The United State of Israel and Palestine

Middle East
on 291 Comments

The Israel-Palestine conflict needs to be resolved. A solution of two nations united within a single state, along the lines of the UK/Scotland/England relationship, would enable the two peoples to share the land while retaining their national life and identities.

The Oslo process, intended to produce a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, has failed. Many people are saying that Israel, by its on-going occupation and colonization in the West Bank and Jerusalem, has already created a one-state reality, and that the two-state solution is dead.

What these people ignore (or deny) is the legal reality that Israel and Palestine both exist as states recognized by other states, and are both part of the United Nations. Palestine was created in 1988 by declaration and recognition, the same process that created Israel in 1948.

It is inconceivable that either Israel or Palestine would declare itself out of existence.

In this essay I argue that a one-state solution is highly desirable in the long-term, and suggest what it might look like, but also argue that a two-state agreement is a necessary first step towards its achievement.

The Two Nations

There is a human reality to take into account: that residing within Israel-Palestine there are two distinct peoples: Israeli Jews, and Palestinian Arabs, with different histories, cultures, languages and religions. These are distinct national identities[1], they are important to the people concerned, and they will not give them up.

Whether all the Jews of the world are part of the Israeli-Jewish nation, as the Zionists claim, is for the Jews of the world to say. Zionists today often claim that Palestinian Arabs are an invented people. The truth is that there has been a place on the map called Palestine for around 2,500 years, and a distinct Palestinian national identity for around a thousand years. The existence of a Palestinian-Arab nation was acknowledged by the World Zionist Organization in its 1921 Carlsbad Resolution, which introduced the idea of Palestine as the common home of the Arab and Jewish peoples, who would each have an undisturbed national development.

Any proposed solution to the conflict must be acceptable to both the Israeli-Jewish nation and the Palestinian-Arab nation, or it will not lead to a just and lasting peace.

Another human reality is that most Jewish Israelis have absorbed the Zionist narrative. They cannot help it. It is all around them, in the schools, in the news media, in the Knesset, in the Israel Defense Forces, in the Ministry of Explaining, in websites such as Myths and Facts and the Jewish Virtual Library. They are the primary victims of Zionist hasbara. They believe that Palestine was called Israel until the Roman conquest; that the Arab people in Palestine are recent arrivals, and were never called Palestinians until 1960; that the ambition of every Arab is to kill Jews; that the Mandate was intended to create a Jewish State in all of Palestine and TransJordan; that the Mandate is still in effect and gives any Jew in world the right to go and live anywhere in Palestine until the end of time; that the United Nations authorized the creation of the State of Israel; and that the wars of 1948-49 and 1967 were defensive wars and not wars of expansion and colonization.

There will be no peace until Jewish Israelis accept that there is a Palestinian-Arab nation, and that it has a right to self-determination within the area of Mandatory Palestine. The propaganda originates with the Israeli government; they know the truth, and if they want to call themselves the Jewish State, they need to start telling the truth (Exodus 20:16).

Ending the occupation

It is a factual and legal reality that the territory of Palestine has been under Israeli military occupation since the six-day war of 1967. In that year UN Security Council Resolution 242 said that a just and lasting peace requires the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in that war. Contrary to widely-believed Zionistic propaganda, the Resolution does not say that Israeli forces need not withdraw from all the occupied territories, nor that the withdrawal should be delayed until final borders have been agreed; nor does it say anything about the position of those borders.

No serious attempt was made to implement Resolution 242 until the first Oslo Accord in 1993, which proposed that Israeli forces should begin the withdrawal process from Gaza and the Jericho area. Those initial withdrawals never took place.

In the Oslo process Palestine was negotiating under duress, being under occupation by a highly militarized power. Palestine recognized that “the State of Israel has a right to exist in peace and security”. Israel, on the other hand, did not even accept that the State of Palestine exists, or that the Palestinian people have a right to live in peace and security. Such an unequal process was invalid and doomed to failure from the start. It should be thrown into the dustbin of history, together with Wye River, Camp David, the Road Map, the Quartet, and Tony Blair.

The day that Israel can bring itself to say “The State of Palestine has a right to exist in peace and security” will be the beginning of the end of the conflict.

There will not be an end to the conflict until Palestine has gained its freedom and the two States can discuss, as equals, their future relationship. If there is to be a one-state solution, it can only come about by means of a voluntary union between the two sovereign states. Any attempt to produce a one-state solution while Israel still controls Palestinian territory would be a surrender by the Palestinians to Zionism. It won’t happen.

A two-state agreement is a necessary step on the way to a one-state solution.

All the efforts of the Palestinians and their supporters should, at present, be concentrated on bringing the occupation to an end.

The liberation of Palestine will not be achieved by talks between Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu. Nor would the involvement of the President of the United States be helpful. It is the responsibility of the United Nations to assist states in the resolution of disputes. It is the UN Secretariat that should be taking the initiative.

Pressurizing Israel

Ending the occupation and producing a two-state reality will not be easy and it will not be quick. Attempts so far have failed because little pressure has been put on Israel to accept the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and to stop its illegal behavior in Palestinian territories. That is changing now that the Boycott Israel campaign (BDS, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) is making great progress, and clearly has Israel rattled. It would be helpful if the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah would support it. At the same time, the leaders of the Boycott Israel campaign need to make it clear that their concern is for the plight of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation, and that they are not agitating for a particular political solution, especially one that could be interpreted as “destroying Israel”.

The increased recognition of the State of Palestine, and its increased standing in the United Nations, is an important achievement of the Abbas administration: important because it demolishes the Zionist claim that it is entitled to rule the West Bank because there is no other sovereignty there[2]. Admission of Palestine to the UN as a full Member State would also make it more difficult for Israel to pretend Palestine does not exist.

Major pressure on Israel must come from the United Nations Security Council. There should be resolutions demanding, first, that Israel accepts that the settlement program is illegal in international law, and must be halted immediately; second, that Israel accepts that the military occupation of the West Bank, and the blockade of Gaza, must come to an end. These will be need to be resolutions with teeth; that is, they will need to threaten enforcement action under Chapter 7 if Israel refuses to accept them.

Interim arrangements

When Israel accepts that Palestine has a right to exist in peace and security, and that the occupation must come to an end, Israel and Palestine will need to co-operate on the mechanism of withdrawal.

My suggestion is the following. In the West Bank Area A should remain under Palestinian control; Area B, which is currently under joint Palestinian and Israeli control, should change to Palestinian control; Area C and East Jerusalem should be under a joint Israel-Palestine civil administration with security provided by a joint civilian police force. These joint institutions will give confidence to both Israeli Jews and Arabs in the West Bank and East Jerusalem that their interests are protected, and also give the two nations more experience of working together towards a resolution of the conflict. Once these arrangements are established, Israel will formally end its military governance of the West Bank. This does not mean that the IDF forces must withdraw immediately: they have work to do.

Ending the occupation must include removal of the main physical structure of occupation, the Separation Barrier, and related remedial work such as replanting a million olive trees, as well as the removal of the Israeli-only roads, or their incorporation into an integrated road network. When these works are completed the IDF forces can withdraw to Israel.

The settlements built for Israeli Jews are also part of the physical structure of occupation, but their inhabitants are part of the human reality. The settlement issue is one of the final-status issues that are related to each other and will be considered in the next stage of the process, which I call the dialogue phase.

In Gaza there are no Israeli forces or Israeli-Jewish settlers. Assuming Hamas remains the de facto authority in Gaza, the best way to bring Gaza into the interim arrangement is for Israel to accept the Hamas offer of a truce, and then end its blockade of Gaza. This must be replaced by a humanitarian effort to restore normal life in the Strip.

The dialogue

With the occupation ended, the two peoples need to decide on a future relationship which could best realize a future of peaceful coexistence and prosperity. This conversation needs to be within and between civil society groups, especially bi-national groups, as well as between governments. It would consider one-state and two-state solutions, including ideas of confederation such as the ‘two states in one space‘ of IPCRI. Once this is agreed, at least in outline, the final status issues: Jerusalem, borders, settlers and refugees would be considered.

Why one state?

Demanding a one-state solution on the grounds that there is no alternative is not a sensible strategy. There are strong positive reasons for adopting the one-state approach.

  1. Palestine has existed as a named territory for well over 2,500 years. As the Holy Land of the three monotheistic faiths Palestine has made a huge contribution to civilization and is a special place to millions of the world’s citizens. To permanently divide it, and in particular to divide Jerusalem, would be a tragedy.
  2. Palestine is a small place, with few natural resources. During the Mandatory period Palestine was developed as a single state with a single currency and an integrated infrastructure of roads, railways, water supplies, power, etc. Management of this infrastructure jointly by two sovereign governments, with a history of conflict, and with a border between them, would present many practical difficulties and inefficiencies.
  3. A sovereign border between the two peoples would hinder interactions between them, making the development of mutual understanding more difficult, and with likely rejectionists on both sides could lead to continued conflict.
  4. In a two-state solution Israel will have a substantial minority of Palestinian Arabs, and Palestine might well have a substantial minority of Israeli Jews. Other states, or the UN, cannot interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states. If either State decided to discriminate against its minority community, no-one could prevent it from so doing.
  5. What we now call the West Bank was previously known as Central Palestine. According to recent archaeological research the Central Highlands were the origin of the people known as Israelites. Central Palestine was also the site of the ancient Kingdoms of Israel (in the north, capital Samaria), and Judah (in the south, capital Jerusalem) as well as the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. Jewish Israelis, brought up under Zionism, with a strong emotional commitment to the Land of Israel, would never accept that their original homeland is permanently in another State.

Proposed one-state-solutions

The “Israel Initiative” proposes a one-state solution based on three principles:

  1. A humanitarian solution of the Palestinian refugee problem which involves giving them substantial financial compensation to enable them to move out of the refugee camps and become citizens in a range of countries willing to accept immigrants;
  2. The establishment of Israeli sovereignty “from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan”, that is, all of Mandatory Palestine;
  3.  A  strategic partnership with Jordan under which the Palestinian-Arab residents in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) would become Jordanian citizens, having only basic human rights in Israel, and national and political rights only in Jordan.

The proposal is unclear on the questions of Gaza and the status of existing Palestinian citizens of Israel.

Under this scheme Palestine would be wiped off the map, and the Palestinian people would vanish from the pages of time. The probability that the Palestinians would accept this is zero.

The One-State-Declaration of 2007 was promulgated by 15 authors, including some well-known Palestinian and Israeli intellectuals such as Ali Abunimah, editor of the Electronic Intifada, and Ilan Pappé, the Israeli historian. Ali Abunimah also published a book about this idea: One Country, a Bold Proposal to End the Israel-Palestine Impasse.

The proposal is for a unitary state “founded on the principle of equality in civil, political, social and cultural rights for all citizens”. The state would “recognize the diverse character of the society, encompassing distinct religious, linguistic and cultural traditions, and national experiences” and “respect the separation of state from all organized religion”; the Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return; and there would be “redress for the devastating effects of decades of Zionist colonization”.

To the western mind, a fully democratic secular state of all its citizens is the ideal. The idea of separation of church and state is taken straight from the constitution of the United States. It is perhaps relevant to point out that of the fifteen authors of the One-State-Declaration, only four give addresses in Palestine or Israel; the others are in the US or western Europe. We westerners naturally think that our way of doing things is the best, but people in the Middle East are entitled to have different ideas. I suggest that the secular state model is inappropriate in the case of Palestine-Israel, and would not be acceptable to either party, for the following reasons.

The One-State-Declaration fails to acknowledge the existence of two nations within the state, speaking only vaguely about different “national experiences”.

As distinct nations, they each have the right to choose their own government. They also have a right to choose for themselves the relationship between government and ‘organized religion’.

Since people not of Jewish descent can become Jews by adopting Judaism, the religion of Judaism is an intrinsic part of Jewish identity. In Israel there is no provision for civil marriage: religious authorities control marriage, and Jews are not able to marry non-Jews.

Religion is also important to the Palestinians. The Palestinian Declaration of Independence begins: “In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Palestine, the land of the three monotheistic faiths, is where the Palestinian Arab people was born, on which it grew, developed, and excelled…The call went out from Temple, Church, and Mosque that to praise the Creator, to celebrate compassion and peace, was indeed the message of Palestine. ”[3]. An important aspect of the Palestinian-Arab national identity is their role as guardians of the Holy Places.

Under the secular state model, neither nation could express its national identity either politically or religiously. Israelis would see this as ‘destroying Israel’. The probability that Israeli Jews would accept this is zero. Palestinian Arabs would accept the idea of a single democratic state, as long as it had an Arab majority, but not the privatization of religion as in the secular state model[4].

Given that neither the two-state solution, nor either of the existing one-state solutions, are likely to be acceptable, we ask ourselves the following question:

Is it possible for two nations, with a history of conflict, to unite peacefully to form a single state, whilst retaining their national lives and identities?

The answer is yes: there is a precedent, and I suggest that it provides a surprisingly appropriate model for the future relationship between Palestine and Israel.

The union of Scotland and England

In 1603, following the death of Queen Elizabeth of England, King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, by virtue of his descent from King Henry VII of England. England and Scotland remained separate independent nations, with their own parliaments, judiciary and laws.

During his lifetime, James pursued the idea of a union of the Scottish and English parliaments, and styled himself ‘King of Great Britain’, rather than ‘King of England and Scotland’. This idea did not come to fruition until long after his death. It was in 1707 that reciprocal Acts of Union joined the two parliaments into a single Parliament of Great Britain, based in London. England and Scotland had become united as the sovereign state of Great Britain, with a single citizenship [5].

England and Scotland still retain their national identities and characters. There is a defined but open border between them. They have their own national institutions, such as the National Library of Scotland and the English National Opera. They also have different educational systems, different legal systems, different established churches, and their own national sports teams playing in international competitions. It is these last four points which make England and Scotland true nations rather than mere provinces, and which provide a striking parallel with Israel and Palestine.

In 1998, following a referendum, the UK Parliament passed the Scotland Act which created a Scottish Parliament based in Edinburgh. The UK Parliament reserved certain powers to itself, such as foreign affairs, defense, the currency and economic policy, citizenship and immigration, overall management of infrastructure, energy, natural resources and transport. The Scottish Parliament cannot legislate on those reserved matters, but otherwise Scotland has almost complete self-rule on matters internal to itself, such as education, health, welfare, agriculture, the environment, local government, culture and justice. However, its powers are devolved from the UK Parliament, which remains sovereign. It is possible for the UK Parliament to reserve devolved powers back to itself, giving it a potential veto power over Scottish Parliament decisions. (There is an anomaly in the UK system: Scotland has its own parliament, but England does not: the UK Parliament has to double-up as the English parliament).

The United State of Israel and Palestine

How a one-state-two-nations structure could be implemented in Palestine-Israel is for the two peoples to decide. The following are some ideas of how that might work out.

Governance

The parliament of the United State would be directly elected by all citizens. The State parliament and government would have the usual responsibilities such as external affairs and defense, control of the currency and economic policy, citizenship (including provision for civil marriage) and immigration, national infrastructure and resource management; and would have taxation powers to support these activities.

The two nations of Israel and Palestine would have a large degree of autonomy, with residents of each electing their own parliament, and with a government responsible for matters such as education, health, welfare, housing and local economic development, and with taxation powers to support these activities. The character of each nation would automatically reflect the character of its majority population, but all residents would be treated as equals without any discrimination.

The State parliament would decide which powers it reserves to itself: for example, it might decide that university education should be a State, not national, activity. The State parliament, being sovereign, would act as an upper revising chamber to the two national parliaments, in particular to ensure that the national parliaments or governments do not discriminate against their minority communities.

As the State parliament may need to resolve disputes between the two nations, political parties registered to take part in the State elections should be able to show widespread support throughout the two nations, and should present candidates for election drawn in a balanced way from both nations. This mechanism would help develop a new generation of political leaders, dedicated to coexistence and democratic values.

Borders & Immigration

There would be a defined but open border between the two nations. There would also be a right for citizens to change their residence from one nation to the other, with two provisos: first, this would apply to individual families, not to organized nationalistic groups; second, each nation would be able to petition the State parliament to allow it to limit inward migration if it felt this was necessary to preserve its national character.

Jewish and Palestinian people living outside the United State would have a right to migrate into Israel and Palestine respectively. However, the State government would be able to restrict the total rate of immigration to that which the economy can absorb: stateless refugees would have priority. (The Zionists accepted such a condition for Jewish immigration into Palestine in the 1921 Carlsbad Resolution.)

Security and defense

The only threat to the security of Israel arises from its occupation of Palestinian territory. The only threat to the security of Palestine comes from Israel. The Arab states and Iran have said they will accept any peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. If there has not been a peace agreement between Israel and Syria when the United State is formed, its first foreign policy task will be to produce such an agreement. Then the United State will have no enemies, except non-state actors, and can start to wind down the massive military capability it inherits from the IDF, and help create a Middle East free of nuclear weapons.

Each nation would have a national police force. The United State would have an internal security force to take action, or coordinate action, against trans-national or external threats.

Jerusalem

Jerusalem would be the State capital territory housing the State parliament and government offices. It would also be the capital of both nations. Its residents would participate in national elections in one of the two nations of their choice.

The Holy Places

The Holy Places would be administered by a department of the State government, with the guidance of an international commission of religious authorities.

Determination of the border

The present-day de facto border between Israel and Palestine, the 1949 Green Line, is not a suitable permanent border, for two reasons. First, it gives 78% of the territory of Mandatory Palestine to Israel, and 22% to Palestine. Given that the number of Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs are roughly equal at the moment, and there are about 5 million Palestinian refugees with a right of return, this border would result in an injustice to the Palestinians of monumental proportions, and a Palestinian nation living at an uncomfortable population density. Second, this border would leave the original homeland of the Israelites outside Israel, which Israeli Jews, under the influence of Zionism, would not accept.

Determination of an open border would be much less contentious than agreeing upon a sovereign border between two states. It is not even essential that each nation has a contiguous territory. The main objects of the Boundary Commission would be to determine a border that placed a substantial majority of Jews within Israel and of Arabs within Palestine, but with a significant minority population in each (no apartheid); that minimized the number of Israeli Jews who would end up in Palestine, and the number of Palestinian Arabs who would end up in Israel, against their wishes; that produced a much more equal distribution of land area than the de facto border, mainly by placing a substantial part of the Negev within Palestine; and that placed a significant portion of the West Bank within Israel, for example Hebron, and Israeli-Jewish settlements close to Jerusalem.

The Settlers

The most difficult issue to be resolved between Israel and Palestine is the question of the future of the Israeli-Jewish settlers in the West Bank. Under the principles of border determination just discussed, it would be possible for some, perhaps many, of the settlers to stay where they are. However, it will be necessary to take into account the illegal nature of the settlement program, and the great harm it has done to the Palestinian population. There needs to be a reconciliation and reconstruction process in which settlements and their neighbors agree to live together peacefully, harm done is remedied, and serious crimes are punished. If cases where no agreement is possible, the settlers should return to Israel.

Palestinian refugees

After 70 years of denial of their right to return, the most just solution of the Palestinian refugee problem would be for them to be given huge sums of money, by Israel, to enable them to settle in any country of their choice willing to take them.

Some may want to return to Palestine: after establishing citizenship and residence, those whose original homes, or their ancestors homes, are within Israel could move there subject to the provisos of the immigration scheme outlined above. Some might want to stay in their current host states. Others might want to leave the Middle East and join the diaspora in Europe and the Americas. Britain and the USA in particular should be willing to take them since it was their actions that led to the present problem: Britain, through its Jewish National Home policy; the USA, through its premature recognition of the State of Israel.

Conclusion

A United State of Israel and Palestine would achieve the goal of the Balfour Declaration of 1917: a Jewish National Home in Palestine existing without prejudice to the rights of the non-Jewish inhabitants.

It would fulfill the vision of the Zionist Carlsbad Resolution of 1921: Palestine as the common home of two nations, Jewish and Arab, with perfect equality between them.

It would achieve the goal of the British Mandate of 1922: an independent sovereign Palestine including the Jewish National Home.

It would reflect some of the important features of the 1947 UN Plan of Partition with Economic Union, which proposed two non-sovereign states with open borders between them, linked in a union by an Economic Board that has binding powers on the two nations, controlling the currency, infrastructure, resources, and economic development.

It would achieve self-determination for the Israeli-Jewish people and the Palestinian-Arab people within their joint homeland of Eretz-Israel , Palestine, The Holy Land. Jerusalem would be the undivided capital of Israel, and also of Palestine.

It would produce a fully democratic State of all its citizens, while allowing Israel and Palestine to preserve their national lives and identities.

NOTES
[1] Definition from OED: nation; a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory.

[2] I am hopeful that the UK will recognize Palestine this year. Parliament has already voted a non-binding motion to that effect, and the UK Government has broken ranks with the US by voting for UNSCR 2334. Perhaps such a step by a major ally would make US politicians think again about their devotion to Netanyahu and his policies.

[3] The Palestinian Declaration of Independence was written in Arabic by a poet. The link is to the official English translation. There is a more flamboyant English translation on WikiSource.

[4] See the Kairos Document for an example of how Palestinian religion could make a contribution to the achievement of peace.

[5] I apologize to the Welsh and Northern Irish for omitting them from the story. In King James’s time Wales was an integral part of England. Now it is considered to be a third nation within the UK. James was also King of Ireland. Now only the Province of Northern Ireland remains in the UK. Wales and Northern Ireland have assemblies rather than parliaments, the difference being that the UK Parliament devolves specific powers to them, whereas the the Scottish Parliament has unlimited powers apart from those specifically reserved to the UK Parliament.

About David Gerald Fincham

Dr. David Gerald Fincham is a retired academic scientist from the United Kingdom. He now writes about the relationships between religion, science, and peace. His website is religion-science-peace.org.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

291 Responses

  1. Seth Edenbaum
    August 27, 2017, 2:32 pm

    Forgotten history: The One State Solution. The UN 1947

    https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/BA8F82C57961B9FC85257306007096B8

    Also here http://www.mlwerke.de/NatLib/Pal/UN1947_Palestine-Minority-Report_start.htm

    because the UN server is slow and sometimes unresponsive. The UN links to a pdf typescript “Best copy available” pathetic.

    AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION
    REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 2

    Composition and terms of reference of Sub-Committee

    1. Sub-Committee 2 on Palestine was set up on 23 October 1947 following the decision of the Ad Hoc Committee of Palestine to establish two Sub-Committees. By virtue of the authority conferred on him by the Ad Hoc Committee, the Chairman nominated the following countries as members of Sub-Committee 2: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

  2. AddictionMyth
    August 27, 2017, 3:15 pm

    Palestinians should start a movement demanding full and equal rights including freedom of speech, religion and press. Their own people will oppose them viciously for a million reasons including foreign aid (which must end) and political oppression (e.g. ‘incitement’ laws, which must end). But they must ignore them. Come to the table with these demands and Israel will respond in kind (though everyone at first will resist viciously for a million reasons). That’s it!

    Sorry Mooser I will not tell you where I live in Jerusalem. But come visit and I’ll invite you to coffee in a public space!

    • Mooser
      August 27, 2017, 3:23 pm

      “Sorry Mooser I will not tell you where I live in Jerusalem.”

      You don’t need to, now. You just told everybody pretty much exactly where you are at.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      August 27, 2017, 3:46 pm

      Hello, AddictionMyth, thank you for commenting, though I do not think your comment addresses the substance of my article.

      • Mooser
        August 28, 2017, 12:20 pm

        “Come to the table with these demands and Israel will respond in kind”

        That’s a prerequisite for this process, I would think, if not the very substance of it.

  3. David Gerald Fincham
    August 27, 2017, 3:25 pm

    Hello Seth, thank you for commenting.

    There was indeed a minority report of the committee which proposed a federation of two provinces, similar in some ways to my proposal, which differs because th two entities have the status of nations rather than mere provinces.

  4. Jerry Hirsch
    August 27, 2017, 3:59 pm

    Herodotus, the fifth century B.C. Greek historian NEVER mentions a PALESTINIAN people, only a REGION called PALESTINE. He mentions EGYPTIANS, SYRIANS, SCYTHIANS, and PHOENICIANS, but NEVER the PALESTINIANS/PHILISTINES.

    He treats it as a geographic region, not as a people. In fact most of his references place the Syrians as living in Palestine.

    As history has demonstrated, the Palestinians/Philistines died out as a race thousands of years ago.

    So called modern Palestinians are in fact Arabs, with a wide mixture of other ethnicities, Egyptian, North African, European, and even Jews.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs

    Herodotus mentions a land called Philistia/ Palestine seven times in his Histories.

    105. Thence they went on to invade Egypt; and when they were in Syria which is called PALESTINE, Psammetichos king of Egypt met them; and by gifts and entreaties he turned them from their purpose, so that they should not advance any further: and as they retreated, when they came to the city of Ascalon in Syria, most of the Scythians passed through without doing any damage, but a few of them who had stayed behind plundered the temple of Aphrodite Urania.

    That this was so I conjectured myself not only because they are dark-skinned and have curly hair (this of itself amounts to nothing, for there are other races which are so), but also still more because the Colchians, Egyptians, and Ethiopians alone of all the races of men have practised circumcision from the first. The Phenicians and the Syrians[88] who dwell in PALESTINE confess themselves that they have learnt it from the Egyptians, and the Syrians[89] about the river Thermodon and the river Parthenios, and the Macronians, who are their neighbours, say that they have learnt it lately from the Colchians.

    106. The pillars which Sesostris of Egypt set up in the various countries are for the most part no longer to be seen extant; but in Syria PALESTINE I myself saw them existing with the inscription upon them which I have mentioned and the emblem.

    5. Now by this way only is there a known entrance to Egypt: for from Phenicia to the borders of the city of Cadytis belongs to the Syrians[4] who are called of PALESTINE, and from Cadytis, which is a city I suppose not much less than Sardis, from this city the trading stations on the sea coast as far as the city of Ienysos belong to the king of Arabia, and then from Ienysos again the country belongs to the Syrians as far as the Serbonian lake, along the side of which Mount Casion extends towards the Sea.

    91. From that division which begins with the city of Posideion, founded by Amphilochos the son of Amphiaraos on the borders of the Kilikians and the Syrians, and extends as far as Egypt, not including the territory of the Arabians (for this was free from payment), the amount was three hundred and fifty talents; and in this division are the whole of Phenicia and Syria which is called PALESTINE and Cyprus: this is the fifth division.

    Now in the line stretching to Phenicia from the land of the Persians the land is broad and the space abundant, but after Phenicia this peninsula goes by the shore of our Sea along PALESTINE, Syria, and Egypt, where it ends;
    and in it there are three nations only.

    89. Of the triremes the number proved to be one thousand two hundred and seven, and these were they who furnished them:–the Phenicians, together with the Syrians[82] who dwell in PALESTINE furnished three hundred; and they were equipped thus, that is to say, they had about their heads leathern caps made very nearly in the Hellenic fashion, and they wore corslets of linen, and had shields without rims and javelins. These Phenicians dwelt in ancient time, as they themselves report, upon the Erythraian Sea, and thence they passed over and dwell in the country along the sea coast of Syria; and this part of Syria and all as far as Egypt is called PALESTINE.

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707-h/2707-h.htm

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2456/2456-h/2456-h.htm

    • Annie Robbins
      August 27, 2017, 6:52 pm

      fifth century B.C. Greek historian NEVER mentions a PALESTINIAN people

      shocking. and what did herodotus have to say about israel back in 5 bce.

    • Misterioso
      August 28, 2017, 3:08 pm

      “As history has demonstrated, the Palestinians/Philistines died out as a race thousands of years ago.”

      Reality:

      http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full
      Front. Genet., 21 June 2017 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087
      The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish

      Recent genetic samples from bones found in Palestine dating to the Epipaleolithic
      (20000-10500 BCE) SHOWED REMARKABLE RESEMBLANCE TO MODERN DAY PALESTINIANS [my emphasis.]

      EXCERPTS:
      “The non-Levantine origin of AJs [Ashkenazi Jews] is further supported by an ancient DNA analysis of six Natufians and a Levantine Neolithic (Lazaridis et al., 2016), some of the most likely Judaean progenitors (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2002; Frendo, 2004). In a principle component analysis (PCA), the ancient Levantines clustered predominantly with modern-day Palestinians and Bedouins and marginally overlapped with Arabian Jews, whereas AJs clustered away from Levantine individuals and adjacent to Neolithic Anatolians and Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans.”

      “Overall, the combined results are in a strong agreement with the predictions of the Irano-Turko-Slavic hypothesis (Table 1) and rule out an ancient Levantine origin for AJs, which is predominant among modern-day Levantine populations (e.g., Bedouins and Palestinians). This is not surprising since Jews differed in cultural practices and norms (Sand, 2011) and tended to adopt local customs (Falk, 2006). Very little Palestinian Jewish culture survived outside of Palestine (Sand, 2009). For example, the folklore and folkways of the Jews in northern Europe is distinctly pre-Christian German (Patai, 1983) and Slavic in origin, which disappeared among the latter (Wexler, 1993, 2012).”

      Also:
      The first known written reference to Palestinians as a people (Peleset) was c.1150 BCE at the temple of Medinet Habut. They were among those who fought with Egypt during Ramesses III’s reign.

      Jewish historian Josephus’s (c.37-100 CE) The Jewish War, Antiquities of the Jews contains many references to both “Palestine” and “Palestinians.”

      By about 1300 CE there were virtually no Jews in Palestine, which was a recognized geographical concept using coinage with “Filistin” written on them. There were diaries of Palestinian travelers who said they missed “Palestine” and a distinctive Palestinian dialect of Arabic had evolved. From 1300 on, the vast majority of people who lived in Palestine were Christians and Muslims.

      To quote the opening sentence of the section entitled “Filastin” that appears in the book “Dictionary of the Lands,” written by geographer Yaqut ibn Abdullah al-Hamawi in 1225: “Filastin: It is the last one of the regions of Syria in the direction of Egypt. Its most famous cities are Ashkelon, Ramle, Gaza, Arsuf, Caesaria, Nablus, Jericho, Jaffa and Beit Guvrin.”

      To quote the Churchill Memorandum (1 July 1922) regarding the League of Nations Class A British Mandate: “[T]he status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status.”

      • David Gerald Fincham
        August 29, 2017, 2:08 pm

        Thanks a million (not literally) for that, mysterioso. Very useful information, saved for reference.

      • Danaa
        August 31, 2017, 2:56 am

        This is really great information, misterioso. Keep it up! some of us are suckers for good references (because we are lazy bums?).

  5. vacyv
    August 27, 2017, 5:53 pm

    “After 70 years of denial of their right to return, the most just solution of the Palestinian refugee problem would be for them to be given huge sums of money, by Israel, to enable them to settle in any country of their choice willing to take them.”

    You don’t get it- Palestinian Right of Return is sacrosanct.

    • Annie Robbins
      August 27, 2017, 6:49 pm

      why don’t we hear suggestions to pay israeli jews lots of money to enable them to settle in any other country of their choice?

      • echinococcus
        August 28, 2017, 12:23 am

        Coz we’re paying them incomparably more to stay.

      • Mooser
        August 28, 2017, 11:11 am

        “why don’t we hear suggestions to pay israeli jews lots of money to enable them to settle in any other country of their choice?”

        ROTFLMSJAO! Oh, that comes a little later.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      August 28, 2017, 1:10 am

      vacy, read the next paragraph. Of course they have a right of return if they want to. All I am saying is that they should be helped to move elsewhere if that is what they want. Recent history has shown that many displaced Arabs prefer going to Europe.

      • Mooser
        August 28, 2017, 11:12 am

        “displaced Arabs “

        ? Is that who they are?

      • gamal
        August 28, 2017, 2:09 pm

        “Recent history has shown that many displaced Arabs prefer going to Europe.”

        Most Palestinians as opposed to “displaced Arabs” live within a few kms of Palestine in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and to a lesser extent Egypt, most displaced Arabs are internally displaced or in another adjacent Arab country,

        do theses facts have any effect on your Arab analysing Algorithms? Or are you suggesting bombing them and seeing if they’d like to relocate to Bad Godesburg?

      • David Gerald Fincham
        August 29, 2017, 2:29 pm

        gamal, reply to yours of Aug 28, 2:09pm

        The Zionists as part of their principles say that all Jews in the world have an obligation to go and live in Israel. You seem to be introducing a similar obligation on all Palestinian refugees to return to Palestine. Such an obligation would be a denial of their human rights: Universal Declaration “Everyone has a right to leave their country and return to their country”. Some of them are employed in their host country: perhaps they would like to continue with that work. There are many Palestinians in Britain, the US , Chile and elsewhere. Perhaps some of them would like to go to those places. They have a right to make those moves, and they should be helped to do so.

        Your nasty remark about my bombing refugees is unworthy and you should apologize for it.

    • Keith
      August 28, 2017, 4:33 pm

      VACYV- “You don’t get it- Palestinian Right of Return is sacrosanct.”

      Who are you speaking for? Are you claiming to speak for the Palestinians? If so, what gives you the right? Is the ROR more important than physical safety and economic well-being?

    • Danaa
      August 31, 2017, 3:02 am

      Any solution that addresses RoR should first and foremost accept the principle of RoR. Once that is accepted (and good luck with that) manners of practical excution can be discussed.

      For myself, I did always feel that a very substantial compensation for those who want it is a possibility, as part of a comprehensive package, but with emphasis on “substantial”. In my book, at least as much as the settlers who left Gaza got (check out the numbers and you’ll see we are talking A trillion $ or more in toto).

      However, as I first mentioned before anything at all can be discussed RoR must be accepted as a right. In my estimation, the chances that israel could ever be brought to a point of even offering an apology, much less accept the principle, are about as good as reversing global warming. IOW, there’s a small chance. A vanishingly small one. Though that tiny chance can be increased if the pressure on israel increases. like, a lot.

  6. Curatica
    August 27, 2017, 6:44 pm

    Such a long collection pf platitudes and naive phantasmagorias (and comments on the same line). In what world does the author live? At least he is truthful to his grasping and egotistic Jewish nature.

    • Mooser
      August 27, 2017, 7:53 pm

      “At least he is truthful to his grasping and egotistic Jewish nature.”

      This Dr. David Gerald Fincham? Doesn’t seem reasonable.

      • Curatica
        August 27, 2017, 8:50 pm

        You may be right in some sense; however the “Dr.” proves such an ignorance of human nature and expresses such childish and unrealistic ideas, that it is impossible to qualify him otherwise. Whoever believes that the only thing that lambs and wolves need in order to live harmoniously together, is organization and a good administration (presumably, provided by wolves) is a fool — any euphemism set aside.

    • irishmoses
      August 27, 2017, 9:30 pm

      Curatica,
      “At least he is truthful to his grasping and egotistic Jewish nature.”
      You seem to be making the claim that “all Jews are grasping and egotistic” by nature. As this could be interpreted as antisemitic, you might want to provide some evidentiary support (links to studies, etc.) for your claim or withdraw it. As stated, it would appear to violate Mondoweiss protocol.

      • irishmoses
        August 27, 2017, 10:22 pm

        Curatica,
        I did a quick read through of your prior postings on MW and found nothing to suggest antisemitism on your part.
        Lest I be accused of being a self-appointed thought cop, let me briefly explain my motivation. MW is often and unfairly accused of being an antisemitic site/blog. IMHO, any comment that seems to cross the line into antisemitism needs to be pointed out so there’s no support in the comments that would substantiate that unfair slur on MW.
        Sometimes that line is crossed inadvertently, and at least once by me. Having it pointed out allowed me to correct the record.
        The sarcasm in my original comment (“links to studies”) was inappropriate and for that I apologize.

      • Curatica
        August 28, 2017, 8:23 pm

        Dear sir, while I cannot reply to your other message (the one with the apologies) given the way the website was designed, please allow me to emphasize that there is really nothing you need to apologize for :-) ! I was aware that with my sentence I may be stepping on a minefield.

        The Jewish men and women who run Mondoweiss, as well as those who appreciate it and support it do something really remarkable: they stand for truth and justice for the Palestinians, and do that against the prevailing propensity of the Israelis or even of most of the diaspora Jews. I think that it would be unavoidable that Mondoweiss be accused of antisemitism or of being made of “self-hating Jews” if they went all the way in their recognition and support of what is true and just in this world, and in Palestine in particular. Otherwise, they would end up with half-measures and a parti pris position which accepts that all men are created equal but that the Jews are a little more equal than the others and that it is with this in mind, that the conflict in Palestine should be resolved, as the “Dr.” author of the article suggests.

      • Mooser
        August 28, 2017, 9:24 pm

        ” that the conflict in Palestine should be resolved, as the “Dr.” author of the article suggests.”

        So you can look past” his grasping and egotistic Jewish nature” and see the substance in his proposal? That’s good.

      • irishmoses
        August 28, 2017, 10:28 pm

        Curatica,
        Thanks for your reply. Hopefully this will end up somewhere near but after your comment.

      • Talkback
        August 29, 2017, 4:59 am

        Irishmoses: “You seem to be making the claim that “all Jews are grasping and egotistic” by nature. As this could be interpreted as antisemitic, …”

        It seems? It could be interpreted?.

        Nope. It IS openly antisemitic. How could Curatica even assume that Finchham has a grasping and egotistic nature whithout making the assumption that he was Jewish to complete this antisemitic accusation?

      • Mooser
        August 29, 2017, 11:08 am

        Dear sir, while I cannot reply to your other message (the one with the apologies) given the way the website was designed, please allow me to emphasize that there is really nothing you need to apologize for :-) ! “

        Isn’t that nice? “Curatica” said that “irishmoses” doesn’t need to apologize.

        BTW, just so I can get my bearings, is the question of whether Dr. Fincham actually is or isn’t Jewish have any relevance in this discussion? I certainly don’t know.

      • Danaa
        August 31, 2017, 3:04 am

        irishmoses, my comments often cross into that new realm of auto anti-semitism 😀 so there….

    • David Gerald Fincham
      August 28, 2017, 1:19 am

      Curatica, thank you for commenting, but your remarks do not address the substance of my article.

      • Mooser
        August 28, 2017, 11:17 am

        ,” but your remarks do not address the substance of my article”

        That’s twice you have used that “substance of my article” wheeze.

        Okay, we’re not getting it, so why don’t you tell us what the “substance” is. The “substance” which makes the article other than mere vaporizing. What is it?

      • David Gerald Fincham
        August 28, 2017, 1:58 pm

        Mooser, replying to yours of Aug 28, 11:17 am

        Please read the article from beginning to end, and you will find out what the substance is. If you require clarification of any specific points, please let me know.

      • Mooser
        August 28, 2017, 3:35 pm

        “Please read the article from beginning to end, and you will find out what the substance is…”

        Thank you, but I’m not so sure. I will probably need to read it over several times before I grasp it.

  7. JLewisDickerson
    August 27, 2017, 8:32 pm

    RE: “It [i.e., the Oslo Accord] should be thrown into the dustbin of history, together with Wye River, Camp David, the Road Map, the Quartet, and Tony Blair.” ~ David Gerald Fincham

    MY COMMENT: I respectfully disagree. Tony Blair is not deserving of a place in the dustbin of history, or any other dustbin.
    I would humbly suggest that he be disappeared to the Milky Way’s one and only true supermassive black hole (SMBH) centrally located (for your disposal convenience) at Sagittarius A* (pronounced “Sagittarius A-star”, standard abbreviation Sgr A*).

    SEE: “An Earthling’s Guide to Black Holes” | By Joanna Klein | nytimes.com | June 8, 2015

    [EXCERPT] If you fell into a black hole, it’s not clear how you would die.

    Will gravity rip you apart and crush you into the black hole’s core? Or will a firewall of energy sizzle you into oblivion? Could some essence of you ever emerge from a black hole? First posited by a group of theorists including Donald Marolf, Ahmed Almheiri, James Sully and Joseph Polchinski in March 2012, the question of how you would die inside a black hole is probably the biggest debate in physics right now. It’s called the firewall paradox.

    Based on the mathematics in Einstein’s 1915 General Theory of Relativity, you would fall through the event horizon unscathed before gravity’s force pulled you into a noodle and ultimately crammed you into singularity, the black hole’s infinitely dense core. [GOOD! ]

    But Dr. Polchinski and his team pitted Einstein against quantum theory, which posited that the event horizon would become a blazing firewall of energy that would torch your body to smithereens. [EVEN BETTER!]

    Keep both theories, the physicist Stephen Hawking said in January 2014. Black holes aren’t what we thought they were. There is no event horizon, and there is no singularity. They’re just different.

    According to Dr. Hawking, at the edge of a black hole, the fourth dimension known as space-time fluctuates like weather, making the crisp edge we assume impossible. Instead, Dr. Hawking’s “apparent horizon” would be like a purgatory for light rays attempting to escape a black hole, slowly dissolving and moving inward, but never being pulled into singularity. The event horizon, he says, remains the same, or even shrinks as a black hole slowly leaks energy. Suspended in the apparent zone, you would scramble and leak out into the cosmos as “Hawking radiation.” [THE VERY, VERY BEST! (much better than being consumed by a lake of fire)]

    ENTIRE ARTICLE ➤ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/08/science/space/guide-to-black-holes.html?mcubz=0

    P.S. ALSO SEE: “Black Hole Hunters” | By Denis Overbye | nytimes.com | June 8, 2015
    Aiming to make the first portrait of the hungry monster at the center
    of our galaxy
    , astronomers built “a telescope as big as the world.”
    LINK ➤ https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/science/black-hole-event-horizon-telescope.html

  8. Annie Robbins
    August 27, 2017, 9:11 pm

    i am working my way down the article and have already taken many notes about things i disagree with, or that i think seem unbalanced. but i wanted to stop here over this one part, as i find it outrageous:

    The settlements built for Israeli Jews are also part of the physical structure of occupation, but their inhabitants are part of the human reality. The settlement issue is one of the final-status issues that are related to each other and will be considered in the next stage of the process, which I call the dialogue phase.

    i strenuously disagree, the “settlement issue” has always been on the back burner. it’s always been relegated to “final status” (by whom? not palestine). there’s no reason it should be shoved down the road into some dialogue phase because that’s where it’s always gone to die. palestinians have expressed they want to see a proposal for israel’s borders in any terms for future negotiations because they have never gotten any. agreeing to “final status” issue down the road is completely unrealistic. to begin any process in good faith, israel needs to place their cards on the table upfront, and the international community should too. palestine has already made numerous proposals.

    In the West Bank Area A should remain under Palestinian control; Area B, which is currently under joint Palestinian and Israeli control, should change to Palestinian control; Area C and East Jerusalem should be under a joint Israel-Palestine civil administration with security provided by a joint civilian police force.

    area c is over 60% of the west bank. why should it be under joint control? perhaps the galilee should also be under joint control. i could understand this if you were proposing a 1 state solution but how can you justify keeping occupation troops there if this is the proposed palestinian state?

    Ending the occupation must include removal of the main physical structure of occupation, the Separation Barrier, and related remedial work such as replanting a million olive trees, as well as the removal of the Israeli-only roads, or their incorporation into an integrated road network. When these works are completed the IDF forces can withdraw to Israel.

    more hurdles to jump before israel withdraws. i don’t think so. i think palestinians can figure out how to end the practice of israel-only roads all on the own. and the removal of the main physical structure of occupation can take place after the soldiers leave. the occupation has to end. the kumbaya emersion can begin after israeli military forces leave.

    those are just a few of the things i noticed thus far.

    • irishmoses
      August 27, 2017, 9:48 pm

      A point of clarification for those not familiar with Israel’s “Area” boondoggle. Area C encompasses the entire West Bank and surrounds all the dozens of remaining Palestinian enclaves including those deemed to be “Area A” and “Area B”. Those dozens of separated enclaves (or “Bantustans”) amount to 40 percent of the total West Bank area but are anything but contiguous. Area C is the West Bank excepting only those separated enclaves that are distasteful to Israelis because they are inhabited by mere “Arabs”.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 27, 2017, 10:55 pm

        thank you. exactly. the idea the entire sea surrounding the archipelago would be under a joint administration is a one state idea. there’s no point in the illusion of 2 states with israel having that much jurisdiction/authority. area A currently allegedly is supposed to be administered by the PA, and we all know how that works out with israel’s violent incursions whenever it suits them. what’s the point of 2 states with israel still there in palestine? and then final status w/dialogue down the road. sounds like more of the same. .. maybe in 5 years or 10 or whatever.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      August 28, 2017, 1:28 am

      Hello Annie. I AM proposing a one-state solution. The title I gave to Phil was “the One State Two Nations Solution. I did not propose a continuation of the occupation, I proposed a temporary joint civil administration, and gave my reasons for it. I am sorry if that is not clear.

