals would still be guilty of stealing/terrorism/ethnic cleansing et al, not the State. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/recent-comments/#sthash.1Wm33xTK.dpuf

        In the second and third instances culpability and guilt are also attributed to the appropriate actors.

        If the State takes the stolen/occupied/cleansed territories for itself through creating illegal facts on the ground, it’s crime is being in possession of stolen territories and creating illegal facts on the ground. The criminals are still guilty of stealing/terrorism et al.

        Other states accepting a de facto situation doesn’t make it legal. de facto recognition is not de jure. de jure can only come about by agreement between Israel and Palestine. An agreement might include waiving the right to pursue the State and/or pre-state actors for their past crimes. However, the crimes were still committed and other States might one day take an interest in pursuing any of the parties
        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/recent-comments/#sthash.1Wm33xTK.dpuf

        Your accusations against me are the weirdest

        “Generally an individual (including organizations) found guilty of receiving stolen goods is required to make restitution as part of judgment but there would probably also be a fine and imprisonment (if applicable). If restitution took place before judgment, the tribunal might take it into account during sentencing.”

        Parties who don’t accept stolen goods are not charged with receiving stolen goods. The thief is still charged with stealing. It’s really quite simple.

        This gem “Total blather. International criminal law works mostly like national criminal law systems. In criminal cases officials of the governing regime decide whether to proceed to trial and not the alleged victims even if the alleged victims reach some sort of settlement with the perpetrator.” is completely unrelated to what I wrote. Here again is the conversation

        YF: “There is no reason to treat the Israeli state as a “done deal”

        T: 1) Where have I? 2) No State is a done deal

        YF: ” In general, decent human beings have a duty to treat with scorn the State of Israel, Zionist invaders, and all supporters of Zionism. Protests of Zionist organizations and of Zionist individuals should never cease until Israel ceases to exists and the invaders leaves.”

        T: That would be for Palestinians to decide surely

        “German Nazi and Jewish Zio Nazi genocidaires like the German Nazi and the Jewish Zio regimes can never be forgiven but must be hated and scorned forever, for not only Jews (former case) or Palestinians (latter case), but in fact all members of the human race are victims of any crime of genocide.”

        Indeed. I’ve never claimed otherwise. Your accusations against me are completely unwarranted

      • talknic
        April 30, 2017, 10:40 pm

        @ Talkback April 30, 2017, 12:16 pm

        ” … the fact, that Avnery is making an argument based on a two state solution within 67 lines which is supported by the majority of UN members who recognize Israel. “

        It’s not clear what he bases his assumption on. And think about it. Even if he is basing it on a two state agreement on ’67 lines, 6-7 million refugees returning “to Israel” is simply NOT what the Palestinians claim. Under a two state ’67 lines agreement, part of the 6-7 million refugees would have RoR to Palestine and their return would be none of Israel’s business.

        Uri Avnery is using a propaganda mantra, purposefully designed to make it look as if the Palestinians want all 6-7 million refugees to return to Israel. A mantra to create fear and thereby prevent any RoR. It’s one of the nonsenses used to stave off an agreement while the Jewish State busies itself creating more of its ghastly ‘facts on the ground’

        ” It doesn’t change the fact that nobody, not even the State of Palestine, contests Ashod to be in Israel. Since Israel is the only claimant there’s no need for any explicite recognition or agreement. “
        de facto is not de jure. There has never been an agreement between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine. No contract. No Deal. No lease,. No co-signed document. No Peace Treaty.

        ” you failed with your inherent claim that Palestine was not a state, “
        What a strange accusation http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=the+State+of+Palestine

        ” and therefore couldn’t go to the ICC”
        I made no such claim

        ” and then you changed your argument to distract from this failure. “
        I didn’t change any argument. I missed the edit time allowed for the UNSC afterthought to be added. It was included it next mention. Simple. Your accusation is a nonsense

        Talknic: “Do you really think I’m not aware of the vile use of the US veto vote”

        “No. But but your whole argument is nonsense. On the one hand Palestine is allready a state party of the Rome Statue of the ICC and on the other it doesn’t gain anything by becoming a full UN member given US veto politics regarding Israel.”

        A) I didn’t claim Palestine is not a state party to the Rome Statute. I pointed out what is in reach of the State of Palestine more so with the empowerment that comes from being accepted as a UN Member state, and; B) “gain”? I didn’t use the word. Using your word, “gain” it of course becomes a nonsense

        “Doesn’t make its aquistion of territory within 48 borders more legal than that beyond these borders.”
        Indeed. Its an ugly reality we’re now confronted with. However the exact point at issue was the crimes committed by the State AFTER the State came into existence.

        ” Again, your are changing your statement. You wrote: “the UN DOESN’Tt censure non members”. It was safe to assume that you meant that it can’t, because it doesn’t have the power or other possibilities to do so.”

        I haven’t changed anything. They’re different statements for different issues.
        Issue 1 ) The UN could of course refuse membership. It didn’t. It’s a fact. We, you, might not like it, but that’s what happened. I’ve never said it’s an ‘acceptable’ situation. It is now however the basis of UN/GA/SC resolutions on the Question of Palestine. Which BTW call for “peace in Palestine”, not Israel. Contrary to the Hasbara notion that Israel was invaded.

        Issue 2) The UN doesn’t directly censure or even name non-member states in resolutions against their illegal actions. It calls on/names the Government/State administrators.