      • Bont Eastlake
        August 28, 2017, 4:14 am

        Firstly, its not your right to propose anything affecting the self determination of Palestinians.

        Secondly, Palestinians can bear the burden of crime committed upon them indefinitely, whether its theft of land, occupation or missile bombardments, as long as they hold on their rights and the truth.

        But the moment they decide to enjoin their oppressors and legitimize the criminal entity that had taken root on their land, they will lose everything. They will lose their place in the side of truth and justice, and will be as complicit in the crime of Israel as Israelis themselves.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 28, 2017, 10:36 am

        hi david, perhaps i did misunderstand. when you wrote “a two-state agreement is a necessary first step towards its [one state] achievement” i thought what you were suggesting was that “first step”. and i feel wary about the initial “phases”, of settlements being a final status issue (this is what it has always been). and these joint projects leading to “When these works are completed the IDF forces can withdraw to Israel.” what if these works do not get completed? it reminds me of oslo and this idea of 5 or 10 years down the road. the occupation soldiers would still be there, it just seems strange to think they would all be there policing who? palestinians.

        and when you write “The parliament of the United State would be directly elected by all citizens” i just wonder, how is it you are going to make this happen? how are you going to get israel, the citizens and/or the government, to accept “that Palestine has a right to exist in peace and security, and that the occupation must come to an end”?

        with “resolutions demanding, first, that Israel accepts that the settlement program is illegal in international law, and must be halted immediately; second, that Israel accepts that the military occupation of the West Bank, and the blockade of Gaza, must come to an end”?

        by sanctioning israel? how are you going to get the security council to do that? and are you going to demand the security council first assure or convince their intent is not to “destroy israel”? because this will be the accusation just as it is the accusation against the bds movement now.

    • Mooser
      August 28, 2017, 11:23 am

      “Jewish money” is a reality. (As I understand it, from my schoolboy days), the Bible forbids usury, the lending of money at interest, I suppose because it leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. In medieval Europe, on the base of the Bible, it was illegal for Christians to lend money at interest. However, the Jewish theologians decided that although it was forbidden for Jews to lend to Jews, but they could lend to non-Jews. This is how Jews became the bankers, and some became very rich indeed. Christians who wanted to invest in business had no alternative but to go to the Jews for money. This tended to cause some resentment.”
      “David Gerald Fincham”

      Now, there’s substance!

      • gamal
        August 28, 2017, 1:59 pm

        Is it necessary to point out that this is just plain wrong, for Medieval etc interest rates, charged on sovereign debts by Italians etc see,

        Sidney Homer, Richard Scylla, Michael Fryde, Michael Prestwitch…see Ricciardi and Edmund of Lancaster in Richard Kauper and Marc Morris.

        it seems that some Christian interest rates approached 80%, but there is argument about computation, and a country wasn’t always the best collateral if you didn’t look like you could hold on to it, most loans were short term, two years being common, as one man wryly commented this credit was not expensive …for Nobles, averaging between 15% to 45% depending on your circumstances.

        As they say in science or was it Mr. Miyagi “Rubbish in Rubbish out”, facts so treacherous but so seductive.

      • Mooser
        August 28, 2017, 3:51 pm

        “Is it necessary to point out that this is just plain wrong”

        “gamal” did you catch this neat little extra twist:

        In medieval Europe, on the base of the Bible, it was illegal for Christians to lend money at interest. However, the Jewish theologians decided that although it was forbidden for Jews to lend to Jews, but they could lend to non-Jews. This is how Jews became the bankers,

        I must admit that makes more sense than the usual Christians-punished-Jews-by-making-them-bankers story.

      • gamal
        August 28, 2017, 6:40 pm

        “I must admit that makes more sense”

        yes I caught the Jewish theologians bit, the invitation to Christ can’t be far off.

        Frankly I have little time for “Solutionism”, I really don’t get it, like amateur cranial surgery not my kind of thing.

        Jews, who have all the money could pay Arabs to go to Europe, but this is already happening according to Breitbart, Soros and his SJW’s are at it, but Breit and his readers are not supportive, raising a bit of stink in fact.

        perhaps the theologians can find a way we can cheat the grim fate we are preparing for ourselves

        “Solutionism” paradoxically is not the answer, as you say one could hardly expect painless irredentistry unless one consults an qualified irredentist.

        in ghetto parlance

        Solutionists ha dem ca’n defend nothin. (there is no emoticon for kissing your teeth, supremacy weighs me down)

    • David Gerald Fincham
      August 28, 2017, 12:34 pm

      Annie, replying to yours of 27 Aug, 9:11 pm, 10:55 pm, and Aug 28, 10:36 a.m.

      I am talking about an interim period in which the occupation comes to an end. There can be no negotiations on the final status issues during this phase, for two reasons: first, that Israel will just carry on delaying, that is why the Oslo process failed; second, because the final-status issues are dependent upon each other, and their resolution will be entirely different in a two-state solution as compared to a one-state-two-nations solution.

      Israelis and Palestinians will need to work together on the mechanics of ending the occupation. There will be a joint civilian police force to keep the peace in area C. The IDF forces remain beyond the formal end of the occupation to carry out an act of restitution, demolishing the Wall etcetera, so that it can be seen that Israel is putting right the wrong it has done.

      How am I going to get the security council to pass those resolutions? I am not, Annie, YOU ARE: I mean the American people. Everyone in the world knows that the settlements are Illegal; every one in the world knows that 242 said “a just and lasting peace REQUIRES Israel forces to withdraw from territories occupied”. You could get UNSC resolutions along those lines tomorrow if there was no US veto. The only reason for that that veto is that American politicians are totally corrupted by Zionist money.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 28, 2017, 4:56 pm

        david, thanks for getting back to me. i agree the US veto is a huge issue. i noticed in your ‘pressuring israel’ section you allocated a sentence to this:

        These will be need to be resolutions with teeth; that is, they will need to threaten enforcement action under Chapter 7 if Israel refuses to accept them.

        it just seems quite clear to me israel will not accept any of this (your ideas) so this part about the teeth, and the veto, and the specific “enforcement action(s)” and american politicians .. it seems this would have to be tackled and spelled out. i suppose you know of the recent brookings poll stating over 60% of dems think israel should be sanctioned over the settlements. so when you say “YOU ARE: I mean the American people” i hope you know congress and the american people are certainly not united on this issue, the congress does not in any way represent the american people on this issue.

        and, i’d like to point out i noticed your concern/mention of bds being task w/explaining they are not out to “destroy israel”, a phrase you mentioned twice. however, oddly, you made no mention whatsoever of israel destroying palestine. no fears of palestinians having their land/home/country destroyed. i mention that because, while you were only saying palestinians could be paid to leave (if they wanted to) you made nary a mention of jews being paid to leave. maybe you are under the impression jews want to stay more than palestinians do or jews worry about their country being destroyed more than palestinians do. i can absolutely assure you that is not the case. and yet you don’t seem to task jews with convincing palestinians how they really don’t want to destroy palestine. so why the double standards? especially when israeli are routinely destroying palestinian homes — as a policy.

        anyway, back to the part you glossed over. what kind of enforcement action do you think the security council should threaten israel with? sanctions? divestment? UN forces? and if you think there needs to be soldiers dismantling the occupation why not UN forces? i don’t understand why you need idf forces to dismantle a wall, soldiers didn’t put up the wall. you could hire contractors to do it.

        Israelis and Palestinians don’t need to work together on the mechanics of ending the occupation anymore than a husband and wife need to work together to divorce. they have lawyers and courts who do that sort of thing is one party doesn’t want to work with the other. clearly israel didn’t need to work with palestinians to evict them out of the country. this is why i think curatica referenced your list as phantasmagorias. (ps, i don’t think the 2 parties can divorce each other btw, i think israel should be put on some kind of marshal plan to rework their laws and education systems until they learn how to play nice, without the benefit of patrolling palestinian neighborhoods to release their inner oppressors and let off steam.. call it a cooling off period)

        all the politicians keep saying israel and palestinians have to work together (preferably behind closed doors) to come up w/solutions. but isn’t it clear that’s not working?

        There will be a joint civilian police force to keep the peace in area C.

        please, they already have joint forces in area b. it’s still an occupation and israel does whatever they want. why not suggest joint forces working together patrolling the galilee? why not suggest having joint forces patrolling jewish only towns within israel “so that it can be seen that Israel is putting right the wrong it has done”? what’s to guarantee israel wouldn’t still carry out night raids on palestinian villages? well, because one assumes jewish families wouldn’t want palestinian soldiers learning the ropes by invading jewish homes in the middle of the night and photographing the kids.

        there’s simply no description of enforcement towards getting israel to comply here. much less getting the soldiers to comply. it’s sort of pie in the sky planning mixed in with odd statements like jews are “the primary victims of Zionist hasbara”, which i find unfathomable because unlike palestinians victims routinely imprisoned, maimed and killed, jews are not routinely dying and having their houses blown up because of zionist hasbara. yes, unfortunately they may be brainwashed into being a brutal oppressor and killer, but that still doesn’t make israeli jews the primary victim. there is only one primary victim in this decades long atrocity fueled by zionist hasbara. maybe you are confusing ‘target’ with victim.

        anyway, i suggest for your next essay to zero in on the very kind of pressure you support the security council imposing on israel. similar to the sanctions we have against iran? with similar threats? and exactly how you would convince israel you’re not trying to destroy it by recommending those measures. because until israel complies, no plan for breaking down the occupation “so that it can be seen that Israel is putting right the wrong it has done” will work. precisely because not only does israel not want to put right what was done, but because they don’t think they’ve done anything wrong. they likely think of themselves as the primary victims.

  9. Nathan
    August 27, 2017, 10:22 pm

    David Gerald Fincham – You tell us in your article that “Zionists today often claim that Palestinian Arabs are an invented people”. Well, if you found it necessary to present what you think is the position of the one side vis-a-vis the peoplehood of the other side – then, surely you could have given us a line or two regarding what you think is the opposite case. It would have given the impression that you are at least trying to be fair. Anyway, it should be noted that the Palestinian position is that there is no Jewish peoplehood at all. Therefore, the Jews have no claim to self-determination. Your lack of balanced presentation is repeated when you claim that “there will be no peace until Jewish Israelis accept that there is a Palestinian-Arab nation, and that it has a right to self-determination….” Surely, you should have noted the opposite as well: There will not be peace until the Palestinians accept the right of the Jews to self-determination.

    Your presentation of Hamas is extremely poor. You mentioned its proposal for a truce, but you did not analyze the meaning of “truce”. First of all, Hamas has stated clearly that they are proposing a ten-year truce after the return to the Green-Line and the repatriation of all the refugees. In other words, Israel’s acceptance of the Palestinian demands will not be the end of conflict at all. The animosity (violence) will be renewed ten years later. This means that occupation and refugees are not the issue of conflict. There is something else that bothers Hamas, justifying the return to conflict after just ten years. Well, what is that topic? You don’t present in your article the issue that has ignited this conflict. Once you have defined correctly the reason for the conflict, one could judge if your proposal for ending it makes sense. It’s not occupation and it’s not refugees. So, what is it?

    You used the English term “truce”. It is better to use the Arabic term “hudna”, because that’s the term that Hamas (an Islamic organization) uses. It’s an term from the Quran, and that’s very important. “Hudna” is a cease-fire that one makes with the non-believers (in this case, the Jews). Hamas is obligated to fight the non-believers (there is no peace with non-believers), but if the non-believers are too strong and can’t be defeated – one can propose a “hudna” for the time being. However, whenever one becomes stronger, it is an obligation to renew the war and to defeat the infidels. You seem to think that the offer of a “truce” is a positive development, but in reality Hamas is offering a “hudna”, committing itself to war against the Jews. You should show in your article that you are aware of the abc’s of Hamas’ policy (Islamic law) and some basic knowledge of the Arabic language.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      August 28, 2017, 3:30 pm

      Nathan, Thank you for commenting.

      I talk about the Israeli-Jewish nation. In my conclusion I say that my proposal would achieve “self-determination for both the Israeli-Jewish nation and the Palestinian-Arab nation, within their shared homeland of Eretz-Israel, Palestine, The Holy Land”. The PLO accepted this right when they said “the State of Israel has a right to exist in peace and security”. It is now up to Israel to reciprocate and recognize the right of the State of Palestine to live in peace and security.

      The State of Israel is not “the Jews” nor a representative of “the Jews” . The Jews outside Israel-Palestine do not have a right to self-determination within Israel-Palestine.

      In the Quran “non-believers” are generally the polytheistic religious leaders who persecuted Mohammad and his followers and drove them out of Mecca to Medina. Jews and Christians are “People of the Scriptures”, not to be troubled or converted; 2:62 “The [Muslim] believers, the Jews, the Christians and the Sabians – all those who believe in God and the Last Day and do good – will have their rewards with their Lord. Unfortunately some of the Jews of Medina joined the polytheists in attacking the Muslims, thereby making themselves enemies of the Muslims. When you read bad things about Jews in the Quran, it applies to these Jews.

      “The Jews” are not the enemy of Hamas, their enemy is the Zionist Jews who came to Palestine, backed up by the might of the British Army, to take away their land.

      In the one-state-two-nations solution, Hamas will be out on a limb. They will not be able to complain that they are ruled by Jews, which they would really hate, because within Palestine the government will be mainly Arabic, and the State government will have representatives from both nations. Nor will the Jews be under Islamic rule, which is what they think should happen, but there is not much they could do about it. I think they will eventually accept the situation.

      • Jackdaw
        August 28, 2017, 3:52 pm

        “The Jews” are not the enemy of Hamas, their enemy is the Zionist Jews who came to Palestine, backed up by the might of the British Army, to take away their land.

        And why, as per their Charter, does Hamas have a beef with Freemasonry?

        *chime cuckoo clock *

      • gamal
        August 28, 2017, 8:31 pm

        “does Hamas have a beef with Freemasonry?”

        you don’t know the history? when the sir tujar (provost of the traders guild) in Skarkia was accused of sedition in respect Urabi’s revolt it was a freemason barrister from London who took up his defence, it was a masonic revolt.

        in the levant and Egypt freemasonry was associated with many who were agitating for independence, but there was a conflict between “continental” freemasonry with its French revolutionary background and good clean British Freemasonry which was mainly concerned with “charity” and other improving activities,

        Abduh was in a lodge, it all ended rather badly for Urabi and the Egyptian Masons, so they are regarded as a worthless cult that divides the masses, Egypt at the time was ruled by a Caucasian oligarchy (actually from the Caucasus), the middle classes thought the Lodge would lead them in to the upper class, but it was not to be, its like we have our own history, but it is possible learn about it.

        In working class Arab and Jamaican culture the lodge is disliked, quite intensely, hence in the lyrics to “call the hearse” by Bushman we find

        “Gangsta na fret no powder gunman neither nurse

        dem say dem gun it nuh join lodge, nor it don’t join church

        Nother Gunman gone in the cemetery tonite”

        Capelton is even more scathing but…

        https://youtu.be/u2MEKZMqMsM

      • Nathan
        August 28, 2017, 10:05 pm

        Mr Fincham – You claim in your article that “in the Oslo process Palestine was negotiating under duress”. Note that the PLO recognition of Israel (“the State of Israel has a right to exist in peace and security”) was part of the Oslo process. These means that by your judgment the recognition of Israel was under duress (and, hence, invalid). Actually, I think that it’s obvious that the Palestinians do NOT recognize the State of Israel and its right to live in peace. Your suggestion that Israel reciprocate can only mean that you take the Palestinian recognition seriously (i.e. it was not given under duress in your eyes). You’ll have to decide in another article if Oslo is valid (and hence the recognition of Israel is truthful) or if Oslo was given under duress (and hence the recognition of Israel was not truthful).

        In your reply to me, you refer to the “Israeli-Jewish nation”, differentiating between the Jews of Israel and the other Jews in the world (the “Israeli-Jewish nation” has the right of self-determination, whereas the others don’t). This raises an interesting contradiction that deals with the very concept of SELF-determination. You’re an outsider, so you can’t determine someone else’s SELF-determination. In Israel, the perception of self-determination is that all the Jews are a single people, and the Land of Israel is their homeland. If you dictate to the Israeli Jews their “self-determination” as you imagine it, then you are not recognizing their right to self-determination. Anyway, if you envision an end of the “Law of Return” (the right of all Jews to live in Israel), then your peace proposal is unrealistic.

        Occupation and refugees, as I mentioned, are not the reason of conflict. I had asked you in my comment what is the reason of conflict, and you didn’t answer. It is a very important question. Once you define correctly the reason of conflict, one can then judge if your proposal for peace solves the conflict. Why was this conflict born, and is that reason of conflict addressed in your proposal?

      • Talkback
        August 29, 2017, 5:20 am

        Fincham: “I talk about the Israeli-Jewish nation. In my conclusion I say that my proposal would achieve “self-determination for both the Israeli-Jewish nation and the Palestinian-Arab nation, …”

        You confuse both concepts. The Palestinian nation is a constitutive people since 1925 and even in its PLO modification in the sixties it is not restricted to (Muslim) “Arabs”. The Israeli-Jewish “nation”on the other hand is not a nation in the same sense. To talk about their (national) right to self determination is misleading. This principle only applies to a people of a country and is restricted to the denizens of its territory. If an “Israeli-Jewish” nation would have any legal substance than all Israelis would be “Israeli-Jewish” and one could become “Israeli-Jewish” simply by becoming citizen of Israel.

      • Jackdaw
        August 29, 2017, 1:33 pm

        @gamal

        I beg to differ.
        Freemasonry is an anathema to Hamas because Freemasons are progressive, enlightened and tolerant of all religions.
        The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas would be repelled by the Jewish symbols and rituals that had been adopted by Freemasonry.

        Hamas is a religious party of fanatics, and no attempt by any ‘scholar’ can convince me otherwise.

      • zaid
        August 29, 2017, 3:38 pm

        “It is better to use the Arabic term “hudna”, because that’s the term that Hamas (an Islamic organization) uses. It’s an term from the Quran, and that’s very important. “Hudna” is a cease-fire that one makes with the non-believers (in this case, the Jews). Hamas is obligated to fight the non-believers (there is no peace with non-believers), but if the non-believers are too strong and can’t be defeated – one can propose a “hudna” for the time being. However, whenever one becomes stronger, it is an obligation to renew the war and to defeat the infidels.”

        The Word Hudna is not mentioned in the Quran, it is actually a modern term which literally means truce.

        As for the Quran and Peace:

        “Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion – [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.”

        https://quran.com/60/8-13?translations=20

        You are Just an ignorant and lazy man who believes everything he reads.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        August 30, 2017, 4:42 am

        Talkback, reply to yours of August 29, 2017, 5:20 am

        I don’t know why you say (Muslim) “Arabs”. The Palestinian nation has always included Jews, Christians and Muslims, and probably other smaller groups which I do not know much about. It is an Arab nation because Arabic is its common language. It existed long before 1925 – Haim Gerber’s book traces the development of a Palestinian national identity “back to the Crusades, and beyond”. Palestine became a nation-state in 1922 under the Mandate, and 1925 I suppose was when it established a citizenship law.

        Over the last 70 years the Jews who migrated to Palestine under the banner of Zionism, and their descendants, have constituted themselves as a nation, and are recognized as a nation state. There are no grounds for saying they are not a nation – see the dictionary definition. Within Israel there is a substantial minority of citizens of Palestinian Arab descent. A recent survey said that about 2/3 of these put their Palestinian identity before their Israeli identity, the other 1/3 put their Israeli identity before their Palestinian identity. They have the right to choose which nation they belong to.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        August 31, 2017, 8:26 am

        Nathan, replying to yours of August 28, 2017, 10:05 pm
        My apologies for taking so long to respond.

        The exchange of letters was necessary for the process to start. Palestine recognized Israel, but Israel did not recognize Palestine. For that reason I say that the subsequent process was invalid. Anyway, the first agreement included a withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Jericho area and Gaza, but Israel did not comply with that.

        “In Israel, the perception of self-determination is that all the Jews are a single people, and the Land of Israel is their homeland.” That is because Israeli Jews are subjected to Zionist hasbara from cradle to grave, as I point out in the article. It is a nonsensical idea. The right of self-determination is not a right to determine that someone else’s homeland is your own homeland and that you can go there and subjugate or expel the existing inhabitants. Anyway, the original homeland of the Jews was Judea, only a fraction of Palestine.

        Currently the Israeli-Jewish nation has a right to self-determination (to rule itself) within the State of Israel. My proposal extends it to the whole of former Palestine, shared with the Palestinians at the sovereign state level. What’s not to like?

        “Anyway, if you envision an end of the Law of Return” I do not, I include it.

        The origin of the conflict is Zionism.

    • Jackdaw
      August 28, 2017, 3:41 pm
      • amigo
        August 28, 2017, 4:02 pm

        Jackduh , your best post to date.

        You say it best , when you say nothing at all.

    • DaBakr
      August 31, 2017, 4:33 am

      @dgf

      you truly don’t understand what ridiculous things you write that make absolutely no sense. these are most definitely two sides of an epic struggle and whenever two sides refuse to back down from their maximalist demands being met , just to start negotiating not even the end, mind you, but just the beginning of the end of the epic struggle (where neither side will back down from maximal demands) and no force, especially the discredited and useless UN, can force either side to give up core principles.)

      US can’lean on’ either side if it chooses but won’t force the issue for assorted reasons. that both sides think us pressure is key just emphasizes the point.
      . This, wether you like it or not is one of those things that will just have to work it’s way out when the time is right, or up, and somebody has to jump. that’s really it in a nutshell. as they say,’everything else is just commentary’.

      Being a dreamer is not always a bad thing but there is dreaming and dreaming. one of them you are overloaded on.