        The rest of your accusations against me are tediously bizarre, I’m not going to waste my time

        “But if you also claim that not a status quo which was the result of injustice and is injustice itself is the real problem, but that we don’t accept it, as if it was immutable, “

        It’s NOT what I claim. It’s a ridiculous accusation. The Zionist colonization of Palestine is the problem. The fact that the majority of the world’s states, believing Zionist promises to adhere to the law, recognized Israel and its admission to the UN is the problem. The fact that Israel now exists, legal or not, like it or not, is the problem. If you can’t acknowledge what HAS transpired, you have a problem. It has nothing what so ever to do with the situation being morally, ethically legally or logically acceptable, because it’s clearly not!

        I’ve not used your words “acceptable” or “immutable”. Nor have I asked anyone to ‘accept’ the situation as it now exists as being ‘acceptable’ or immutable. You’re barking up an empty tree .

      • Talkback
        May 2, 2017, 1:23 pm

        Talknic: “It’s not clear what he bases his assumption on.”

        Sure, it’s more clear to you that he isn’t talking about 48 borders right?

        Talknic: “Even if he is basing it on a two state agreement on ’67 lines, 6-7 million refugees returning “to Israel” is simply NOT what the Palestinians claim.”

        Sure, because like you the Palestinans claim that everything that is beyond 48 borders is not Israel’s business, right?

        Talknic: “de facto is not de jure.”

        Neither Israel nor Palestine longer legally contest this.

        Talknic: “There has never been …”

        Yes Rainmain, we know, you allready said that countless times and I explained to you many times, why it isn’t necessary and than you repeat the same over and over again.

        Talknic: “I made no such claim.”

        Yeah, sure. You wrote: “Why do you think Israeli sh*ts itself at the thought of Palestinian independence and Membership in the UN? It can then, as a state, challenge in the UN, the ICJ and ICC every illegal move Israel has made since it became a state.”

        It’s obvious that you inherently claimed that Palestine can’t go NOW to the ICC, but only “THEN, AS A STATE.”

        Talknic: “I didn’t change any argument.”

        Sure, then you changed your argument to “at all four”. What’s your next invention, Talknic? That your meant that it can THEN not only go to the ICC, but ALSO to the UN, UNSC and ICJ, too? And Israel only sh** itself from this situation and not allready, that Palestine can allready go to the ICC?

        Talknic: “A) I didn’t claim Palestine is not a state party to the Rome Statute. I pointed out what is in reach of the State of Palestine MORE so with the empowerment that comes from being accepted as a UN Member state, ”

        ROFL. So I did predict this invention. What ADDITIONAL empowerment, if you admit that the UNSC would not vote in favor of Palestine, because of an US veto?

        Talknic: B) “gain”? I didn’t use the word. Using your word, “gain” it of course becomes a nonsense.

        Sure, there’s a difference between your claim that Palestine would [gain] (more) by becoming a full UN member, but not using the word “gain”.

        Talknic: “Indeed.”

        Really? Didn’t you claim a long while ago that territory can be legally acquired by simply declaring a state?

        Talknic: “The UN could of course refuse membership.”

        So its not correct to say that it “doesn’t” censure states, if it can do so by refusing membership. You meant “it hasn’t”.

        Talknic: “It’s NOT what I claim. It’s a ridiculous accusation. … If you can’t acknowledge what HAS transpired, you have a problem. I’ve not used your words “acceptable” …”.

        OMG. You literally wrote: “If you can’t accept the ugly reality of Israel’s existence, it’s your problem.”

        And there’s a difference between acknowledging the existence of something which shouldn’t be accepted on the one hand and accepting it on the other.

        Talknic “… or “immutable”.

        Yawn. I never said that you USED that word. That’s what I wrote:

        But if you also claim that not a status quo which was the result of injustice and is injustice itself is the real problem, but that we don’t accept it, AS IF it was immutable, than you are not different from anyone who supports injustice with this kind of reasoning.

        Did you actually understand my argument? You don’t even adress it.

        Talknic: “Nor have I asked anyone to ‘accept’ the situation as it now exists as being ‘acceptable’ or immutable. You’re barking up an empty tree .”

        This whole discussion with you makes no longer any sense. Either you claim that you didn’t write something, which you actually did or you claim that you didn’t write something allthough nobody accused you of doing so. I never claimed that you “asked anyone” to accept the situation, but that you see the problem in non accepting thiy unacceptable situation. And I never claimed that you wrote that the situation is “immutable”, but that you are arguing AS IF the situation is immutable, if you present it as a personal problem, if the “ugly existence of Israel” is not accepted AS IF this is what needed to be changed.

        I will end this discussion here. You are just repeating yourself with no new arguments or twisting my words or your own. And I won’t ask you for the fourth time, why you write AGAINST the occupation, allthough the occupation is a fact as is Israel’s “ugly existence”. But you don’t seem to be able to explain the incoherence of your position or maybe doesn’t even see it.

      • talknic
        May 3, 2017, 2:18 am

        Talkback May 2, 2017, 1:23 pm

        “Sure, it’s more clear to you that he isn’t talking about 48 borders right?”

        It is clear he said 6-7 million refugees returning “to Israel”. Which is not, nor has it ever been, the demand of the Palestinians

        em>”Sure, because like you the Palestinans claim that everything that is beyond 48 borders is not Israel’s business, right?”

        In a two state solution, who returns to Palestine is none of Israel’s business

        “Neither Israel nor Palestine longer legally contest this.”

        de facto is not de jure where an agreement is required There has yet to be an agreement

        “It’s obvious that you inherently claimed that Palestine can’t go NOW to the ICC … etc etc.”