      * When the in-house star comedian here starts to get on your definitely pie-in-the-sky case you better believe there is something desperately wrong with your reasoning.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        September 3, 2017, 8:48 am

        DaBakr: thank you for commenting.

        No, I do not understand that I am writing ridiculous things that make no sense. It would be helpful if you could explain what ridiculous things I have written and why they make no sense.

  10. irishmoses
    August 27, 2017, 10:46 pm

    Mooser: “This Dr. David Fincham…”
    Interesting link. Fincham replies in the first comment to Sigman’s claim that Fincham is an academic fraud which he very effectively rebuts. Sigman then thanks him for “engaging” and says he will get back to him later with a reply. Almost 10 months later, there is no reply yet the scurrilous article remains on Sigman’s blog. Sigman also claims MW is an antisemitic site.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      August 28, 2017, 3:40 am

      Strange coincidence: Sigman has just this minute invited me to ‘connect’ with him on LinkedIn. What’s your advice, should I accept?

      • irishmoses
        August 28, 2017, 10:12 am

        I would engage him only on his original playing field where he wrote the article about you. Make him address his outrageous statements. LinkedIn is just a tool for him to divert the conversation.

        Coincidence? Right.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 28, 2017, 10:45 am

        i would respond to him but not necessarily on linkedin. maybe in the comment section on his blog after his comment saying he would get back to you.

        edit, i just read irishmoses’ response. yep.

    • Mooser
      August 28, 2017, 12:11 pm

      “Interesting link.”

      As you said, “scurrilous”. I hesitated even linking to it.

  11. Bont Eastlake
    August 28, 2017, 4:06 am

    Mr Fincham,

    Your suggestion for a unified state of Israel and Palestine is difficult to process, if we are aware of the historical chain of events leading to the current status quo.

    Palestinians have no obligations to ceade their lands just because Israel is already there. They will be foolish to throw away their rightful ownership of the land of their ancestors and their descendants for vague geopolitical dramatics.

    Were Jews not living peacefully in Palestine for hundreds if not thousands of years before Israel was created? Didnt Palestinian society and legal system accomodated all kind of religion and their adherents within its fold without hatred or discrimination? The problem is therefore never Palestine, so why should it be part of the solution??

    Israel is a malignant criminal element that has infected the land of Palestine with the help of devious Western post-colonial machinations. It has no right to demand anything and only to submit itself to law and justice, and make amends for its past and present behavior.

    Palestine will always be Palestine. Israel will never exist as a legitimate state in this timeline.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      August 29, 2017, 4:41 am

      Bont Eastlake,

      Thank you for commenting. I agree with everything you say except the last sentence. Despite its criminal behavior Israel is a recognized state and a member of the United Nations. There is no way to make it disappear.

      My proposal does not require Palestine to cede any territory to Israel. The Palestinian-Arab and Jewish-Israeli people will have shared sovereignty over the whole of former Palestine as citizens of the United State with full democratic rights for all.

      In my proposal Israel will be forced to accept international law, and will make restitution for the past, for example by removing the structures of the occupation.

      • echinococcus
        August 29, 2017, 8:28 am

        Fincham,

        Despite its criminal behavior Israel is a recognized state and a member of the United Nations. There is no way to make it disappear.

        Nonsense. Any number of “recognized” states, members of different clubs, have disappeared down the drain. If you just had said “I want to protect the invaders and pirates and help create an aura of inevitability about the shitty colonial settlement so that people just avoid questioning it”, it would have been more honest. Your “no way” has been heard a number of times. About Algeria, say.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        August 29, 2017, 10:44 am

        echinococcus in reply to yours of Aug29, 8:28

        I will not repeat the very nasty remark you made about my honesty, but I think it is quite unworthy of you and you ought to apologize.

        How can Israel be made to disappear?

        If Algeria has disappeared, you had better inform Google Maps

      • Mooser
        August 29, 2017, 12:04 pm

        “If Algeria has disappeared, you had better inform Google Maps”

        “Echin”, I checked, and Algeria is still there. It looks like France may have shrunk a little, tho.

      • Bont Eastlake
        August 29, 2017, 9:39 pm

        Structures of occupation is the entirety of the state of Israel, Mr. Fincham, and everything needs to be dismantled and removed from the land of Palestine.

        You are being absolutely delusional in thinking there is a long term prospect for the Israeli state to exist in any form. Its like saying we should allow tapeworms to flourish in our gut, and modify our diet and lifestyle to cope with their presence in our bodies.

        There is no coexisting with malignant parasites, Mr Fincham and no one with a sound mind will allow even an inch of their rightful property taken for free by unknown hostile newcomers let alone huge chunks of their homeland.

      • echinococcus
        August 30, 2017, 2:34 am

        Fincham,

        There is nothing to apologize for. You can’t in any case say that you are defending justice, which is undoubtedly on the side of kicking the invaders out of Palestine. Attempts to mitigate the shock for the invaders at the expense of the invadees are just that, no matter the coating and no matter the excellent intentions, subjectively, of some of their proponents: this is not a personal slur.

        I won’t comment on your “If Algeria has disappeared, you had better inform…”, because that comment would necessarily have been offensive.

        Finally, “How can Israel be made to disappear?” is of course an excellent question, and there is no precise response. We know that a lot of other states and colonial regimes and empires have been made disappear, and in every case there was a surviving invaded population, and the international balance of forces never rests. Study Algeria, that’s an excellent start.

      • echinococcus
        August 30, 2017, 2:37 am

        I’ll be danged. Eastlake making sense for an entire post, no false note.

    • Jackdaw
      August 29, 2017, 3:47 pm

      “Were Jews not living peacefully in Palestine for hundreds if not thousands of years before Israel was created? ”

      Well. No, they did not live peacefully in ‘Palestine’ for hundreds of years.

      “Six years later, while on pilgrimage to Hebron, Baibars promulgated an edict forbidding Christians and Jews from entering the sanctuary”–Micheau, Françoise (2006). “Eastern Christianities (eleventh to fourteenth century): Copts, Melkites, Nestorians and Jacobites”. In Angold, Michael. Eastern Christianity. The Cambridge History of Christianity. 5. Cambridge University Press. pp. 373–403.

      “The Ottoman Turks’ conquest of the city in 1517 was marked by a violent pogrom which included many deaths, rapes, and the plundering of Jewish homes”.– Auerbach, Jerrold(2009) Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel. Rowman & Littlfield, page 40.

      “In the early 18th century, the Jewish community suffered from heavy debts, almost quadrupling from 1717–1729,[114] and were “almost crushed” from the extortion practiced by the Turkish pashas. “–Barnay, Jacob (1992). Goldblum, Naomi, ed. The Jews in Palestine in the Eighteenth Century: Under the Patronage of the Istanbul Committee of Officials for Palestine. University of Alabama Press

      “In 1773 or 1775, a large amount of money was extorted from the Jewish community, who paid up to avert a threatened catastrophe, after a false allegation was made accusing them of having murdered the son of a local sheikh and throwing his body into a cesspit”.– Auerbach, Jerrold (2009) Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel. Rowman & Littlfield, page 45.

      “In 1834, Hebron was sacked by Ibrahim Pasha’s army. Most of the Muslim population managed to flee beforehand to the hills. Many Jews fled to Jerusalem, but during the general pillage of the town at least five were killed”–Schwarz, Yehoseph (1850). Leeser, Isaac, ed. A Descriptive Geography and Brief Historical Sketch of Palestine. A. Hart.

      • Mooser
        August 29, 2017, 6:02 pm

        Hey “Jackdaw” , what’s big, gray all over and always carries a trunk?

      • Annie Robbins
        August 29, 2017, 7:18 pm

        and in the room!

      • Jackdaw
        August 30, 2017, 5:32 am

        ” what’s big, gray all over and always carries a trunk? ”

        Your grandma and grandpa running away from you?

  12. Jon66
    August 28, 2017, 8:53 am

    David,
    Interesting article.
    “In the Oslo process Palestine was negotiating under duress, being under occupation by a highly militarized power. ”
    But isn’t this the case after every war when one party is victorious? Do you have an example where the victor withdraws first and then negotiates the peace treaty?

    • amigo
      August 28, 2017, 10:36 am

      “Do you have an example where the victor withdraws first and then negotiates the peace treaty?”Jon 66

      Do you have an example of where the victor kept on taking the land of those they were “negotiating with” to arrive at a just peace treaty.

      Go back to sleep Jon 66.

      • Mooser
        August 28, 2017, 12:06 pm

        “Do you have an example of where the victor kept on taking the land of those they were “negotiating with” to arrive at a just peace treaty.”

        Of course! Why, just think of Imperial Japan in the 20’s and 30’s in Mainland China or other parts of Asia, or the German National Socialist regime’s actions in Europe.
        I do believe that is exactly what they did at the time.

      • amigo
        August 28, 2017, 12:45 pm

        “I do believe that is exactly what they did at the time.” Mooser.

        My bad , I had more civilised times in mind .IE since we outlawed the “acquisition of territories gained through war “.

        Not that jon 66 ,s honest zionist negotiators give a fiddlers f–t about such mundane encumbrances to their quest for the so called greater Israel.

      • Mooser
        August 28, 2017, 1:09 pm

        “Not that jon 66 ,s honest zionist negotiators give a fiddlers f–t about such mundane encumbrances”

        Hey, if Imperial Japan (about 60 million people, most advanced industrial nation in Asia at the time, and very disciplined and united) and Nazi German (about 90 million people, you know the rest) could do it, why can’t Israel?

      • Jon66
        August 28, 2017, 1:19 pm

        Amigo,
        I guess that’s a ‘no’.

      • Mooser
        August 28, 2017, 3:56 pm

        Well, at least “Jon 66” is willing to admit that Israel conquered the rest of Palestine, and holds it under military occupation until the negotiations are done. Only been 70 years, and oh, how scrupulously Israel has adhered to the legal requirements for a military occupation.

        Including the first and most primary, that they be as short as possible.

      • LHunter
        August 28, 2017, 7:38 pm

        ouch

    • Jackdaw
      August 30, 2017, 5:35 am

      ““In the Oslo process Palestine was negotiating under duress, being under occupation by a highly militarized power. ”

      In 1947, the Zionists negotiated under duress, being under occupation by a highly militarized power.

      • Mooser
        August 30, 2017, 3:55 pm

        “In 1947, the Zionists negotiated under duress, being under occupation by a highly militarized power.”

        You mean Britain?

  13. irishmoses
    August 28, 2017, 10:25 am

    Sure. The US occupations of Japan and Germany. The details of the peace treaties occurred toward the end of the occupations. The conditions of surrender were largely unconditional but the ensuing military occupations were done in good faith with the aim of returning the defeated countries to democratic forms of government, rebuilding their destroyed economies and infrastructure. All this was accomplished in 6 or so years without the US seizing or annexing any of the losers’ land and without any attempt to colonize those countries with US “settlers” transferred to those countries into exclusively US Christian-only settlements.

    Certainly the US held all the power but it used it wisely as the results amply demonstrate.

    • Jon66
      August 28, 2017, 2:03 pm

      Irish,
      But the US negotiated both treaties while occupying the land. The details occurred at the end, because after the treaties were agreed upon and then the occupation ended. The victor always has an advantage in the negotiations. The victor doesn’t leave until the terms are finalized. It’s common sense.
      I agree, the US learned a lesson from WWI that arriving at a generous peace is the best method for preserving the peace. But the US imposed a number of conditions upon both .countries that restricted them in order to safeguard US ‘safety’.

      • irishmoses
        August 28, 2017, 11:17 pm

        Jon66,
        Whenever I engage with you or your ilk on MW, I end up feeling like I just jumped into a pit of pig shit to wrestle with the smiling pig. When I get out of the pit I reek of pig shit and wonder what was I thinking, jumping into the pig’s pit and I look back and see the pig laughing at me, having had a great time in our mutual wallow in his own shit.
        Your vain, immoral attempt to analogize a relatively brief, properly conducted military occupation with your continuing faux occupation and oppression of another people in order to somehow put what you’ve done and what you continue to do in a good light is nothing more than pig shit. I regret I accepted the invitation and gave you a forum to apply lipstick to Israel’s continuing war crimes.

      • Mooser
        August 29, 2017, 2:49 pm

        “Your vain, immoral attempt to analogize a relatively brief, properly conducted military occupation”

        Perhaps “Jon s” is not talking about the American occupation, but instead is taking the Soviet occupation, ‘negotiations’ and treaties in the Soviet-controlled spheres of Eastern European and Eastern Germany after WW2 as a model.

    • rosross
      August 28, 2017, 6:31 pm

      The US and allies, since it was not purely an American venture, always recognised that Germany and Japan were independent States, nations and peoples and their occupation was temporary – sort of.

      Zionist colonists never recognised the Palestinians had a right to exist, or perhaps even existed, and certainly not that they were independent, a nation or a people. And occupation by the European colonial Zionists was always meant to be permanent with the killing or removal of the indigenous Palestinians.

      The situations have no comparison.

      • Jon66
        August 28, 2017, 7:44 pm

        Ross,
        No comparison is perfect. The Allies imposed the governments, took land from Germany and transferred population. They also broke Germany into 2 countries

        The post 1967 occupation does not and did not need to her permanent. I think the best hope is some variation of the Olmert proposal.

      • rosross
        August 28, 2017, 9:26 pm

        The Allies defeated Germany and Japan in war and one argument was, in a bid to avoid the disasters of the Allied victory in WW1 which laid the foundation for WWII, they maintained occupation in a bid to restore both countries to functionally healthy states.

        Yes, land was lost and people transferred and such is the cost of losing a war. What the Allies did not do was send in their people to colonise and deny the Germans or Japanese a right to their country, as Israel does.

        The Allies did not break Germany into two countries, circumstances did. The Russians held one side and the Allies the other and they could not agree so Germany, for too long, was divided.

        Israel always intended to keep what it stole in the 67 War. Israel’s intention, or rather the Zionist intention, has always been to take and keep all of Palestine, and, in time, slabs of Syria and Lebanon. Israel under its religious delusion, has atheist Zionism to work to conquer as much of the neighbouring country as possible, for the fantasy of Eretz Israel.

        Very similar in fact to both German and Japanese delusions, without the religion, which is ironic.

      • Jon66
        August 28, 2017, 10:33 pm

        Ross,
        “What the Allies did not do was send in their people to colonise”
        That’s just incorrect. Germans were expelled and German territory made part of Poland and the Soviet Union.
        But what started all of this is the idea that the loser in a war negotiates a peace treaty while under occupation.
        I still haven’t seen a relevant example where the victor withdraws before terms are agreed upon. The idea that the Palestinians can’t negotiate while under occupation goes against common sense and history.

      • Mooser
        August 28, 2017, 11:18 pm

        . “The Allies imposed the governments, took land from Germany and transferred population. They also broke Germany into 2 countries” “Jon 66”

        Never thought I’d see it, but here it is, a Zionist feeling sorry for Nazi Germany and the terms of its surrender. But then, as conquerors denied their rightful spoils, I guess Zionists can empathize with Nazi Germany.

  14. rosross
    August 28, 2017, 6:29 pm

    No two states are possible without contiguous borders, exactly the same rights for each in terms of controlling air, land and sea borders and functioning as an independent State and East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.

    Israel has always refused such a real state so one state shared equally by indigenous and colonist is the only outcome now possible.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      August 29, 2017, 7:59 am

      Thank you rosross for commenting. I agree with what you say. My article is about a proposal as to how the ‘indigenous’ and the ‘colonist’ could share one state in a manner which protects their individual national lives and identities.

  15. RoHa
    August 28, 2017, 11:30 pm

    “Palestine, the land of the three monotheistic faiths,”

    But there are more than three.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      August 29, 2017, 10:32 am

      Yes there are other monotheistic faiths, but probably not in Palestine. Actually, the Quran recognizes also the Sabians. (Quick look on Wiki) These may have been Jews who remained in Babylon. Today there are some people called Sabians in Iraq, who follow John the Baptist

      In Christian circles we call them the three Abrahamic faiths.

      • RoHa
        August 30, 2017, 1:52 am

        The Baha’i World Centre is in geographic Palestine. That’s monotheistic and Abrahamic.

        The third largest monotheistic religion is Sikhism, but that is not heavily represented in Palestine.

  16. RoHa
    August 28, 2017, 11:30 pm

    “I apologize to the Welsh and Northern Irish for omitting them from the story.”

    They’ll get you for that.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      September 1, 2017, 12:35 pm

      No, I have just moved home to Wales. They are lovely people. The lady at the supermarket checkout always says “hello, my lovely”. I will steer clear of the Northern Irish though.

  17. wdr
    August 29, 2017, 4:27 am

    What is described in this article is what the Palestinians were offered by the UN in 1947- the Palestine Mandate divided into 2 states, Jewish and Arab, with Jerusalem internationalised and an economic union between the two states. Ben-Gurion accepted this; the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hitler’s good buddy, the leader of the Palestinians at the time, rejected it, and got five Arab armies to invade Israel, with dire results for themselves. It is unlikely in the highest degree that this outcome is going to happen today, 70 years later, or any time soon. The Israelis are not going to court suicide by creating a Palestinian state that would probably be ruled by Hamas.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      August 29, 2017, 10:09 am

      Wdr:

      There are similarities and also differences between my proposal and that of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union, as I mention in my conclusions.

      Ben Gurion said he accepted the Plan, but was of course lying: he never had any intention of sticking to the borders of the Plan.

      Israel was not invaded by 5 Arab armies. Only Egyptian and Syrian forces entered Israeli territory. Most of the fighting was outside the borders of Israel. The Israel Air Force bombed Amman, so in the conflict with Jordan Israel was definitely the aggressor.

      The State of Palestine exists. Its territory is occupied by Israel. According to Resolution 242, Israel forces must withdraw from those territories.

      My article is not about creating a Palestinian State. It is about a union of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine to form a united democratic state with equal rights for all. Within that state there will be semi-autonomous Israel-Jewish and Palestinian-Arab nations.

      • wdr
        August 29, 2017, 9:55 pm

        Your plan is not going to happen. Israel is not going to commit suicide. You might devote your energy to achieving something more likely to happen, like turning base metal into gold by waving a magic wand.

      • amigo
        August 30, 2017, 7:31 am

        “Your plan is not going to happen. Israel is not going to commit suicide.”wdr.

        That is an alternate fact.

        Here is the actual fact .

        “Honest patriots, as Netanyahu and his colleagues view themselves, would look the public in the eye and tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That Israel is strong enough to make peace, but they’re not interested. That their policies will inevitably lead to Bantustans, apartheid or a perpetually conflicted binational state. That one day the Palestinian Authority will collapse and be replaced by Hamas, ISIS or Allah knows who. That one day Trump won’t be president and the world will no longer be transfixed by ISIS, but that the bridges to the liberal world, including parts of American Jewry, will remain burned. And that as it has for the past 50 years, the Israeli blood feud over the occupation will continue to divide and polarize Israel, to destroy its democracy and to radicalize its leaders and public opinion.
        read more: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.809625

        Tick , Tick, Tick.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        August 30, 2017, 8:23 am

        wdr: there is nothing in my plan that involves Israeli suicide. In my plan the Israeli-Jewish nation obtains sovereignty over all of Mandatory Palestine, which will be shared with the Palestinian-Arab nation. Neither nation has to surrender any territory, neither has to abandon its national life or identity. What is not to like?

      • Mooser
        August 30, 2017, 11:40 am

        .” In my plan the Israeli-Jewish nation obtains sovereignty over all of Mandatory Palestine, which will be shared with the Palestinian-Arab nation.”
        .
        And the Palestine-Arab nation obtains sovereignty over all of Mandatory Palestine, which will be shared with the Israeli-Jewish nation.
        What’s not to like?

  18. David Gerald Fincham
    August 29, 2017, 9:39 am

    Request to commenters.

    No-one so far has commented on the main substance of the article, which is outlined in the first paragraph: “A solution of two nations united within a single state, along the lines of the UK/Scotland/England relationship, would enable the two peoples to share the land while retaining their national life and identities.”

    Mooser said he would need to read the whole article twice to grasp it. I think he is too pessimistic.

    All the comments so far have been about the preliminary part of the article, ending the occupation. Mondoweiss has a set of intelligent and knowledgeable commenters, and I always learn something from them. Please continue to help me on this one.

    I suggest you start at the subhead “Why One State?” and continue from there to the conclusions. I would greatly appreciate your thoughts.

    • amigo
      August 29, 2017, 10:39 am

      “A solution of two nations united within a single state, along the lines of the UK/Scotland/England relationship, would enable the two peoples to share the land while retaining their national life and identities.”DGF

      Hello David, the UK is falling apart and the SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party has been gaining considerable support for full independence for several years , notwithstanding a small setback in the last UK General Election.The majority of Scottish people voted against Brexit and when this can of worms is finally recognised for the cluster f–k it is , a second referendum will take place and Scotland will cede from the Union and apply for EU membership.

      My point being , that when two people so closely joined in history and to some extent, culture , cannot remain united on the issue of EU membership , then what possible hope do eternal enemies such as Israel , (who have one goal , to create the so called “Greater Israel”and prevent a Palestinian State) and the Palestinians who have learned not to trust Israel under any circumstances, have of creating any form of nationhood together.

      Noam Chomsky , recently suggested that Israel would use Nukes to prevent anything that would end the so called “Jewish State”.

      The only way forward , IMHO , is for the international community to put sufficient pressure on Israel to force it to end the occupation and give the Palestinians their rights, either in a State of their own or in a bi national State as equal citizens.

      Israel has been the problem , is the problem and always will be the problem until the international community backs them up against a wall and forces them to act properly even if they only act in self interest , Israel will continue it,s belligerent colonialist project.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        August 30, 2017, 8:32 am

        Amigo: thank you for commenting. You say

        “The only way forward , IMHO , is for the international community to put sufficient pressure on Israel to force it to end the occupation and give the Palestinians their rights, either in a State of their own or in a bi national State as equal citizens.”

        A bi-national State of equal citizens is exactly what I have proposed. Within that State, the two nations will have autonomy over matters of importance to their national identity. What’s not to like?

        I don’t agree with you about the future of Scotland, but let us not get involved with that.

      • echinococcus
        August 30, 2017, 11:19 am

        What’s not to like?

        The presence of genocidal, conquest-crazy and also extremely powerful invaders on one’s own land, that’s what’s not to like.