        I’ve explained what I wrote, when and why. I didn’t change the essence of what was meant. People often miss the time allowed for editing their comments. Any ill intent is imagined

        “ROFL. So I did predict this invention. What ADDITIONAL empowerment, if you admit that the UNSC would not vote in favor of Palestine, because of an US veto?”

        If you read carefully a hypothetical situation was put forward based on the hypothetical assumption Palestine was already a UN Member, i.e., hypothetically sans a US UNSC veto vote. Here it is again.

        “Israel sh*ts itself at the thought of Palestinian independence and UN Membership. Palestine would then be in reach of launching proceedings at all four the UN, UNSC, ICJ and ICC for crimes committed by anyone, any body, any state and/or any state or non-state actor, at any time, pre-Israel’s declaration and post. Even against Uri Avnery himself”

        “So its not correct to say that it “doesn’t” censure states, if it can do so by refusing membership. You meant “it hasn’t”.”

        It hasn’t for a reason. What is the reason? The UNSC resolutions on the State of Israel’s acceptance into the UN named the State of Israel as a matter of course. The refusals didn’t censure the state . They simply refused the application

        resolution [S/1127]

        The Security Council,

        Having received from the Provisional Government of Israel an application for the admission of the State of Israel to membership in the United Nations;

        Considering the situation in Palestine as a whole,

        Decides to postpone for one month the consideration of the above-mentioned application”

        https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/437DD877E349151B052566CE006D9189

        adopted by vote https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/C37506F771BEB609052566E2005F1896

        Why on acceptance into the UNSC do resolutions on the Palestine Question suddenly address the State of Israel , whereas prior to Israel’s UN membership UNSC resolutions on the Palestine Question addressed the ‘authorities’

        “You literally wrote: “If you can’t accept the ugly reality of Israel’s existence, it’s your problem.””

        That’s right . I didn’t say you or your beliefs were the problem. Israel and the Zionist colonization of Palestine are clearly the problem.

        “This whole discussion with you makes no longer any sense.”

        It didn’t make sense when you started it. It’s what happens when you don’t read carefully

      • talknic
        May 3, 2017, 2:29 am

        Ooops a double post

      • Talkback
        May 3, 2017, 4:24 pm

        Talknic: I”t is clear he said 6-7 million refugees returning “to Israel”. Which is not, nor has it ever been, the demand of the Palestinians

        In a two state solution, who returns to Palestine is none of Israel’s business”

        Is 6-7 million refugees the (minmal or maximal) amount of refugees which would have a right to return to Israel within borders as envisaged in a two state solution based on 67 lines? YES or NO?

        Talknic: “de facto is not de jure where an agreement is required There has yet to be an agreement”

        Yes, you have allready made these straw arguments which don’t even address mine. An agreement is NOT required, if nobody else contests Israel’s claim to Ashod, etc. If you want to adress my argument then your answer should be something like:

        ‘Wrong. An agreement is required, if nobody else contests Israel’s claim to Ashdod, because [insert your argument here].

        Talknic: “I’ve explained what I wrote, when and why. I didn’t change the essence of what was meant. … If you read carefully a hypothetical situation was put forward based on the hypothetical assumption Palestine was already a UN Member, i.e., hypothetically sans a US UNSC veto vote.”

        I see. So according to your latest variation your argument is now that Israel “sh*** itself” of the thought that Palestine becomes a UN member, because it can then, as a as state, challenge every illegal move Israel has mande since it became a state at all four the UN, UNSC , ICJ, and the ICC but only if the US doesn’t use its pro Israel veto in the UNSC and allhough Palestine can allready challenge them at the ICC. Anything else you need to change to make your argument even more riduculous?

        Talknic: “It hasn’t for a reason.”

        Well, glad you admit that you should have used “hasn’t” instedad of “doesn’t”.

        Talknic Number one: “It’s NOT what I claim. It’s a ridiculous accusation. … If you can’t acknowledge what HAS transpired, you have a problem. I’ve not used your words “acceptable” …”.
        Me: You literally wrote: “If you can’t accept the ugly reality of Israel’s existence, it’s your problem.”
        Talknic Number two: “That’s right.”

        What’s wrong with you, seriously?

        Talknic: “I didn’t say you or your beliefs were the problem.”

        You actually did when it comes to my sence of justice, if according to you I have a problem, if I can’t accept “the ugly existence of Israel”.

        Talknic: “It didn’t make sense when you started it. It’s what happens when you don’t read carefully.”

        The problem seems to be that you don’t like the conclusions of the nonsense you literally write. Either you deny what you wrote or you twist it until your argument becomes even more nonsense. And you use countless straw arguments to avoid the real point of issue.

        I’m still waiting for some answers:
        1. Does Israel has to compensate Palestinians if their property has been destroyed/looted by pre state actors outside Israel’s 48 borders and therefore don’t want to return? YES or NO?
        2. Why do you write against the occupation, etc, if it as much of a fact as “the ugly existence of Israel” and given your statement that I have a problem, if I don’t except the latter?

      • talknic
        May 4, 2017, 12:17 am

        Talkback May 3, 2017, 4:24 pm

        “Is 6-7 million refugees the (minmal or maximal) amount of refugees which would have a right to return to Israel within borders as envisaged in a two state solution based on 67 lines? YES or NO?”