        How many cases are there in history of the invaded peoples swallowing that and stopping to seek justice, just because some stuffed shirts signed some papers –short of a successful genocide? The Zionists are not that stupid: they are implementing the “iron wall” while pursuing the American model of genocide.

      • Donald Johnson
        August 31, 2017, 8:43 am

        “A bi-national State of equal citizens is exactly what I have proposed. Within that State, the two nations will have autonomy over matters of importance to their national identity. What’s not to like?”

        I agree with the goal of equal rights for everyone. Whether the binational state idea is the right one I couldn’t say. The big problem is getting to whatever version of the final goal Palestinians want. In South Africa there was tremendous outside pressure and there wasn’t this notion that a multiethnic state was equivalent to South Africa’s destruction. Or rather, there was, but it wasn’t so widespread among liberals. Until the world sees equal rights as the desired goal we won’t have the sort of pressure that would be needed.

    • Jon66
      August 29, 2017, 11:03 am

      David,
      I appreciate your efforts, but I think your proposal is swimming against the trends in modern history. The history of the 20th century is the breakup of empires and the development of smaller and more homogenous states. India couldn’t live with Pakistan. Sudan and South Sudan. Yugoslavia. Etc.
      it is an irony that as the world becomes increasingly connected we have been fragmenting into smaller governing units. Scotland and England are growing apart. I don’t see a modern example of people’s with such differing cultures forming a common polity.

      • Mooser
        August 29, 2017, 11:46 am

        ” The history of the 20th century is the breakup of empires and the development of smaller and more homogenous states”

        And this is a game the Jews always win. Always have, and always will. Let’s play it some more!

        And Israel is ready to take on the world with no superpower backing, too.

      • Mooser
        August 29, 2017, 12:13 pm

        .” I don’t see a modern example of people’s with such differing cultures forming a common polity.”

        Oh well, so much for the “special relationship”.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 29, 2017, 1:01 pm

        The history of the 20th century is the breakup of empires….I don’t see a modern example of people’s with such differing cultures forming a common polity.

        someone should inform wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony#20th_century

        Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 the United States was the world’s sole hegemonic power[30]

      • Jon66
        August 29, 2017, 4:44 pm

        Annie,
        The US did not form a common country with any other states. The Soviet Union broke apart and formed smaller more homogenous states. That is the trend. Not the Union of two disparate peoples.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        August 30, 2017, 8:53 am

        Jon66: a pity you did not say swimming against the tide, then I could have said “the tide will turn”. Trends in history are not laws of nature. They can change.

        Israel-Palestine differs from the examples you give: they cannot separate because they both claim the same territory. See what I say in the section WhyOneState? Partition could never could have worked and never will work.

      • Jon66
        August 30, 2017, 9:39 am

        David,
        “they cannot separate because they both claim the same territory. ”
        So do India and Pakistan. It’s two countries with a border dispute. Many countries have border disputes. Perhaps not this Israeli govt, but there have been others and will be in the future who do not claim all of the West Bank. If there are Palestinians who do not want all as well, then it is a border dispute.

    • Mooser
      August 29, 2017, 11:23 am

      “Mooser said he would need to read the whole article twice to grasp it. I think he is too pessimistic.”

      Dr. Fincham, your unfailing politeness, and kindness is a positive addition to the comment section. But you o’erpraise my abilities.
      I’m on my third go-round and I still can’t make head or tail of the thing.

    • zaid
      August 29, 2017, 3:57 pm

      David

      I am a Palestinian and i assure you that the conflict will be over only when the Palestinian people says it is over.Forget about what Abbas, Arafat, Mashaal or Erikat says.

      Any deal/proposal that doesnot have the stamp of the Palestinian people will be flushed down the toilet.

      And since your plan seems to give us Palestinian refugees the middle finger, then i am sorry to tell that you are wasting your time.

      I give you credit for the effort though.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        August 30, 2017, 10:10 am

        Hello Zaid, thank you for commenting.

        The conflict will be over when both peoples agree that it is over.

        I say that the refugees should be able to make their own choice about their future, and helped to achieve it. How is that giving them the middle finger? I am really distressed you should make such a remark. Please explain what you mean?

      • zaid
        August 30, 2017, 3:15 pm

        David

        “Jewish and Palestinian people living outside the United State would have a right to migrate into Israel and Palestine respectively.”

        Maybe i misunderstood you , but the impression i had is that you think that Palestinian refugees should be absorbed in the stat of the west bank and not their original cities and towns.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        August 31, 2017, 2:38 am

        Zaid:

        “I misunderstood you , but the impression i had is that you think that Palestinian refugees should be absorbed in the stat of the west bank and not their original cities and towns.”

        There is no such thing as the West Bank in my scheme. There are two nations, Israel (mainly Jewish) and Palestine (mainly Arab) with an open border between them. The line of that border is yet to be determined. Palestinian refugees will be admitted first to Palestine and establish their citizenship in the United State. If they then want to move to their original towns, and those towns are in Israel, they can do so, providing they do it as individual families, not as an organized nationalistic group.

      • DaBakr
        August 31, 2017, 5:42 am

        @z

        I assure you that while you hold to your conviction that nothing will end until palestinians say it is ended the same holds true for my people. when it’s over, we will know and until that time we continue to build.

        this is one of the reasons the author is having such a difficult time grasping why his imagined ‘fair’s solution is a fantasy in his mind. the concept of “fair” when discussing this conflict is at polar opposites. never have the sides been so far apart.

      • Mooser
        August 31, 2017, 5:58 pm

        .” never have the sides been so far apart.”

        Is there some intrinsic and impassable barrier separating the sides that perhaps Dr. Fincham does not see? Can you tell us what it is “DaBakr”? So we can understand it, or at least see it.

    • DaBakr
      August 31, 2017, 5:04 am

      “Hello David. The UK is falling apart and the NCP……”

      agree.

      “The only way forward,imho….” is never going to work which means your dreaming, hoping, crossing your fingers, analyzing the facts you find important, putting pieces together the way they make sense to you (and the many others who agree with you). you may see zionists as monsters which is your right to free thought but you probably know inside that zionists think the exact same scenario except it applies to them. it will solve itself when the time and people are willing to back up what they preach, one way or the other.

      the only people I know who understand the cynicism that we have are are our palestinian neighbors

  19. JeffB
    August 29, 2017, 10:51 am

    David you seem to be genuinely interested in comment. I do think your proposal is very 1920s in the dual homeland approach. The dual homeland approach didn’t work then because the residents hate each other and don’t want to live together. The British were unable to create peace between them, and decided finally given their antagonism partition was the best approach. I’m not sure what mechanism you propose to change that reality that the resident groups still hate each other.

    I do like your analogy of England and Scotland though I do think you are skipping the history from the 6th century through the 14th where they fought a long series of wars, which laid the groundwork for the integration. Scotland was repeatedly defeated by England, their acceptance of that is what made the peace possible. Moreover, now that England does not have the will to use force that union appears to be fraying and may dissolve under very little pressure shortly. Are you entirely sure by 2030 there will be a United Kingdom and not a country of England and Wales and another country of Scotland?

    Now on to specifics. The national mission of Israel is the restoration of the Jewish people to their historic homeland, Kibbutz Galuyot. There is no chance Jews would ever grant the Palestinians control over Jewish immigration to Israel. The Yishuv in 1921 was willing to make all sorts of bargains from a position of weakness. They didn’t mean it. That doesn’t mean Israel in 2021 is going to be willing to make the same bargains from a position of strength. This would also be enormously unpopular in the diaspora.

    The second is your military approach “The only threat to the security of Israel arises from its occupation of Palestinian territory. The only threat to the security of Palestine comes from Israel ”. I don’t see any reason to believe this is true. Israel had quite a few wars prior to their occupation and their regular trouble with Lebanon has little to do with the occupation. Israel/the United State is going to have regular military conflicts with various powers that arise. Moreover, the idea of going back to being a defenseless people is going to be entirely unacceptable to the Jewish-Israelis.

    The third is your population redistribution. Jews have the right to live where they are in Palestinian territory provided their neighbors agree to let them stay. Palestinians have an intrinsic right to live wherever they want. Both where they currently are and through refugee resettlement. The Israelis would be unlikely to accept this inherent inequality. Possible but a big ask.

    Mostly though as I read this. Your proposed solution has massive negatives for the Israelis and nothing positive for them. It is usually easy to construct a bargain where one side simply loses. I’m hard pressed to see why Israelis would want the peace you describe. Your peace is considerably more negative for them than the current situation.

    As for the UN and Article 7… The UN can pass a dozen article 7 resolutions. There is not currently a world power capable of displacing Israel that is willing to go to war against a top 20 military for the Palestinians. The disposition of the West Bank is simply not a vital national interest for the USA, Russia, China (and it unclear that China can move enough force) or Europe/NATO. That’s not to say those countries wouldn’t prefer Israel not colonize the West Bank, but they aren’t willing to go to war to stop it. The UN caps fairly early on what they can in a situation where none of the major players are willing to use force.

    Strong sanctions require putting ships and troops near IDF territory and that’s not something anyone is willing to do to achieve peace because they aren’t willing to go to war and those sorts of deployments frequently lead to wars.

    So that means at best moderate sanctions maybe could happen. They would be difficult to enforce, and undermined heavily internally in the west. Israel since its birth has faced quite nasty sanctions problems, they are adapted to it. That’s pretty much it for what the UN can do. The Israelis know all this, the UN proposes article 7 the bluff gets called.

    • Mooser
      August 29, 2017, 11:25 am

      Okay, now I am going to study Dr. Fincham’s plan assiduously. It has the power to induce resurrections!

    • Talkback
      August 30, 2017, 4:58 am

      JeffB: “The dual homeland approach didn’t work then because the residents hate each other and don’t want to live together.”

      They used to babysit each others’s children until the Zionist arrived to take over Palestine.

      • DaBakr
        August 31, 2017, 5:37 am

        @tb

        what a bunch of horsesht. there are still palestinian arabs that have close relationship with israeli jews and vice versa. but suggesting that was the norm is completely absurd. only privileged jews I the US and UK engaged I lively arguments about wether zionism was bad or good for diaspora jews. the vast majority of worlds jews have always supported a return to the homeland ahs therefore loved (ahs still do)the zionist cause.

        zionists simply built a structure through which otherwise, the ultra orthodox would never have been able to organize because, as we know today, the ultra orthodox can’t stand the rest of the jews that don’t practise in the orthodox(which of course, they say, is the only true way to be a jew) we love them and tolerate them because they will always be our people too.

        And why would Israel agree to anything so self mutilating as what the author proposed without anything of value in return is the exact right angle to be approaching peace negotiations. It may well occur, in the near or most likely very far distant future that Israel will not be able to negotiate from a position of victory or power but until that time starts to come near, again, why would Israel consent to any of the terms when there is no guarantee that after this truce that Hamas, or any other radical and or martyr based entity will take control of the Judean hills.
        It’s just not going to happen except in the fantasies and dreams of the righteous zionist haters here. keep dreaming while we keep on keeping on. you keep on hating us? we know. we’re always knew.

      • Talkback
        August 31, 2017, 12:31 pm

        DaBakr: “@tb

        “what a bunch of horsesht.”

        I prefer the term “Zionists”. That’s even more insulting.

        DaBakr: “there are still palestinian arabs that have close relationship with israeli jews and vice versa. but suggesting that was the norm is completely absurd.”

        Yup, everything went bad when the bunch of Zionists arrived to take over Palestine.

      • Mooser
        August 31, 2017, 5:46 pm

        “the ultra orthodox can’t stand the rest of the jews that don’t practise in the orthodox(which of course, they say, is the only true way to be a jew) we love them and tolerate them because they will always be our people too.”

        Stockholm Syndrome. You can pretend the Modern Orthodox don’t run the place if it makes you feel better.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      August 30, 2017, 11:30 am

      Hello JeffB, thank you for commenting.

      You say “the residents hate each other and don’t want to live together.” I don’t believe there was or is personal hatred between Jews and Arabs. People tell me that Jews and Arabs have very good relationships in Haifa. There are Arab-Jewish schools in Israel, an Arab-Jewish orchestra, Arab-Jewish businesses, there is an Arab-Jewish political party, there are interfaith groups. The two peoples are not fated to continual conflict.

      What the Arabs of Palestine hated was not the presence of Jews, but the Zionist program of mass immigration of alien Jews from far away who were coming to take over their homeland. The Zionists did not hate the Arabs, they saw them as a problem, an obstacle to their plans, to be subjugated or expelled.

      Yes, today there is a great deal of hostility between Arabs and Jews in the occupied territories, resulting from the occupation. The mechanism to change that reality is truth, reconciliation and restitution.

      I did not say that Palestinians would have control over Jewish immigration. I said that immigration should be limited to the rate at which the immigrants can be absorbed. This is a common sense policy almost universally applied, except in the European Union (which is the reason for Brexit).

      Israeli forces initially entered Lebanon to counter Palestinian terrrorism. I don’t know what the other wars were about – surely not just the Shebba Farms? Why on earth is the United State of Israel and Palestine (Usip) “going to have regular military conflicts”. With what motive? Anyway, I did not say Usip would be defenceless, just that its present military strength could be wound down.

      “Jews have the right to live where they are in Palestinian territory provided their neighbors agree to let them stay.” This applies only to the Jews currently illegally settled in the West Bank, and I give my reasons for that. Any Usipian has the right to live in any part of Usip, subject to a few provisos which I describe.

      “Your peace is considerably more negative for them (Israelis) than the current situation.” How do you come to that conclusion? What is the value for Israelis of running a brutal military occupation and illegal colonisation project that is making them despised by the whole world, when my proposal allows any Jew in the world to settle anywhere within former Palestine, subject only to certain reasonable provisos.

      Please remember that these are just my ideas of how the one-state-two-nation idea might work out. It is of course up to the two peoples to agree on the details.

      • JeffB
        August 30, 2017, 2:25 pm

        @David

        You say “the residents hate each other and don’t want to live together.” I don’t believe there was or is personal hatred between Jews and Arabs. People tell me that Jews and Arabs have very good relationships in Haifa. There are Arab-Jewish schools in Israel, an Arab-Jewish orchestra, Arab-Jewish businesses, there is an Arab-Jewish political party, there are interfaith groups. The two peoples are not fated to continual conflict.

        They aren’t fated to continual conflict either. And certainly there are still some very good points. The Israeli Arabs are integrating into Israeli society economically in this generation.
        This is happening even as politically they are becoming more alienated. Among the West Bank was peaceful and cooperative in the 1970s. There have been other bright points. But a solution needs to address the issue there are centuries of rather poor relationships. And no the problem did not start with Zionism, though that helped. The violence in the 1920 was directed mostly at non-Zionist Jews, it pushed them into the arms of the Zionists (the Yishuv) and made them Zionist. Long before Zionism there were massacres, oppression, discrimination. It was a bad relationship before.

        What the Arabs of Palestine hated was not the presence of Jews, but the Zionist program of mass immigration of alien Jews from far away who were coming to take over their homeland. The Zionists did not hate the Arabs, they saw them as a problem, an obstacle to their plans, to be subjugated or expelled.

        if you are talking about the early tension, I think more accurately they saw them as proletariats who would welcome liberation from the Turkish masters and join in the communist paradise that Israel was to become. The Palestinians didn’t share that dream of Communist liberation and by the later 1920s classical colonialism was in effect. But again its important to realize the rejectionism came before the violence. The violence is not the cause of the rejectionism the order of events doesn’t permit that view.

        I did not say that Palestinians would have control over Jewish immigration. I said that immigration should be limited to the rate at which the immigrants can be absorbed.

        By whom? Who is setting the limits?

        This applies only to the Jews currently illegally settled in the West Bank

        See what you are doing there with “illegal”? That’s the problem. Jewish residency is illegal settlement while Palestinian residency is a right. Jews aren’t going to accept that distinction. You might agree with it, that doesn’t change its inherent inequality. You start with the premise that Palestinians have a right to all of Palestine while Jews have a revocable privilege to Palestine and you have setup an inequality that’s not going to be acceptable.. Your “any Usipian has the right to live in any part of Usip” is a workable doctrine. Once you add, ” subject to a few provisos” that’s going to kill the deal.

        How do you come to that conclusion? What is the value for Israelis of running a brutal military occupation and illegal colonisation project that is making them despised by the whole world

        I don’t think they are particular despised by the whole world. Israel has been slowly increasing its diplomatic status, and in the last few years is rather openly involved in an Arab military alliance, for the first time in its history as a key player in the anti-Iranian axis with Saudi Arabia and Egypt. On the military front two of Israel’s long term enemies Iraq and Syria are neutered likely for a generation. Israel runs about 30% of exports as net GDP. Quite a few countries are enhancing trade relationships. Far more accurate is Israel’s occupation / colonization project is globally opposed and it presents some diplomatic difficulties which are annoying for Israel.

        The situation in Israel is not desperate for Israelis. It is annoying. If the situation were desperate they could take Abbas’ offers.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        August 30, 2017, 5:10 pm

        JeffB:

        “I don’t think they are particular despised by the whole world..”

        Oh yes, JeffB, the Zionist Project with it’s violence, oppression and constant humiliation towards the Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank, makes us who have seen both sides of the “Israelian truth” not only to despise the Israelis, but to get really disgusted by their behavior and we will not be silent about what we have seen there. Just some months ago in Finland there was published a book called “Israelin Apartheid” (the Israelian Apartheid) describing very clearly how the Israelian system works. The aim of that book of course is to encourage people to boycott Israel in every way untill the situation in West Bank and Gaza is solved and the Palestinians are able to live free with out the settlers, the Government of Israel or the IDF making their everyday life unbearable.

        And if now you are thinking: “Finland, what is that, a small country, who cares”, I can “comfort” you, that there are people like me in all of the Nordic countries and elsewhere around the Europe too, and each time we see someone advertizing or “praising” Israel about something, we will be there loudly reminding of what really is happening behind the sunny “polished” picture of Israel.

        And there is also one thing more I’d like to tell you: The younger generations, grown up in these countries where equality and human rights are important values, for them(us) the money ain’t everything.. And they(we) can not be bought or bribed to act against their(our) values..

        So do not underestimate our power, even if we do not believe in violence: We will stand above it, boycott it and look down despising the supporters like you with pure disgust on our faces.

        Oh, and one more thing to add: I also often read here the oppinions about how China won’t care about the human right issues and how China is such a good business partner for Israel.. I would not count on their younger generations either.. They are educated people who travel a lot in Europe and are very aware of things.. Tick tick.. The time of Israel as an oppressive nation might soon come to it’s end..

      • David Gerald Fincham
        August 31, 2017, 2:16 am

        JeffB “immigration should be limited to the rate at which the immigrants can be absorbed.”

        “By whom? Who is setting the limits?” The department of the State government that deals with matters of citizenship and immigration.

        “Jewish residency is illegal settlement while Palestinian residency is a right.” Currently, under the fourth Geneva convention, the program of the Israeli government to establish settlements of its citizens in occupied territories is illegal. That has nothing to do with their Jewishness, but as a matter of fact they are all Jews. They are therefore in a different category to those Jews who currently reside in the area of Israel’s recognized control within the 1949 Green Line.

        “Once you add, ” subject to a few provisos” that’s going to kill the deal.” I think those provisos are reasonable and in fact necessary. What is your objection to them?

      • DaBakr
        August 31, 2017, 5:57 am

        @kof

        You are living in a bubble created by the far left in EU that is crumbling more every day. You are too blinded by you one sided thinking to see what is going on in the world as a whole.
        Does Israel face a lot of public hostility in the Nordic nations? Of course it does and it isn’t as if we are not aware. this is the exact reason we have been expanding our ties with nations that are not hard wired to the Muslim/christian concept of jews and a Jewish Nation.
        But,i will admit, the issue you raise is definitely part of what will determine how long this unsolved conflict will last. when Islam becomes your state religion we can address what you think the coming’young’ generation will do about their stake in this conflict.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        August 31, 2017, 9:41 am

        DaBakr:

        The “Green Lefts” are doing very well thank you, in the Nordic countries, but also in f.ex. Netherlands. The BDS movement seems to be strong in Spain and the forgein minister of Germany* just earlier in the spring visited Israel and met with the members of Breaking the Silence against “Netanyahu’s wishes”.. So you are sayin that there are not things happening there?? Things might happen slowly, but I would not be so pessimistic..

        * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/25/israel-snubs-german-foreign-minister-in-row-over-human-rights-talks

  20. Talkback
    August 30, 2017, 5:52 am

    “Fincham “I don’t know why you say (Muslim) “Arabs”.”

    My mistake. You were refering to the “Palestinian-ARAB nation” allthough the nation is called “Palestinian”.

    Fincham: “The Palestinian nation has always included Jews, Christians and Muslims, and probably other smaller groups which I do not know much about. It is an Arab nation because Arabic is its common language. It existed long before 1925 – Haim Gerber’s book traces the development of a Palestinian national identity “back to the Crusades, and beyond”. Palestine became a nation-state in 1922 under the Mandate, and 1925 I suppose was when it established a citizenship law.”

    The Palestinan “Identity” is legally irrelevant. The citizenship law of 1925 is the only legal approach to determine who had the right to self determination in Palestine in 1948. Many if not most of the Jews (refugees and illegal immigrants) who had not been naturalized did not have this right. Only the Jewish citizens of Palestine through participation in majority ruling. Cause the term “Jewish” does not refer to people living in a specific territory who have the right to see this territory gain independence and then transfer a nationality called “Jewish” to every habitually resident of the newly created state. Jewish self determination is a bogus concept when interpreted as a right to create a state or to gain independence.

    Fincham: “Over the last 70 years the Jews who migrated to Palestine under the banner of Zionism, and their descendants, have constituted themselves as a nation, and are recognized as a nation state. There are no grounds for saying they are not a nation – see the dictionary definition. ”

    “Jewish” is not a nationality/citizenship like US American, French or Palestinian. Jews are not a constitutive people. One cannot become Jewish by acquiring a citizenship. Your prefered definition of a nation is restricted to being a subgroup (‘nation’/’nationality’) WITHIN citizenship and is actually based on racism not citizenship. That’s why Jews in Israel have to apply a Nazi variation of the bogus and discriminating differentiation between “nationals” and “citizens”.