        No. I have answered this question time and again. Although ALL refuges have a RoR, they only have RoR to their normal place of residence

        the term “refugee” appearing in paragraph 11 of the resolution of 11 December 1948 can be defined as follows
        Article 1

        Are to be considered as refugees under paragraph 11 of the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948 persons of Arab origin who, after 29 November 1947, left territory at present under the control of the Israel authorities and who were Palestinian citizens at that date.

        Are also to be considered as refugees under the said paragraph stateless persons of Arab origin who after 29 November 1947 left the aforementioned territory where they had been settled up to that date.
        Article 2

        The following shall be considered as covered by the provisions of Article 1 above:
        1. Persons of Arab origin who left the said territory after 6 August 1924 and before 29 November 1947 and who at that latter date were Palestinian citizens;

        2. Persons of Arab origin who left the territory in question before 6 August 1924 and who, having opted for Palestinian citizenship, retained that citizenship up to 29 November 1947.

        https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/UNISPAL.NSF/0/418E7BC6931616B485256CAF00647CC7

        Many of the 6-7 million would have RoR to the Palestinian state. All 6-7 million do not have RoR to Israel in either the 1948 borders or the ’67 borders. The Palestinians are not demanding all 6-7 million return to Israel. Uri Avnery states all 6-7 million refugees returning to Israel. Clearly wrong. Go argue with him and all who make the claim.

        An agreement is NOT required, if nobody else contests Israel’s claim to Ashod, etc”

        de facto is not de jure. The Palestine Question has yet to be answered by agreement between the two parties. One of the two key players Israel, has never agreed to any deal with Palestine. The only borders Israel has accepted were those in its plea for recognition.
        As the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People put it in 1980 “Israel progressively absorbed the areas it had occupied in 1948 beyond its allocated borders until the areas were virtually annexed. “ https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/38D6C47FC5FB0CDD852575D6006C70D4 Virtually, not legally. Legal annexation requires an agreement.

        ” So according to your latest variation your argument is now that Israel “sh*** itself” of the thought that Palestine becomes a UN member, because it can then, as a as state, challenge every illegal move Israel has mande since it became a state at all four the UN, UNSC , ICJ, and the ICC but only if the US doesn’t use its pro Israel veto in the UNSC and allhough Palestine can allready challenge them at the ICC. Anything else you need to change to make your argument even more riduculous?”

        I gave a hypothetical. In the hypothetical situation there was no US UNSC veto vote preventing UN Membership for Palestine. Israel appears to sh*t itself at even the thought of peace. Palestine as a UN Member State even more so. It would mark the end of the Zionist Colonization scheme and could see the start of a raft of claims against the illegality of Israel’s actions prior to becoming a UN Member, throwing into question Israel’s right to even be in the UN. Then there’s the not so small matter of compensation …

        “Well, glad you admit that you should have used “hasn’t” instedad of “doesn’t”.”

        You haven’t answered the question. It hasn’t for a reason. What is the reason?

        “What’s wrong with you, seriously?”

        Nothing. You’re barking up an empty tree. Answer these three questions.

        Did Israel declare its independence effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948?

        Did a majority of the world’s States recognize Israel?

        Was Israel accepted into the UN?

        Despite our disapproval, despite UNGA res 181 being against the will of the people of Palestine and the UN Charter, in all three instances the answer is yes. Do I think it’s an acceptable situation? Certainly not “Despite our disapproval, despite UNGA res 181 being against the will of the people of Palestine and the UN Charter” … “Right or wrong whether we agree with their decision Israel is already a member. It lied to gain membership. It has not adhere to its legal obligations ” … ” The Zionist colonization of Palestine is the problem. The fact that the majority of the world’s states, believing Zionist promises to adhere to the law, recognized Israel and its admission to the UN is the problem. The fact that Israel now exists, legal or not, like it or not, is the problem ”

        “I’m still waiting for some answers:
        1. Does Israel has to compensate Palestinians if their property has been destroyed/looted by pre state actors outside Israel’s 48 borders and therefore don’t want to return? YES or NO?”

        Yes. The question was already answered, you cut and pasted it here

        Talknic: “Israel has to compensate because Israel, since it came to exist, has accepted stolen goods and refused RoR for over half a century.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-176638

        and again

        The State of Israel is responsible for preventing RoR to its declared territories and to territories outside those it declared. As such it is entirely responsible for ALL compensations resulting from its actions outside its borders and to those who were dispossessed from within its borders. 60 years is one hell of a a lot of resources illegally used, pain and suffering on top of compensation for property, loss of business, artworks, books. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-176638

        “2. Why do you write against the occupation, etc, if it as much of a fact as “the ugly existence of Israel” and given your statement that I have a problem, if I don’t except the latter?”

        I’ve answered your question. Your refusal to get it is mystifying. The occupation is an ugly reality. So too was the Israeli Declaration. So too the recognition of Israel, like it or not legal or not just or not and its acceptance into the UN likewise. None are morally, ethically or legally acceptable situations. I can easily accept it’s an ugly, immoral, unethical, illegal, situation. Should it be rectified? Of course!

        Leave off amigo, July 15, 1834 has long gone

      • Talkback
        May 4, 2017, 1:35 pm

        Talknic: “Many of the 6-7 million would have RoR to the Palestinian state.”

        How many? Excluding those who had been allready expelled from the territory that came under Israel’s control within 67 lines?

        Talknic: “Legal annexation requires an agreement.”

        The State of Palestine has de facto and de jure ceded Ashdod and other towns and areas beyond 48 borders but within 67 lines by declaring its own state within 67 lines. If there’s no contesting claim than no agreement is required.