    Fincham: “Within Israel there is a substantial minority of citizens of Palestinian Arab descent. A recent survey said that about 2/3 of these put their Palestinian identity before their Israeli identity, the other 1/3 put their Israeli identity before their Palestinian identity. They have the right to choose which nation they belong to.”

    Again, your prefered definition of “nation” is misleading as is you focus on “identity”. This time you use the terms “Israeli” and “Palestinian” as if both were not citizenships but only identities or ‘nations’ (your prefered definition).

    • David Gerald Fincham
      August 30, 2017, 2:11 pm

      You are confusing two different concepts.

      Scotland and England are nations. Britain is a nation-state. Britain has citizens. Scotland and England have residents. For Scotland and England read Israeli-Jewish nation and Palestinian -Arab nation. For Britain read the United State of Israel and Palestine (USIP).

      On Union Day, when USIP becomes a nation-state, and Israel and Palestine cease to be nation-states, all the citizens of Israel and all the citizens of Palestine become citizens of USIP. They remain residents of the nation in which they reside. (This may differ from their current area of residence if the new boundaries are established before the Union).

      Whatever citizenship people had in 1925, or at any time before or since, before Union Day, is completely irrelevant.

      • Talkback
        August 31, 2017, 12:43 pm

        David: “You are confusing two different concepts.”

        Not at all. Definition of “nation”:

        “1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: […]

        4. an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.”
        http://www.dictionary.com/browse/nation

        You are prefering definition 4 over 1. You are talking about “nationa” WITHIN citizenship. I’m talking about nation AS citizenship. Jews consider themselves to be the former. Palestinians are the latter since 1925. Jews are not a constitutive people like “Palestinians”. Therefore a Jewish state is a racist state, because nobody can become “Jewish” by acquiring its citizenship.

        David: “Whatever citizenship people had in 1925, or at any time before or since, before Union Day, is completely irrelevant.”

        Not at all. Only the citizens of Palestine had the right to self determination in Palestine by majority ruling. The Zionist state with its Jewish majority (most of them not former citizens of Palestine) was imposed onto them through war and expulsion.

  21. JeffB
    August 30, 2017, 9:24 pm

    @Kaisa of Finland

    Oh yes, JeffB, the Zionist Project with it’s violence, oppression and constant humiliation towards the Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank, makes us who have seen both sides of the “Israelian truth” not only to despise the Israelis, but to get really disgusted by their behavior

    I have no doubt there are Fins who hate the Israelis. I never said there weren’t people all over the world who hates Israelis. Now just to refute the claim, let’s look at Finland. 2015 Israel opened a new consulate there. Here is the press release, “Israelin ulkoministeri Avigdor Lieberman on nimittänyt yrittäjä Karl Fredrik Ekholmin Israelin kunniakonsuliksi Vaasaan toimipiirinään Keski-Suomen, Keski-Pohjanmaan, Etelä-Pohjanmaan, Pohjanmaan, Pirkanmaan, Satakunnan ja Varsinais-Suomen maakunnat. Vaasassa 15. syyskuuta virallisesti avattava Israelin kunniakonsulaatti on ensimmäinen Suomessa. Israelin suurlähettiläs Dan Ashbel luovutti nimityskirjan kunniakonsuli Ekholmille virallisessa juhlatilaisuudessa Vaasassa lauantaina 13. syyskuuta. ” In 2014 Finland integrated their arms business with Israeli partners. And this year Alon Gold was appointed by Finland, you are paying his salary. His mission:
    — Analyzing and probing for business opportunities in Israel for Finnish industry and entrepreneurial community as well as investment opportunities in Finland for Israeli investors;
    – Identifying and developing key areas of cooperation between Finland and Israel concerning trade, innovation policy and scientific affairs;
    – Planning and executing activities promoting trade and cooperation while leading a supportive network of contacts within the Israeli business sector and relevant public institutions and organizations;

    In 2016 Foreign Minister Soini violated the EU’s position on not holding official meetings in Jerusalem and met with Netanyahu in an official capacity there. In fact the only blow up I could find was a 2015 situation where the JNF wasn’t allowed to participate in the event and the foreign ministry indicated they couldn’t do anything while the Israelis argued they could.

    That ain’t exactly two countries on the verge on war. That’s a friendly healthy growing relationship. Despite disagreeing the disposition of the West Bank. So no, the evidence just ain’t confirming what you claim about Finns despising Israelis.

    • Kaisa of Finland
      August 30, 2017, 9:57 pm

      Jeff:

      I have officially criticized Soini’s vist with Netanyahu here in Finland, but he has his own religious reasons for it and is mixing it with his politics, which actually is not appropriate here. Yes, part of the generation born around 40’s and 50’s are still brainwashed by Zionists, but I was talking about the future generations, us born around 70’s and after that.. I can assure you that when those “old guys” retire, things will change. And I do not hate all of the Israelis, I lived several years with Israelian Jews whom I still care about, but I can’t respect them for allowing all that s*it happening in WB and Gaza.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        August 30, 2017, 10:06 pm

        And thanks, you motivated me to continue my work here, beeing even louder I have been so far!

      • Kaisa of Finland
        August 31, 2017, 9:25 am

        Jeff:

        “That ain’t exactly two countries on the verge on war..”

        I have to add, that I did not understand this comment at all.. I don’t see any reason why Finland would “go to war” about this matter?? (We are not a barbaric country which rushes into a war, if there are problems to be solved..)

        We have an embassy in Tel Aviv and a consulate in Ramallah. We are supporting Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank through our “develomental aid” money f.ex. by educational projects and so on. And there have been Finnish UN Peacekeepers in the area (mostly Golan) since 1967, so we are aware of what is going on there too.

        And among the younger generations in the politics the “Green Lefts” are doing all the time better, eviromental and human right issues being more important than the extreme profit.

        And the opposition to that, the racist nationalists, how much do you think they care about a Jewish State?? As much as any state outside their own.. Zero..

        I’ll be interested in seeing what the future will bring.

      • JeffB
        August 31, 2017, 10:04 am

        @Kairsa

        And I do not hate all of the Israelis, I lived several years with Israelian Jews whom I still care about

        That was the original claim that Israelis were despised. That’s what you were trying to defend. The argument was that Finns because of the occupation hate and despise Israelis. I certainly agree that overwhelming Europeans don’t approve of Israel’s disposition and creeping annexation of the West Bank. But the claim was that this disagreement was going to lead to untenable situation.

        I can assure you that when those “old guys” retire, things will change.

        I doubt that. I think fundamentally Nordic have pretty strong tribal identities as well. Finns understand that the State of Finland exists to advance the common interest of the Finns. I don’t think they would welcome the universalist ethos that is part of the global left in their own country and that’s going to undermine heavily a movement to force it on Israelis. Certainly I don’t see much chance of the next generation wanting to join in a war to free Palestine. A generation from now home many Finns will the Finnish government be willing to see die to free Palestine. 50k, 100k? Your history is nothing like Afghanistan’s with a willingness to fight unending wars for causes you believe in.

        So let’s talk sanctions. I don’t see any evidence that younger Finns want to move away from Finland’s long standing policies of encouraging liberal economic investment while maintaining wage and pension stabilization. I don’t see how given the structure of Finland’s economy it would be able to impose effective sanctions or meaningfully boycott Israel even if a generation came about that was more enthusiastic for the idea.

        Militarily Finland has the same universal conscription with large reserves structure as Israel and thus their defense needs are both deep and rare. That is going to create a natural affinity.
        Could Finland become more like Sweden with an openly hostile foreign policy? Sure. But go much beyond Sweden, I doubt it.

        So if we are going to do predictions. My 50 year prediction is that the friendship remains in place. The deep betrayal of European values that the left Israel represents doesn’t exist. 50 years from now it is just accepted that Israel isn’t a European country at all. But rather along with Turkey and Lebanon represents the 1/2 way zone between the Arab world and the European. I don’t know which of those 3 countries Finland has the closest relationship with, but I’m fairly sure it does not seek enmity with any of them while disapproving of some aspects of all of them. In that future the Finnish embassy in Jerusalem has a map of Israel including consulates in the West Bank. And moreover this isn’t controversial anymore. Israel has been the governing power of the West Bank for a century and while Finland objected when Israel annexed it decades before no one was really shocked that the inevitable finally happened.

      • JeffB
        August 31, 2017, 10:49 am

        @Kairsa
        (moving up a level)

        I have to add, that I did not understand this comment at all.. I don’t see any reason why Finland would “go to war” about this matter?? (We are not a barbaric country which rushes into a war, if there are problems to be solved..)

        I agree. Again remember here the context was despise, which is a very strong word in English. Negotiate a peaceful resolution of disagreements is not something one does with a country they despise. That being said, to use your colorful language… The Americans, the Russians, the Israelis, the Indians, the Iranians, the Vietnamese … are barbarians. You get to live in a world of negotiation and law because they border the world of force. At the end of the day what distinguishes a state from a corporation is the monopoly on the use of force. Violence is the fountain that provides substance to law, justice and civilization. 1000 years ago Finland stood on that border imposing law within its territory and chaos outside its territory. My hope for Israel is 500 years from now Israelis can also forget their own history. But today they cannot.

        The disposition of the West Bank s a matter of vital national interest for Israel. I can’t even come up with something in today’s world that is this important for Finland. While you may not want to go to war to decide the disposition of the West Bank the Israelis will if they have to. If the Israelis lose a million men getting a resolution they find acceptable, they would rather avoid the losses but they will accept them. Which is why in the end the Green Left can’t win regardless of their opinion on what’s best. You simply are not going to come to the table with the kind of force necessary to displace what is then likely a fifth of the Israeli population. Which is not to say you won’t have any voice, but you won’t have much.

        And there have been Finnish UN Peacekeepers in the area (mostly Golan) since 1967, so we are aware of what is going on there too.

        I met them when I was there. Though I mostly chatted with the Swedes who had been forced out of their positions in Syria and over to the Israeli side where they conducted their observations as well as they could. Somehow the UN resolution authorizing their presence didn’t seem to work all that well with Al-Nusra.

        And the opposition to that, the racist nationalists, how much do you think they care about a Jewish State?? As much as any state outside their own.. Zero..

        Good. That’s all Israel has ever asked for. To just be another state. Let the Finns worry about Finland the Israelis worry about Israel. You worry about Karjala-kysymys and the Israelis will worry about the West Bank. Let the friendship and peace be on the basis of mutual shared interests.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        August 31, 2017, 11:31 am

        Jeff:

        For me to hate and despise are too different things. I do despise even my Israelian friends for them silently accepting what is going on in West Bank and Gaza. As for them being Mizrahims, their thoughts about Palestinians were not close to those I see the white American Zionists writing on these pages.

        About war, I already answered to you. We do not solve problems with violence, but sending Peacekeepers to defend the rights of the Palestinians would easily be possible. We have a long tradition with the Peacekeepers in f.ex. Golan* and Afghanistan.

        * For some reason the IDF doesn’t like them either..

        And about your comment:

        “So let’s talk sanctions. I don’t see any evidence that younger Finns want to move away from Finland’s long standing policies of encouraging liberal economic investment while maintaining wage and pension stabilization..”

        I see no reason why Finland could not boycott Israel 100% in the future. Economically Israel is not at all important to us, and while Russia has been one of our most important business partners for the past decades, Finland did not hesitate to join the EU sanctions towards Russia after Russia annexed Crimea. And if something, that really strongly affected us economically.

        Finland has no special relationship with Israel, if not counted some religious minorities like our Pentecostals, who’s support is around 1-2% of our population. So I would not count on their political power in the future.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        August 31, 2017, 11:42 am

        Jeff:

        Karjala-kysymys?? What a joke?? Back to the 70’s or what??

      • Kaisa of Finland
        August 31, 2017, 11:48 am

        Jeff:

        You seem to forget that you were the invaders and the more violent and oppressive you get, the less you’ll have friends left.

  22. Danaa
    August 31, 2017, 3:49 am

    David, I am not as opposed to the ideas you advocate because the concept of One State Two Nations has been on the table for a long while (in one form or another), and there were a few wover the years who also felt this could, in principle (if not on every detail) represent an acceptable solution. Personally I like the model of England and Scotland even though many Scots are lately agitating for parting ways (as are the Venetians and the Catalans, but we’ll chuck that to the vagaries of that malformed EU creature ). But having said that, I will take you to task for one tacit assumption underlying your entire premise, namely that Israel, as it is now is a rational entity. One that can be negotiated with. One that understands concepts of enlightened self-interest. One that cares about the institutes of civilization and international law. One that cares for humans outside its own narrow definition of “preferred humans”. Or, for that matter, one that cares about the opinions and feelings of the world outside its borders.

    Unfortunately, that’s not the case. You are far more likely to get rational debate with Palestinians than with Israelis. The palestinians may well disgree fiercely with one or another of your propositions (some more emotionally than others) but the israelis , for the most part, will go balistic at any suggestion of any kind of compromise or granting of equal rights to Palestinians within their union, however that union is defined. If you were dealing with sane people then conversations about what, where and how can be had. I had many of those myself over the years, including with select israelis. Who then turned out to be in such a dire minority that whatever agreements or disagreements we might have had meant as much as a Fata Morgana in the midst of shifting sand dunes.

    The reality is that israelis want the west bank – or most of it. And they want it minus the palestinians, or with minimal number of them. They not only want it but many believe that eventually they can have it and get the world to accept it as a fait accompli. They are working hard towards accomplishing that goal, using Gaza as a preferred model. And the people who turned Gaza into a horrific ghetto and are basically trying to figure out how to disgorge its inhabitants one way or another while the world doesn’t notice, those people will not even go as far as to consider the first two sentences in your proposal. They feel they don’t have to. And besides, they want what they want so there.

    One point regarding the RoR. You say:

    After 70 years of denial of their right to return, the most just solution of the Palestinian refugee problem would be for them to be given huge sums of money, by Israel, to enable them to settle in any country of their choice willing to take them.

    This can only happen AFTER the RoR is accepted as a principle. IOW, Israel has to acknowledge that, in principle, the Palestinians have the right to return, and once that’s agreed, practical aspects of how to go about it can be discussed. The idea of offering substantial compensation can of course be entertained once the principle is established. I once calculated the compensation, using as a figure of merit the sum offered the settlers who left gaza, and came up with something just over $1T, if most of the refugees chose to take the money and run. These sums are interesting because one could, for example, offer reduced compensation to those who elect to return to israel, which can “sweeten the pot”. Ah, if only we were talking tachles!

    Wouldn’t it be nice if we could sit and talk relative sums of money? give or take on who pays it? and to how many? and who goes where?

    Well, in an ideal world where we deal with sane people who are not wrapped in their toxic ethnic/religious supremacy cloaks, we could indeed discuss such things. But the country you are talking about, Israel, is in the midst of collective psychosis, so first we may need to put them on some serious meds. Getting them to take the meds is something none of us, here or anywhere else, has figured out how to do. And without the necessary medications and, of course, serious counselling and rehab, unfortunately all proposals are doomed to remain academic exercises.

    Anyways, it’s an interesting detailed thesis you put forward. A worthy effort, IMO, though one might quibble with “some” details (which I would absolutely do, if I thought it’d make a difference. Like the Areas A, B and C – these are Israeli inventions, meant to keep the sheep in their holding pens, so I would not even agree to these classifications, for starters, unless we agree to also divide israel into Areas A, B, C and the rest of the alphabet soup).

    • echinococcus
      August 31, 2017, 3:03 pm

      Thanks for the first injection of sanity into the discussion.

      The only reality is the United States Under “Israel” and no concession at all is coming with the invaders’ agreement, ever, as long as the US empire is not seriously wounded. When and if the US drops Israel enough to exert enough pressure to force it to provide its first concession, the almost immediate violent fall of the colonial state is practically guaranteed. It would be crazy in any case to imagine some peaceful arrangement with the Zionist crazies.

      Most liberaloids are trying to square the circle of getting some peaceful solution in a situation where only raw, violent power counts. Like this fairy tales proposal here. I suspect that such exercises are not entirely innocent. They put people to sleep while theft and genocide continues.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        September 1, 2017, 2:24 pm

        Danaa,

        I know very well that Israel does not behave as a rational entity. But there are many, many intelligent, rational, and humane Israelis. It has one of the world’s leading universities. Gideon Levy of Haaretz is, in my opinion, a great writer: he must be having an impact. One thing is certain, if we do not hope we will achieve nothing. We have to hope that with pressure from outside, and pressure from inside, the structure of Zionism will start to show some cracks.

      • Mooser
        September 1, 2017, 2:53 pm

        “But there are many, many intelligent, rational, and humane Israelis.”

        Their freedom to leave Israel must not be infringed, in any way.

      • echinococcus
        September 1, 2017, 4:37 pm

        We have to hope that with pressure from outside, and pressure from inside, the structure of Zionism will start to show some cracks.

        Either you present believable grounds (I don’t even mention evidence) for that “hope”, or you’ll be doing the same thing as Obama and all other politicians and mountebanks: keeping people patient while they are being screwed when there is absolutely no reasonable basis for hope.

        If your hope is in the shape of your peace plan, by the way, it is in fact notable as a hope for continuing the occupation under another form.

      • Danaa
        September 2, 2017, 12:14 am

        David, I back echinococus on needing some back-up for that elusive hope. Specifically, while there’s some pressure from outside (empahsis on “some”), the pressure from the inside is practically non-existent. So you know a few good good people in Israel. So do I. And we all read Gideon levy and Amira hass and Yossi Gurvitz and jeff halper and breaking the Silence and most of the writers on 972. That all adds up to far fewer than even 10-20% of the Jewish residents of israel, if we include the silent supporters. Of those, half will probably go along with some degree of ethnic cleansing, if it is packaged “nicely”, and if the world could somehow be made to swallow it. That leaves less than 10%.

        MY estimate is even more pessimistic. Judging by israeli social media (some of which I consult now and then – in Hebrew – I’d guess there are perhaps 100,000 people from among all the jewish residents who actually care for some long term and equitable solution to Israel/Palestine and are willing to pay the price (eg, withdrawing from post ’67 borders). And of those not even half are willing to put themselves on the line by writing, putting comments on line, participating in rallies, supporting Palestinian solidarity, supporting BDS and/or bringing court cases where needed (the lawyers among them).

        So there you have it – the “pressure” from the inside is pretty paltry, one would say. And that is the problem. There really is no other problem.

        What we need are solutions to the problem of absence of hope. Violence in the form of an intifada is, IMO, a non-starter, for various reasons. So, at this time, the battle must take the form of resistance, be it through the solidarity activists (both israeli and foreigners), through Palestinian civil society (definitely NOT the PA), and of course by spreading BDS as far as possible, especially in an expanded vigorous form that will indeed delegitimize the Israel experiment in its currently toxic form. At least until such a time they show willingness to join the civilized world. Until that time, solutions can be proposed and immediately be put on the shelf for consideration as soon as there is someone to talk to on the israeli side. About anything. let me know when you find a suitable governmental entity to talk with.

        You had nothing to say, BTW, about my estimated $1T price tag for refugees wanting to settle elsewhere. I forgot to add – America will have to take in I’d say at least 100,000 as compensation for their vicious Israel-supporting, occupation promoting policies. It’s only fair.

  23. JeffB
    August 31, 2017, 9:21 am

    @David

    JeffB “immigration should be limited to the rate at which the immigrants can be absorbed.” “By whom? Who is setting the limits?” The department of the State government that deals with matters of citizenship and immigration.

    Which in your system is presumably a USIP entity which was my objection and one I think would be an absolute deal breaker. If you make it part of the Jewish entity, you aren’t going to have a problem. Ingathering of the exiles is the national mission of Israel. Making the EU happy is something that would be nice. You are not going to be able to get Israelis to abandon their national mission in exchange for something that on balance they would like all other things being equal.

    “Jewish residency is illegal settlement while Palestinian residency is a right.” Currently, under the fourth Geneva convention, the program of the Israeli government to establish settlements of its citizens in occupied territories is illegal.

    If the West Bank is part of USIP it isn’t occupied. Territories within a state can encourage their population to migrate to other territories and even can assist them in doing so. For example when Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana encouraged and subsidized refugee emigration to other southern states since repairing the infrastructure was going to take years not weeks. That’s not a violation of the Geneva Convention. If instead of settling refugees in places like Georgia, the USA had invaded a chunk of Mexico to resettle Katrina refugees that would have been a violation of the Geneva Convention because then it would be territory external to the state power. If Israel agrees to become a subordinate entity to USIP it has no obligations under the Geneva convention. In your scenario USIP is simply ethnically cleansing a population from a part of its territory. That would be USIP discriminating not the UN.

    To use your excellent analogy, Scotland cannot violate the Geneva Convention, only the UK can. The UK has no obligation to reverse the Highland Clearances and force Scots now living in the Lowlands to migrate back to the Highlands even if the objected to the way England handled that.

    “Once you add, ” subject to a few provisos” that’s going to kill the deal.” I think those provisos are reasonable and in fact necessary. What is your objection to them?

    My objection to them
    a) They are grossly unfair and racist
    b) If they were successful they undermine the equality and peaceful coexistence on which your whole plan is based.
    c) While I can’t imagine this actually being done if they were they are likely to be morally horrific.

    What you are proposing would be like, to use your England analogy, is that the troubles in Northern Ireland should have been settled by ethnically cleansing the Protestant population. And then after the Protestants were ethnically cleansed the EU policies of open migration be enforced because everyone can then live in peace and harmony.

    What you are proposing is that your new government is going to open up with ethnic cleansing program where it moves 10% of the Jewish population out of their homes against their will. What you are talking about is in percentage terms the equivalent of depopulating half of London. I want you to actually think of a UK government deliberately depopulating half of London and the kind hatred that would engender. Your ethnic cleansing program is going to look like any other ethnic cleansing program. That means either you use heavy weaponry against a civilian population (example what Assad and the Russians are doing in Syria). Or if you use light arms then some combination of: gassing people, shooting them, raping women and children, burning homes… That’s how you get large numbers of people to flee. That’s not peaceful coexistence, that’s just reversing who are victims of state terror, while upping the quantity.

    Then get into the actual implementation what it looks like on the ground. Who does the ethnic cleansing? The USIP army? How is USIP with an integrated defense force going to convince Jewish troop to massacre Jewish civilians in the name of the Geneva Convention? How are they going to even get them to standby while Palestinian troops do that? Now picture this going on as the villagers resist and fire back. How do you think Jews on the juries find in those trials? What about the Jewish diaspora community which is going to feel obligated to ship arms to anti-government forces since the USIP government at this point is attack its own civilians. Or maybe you avoid all this and USIP hires mercenaries because they can’t trust their own army. At which point USIP has made a crucial move towards a dictatorial aristocracy, dependent on external sponsors which is hated and feared by its own population.

    I think you mean well. But you are compromising too much your original intent. Your original intent is that USIP maintains equality before the law. Stick with that. Make your proposal simply that all people regardless of how their ancestors got to where they live now their have the right to be secure in their homes as a matter of law and practice. Period. No exceptions. All citizens of USIP are legitimate citizens. USIP has no racial land laws at all. We don’t ask Palestinians what percentage of their great-great grandparents migrated from Syria illegally during the Mandate, or slightly before and we don’t ask Jews questions about how their family got to their lands. Analyzing the relative cases for various people’s racial legitimacy creates the slippery slope you are trying to avoid. It serves no purpose other than to undermine (and likely permanently) the concept of equality before the law.

    • amigo
      August 31, 2017, 2:48 pm

      Jeff B ==aka Jeff Northridge of Penn Valley.

      A long time poster at Haaretz.

      This guy has the audacity to invite Kaisa , (Note the correct spelling jeffy boy) to lend herself to “Peace and shared values”.You are a zionist jeffy boy.Your values are anathema to all that is honest and part of human dignity.

      I seem to recall you bragging about killing “gooks ” during your stint in nam.The brave infantry sgt who has now found another people to look down on.

      Sure , why not let Israel deal with the WB .Sure , let them continue their war crimes undisturbed by outside interference.

      Get a life Jeffy boy.

      • JeffB
        August 31, 2017, 5:20 pm

        @Amigo

        You are deranged. I was in nursery school during vietnam.

      • Mooser
        August 31, 2017, 6:12 pm

        “You are deranged. I was in nursery school during vietnam.”

        So it was more of an ROTC kind of thing, then.

      • Mooser
        August 31, 2017, 8:55 pm

        “This guy has the audacity to invite Kaisa , (Note the correct spelling jeffy boy) to lend herself to “Peace and shared values”.”

        That’s funny, just a few comments ago “Jeff b” said to “Kaisa”:

        “You, every human being alive, every mammal, every animal an even the plants who conducted the most ferocious genocidal campaign in earth’s history has no moral grounds to judge.
        Jews are done apologizing. They are done being held to some unearthly standard.”
        “Jeff b”

        That don’t sound like “shared values to me.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      September 1, 2017, 5:53 pm

      JeffB. I have not made Israel abandon its mission: I have said that all immigration should be done in a practical way that avoids economic chaos.

      Anyway, most Jews outside Israel do not regard themselves as exiles. If you look at he statistics for Jewish immigration under the Mandate, they were well below those expected by the Zionists. The figures peak at times when Jews were being persecuted, but otherwise they tended to be much lower. In 1928 net Jewish immigration into Palestine was 10 families. Another feature of the figures is that quite a high proportion of the immigrant Jews later left the country. Today I read that there are a million Israeli Jews in the US. There are more Jews outside Israel than there are inside Israel. They support Israel as a place of refuge in times of persecution, but do not consider it their homeland to which they want to return. it will not be a problem.

      After the end of occupation, the creation of new settlements will not be illegal. But the injustice and harm done by the previous settlement program to the Palestinian people remains. Let me quote you what I said: “there must be a reconciliation and reconstruction process in which settlements and their neighbors agree to live together peacefully, harm done is remedied, and serious crimes are punished”. That is not ethnic cleansing. “In cases where no agreement is possible, the settlers should return to Israel” It is not ethnic cleansing to remove by force people who are illegally occupying someone else’s land, if they refuse to leave voluntarily. They won’t be moved by soldiers with heavy weapons, but by police officers.

      Now, about change of residence. Citizens are free to change their nation of residence. The first proviso is that this applies to individual families and not to organized nationalist groups. The second is that a nation can petition the State parliament to allow it to restrict incomers from the other nation if they feel that the number of such incomers is beginning to change the character of their nation. There is nothing unfair or rascist about this, it works both ways. It is just a precaution to prevent attempts at large scale movement from one nation to the other.

  24. JeffB
    August 31, 2017, 2:08 pm

    @Kaisa

    About war, I already answered to you. We do not solve problems with violence, but sending Peacekeepers to defend the rights of the Palestinians would easily be possible.

    How would it be possible? Israel has already refused permission. I think the Israelis would rightfully consider an international force in the West Bank to be an invading army and would treat it as such. The UN doesn’t send Peacekeepers in without authorization from neighboring armies. Peacekeepers are not setup to be invading armies. Remember, the UN starting retreating in Rwanda when they lost 15 soldiers. Against the IDF they lose 15,000 in the first hour of fighting. This is fantasy, it will never happen.

    But even if you imagine that diplomatically somehow Israel were forced to accept a UN border inside along the Green Line I’d comment its one thing to monitor a border that both sides respect. Its entirely another thing to be operating next to an actively hostile army trying to drive you out though not willing to directly engage. What the USA faced in Iraq with respect to Iran is a fraction of what a Finland would be experiencing if the IDF were genuinely hostile. Those peace keepers would be facing guerilla forces, who had been through IDF training, having weapons bleeding in from the IDF. With the IDF providing them with aerial reconnaissance. And that’s on top of the West Bank hostiles having a safe base of operations in Israel proper while those UN troops have no safe base of operations. And of course unlike the Iran / USA analogy the IDF is far stronger than the UN force would be. The UN couldn’t even threaten a direct engagement.

    The UN will never send troops into the West Bank without Israel’s enthusiastic agreement. They won’t have Israel’s enthusiastic agreement with anything like the kinds of UN peace plans envisioned. Sorry but no, Finland will never send troops to the West Bank.

    You seem to forget that you were the invaders and the more violent and oppressive you get, the less you’ll have friends left.

    Really? How many people do you see agitating to kick you Finns out of Finland and restore the place to the rightful Kunda? You are forget you are descended from invaders as well. More relevant the Palestinians, speaking an Eastern Arabic dialect and worshipping an Eastern Arabian peninsula God are just a bunch of 7th century invaders. Everyone descends from invaders. The only legitimate inhabitants on the planet are anaerobic bacteria,. Every cell of your body literally contains the footprint and the booty from thousands of cycles of displacements and genocides. You, every human being alive, every mammal, every animal an even the plants who conducted the most ferocious genocidal campaign in earth’s history has no moral grounds to judge.

    Jews are done apologizing. They are done being held to some unearthly standard. Israel gets judged like every other country. Its population migrated there because humans are a migratory species. There is no special Jewish evil. And I guarantee Jews will never again live under Christian condemnation because of your myth of Jewish evil. I don’t think most Finns share your views. The ones I’ve met want peaceful relations with other countries. They don’t want to search the world to find new potential enemies. But I guess we’ll have to differ on Finnish future politics. In the meanwhile, your country remains quite friendly.

    • eljay
      August 31, 2017, 3:14 pm

      || JeffB: … Jews are done apologizing. They are done being held to some unearthly standard. Israel gets judged like every other country. … ||

      Israel should be judged exactly for what it is: A deliberately and unapologetically oppressive, colonialist, (war) criminal and religion-supremacist state.

      || … There is no special Jewish evil. … ||

      I agree: There is nothing special about Jewish, good or bad. The problem with you Zionists is that you think evil is virtue if Jews do it.

    • Kaisa of Finland
      August 31, 2017, 3:21 pm

      Jeff:

      Sorry, but it is you who is defending Israel’s right to violently oppress and abuse the Palestinian people. We do appreciate peacefull relations with other countries, but it does not mean we couldn’t boycott them, because of their inhuman behavior. Nothing violent with a boycott is there??

      “And I guarantee Jews will never again live under Christian condemnation because of your myth of Jewish evil..”

      Oh dear, you must live in a fairytail world. The case I/P has nothing to do with the religions for me. If you were a Buddhist oppressing the Palestinians, it would not change a thing.

      In Finland there are still lot of people who do not know what is going on in the West Bank and Gaza. My goal is to spread that information, because I have been there.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        August 31, 2017, 4:28 pm

        And before my Uncle RoHa gets here:

        fairy tale – not tail.. :)

      • JeffB
        August 31, 2017, 5:29 pm

        @Kaisa

        Oh dear, you must live in a fairytail world. The case I/P has nothing to do with the religions for me. If you were a Buddhist oppressing the Palestinians, it would not change a thing.

        You do seem to forget your posts. In the last post you asserted quite openly that Jews are
        intrinsic aliens who have no rights to a home country: you seem to forget that you were the invaders and the more violent and oppressive you get, the less you’ll have friends left. If Finland is the homeland of the Finns despite your ancestors invasion (which was really a migration), Israel is the homeland of the Jews despite the “invasion” (which was really a migration). You don’t get to pretend that you aren’t holding Jews to a particular contempt while applying a clearly racist standard towards them. So no. It wouldn’t be the same if it were Buddhists. There are Buddhists oppressing other groups, and there is no BDS movement.

        Nothing violent with a boycott is there??

        Nothing violent in a boycott.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        August 31, 2017, 5:52 pm

        Jeff:

        Well, there are Finnish Jews living in Finland and they are as Finnish as I am.. So I don’t see how being a Finn or a Jew would be opposite or separate things. The other one is a religion and the other one a nationality. And when the first Finns came to Finland sometime after the Ice Age, they were hunter-gatherers and did not violently annex anyones houses.

        There are plenty of human right activists working on other areas in the world than Israel, for me it just happened to be, that I ended up living in Israel and witnessing things I can not stay silent about.

      • echinococcus
        August 31, 2017, 7:12 pm

        Kasia,

        Fairies have tails, too. Or so I heard.

      • RoHa
        September 1, 2017, 4:51 am

        “If Finland is the homeland of the Finns despite your ancestors invasion (which was really a migration), Israel is the homeland of the Jews despite the “invasion” (which was really a migration). ”

        Finland is the homeland of the Finns whose homes are there. When Finns move to Australia and make their permanent homes in Australia, Australia is then their homeland. When Jews move to Israel and set up permanent homes there, then Israel is their homeland.

        But Israel is not the homeland of Jews who do not live there.

    • RoHa
      September 1, 2017, 4:56 am

      “There is no special Jewish evil. ”

      Perhaps not, but there is evil committed by Jews in Israel. It may not be different from other evil, but that does not make it right or excusable.

  25. Mooser
    August 31, 2017, 4:24 pm

    “Jews are done apologizing. They are done being held to some unearthly standard.”

    Well, considering what it dredged up, I know I’ll never be able to look at Fincham’s plan objectively.

  26. JeffB
    August 31, 2017, 8:03 pm

    @Kaisa

    Well, there are Finnish Jews living in Finland and they are as Finnish as I am.. So I don’t see how being a Finn or a Jew would be opposite or separate things. The other one is a religion and the other one a nationality.

    The better analogy is there are Finns living in America with America citizenship. Their citizenship doesn’t change their nationality. Judaea was an ancient country, the word Jew is a medieval French variant for Judean. Claiming to be Jewish is a tribal claim not merely a statement of any particular religious belief or practice. There is a tribal religion of course but Judaism is not merely a religion. Israel was after all founded by atheists. Moreover Jews once again have a nation now.

    As for Finland as soon as the opportunity presented itself most Finnish Jews made aliyah. Maybe you might want to ask the Jews if they are as Finnish as you. You might learn something about a problem you can actually do something about.

    And when the first Finns came to Finland sometime after the Ice Age, they were hunter-gatherers and did not violently annex anyones houses.

    Apparently they did. Go to places like Ristola and you can see the remnants of the nation your’s displaced in the south. When you go north it gets even more clear cut. Have you ever wondered why you don’t look anything like the Sami? Your ethnic group has been stealing their land even during this century. There was the massive migration starting in 3200 BCE-2000 BCE into the Gulf of Finland which gave rise to the Kiukainen culture which is why your artifacts all change around this period. 1800 BCE you start exporting that culture doing a little conquering yourself… I’m not going to walk though Finnish history. Heck read Russian accounts of the horrors the Varangians (what they called your people then) inflicted on them. Sorry to tell you but you got the same kinda blood on your hands just like the rest of us. The ethnic homogeneity you see around you is not solely the result of ice. Genocide, murder, colonization played an important role in the creation of your nation as well.

    The Jews are among a small group of countries that are starting late. I’m sure Jewish hypocrites 300 years from now will be condemning some other people for their barbarity while forgetting their own history.

    There are plenty of human right activists working on other areas in the world than Israel, for me it just happened to be, that I ended up living in Israel and witnessing things I can not stay silent about.

    The story isn’t all that unusual. Two tribes claim the same land. One has built a successful nation state the other hasn’t. When one tribe loses this sort of battle they will likely be absorbed in time. Go to central africa you’ll see worse. No one is asking you to stay silent. What they are asking you to do is have a sense of proportion.

    And also to understand reality. Israel is the Jewish homeland. The Jews are not leaving ever. I A boycott isn’t going to get them to leave. A boycott is not going to get them to renounce their claim to their home anymore than you would renounce your claim to Finland and flee back to your ancestral home in Estonia (and before that likely Siberia) if Nigeria boycotted you because they think the Sami should rule the country. It simply is not going to happen. The Jews are not going to accept being governed by the Palestinians for the same reason your people didn’t accept being governed by the Russians and the Swedes.

    In the real world Finland is openly enthusiastically friendly, it isn’t even hostile. The Finnish people aren’t ignorant, they just Amigo at least with his similar threats regard Ireland at least comes from a country which really does have meeting in parliament where the politicians get on record about how much they hate Jews and Israel. They want that symbolism in place before extending trade ties. Your country gets along with Jews fine, is not to them and extends trade ties without the symbolic attacks.

    I get you saw some stuff that upset you. Nation building is often an ugly process. I suspect there are ways that Israel could make it more humane. You want to help, you aren’t going to able to until you start seeing that Jews are people. Try and empathize with their situation. Finland has fought hard to avoid domination by foreign people. It shouldn’t be hard.

    • Kaisa of Finland
      August 31, 2017, 8:33 pm

      Jeff:

      “Go to places like Ristola and you can see the remnants of the nation your’s displaced in the south.”

      Oh please..

      Let’s give the Finnish Jews for themselves to describe their relationship to their homeland Finland:

      http://www.jchelsinki.fi/en/community

      And here are some Finnish guys for you!! I love them for always having some humor and self-irony in their lyrics:

    • Mooser
      August 31, 2017, 8:43 pm

      “The better analogy is there are Finns living in America with America citizenship. Their citizenship doesn’t change their nationality.”

      Uh, yes it most certainly does. They may all kinds of attachments to Finland, but yes, their nationality changed when they got American citizenship.

      “Judea was an ancient country…”

      And it’s just like something which is grey and carries a trunk.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        August 31, 2017, 9:43 pm

        Mooser:

        This is definitely the first guy I have met, who has tried to use the lives of some protozoa as an excuse for the Zionist oppression..

      • Mooser
        August 31, 2017, 10:28 pm

        “lives of some protozoa as an excuse for the Zionist oppression”

        Kaisa, lettuce hope “Jeff b” closes his word-salad bar soon. With a crisp celerity.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 1, 2017, 10:18 am

        Mooser:

        I honestly got shocked by his racial theories from somewhere from the 19th century.. I quess it was then when people were racially categorized like that.. (Like someone could tell by the looks, who is Sami and who isn’t..) I really REALLY did not know, someone would still talk like that today.. Like seriously, honestly, thinking there was a somekind of a visible difference..

        And while he is even worse than our own racist nationalists in categorizing people, he is still asking me to understand and support his ideology, which is totally opposite of mine..

        I must have gotten lost somewhere on the way..

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 1, 2017, 10:44 am

        I got stuck with this now.. So in Jeff’s world, are all the people categorized by their genetical inheritance, their ideologies and their religious beliefs, then divided into closed groups and settled to live in their own closed areas, to keep their genes, ideologies and beliefs to stay as pure as possible?? Or what was it, he was thinking??

      • Mooser
        September 1, 2017, 11:32 am

        “I honestly got shocked by his racial theories from somewhere from the 19th century.”

        Yup, “Jeff b” throws everything into his comments, including both kitchen sinks.

      • echinococcus
        September 1, 2017, 4:58 pm

        Or what was it, he was thinking??

        The answer to that minus the comma is, he doesn’t. And you described very aptly the excremental worldview they get fed from the start in the Ziobubble.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 1, 2017, 5:17 pm

        Echi:

        “minus the comma ..”

        I am a bit wild with my commas, am I?? I think I just use them, where I’d use them, if I was writing in Finnish.. The lack of my English grammar.. Sorry for that!!

      • RoHa
        September 1, 2017, 8:24 pm

        Echinococcus, I’m delighted to see that you are as keen on the correct use of commas as I am. I have an ally in this noble endeavour!

        That said, we should note that Kaisa does a very good job of communicating in English even though it is her second or third language, so we should encourage as much as we gently correct. (I am not suggesting your correction was harsh.)

        In this way, together we should fairly soon be able to achieve the ultimate goal of persuading the entire world to set aside lesser languages and use grammatical, correctly punctuated, English. And with my pronunciation, of course.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 1, 2017, 9:08 pm

        RoHa:

        “And with my pronunciation, of course..”

        Never heard of Rally English (rallienglanti)??

        Try this :)

      • echinococcus
        September 1, 2017, 10:03 pm

        Kaisa,

        Your English is miles above my Finnish, for one, and the purpose of this site is not English literature (which I don’t do anyway.) The essential message was that you are doing a superb job of baring the rotten corpse living within the Zionists.

      • RoHa
        September 1, 2017, 11:16 pm

        The prospect of being cold-resistant and blond is very tempting. I might try Rally English.

      • RoHa
        September 1, 2017, 11:54 pm

        And I love the father’s deadpan, flat, delivery. He’s being as Finnish as possible.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        September 2, 2017, 3:26 am

        Scotland is a nation, Britain is a nation-state and a nation-state is itself a nation. People can be Scottish and British at the same time. In medieval times the Palestinian battle cry was “For Palestine, for Syria, for Arabia” – Syria, because Palestine was a district of Syria, Arabia meaning the Arab nation i.e the Arabic speaking world.

        It is more complicated than citizenship = nationality

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 2, 2017, 3:39 am

        Echi:

        I don’t mind you or RoHa every now and then pointing out my “wild use of English Grammar” (or other mistakes).. :) It is what it is and I ofcourse wish my message comes through correctly (as we have seen here, that has not always been the case!!) When I write in Finnish, I am quite precise for producing good language so I understand why odd use of grammar might “pistää silmään” (= “stab the eye”).

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 2, 2017, 9:12 am

        RoHa:

        ” I might try Rally English..”

        I thought you might like it..

        Here is an authentic example:

    • eljay
      September 1, 2017, 8:42 am

      || JeffB: … understand reality. Israel is the Jewish homeland. … ||

      That’s not reality, that’s pure Zionist fantasy.

      Israel is not the homeland of all people in the world – citizens of homelands all over the world – who choose to hold the religion-based identity of Jewish.

      Israel is the homeland of Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis (and of people up to n-generations removed from it).

    • amigo
      September 1, 2017, 9:02 am

      “You want to help, you aren’t going to able to until you start seeing that Jews are people. Try and empathize with their situation”jeffb northridge

      Pretty hard to see these scum as people.

      https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/maureen-clare-murphy/video-only-jews-here-only-jews

    • amigo
      September 1, 2017, 9:06 am

      “The Finnish people aren’t ignorant, they just Amigo at least with his similar threats regard Ireland at least comes from a country which really does have meeting in parliament where the politicians get on record about how much they hate Jews and Israel. They want that symbolism in place before extending trade ties. “jeffb northridge

      Please translate into English and I will respond .Gobbledygook is not one of my languages .

      • Mooser
        September 1, 2017, 1:00 pm

        “.Gobbledygook is not one of my languages .”

        It’s all Tweak to me.

  27. JeffB
    September 1, 2017, 12:29 pm

    @RoHa

    Finland is the homeland of the Finns whose homes are there. When Finns move to Australia and make their permanent homes in Australia, Australia is then their homeland. When Jews move to Israel and set up permanent homes there, then Israel is their homeland.

    You aren’t disagreeing with me you are agreeing. What you are proposing is a nice neutral standard where all people are legitimate in their home country. It isn’t some sort of racist standard where we classify people by their ancestry. Where people of the “right” race are “legitimate natives” and people of the wrong races are “conquerors”, worthy of extermination. You want to argue against racism take it up with the other people on this board. I’m consistently opposed to racism both the rightist and the leftist varieties.

    That being said, homeland is an ethnic term. Migration doesn’t change your ethnic status. It may change your legal status though.

    • Kaisa of Finland
      September 1, 2017, 1:36 pm

      Jeff:

      When Finns move to f.ex. Australia, they’ll rent or buy a house or a flat, they learn to speak the local language and they’ll obey the Australian laws and respect the locals.

      If Zionists had gone to Palestine, bought or rented a house or a flat, learned to speak the local language and respected the local people, we would not be in this situation where we are now. Just check the link from Hebron Amigo gave to you. Anyone defending oppression like that, can’t be sane!

      • amigo
        September 1, 2017, 3:04 pm

        ” Just check the link from Hebron Amigo gave to you. Anyone defending oppression like that, can’t be sane!” Kaisa

        Indeed but i would view such a person as deranged.(jeff,s own word).

      • JeffB
        September 1, 2017, 4:09 pm

        @Kaisa

        If Zionists had gone to Palestine, bought or rented a house or a flat, learned to speak the local language and respected the local people, we would not be in this situation where we are now.

        Kaisa they did do that. The 1st and 2nd Aliyah were very much like that. The result was a huge wave of terrorism against Jewish immigration (note most of it wasn’t Zionist at this time, it was just Jews from other parts of the Ottoman empire moving to Palestine). The militarization of the movement was in response to violence.

        Your history is simply wrong.