        Talknic: “II gave a hypothetical. In the hypothetical situation there was no US UNSC veto vote preventing UN Membership for Palestine. Israel appears to sh*t itself at even the thought of peace. Palestine as a UN Member State even more so. It would mark the end of the Zionist Colonization scheme and could see the start of a raft of claims against the illegality of Israel’s actions prior to becoming a UN Member, throwing into question Israel’s right to even be in the UN. Then there’s the not so small matter of compensation …”

        Either Israel allready “sh**s itself” because of the NON-MEMBER-STATE Palestine’s access to the ICC it allready has or it will never “sh** itself”, because a MEMBER STATE Palestine would not be able to effectively challenge Israel via the UNSC, because of the US veto. There would be no difference to 47/48 where a UNGA majority voted against and a UNSC majority didn’t support several proposals that the ICC should give at an advisory opinion on the legality of partition or if UNGA even had the power to make any recommendation or denying a referendum.

        Talknic: “You haven’t answered the question. It hasn’t for a reason. What is the reason?”

        The issue was if it “doesn’t” censure states, not what the reason was that it hasn’t. I won’t follow your constant shifts of the point of issue.

        Talknic: “Answer these three questions.
        Did Israel declare its independence effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948?
        Did a majority of the world’s States recognize Israel?
        Was Israel accepted into the UN?”

        How could anyone know given your countless repetitions to create straw man arguments to not adress the point of issue? Now you are even asking others to acquire the same autism. ROFL. Again, I won’t follow your constant shifts of the point of issue and strawman arguments or anything that I don’t even dispute.

        Talknic: “Yes. The question was already answered, you cut and pasted it here”

        Yeah, but you changed the scenario and claimed that Israel should compensate, because it accepted stolen goods and Israel didn’t allow return, allthough my question never indicated that Israel accepted stolen goods in my scenario or that there was a wish to return. I then clarified that neither would be the case and asked you again which you ignored. So what’s your answer? Does Israel has to compensate those who do not wish to return, because theres is nothing left to refer to because of the destruction Israel’s pre state actors commited beyond 48 borders?

        Talknic: “I’ve answered your question. Your refusal to get it is mystifying. The occupation is an ugly reality. So too was the Israeli Declaration. So too the recognition of Israel, like it or not legal or not just or not and its acceptance into the UN likewise. None are morally, ethically or legally acceptable situations. I can easily accept it’s an ugly, immoral, unethical, illegal, situation. Should it be rectified? Of course! ”

        You gave an answer, that’s all. But now you changed your wording, again. First you wrote: “If you can’t accept the ugly reality of Israel’s existence, it’s your problem.”
        Your actual accusation would be more like: If you can’t accept that Israel’s existence is an ugly reality, it’s your problem.

        And what is the result of your word twisting? That if the latest wording was actually what you meant from the beginning, then you are inherently accusing me of being unable to accept the fact that Israel’s existence is an ugly reality and that it ‘s my problem that I don’t.
        Both versions are dishonest, Talknic.

        And bear in mind that for you it was also about accepting the fact that Israel was declared and recognized. So why is it not about accepting the fact that Israel keeps Palestine occupied? And to what extend should the situation be rectified? Which part of the situation which according to you is “ugly, immoral, unethical, illegal” should be maintained?

      • talknic
        May 4, 2017, 5:49 pm

        Talkback May 4, 2017, 1:35 pm

        “How many? Excluding those who had been allready expelled from the territory that came under Israel’s control within 67 lines?”

        I ‘m not sure Señor Tomás. You work it out. Let me know

        “The State of Palestine has de facto and de jure ceded Ashdod and other towns and areas beyond 48 borders but within 67 lines by declaring its own state within 67 lines. If there’s no contesting claim than no agreement is required.”

        The territories the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” have never been legally acquired by Israel by any agreement. The State of Palestine could still make a claim to them as did Israel in Aug 1949, long after having declared its borders. Palestine would have a far stronger claim.

        “Either Israel allready “sh**s itself” because of the NON-MEMBER-STATE Palestine’s access to the ICC it allready has or it will never “sh** itself”, because a MEMBER STATE Palestine would not be able to effectively challenge Israel via the UNSC, because of the US veto. “

        I gave a hypothetical where there was no US UNSC veto vote and Palestine was further empowered by full UN Membership. Please read carefully to avoid any further misunderstandings

        “The issue was if it “doesn’t” censure states, not what the reason was that it hasn’t. I won’t follow your constant shifts of the point of issue.”

        You made the shift. http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-176638
        So why hasn’t the UN censored a non-member state by name?

        “How could anyone know given your countless repetitions to create straw man arguments to not adress the point of issue? “

        Uh? Did Israel declare its independence effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948? Yes. (legality is another question)
        Did a majority of the world’s States recognize Israel? Again. Yes, they did.
        Was Israel accepted into the UN? And again. Yes it was.
        All facts. Unpleasant, against the UN Charter et al, they never the less DID happen. If you can’t accept or acknowledge the fact that all three did happen, you have a problem. I DID NOT write that you are the problem, or that an inability to accept the ugly facts was the problem, YOU did!

        “Now you are even asking others to acquire the same autism. ROFL.”

        No. I’ve been attempting to clear up your initial misunderstanding. Here it is:

        Talknic: “If you can’t accept the ugly reality of Israel’s existence, it’s your problem.”

        “That’s your way of supporting the ugly reality of Israel’s existence. By suggesting that the main problem is not its ugly existence, but if we don’t accept it.”

        “So what’s your answer? Does Israel has to compensate those who do not wish to return, because theres is nothing left to refer to because of the destruction Israel’s pre state actors commited beyond 48 borders?”

        I gave my answer. http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/return-exchange-between/#comment-17663

  15. talknic
    April 22, 2017, 4:05 am

    on edit:

    It isn’t Israeli bay any agreement. Israel hasn’t agreed to a final status. So the Question of Palestine is unanswered

    • Blake
      April 30, 2017, 1:14 pm

      There are over 5.5 million Palestinians registered with UNRWA living in squalid conditions in refugee camps. They will return at the earliest opportunity and why should they not? As for another 2 million or so unregistered refugees that would be their choice as well.

      • talknic
        May 1, 2017, 7:40 am

        Indeed they should be able to return. All of them. It is after all a right.

        However, the Palestinians do not claim RoR of 6-7million or all refugees to Israel. Only some have the right to return to the territories Israel proclaimed. Some have the right to return to territories Israel has occupied and illegally settled since declaring its borders in 1948 and some have a right to return to Palestine as the Palestinians declared their state in 1988.

  16. AddictionMyth
    April 22, 2017, 8:45 am

    Of course Israel is colonial. What place isn’t? The solution is simple: full and equal rights for all including free speech and religion without exceptions like ‘hate speech’ and ‘incitement’. Israel will be fine. In fact it will be great.

  17. pabelmont
    April 22, 2017, 11:00 am

    “I know you have spent years calling for “peace”. But your peace meant that the killer should be forgiven, the thief should run away with the stolen goods and those expelled from their homes should be thrown a few pieces of silver to shut up.

    No remorse, nor repentance, no justice done, no remedy. Just empty words.

    How could those settlers live with this double life, liberty in Europe and crime in Palestine?

    The answer is schizophrenia. The European Jews, aka Israelis, live in a bubble of denial. A fake world. They shut the world of crime out of their minds and the minds of the adoring West. And preach peace, democracy, science and art, instead.

    No Nakba. Perish the thought. No word “Palestinian”. No flag. Oh yes. There are no refugees. Those were Arabs who drifted from Arabia Deserta to the land of milk and honey, created by the European settlers who came to this empty desert land and made it a paradise.

    They are cowards. I say this again.”

    AMEN. And how to proceed? Against an Israel armed to the teeth with (a) arms and (b) schizophrenia? Answer: (a) let the outrageous Israeli behavior grow more and more outrageous, as it is doing without much help, apparently as a natural result of w/m/b/c the Zionist Character; (b) let 100 flowers of BDS bloom; (c) wait for the current anti-Muslim fervor in EU drop away (10 years? 25 years? After GWCC floods and parches everybody?); (d) and THEN (and ONLY THEN) the nations will bring on sanctions (not war) which will persuade a vastly unwilling Israel to do whatever the sanctioneers demand. But what will that be? BDS makes its own demands, but the sanctioneers, if any, will be a motley crew with a variety of goals, and a united demand will be hard to achieve and hard, now, to predict.

    But what else than this a-b-c-d is there? Maybe a rebellion by American Jews — including those with loads of money — what’s that, 25 years out at best? Perhaps a concurrent (with sanctions) invitation by USA and UK and CANADA and AUSTRALIA and NZ (add FRANCE and GERMANY) to all Israeli Jews to emigrate to their countries? Empty Israel of Israeli-Jews? A sort of voluntary Nakba-of-Jews? During fierce sanctions (sticks) and with this invitation (carrots), how many would leave, how many remain (with a finger on THE BOMB)?

    • Misterioso
      April 22, 2017, 2:18 pm

      Zionism is already rotting within:

      Why Do A Third of Israelis Want To Leave The Country?

      The Forward, March 22, 2017 By Naomi Zeveloff

      “A third of Jewish Israelis would leave the country if they could, according to a poll conducted by Masa Israeli, a group looking at the divisions of Jewish society in Israel.

      “It found that secular Jews were the most likely to want to emigrate, with 36% saying they would leave the country if they could. Orthodox Jews were the least likely to want to emigrate; only 7% said they would leave. The poll, which was reported by the Walla! news site, found that while 44% of secular Jewish Israelis identify as Israelis foremost, 83% of traditional and 90% of religious Jewish Israelis identify as Jews foremost.

      “The poll was conducted ahead of a conference called the ‘Israeli Journey to Change’ in the Knesset which is looking for common ground in Israel.

      “ ‘The survey data indicates a problem with a sense of identity, connection and belonging to the people, to the land and to the state among a growing part of society in Israel and that reality already has created a rift and split in all of Israeli society,’ said Masa Israeli director, Uri Cohen.”

  18. Misterioso
    April 22, 2017, 11:01 am

    For the record:

    When President Roosevelt became aware of the dire circumstances of European Jews (who were thought at the time to be about 80% of the total number of refugees), he sent his close friend Morris Ernst, a key member of the Democratic party and leader of the New York Jewish community, to London during the middle of the war to see if England and the Commonwealth would join the United States and other countries in taking in a half million Jewish refugees through a generous worldwide policy of political asylum once Hitler was defeated. Roosevelt felt he could sell the plan to the American Congress if Britain agreed.

    Ernst returned home jubilant and advised the President that Britain agreed to “match the United States up to 150,000.” Roosevelt replied: “150,000 to England – 150,000 to match that in the United States – pick up 200,000 or 300,000 elsewhere, and we can start with half a million of these oppressed people.” One week later, however, the President informed Ernst that the program had to be abandoned because “…the dominant vocal Jewish leadership of America won’t stand for it…the Zionist movement knows [that it] can raise vast sums for Palestine by saying to donors, `There is no other place this poor Jew can go.'”

    Ernst refused to believe Roosevelt and went about seeking the support of American Jews for the plan. Their response shocked him: “I was thrown out of parlours of friends of mine who very frankly said, `Morris, this is treason. You are undermining the Zionist movement’. [I found] a deep genuine, often fanatically emotional vested interest in putting over the [movement in men] who are little concerned about human blood if it is not their own.” (Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection, pp. 35-36. Also see Morris Ernst, So Far So Good, Harper & Brothers: New York, 1948, pp.172-177)

    Some American Jews publicly criticized the Zionists for using their influence to prevent the admission of Jewish refugees into the United States. Among them was Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times who called for a reversal of Zionist policy that put statehood first, refugees last: “Admitting that the Jews of Europe have suffered beyond expression, why in God’s name should the fate of all these unhappy people be subordinated to the single cry of Statehood? I cannot rid myself of the feeling that the unfortunate Jews of Europe’s D.P. [Displaced Persons] camps are helpless hostages for whom statehood has been made the only ransom.” (New York Times, October 27, 1946; quoted by Lilienthal, What Price Israel?, p. 37)

    • JeffB
      April 23, 2017, 8:15 pm

      @Misterioso

      Roosevelt was dead by the time there were displaced persons camps. So I doubt this story very much. Zombie Roosevelt would have left behind more traces.

  19. andrew r
    April 22, 2017, 2:56 pm

    Avnery: Both sides believed that it was an existential battle, that their very life was hanging in the balance. It is often forgotten that ethnic cleansing (not a familiar expression in those days) was practiced by both sides.

    This is why I find discussing 1947-48 in detail with an Israeli Zionist to be a fool’s errand. Better to remind Avnery and his ilk that in the latter years of European empires conquering new overseas territory at will, Herzl approached Kaiser Wilhelm to discuss a German protectorate over Palestine.[*] That obviously fell through and Herzl decided direct German rule over Palestine would be a hindrance in the long run.

    Even so, Herzl wasn’t done with the idea of using Germany for Zionist aims. Some months later he saw an article suggesting Britain and Germany exchange ownership of Cyprus and East Africa, prompting him to write this gem in his diary:

    “”In the first excitement I wanted to write to Eulenberg [German count who acted as intermediary between Herzl and the Kaiser] and make proposals in case it was true. Germany would have to welcome a Jewish settlement in Cyprus with delight. We would rally on Cyprus and one day go over to Eretz Israel and take it by force, as it was taken from us long ago.”
    [Complete Herzl Diary vol. III p. 1023, 6 Jan. 1901
    cited in https://www.scribd.com/document/81101331/Zionist-Plan-for-Cyprus%5D

    So it’s not possible to deny the Zionist movement had the motive for violent conquest. It’s only thanks to Britain they were able to defer that step until 1948.

    [*]https://books.google.com/books?id=iv1DADhI6h4C&q=protectorate#v=snippet&q=protectorate&f=false

    • MHughes976
      April 22, 2017, 4:47 pm

      It may be that there were bad things on both sides but for the purposes of this argument that fact – or that question – does not matter that much. The point is that the true crucial action was the exclusion of so many Palestinians at the end of the conflict. It”s useful to have Avnery’s plain statement of this.

  20. lyn117
    April 22, 2017, 6:17 pm

    To Avnery:

    “True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice.” – MLK

  21. Tom Suarez
    April 22, 2017, 8:39 pm

    Mr. Avneri,
    Your arguments are altogether immoral.
    You say that “both sides believed that it (1948) was an existential battle”. This is nonsense. It was an existential battle for the Palestinians, versus an existential battle for the Zionist racial state — NOT an existential battle for Jews — except of course as Zionism forced Jewish DPs into Palestine as the alleged only answer to their plight (while sabotaging all others).
    You claim that the ethnic cleansing was on “both sides”. No, please, this is absurd — what you call the “ethnic cleaning” by the Palestinians was a consequence of Zionist theft of their land and impending ethnic cleansing — which Palestinians (and any informed observer) knew was imminent.
    You say that “there is absolutely no chance that the vast majority of Israelis would freely agree to the return of all the refugees and their descendants” and therefore that it is not “peace made between consenting parties”. Are you not embarrassed by the immorality and absurdity of this statement? The perpetrators of ethnic cleanser do not “agree” to undo their crime, therefore it is “not peace made between consenting parties”? Really?! And if we extend this “logic” to any other crime against humanity? If the criminals do not “agree” to undo their handiwork, therefore it’s not consensual?
    Ditto to all you other rationalisations, on and on and on. All of your rationlisations are based on the same sorry manifestations of ethno-fascism that humanity thought we’d left behind after two catastrophic world wars.
    That you align yourself with the cause of peace is an affront.

  22. JeffB
    April 22, 2017, 10:11 pm

    @David Samel

    I’m losing your argument entirely. So let’s drop back a step. What does it even mean for you to say “policy X is morally right”? You seem to be throwing any sort of evaluation of practicality to the wind so given three policies: A, B and C how would I score them to determine if A, B or C are “morally right” or not? And if it complex ordering can I determine if A is more or less morally right than B or C?

  23. JosephA
    April 23, 2017, 1:21 am

    Thank you for this article. The exchange was civil, concise, and certainly compelling.

    Also, it’s complicated, but it is not THAT complicated. Palestine needs a truth and reconciliation commission, and it needs to be televised in Israel for the better part of a year or two. Broadcast it in Palestinian Arabic and Modern Hebrew, and English.

    International law needs to be honored and implemented. Economic sanctions should take place if the Israelis do not wish to cooperate. It might sound crazy today, but it will make perfect sense in the future.

    “Peace, in the neighborhood
    Peace – in my own back yard”

  24. yonah fredman
    April 23, 2017, 12:14 pm

    How many nazis were killed by Polish resistance between Nov 1939 and April 1943? A few dozen? A few hundred? Certainly nearer to zero than to significance.
    When it suits Eva, the poles were victims, but when it doesn’t suit her the poles were valiant and the jews were the only ones who went like lambs to the slaughter. The poles knew how to kill. Once the nazis were gone, they killed the jews who came home, the gas shirkers.

    To understand Jewish disgust with the Polish homeland read and reread eva’s garbage.

    • John O
      April 23, 2017, 1:20 pm

      @yonah

      What an appallingly ignorant and offensive post!

      So many Poles escaped from their brutally occupied homeland to join the Allied cause that they made up the largest national contingent after the Soviet Union, the USA and the British Empire. They fought heroically in the Battle of Britain, in North Africa, Italy, France and Holland, including major contributions to the battles of Monte Cassino and Arnhem. Many of them were stranded in Britain after the war, because of the Soviet takeover of their homeland; they were given citizenship by a special act of Parliament. (I was at school with many of their sons and daughters in the 1960s). Poland itself was devastated in the war and 10% of its entire population killed.

      • yonah fredman
        April 23, 2017, 1:50 pm

        John O.- Eva posted something disgusting and I was reacting to her post, which has since been removed. I do not blame the poles for their passiveness, but was reacting to Eva blaming the jews for their passivity.

      • John O
        April 23, 2017, 2:34 pm

        @yonah

        “I do not blame the poles for their passiveness …”

        I just told you, they were not passive. Your post was disgusting, and racist too – “The poles knew how to kill.”

        Stop trying to weasel out of it.

      • Mooser
        April 23, 2017, 3:34 pm

        “I was reacting to her post, which has since been removed”

        And, “yonah”, if you weren’t such a jerk, the Mods might do you a favor once in a while.

      • Mooser
        April 23, 2017, 5:12 pm

        “but was reacting to Eva blaming the jews for their passivity.” “yonahfredman”

        Let’s see how “yonah” feels about Jewish passivity: Oh look, “Yonah” castigates Jews throughout history for “passivism”. Blames our religion and Rabbis for it.
        And then says:

        “Some people can accept such passivism. I cannot.” “yonahfredman”

        So it looks like you don’t like Jewish “passivism” either, “yonah”.
        And you blame the Jewish religion for it. All right there at the link to your archive on the word “passiv%”

      • Mooser
        April 24, 2017, 11:53 am

        Let’s see how “yonah” feels about ‘Jewish passivity’

        Should have checked my link. Happy Passiveover to all.

    • Mooser
      April 23, 2017, 1:54 pm

      “killed the jews who came home, the gas shirkers.”

      Jews who somehow avoided death in the camps are “gas shirkers”?

      You have a wonderful way of expressing yourself, “Yonah”.
      So tell me, if it wasn’t for the “gas shirkers”, how many Jews should have died in the Holocaust?

      • yonah fredman
        April 23, 2017, 4:09 pm

        Walter Abish in “Double Vision” reported the usage of the term by Viennese to describe the jews who returned (alive!) after the war. Gasofen Tachinierer.

      • Mooser
        April 23, 2017, 5:25 pm

        “Walter Abish in “Double Vision” reported the usage of the term by Viennese to describe the jews”

        “Yonah” if “gas shirker” expresses your feelings about Jews who were able to avoid death in the Holocaust, you just go ahead and keep using it.
        Everybody who survived or whose parents or grandparents survived will just look at the floor, and murmur apologetically, ‘he’s right, you know, we could have done more’ when you say it. It’ll be good for the Jews.

  25. lonely rico
    April 23, 2017, 4:34 pm

    > Mooser

    “All Zionism is connected to the idea of a donation of the land of Canaan by God, which since it has this unique authority sets everything else in second place.”

    When you go through the trouble and worry of creating a god, (s)he’s beholden and not just a little bit!
    Seems to me (s)he could of opted for some other ‘chosen people’ – the Chinese (more numerous); Brazilians (the music); Scots (the single malt); Cubans perhaps (sensuality). But no, some dusty little tribe in the middle of the desert, who were always arguing about everything under the sun and even some things way over and above.
    And when they learned they were your chosen, and that you had set aside a parcel of land for their exclusive use in the M-E, well they lost their head(s).
    Sane Zionists are VERY rare.

  26. Mooser
    April 23, 2017, 5:20 pm

    “And when they learned they were your chosen, and that you had set aside a parcel of land for their exclusive use in the M-E, well they lost their head(s) “

    They were convinced Zionism had learned the secret of painless irredentistry!

    • Mooser
      April 24, 2017, 11:11 am

      “They were convinced Zionism had learned the secret of painless irredentistry!”

      And that of course, made them ‘gas shirkers. No nitrous for us!

  27. Talkback
    May 3, 2017, 4:23 pm

    (Please delete)

Leave a Reply