    • echinococcus
      September 1, 2017, 4:50 pm

      That being said, homeland is an ethnic term. Migration doesn’t change your ethnic status

      If that is so, well then ethnically speaking I have absolutely nothing to do with your kind, by birth of otherwise. If you’re a Lehli / Eskenazi, keep to whatever you have for ethnicity but do not mix “Jewish”. I am of French parents and ethnically Mideastern Sefardí Spanish, and I have nothing to do with you, not even at birth, nor have any generation in my past had anything cultural, linguistic or of any type with your kind. Keep away. So if your homeland is the Russian Empire or something of the sort, continue cultivating that silly nostalgia of the steppe.

      Funny that you should blab about ethnicity when I’ll bet you a rotten lemon that your Yiddish is nonexistent, or stinks.

      • JeffB
        September 1, 2017, 6:22 pm

        @echinococcus

        And here I figured you were just a gentile kook with your evacuate Israel theme. So you are really a self hater running or someone with bizarre intra-Jewish racism.

        Yes my Yiddish is terrible. I came 2 generations after Yiddish died as a spoken language. My great grandparents wanted English as the dominant language in their home. My parents knew enough Yiddish to communicate with their elders and I know enough to understand Jewish comedy. My kid has never heard Yiddish spoken as a conversation language to the best of my knowledge. Which is what the Haskalah wanted, the language of the ghetto has been replaced by the language of the reborn Jewish State.

      • echinococcus
        September 2, 2017, 2:40 am

        JeffZ,

        Thank you for exposing your rabid albeit fake nationalism. So you killed Yiddish and you want to claim a Yiddish “ethnicity”, eh? No other “Jewish” anybody than the Ashkenaze can be in your “ethnicity” anyway.

        And self-hater my @$$: I like myself fine –just hate murderous Zionist nuts.

      • Mooser
        September 2, 2017, 2:54 pm

        “And here I figured you were just a gentile kook with your evacuate Israel theme. So you are really a self hater running or someone with bizarre intra-Jewish racism.”

        “Jeff b”, be careful. Do you mean to say “self-hater”, or would “auto-anti-semite” be the mot jewste.

      • JeffB
        September 2, 2017, 3:59 pm

        @echinococcus

        Can you remind me. When was it that I expressed a desire to claim a Yiddish ethnicity? As for my Jewish ethnic claim. You are simply wrong. Sephardim and Mizrahim are as fully Jewish as I am. They aren’t 2nd tier in any way. This is all in your head. I’ve never written anything of the sort. Or even thought anything of the sort.

      • Mooser
        September 2, 2017, 7:12 pm

        “You are simply wrong. Sephardim and Mizrahim are as fully Jewish as I am”

        Whoopee! The mashgiach is here. Isn’t he generous in his judgement!

      • echinococcus
        September 2, 2017, 10:59 pm

        So-called Jeff,

        When was it that I expressed a desire to claim a Yiddish ethnicity?

        You didn’t, because with your Z brain power you didn’t claim the only ethnicity that you could have claimed –you went for a totally non-existent “Jewish” that includes “ethnicities” wildy unconnected to yours!

        Had you claimed a “Yiddish” ethnicity, something well-known and respected as a particular culture, one could even have closed an eye on your absence of any cultural particularities including language and let you have that consolation. But not with claiming a religion as ethnicity, duh!

        Sephardim and Mizrahim are as fully Jewish as I am.

        Only those of them who are religious and only if you are religious.
        Ethnicity-wise, as the trendy word goes, they have nothing in common with you but then so nothing that there is not a shred of a shadow of anything common as culture or language.

        They aren’t 2nd tier in any way

        In your illegal hellhole created by illegal colonial invasion, of course they are, and 3rd and 4th tier, too. Duh. Ask anyone.

        But that is totally irrelevant, and it is not at all what I was addressing, genius. Because there is no invader “ethnicity”, and their presence, illegally established by conquest, cannot be allowed to go on. Face it, you Zionists are the ultimate pariahs of this earth.

      • Mooser
        September 3, 2017, 10:25 am

        Judaism is Zionism’s human shield.

    • RoHa
      September 2, 2017, 12:18 am

      “What you are proposing is a nice neutral standard where all people are legitimate in their home country. It isn’t some sort of racist standard where we classify people by their ancestry.”

      Yes. But you are the one who is classifying people by ancestry/ethnicity when you talk of Jewish homelands, ingathering of exiles, the Jewish entity, and Jewishness as tribal. So it looks as though we do not entirely agree after all.

      • JeffB
        September 2, 2017, 3:55 pm

        @RoHa

        Yes. But you are the one who is classifying people by ancestry/ethnicity when you talk of Jewish homelands, ingathering of exiles, the Jewish entity, and Jewishness as tribal

        I think you are losing the thread here. I’ll keeping using Finland. Finland is the Finnish homeland. All ethnic Finns originated in Finland (at least for the last 1000+ years). To be Finnish to the claim your ancestors lived in Finland. The two are synonyms.

        Similarly to be Jewish is to claim your ancestors lived in Judaea (potentially symbolically via having a taken a tribal oath). The Jewish religion is a series of rites and beliefs associated with the Judaean tribal deity modernized. I’m not saying anything more interesting or
        controversial than the Finnish example it is just the word Jew is older: Ioudaios (people of Judea in ancient Greek) -> Iudaeus (same word in Latin) -> Iudea (old French) -> Gyu (contracted form old French) -> Jew (modern word).

        It is only among BDSers that a bunch of people who have run around claiming to be from Judaea for 2000 years are told that they have no attachment to Judaea. When the Jews got kicked out other people moved in.

        That’s it. That is the stupid argument that keeps happening here. Jews for 2000 years have been pretty explicit that they were a nation and a people often on pain of death. The BDSers keep claiming that they were lying the whole time and Jews are really just members of a religion. Moreover ignoring the mountains of evidence that this claim was continuous the BDSers claim that it was the Zionist who invented this claim.

        This is quite literally as silly as claiming the Roma are not a distinct people but just a subgroup of Catholics who share an affection for Saint Sarah.

        Now the state of Israel is Judaea reborn. there is continuity between the Finland that was a provenance of Sweden and the Finland of today, despite the Russian conquest. Similarly there is continuity between Judaea and modern Israel despite the several rounds of conquest that Judaea / Palestine experienced.

        As for the state. The fact that the Palestinians are more recent immigrants (7th century) from the Eastern Arabian peninsula should not be held against them and they should be fully welcomed to join Israeli with full rights of citizenship. That’s an egalitarian society. I not only advocate that I advocate assistance to help them transition. That’s a rejection of racism not an embrace of it. If one were to say that Palestinians should be exterminated regardless of their willingness to join Israel that would make one a hardcore racist. Similarly when BDSers use language designed to make the case for ethnic cleansing or extermination of the Jewish population of Palestine, generally sounding a lot like the Khmer Rouge towards ethnic Vietnamese living in Cambodia, that makes them hardcore racists.

        I’m not sure what part of this you disagree with. Mostly I believe the pro-extermination views of the European left originate from the ideas that Jews aren’t really people but rather demons in human form and thus didn’t come from anywhere. The moment you accept that Jews are Judaean and Israel is just a democratic government replacing the monarchy from the Kingdom of Judaea reborn then the entire argument makes sense.

        That is at least excluding our disagreement about what “homeland” means vs. citizenship.

      • eljay
        September 2, 2017, 8:38 pm

        || JeffB: … Jews for 2000 years have been pretty explicit that they were a nation and a people … BDSers keep claiming that they were lying the whole time and Jews are really just members of a religion. … This is quite literally as silly as claiming the Roma are not a distinct people … ||

        Jewish is a religion-based identity. The Roma may be a distinct people but that does not give them a right to carve a supremacist state out of some geographic region or to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality they would not have others do unto them. The same applies to people who choose to hold the religion-based identity of Jewish.

        || … Now the state of Israel is Judaea reborn. … ||

        Israel is not an ancient state “reborn” – it’s a 20th century colonialist venture: A brand-new, religion-supremacist state carved out of geographic Palestine for the benefit of people the world over – citizens of homelands and nationalities all over the world – who chose and who choose to be/come Jewish. Unjust and immoral in both conception and execution.

      • Talkback
        September 3, 2017, 5:05 am

        JeffB: “Similarly to be Jewish is to claim your ancestors lived in Judaea (potentially symbolically via having a taken a tribal oath).”

        That’s your first mistake. One can convert to Judaism. And the descendants of Jewish ancestors can convert to other religions. Both has happened.

        JeffB: “When the Jews got kicked out other people moved in.”

        Second mistake. Jews were only kicked out of Jerusalem and their elite was deported. No other “people moved in”.

        JeffB: “Jews for 2000 years have been pretty explicit that they were a nation and a people often on pain of death.”

        But “Jewish” is not a nationality. Nobody can become “Jewish” by acquiring a citizenship. Therefore they are not a nation AS citizenship and therefore a “Jewish state” of Israel is inherently racist, if only Jews are considered to be nationals.

        JeffB: “Now the state of Israel is Judaea reborn.”

        Reborn? That’s what you call the settler colonialist creation of an Apartheid Junta through war against and expulsion of the natives?

        JeffB: “The fact that the Palestinians are more recent immigrants (7th century) from the Eastern Arabian peninsula …”

        Third mistake. Only 5% of Palestinians are descendants of Arabians. Arabian soldiers in particular. The Arabians never colonized Palestine. Palestinians are NOT immigrants. They are the real descendants of the natives of Palestine, especially Jews who were forced to convert to Islam.

        JeffB: “…and they should be fully welcomed to join Israeli with full rights of citizenship. That’s an egalitarian society. ”

        Are you talking about the Palestinians that JSIL ethnically cleansed, too?

      • RoHa
        September 3, 2017, 6:32 am

        “All ethnic Finns originated in Finland (at least for the last 1000+ years). To be Finnish to the claim your ancestors lived in Finland. The two are synonyms.”

        So a Jew whose parents were born in Finland is a Finn. But regardless of where their ancestors were born, the children of Finnish migrants to Australia are Australians, and they have no moral right to move to Finland and take it over. Finland may be their ancestral “homeland”, but that has no implications for moral rights.

        “Similarly to be Jewish is to claim your ancestors lived in Judaea”

        And if they did, and they are not already citizens of Judea or its modern successor,they have no more moral right to move in and take it over than the Finns do.

        “(potentially symbolically via having a taken a tribal oath).”

        The Major General gained ancestors by purchase. And you can gain ancestors by oath, it seems. No need for biological descent.

        But it still doesn’t give any rights.

        “The fact that the Palestinians are more recent immigrants (7th century) from the Eastern Arabian peninsula should not be held against them and they should be fully welcomed to join Israeli with full rights of citizenship. That’s an egalitarian society. I not only advocate that I advocate assistance to help them transition.”

        Excellent. I trust you work to change Israel from a Jewish state to a state of all its citizens, to acknowledge the Right of Return, and to carry out the three points I suggested in this comment.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/whether-zionism-forward/#comment-889111

        “I’m not sure what part of this you disagree with.”

        Your apparent obsession with ethnicity. But if you push for reformation of Israel, I won’t hold that against you. And I’m sure you’ve had sleepless nights worrying that I would.

      • Sibiriak
        September 3, 2017, 9:19 am

        Talkback: But “Jewish” is not a nationality. Nobody can become “Jewish” by acquiring a citizenship. Therefore they are not a nation AS citizenship and therefore a “Jewish state” of Israel is inherently racist, if only Jews are considered to be nationals.

        ———————

        Doesn’t make sense. If you define “nationality” as citizenship, as you have, then non-Jews can be “nationals” in Israel as well, since non-Jews can be citizens in Israel. Again, that’s using your definitions, not Israel’s.

        That doesn’t negate any of your other valid points, of course.

      • Mooser
        September 3, 2017, 11:15 am

        “Similarly to be Jewish is to claim your ancestors lived in Judaea (potentially symbolically via having a taken a tribal oath).”

        Of course. Nothing like those “potentially symbolically” ancestors via having taken a “tribal oath”.

        Or you could just advertise for mercenaries.

  28. catalan
    September 1, 2017, 2:16 pm

    “When Finns move to f.ex. Australia, they’ll rent or buy a house or a flat, they learn to speak the local language and they’ll obey the Australian laws and respect the locals.”
    Kaisa,
    you present a very idealized version of immigration. I had to stay in the United States for years illegally, breaking all sorts of immigration laws. Now I have a quite high-level position in a local government and own businesses. People just don’t like immigrants, we are territorial creatures. Of course, if you are a star of some kind, you get a welcome, but most of us are average or even below. Even in New Mexico, which is majority Hispanic, most people are not keen on more Mexicans coming in. Almost everyone here has a Spanish last name, many speak some Spanish but they still don’t like Hispanic immigrants. The version of immigration you present – you move legally, everything is great, it happens when people move from one wealthy country to another, e.g. from Finland to Australia. Well, about 1/8 of Bulgarians left in the 1990s because you can only take so much crap and poverty and abuse. So people did all sorts of things they are not probably proud of.

    • Mooser
      September 1, 2017, 2:57 pm

      ” I had to stay in the United States for years illegally, breaking all sorts of immigration laws. Now I have a quite high-level position in a local government and own businesses. People just don’t like immigrants, we are territorial creatures”

      It’s the American dream come true! The allrightnik becomes an alt-rightnik!

    • Kaisa of Finland
      September 1, 2017, 4:22 pm

      catalan:

      So now, when you have made it from the powerty and abuse and are doing good, you are choosing to support oppression and abuse of other people in Palestine??

      I am not rich, far from it. Everything I own can be packed into a small van. (Never been interested in money, titles or materia). For me the most important thing is to support and strengthen people who live in difficult conditions (be it enviromental, political or what ever), for them to be able to find satisfying life in their own surroundings (because that is where people usually prefair to stay).

      I have always had my freedom (to choose, to live, to experience), which I hold as the most precious thing in my life and I see no reason why all the people (including the Palestinian boys and girls and women and men) should not have their’s too. I am thankfull for what I have got and I’ll do what I can to help others to get what they need.

      • catalan
        September 1, 2017, 5:23 pm

        “So now, when you have made it from the powerty and abuse and are doing good, you are choosing to support oppression and abuse of other people in Palestine??” Kaisa
        I actually do not support oppression and abuse of other people in Palestine or anywhere else.
        There is plenty of oppression right where I live – out of control Police, third-world jails, homelessness, crime, you name it. Just because I live here doesn’t mean I “support” it. I also don’t support any “abuse” in Palestine – but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with you or anyone else about what constitutes “abuse”, or about how to end the “abuse”. So, let’s say, you are horrified by the conditions in American jails. Commenting on the internet might help you vent some frustration, but it won’t in any way help the prisoners. If you want to really help, you have to engage with those that do not agree with you. If you actually want to help the Palestinians, you might achieve much more by talking to Israelis. But of course, that’s harder – you can’t just sermonize from a position of moral superiority. You choose “BDS”, i.e. no buying Israeli cheese or Ben and Jerry’s icecream. I happen to think that doesn’t help Palestinians or anyone else.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 1, 2017, 7:27 pm

        catalan:

        Well, I read Mondoweiss and sometimes leave a comment here, but my main goal is to spread information about Israel and what is happening there, to end the oppression in places like Hebron.

        The life we live in Finland did not drop from the sky: My grand parents generation lost their youth in the war, after that they lived silently with their war traumas (it was not appropriate to complain, cause one had stayed alive) and built this country from zero after the bombings and more than 400 000 Finnish refugees from the lost areas. They chose to start building a nation to support equal possibilities for everyone and their children continued that work and I wish to do so too.

        If you have “louzy jails, homelessness, crime, you name it”, do not come crying here. You are doing fine, so do something about it or bathe in your money. Now you can choose the life you live.

      • catalan
        September 1, 2017, 8:46 pm

        “If you have “louzy jails, homelessness, crime, you name it”, do not come crying here. You are doing fine, so do something about it or bathe in your money. ” kaisa
        Sure,
        What do you want me to do to solve homelessness, crime, and lousy prisons? Why do you think it is my responsibility to do this? And most important, you know how to reduce crime in America? Please share!

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 2, 2017, 3:24 am

        Catalan:

        Didn’t you say you have a “high-level position in a local government..” Maybe start changing the politics on a local level into the direction of sharing the good you have instead of rich getting richer. The less you have people living on the streets, the less you have criminality. So maybe start thinking what to do with the homeless people in your area. You’ll surely find other people to join you.

        “Why do you think it is my responsibility to do this?”

        Well who should do it then?? The homeless people?? Do you think that by complaining, you’ll get some results?? Everything starts from zero and you either choose to do something (maybe to get nicer surroundings for your children) or then to do nothing at all.

        One person can’t change everything, but that is what the BDS (and spreading information) is about too, from one to ten to hundred to thousand to.. And suddenly it will matter.

    • RoHa
      September 2, 2017, 12:46 am

      “When Finns move to f.ex. Australia, they’ll rent or buy a house or a flat, they learn to speak the local language and they’ll obey the Australian laws and respect the locals.”

      It used to be the case that immigrants to Australia were expected to assimilate. One of the reasons for the old White Australia policy was the belief that white people would be willing to assimilate, and find it easy to do so. (Didn’t always happen. Greeks often clung to Greekiness, and some Serbs and Croats brought their tribal conflicts to Australia. The Yugoslav intelligence services and ASIO had a hand or two in the latter instance.)

      The end (good) of the White Australia policy coincided with the rise (bad) of the idea of multiculturalism. Immigrants are still officially expected to obey Australian laws, more or less, but not to respect the locals or make any attempt at assimilating into mainstream Australian society.

      (Though the East Asian immigrants do assimilate to a large extent.)

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 2, 2017, 9:00 am

        RoHa:

        Heh.. I was just thinking about the Finns I know, who have emigrated to Australia. Of course they speak Finnish together at home and maybe eat some Finnish Christmas foods, but it seems like Finns have had it easy to fit in to the Australian way of life. (Better climate, more relaxed people, what more can you ask for??)

      • catalan
        September 2, 2017, 9:37 am

        “Didn’t you say you have a “high-level position in a local government” Kaisa
        Just to clarify, my position has no policy making authority. Meaning that policies are set by city council and the mayor and then executed by the mayor and those higher up than me. I am simply a finance guy and my opinions on matters like homelessness do not matter. The administration is thousands of people, there are many high level employees in specialized areas like medicine, information technology or finance.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 2, 2017, 10:17 am

        RoHa:

        I think one part of that assimilation is that Finns in general are guite strict in obeying rules, we have lot of jokes and stund-up comedy about it,( just nothing in English). I remember that in Israel the weirdest thing for me to “accept” as part of the daily life were these all kinds of “combinas” (the Israelian word for it) – like making small deals here and there – my friends had all the time going on to “circumvent” the rules and the laws. In Finland those would have been considered as illegal and corruption, but there it was just normal everyday life. (No wonder their politicians are all the time in problems with such issues.)

        And the queuing is another example: If you stand in line, you wait for your turn. In Israel I had to get used to people(specially older women :) ) jumping ahead of me just becuse they thougt their matter was more important. They propably thought I was stupid for not defending my place, but .. (Rather count to ten than start fighting about something like that..)

        I must say, I can’t complain about our immigrants. I have never had anyone not standing in line like others do. And all though they might laugh at us (with us) about being so strict with the rules, then people usually say, they love the fact that things work out so easily, just if everyone obey the same rules.

        But back to the assimilation: We use the word “kotoutuminen” (koti=home), meaning Finland becomes your home. And ofcourse the rules and the laws and the language comes with it, but you do not have to learn to ski or like Ice Hockey (I don’t like it either..) or Finnish foods to be a Finn. And as we have been writing about it before, if people form their own parallel societies and there are no common language and common rules anymore, then it will not work anymore.

      • Bont Eastlake
        September 2, 2017, 10:24 am

        Your spewing nonsense again, as per usual. The white Australia policy was enacted as a failsave against any attempts to topple white domination of the Australian landmass, from internal (aboriginal and islanders) and external (pretty much all neighbouring countries) parties.

        Australia was designed to be the Israel of the Pacific, and were to sustain and secure the interests of global white supremacy through occupation of the Australian landmass.

        Assimilation of early European migrants from Greece, Slavic countries etc were coerced, and did not occur organically. Those who attempted to assert their ethnic identity were subjected to public ridicule and racism.

        Multiculturalism is only bad if you have no organic culture to secure yourself to. Then any culture distinct from the contrived mainstream will naturally draw fear and anxiety from you. But once you get over it, it should open up room for improvement and growth, based on mutual respect and appreciation of the good of other cultures.

        All cultures are by definition good, thats what culture is there for. A huge set of micro and macro behaviors that were nurtured and refined over generations in order to ensure smooth societal functioning through high times and low. “Bad” cultures are naturally unsustainable as people would not benefit from practicing them, over the long term. Like binge drinking, treating women like sex objects, hatred and bigotry, materialism and classism. All hallmarks of the great Aussie way of life you are so sad to see vanishing away.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 2, 2017, 10:28 am

        RoHa:

        stand up comedy.. stund up sounds more like German :)

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 2, 2017, 10:39 am

        RoHa:

        So I found one with subtitles:

      • eljay
        September 2, 2017, 11:52 am

        || Bont Eastlake: … All cultures are by definition good, thats what culture is there for. … “Bad” cultures are naturally unsustainable as people would not benefit from practicing them … ||

        Since “all cultures are by definition good”, no bad cultures can exist for anyone to practice.

      • Bont Eastlake
        September 2, 2017, 12:59 pm

        Eljay

        ~ “Since “all cultures are by definition good”, no bad cultures can exist for anyone to practice” ~

        Bad cultures can and does exist, most often through imposition by a hostile outsider using overwhelming force and threat of violence. For example, the acculturation of native Canadians to white values, religion and lifestyle by early Canadian settler government alongside governed sanctioned missionaries and educators.

        The “bad culture” is because these new set of foreign imposed behaviors ended up destroying the long established communal and tribal ties of the natives. In addition it introduced dysfunction within all level of society, from individuals to families to the larger tribal nations, lead to untold amount of grief, anger, violence and depression among those who practice it. For those who didnt end up in prison or homeless, suicide became a relatively widespread occurence.

        In short, a culture is what allowed Native Canadians to live through thousands of years in the uncertain and unpredictable vast lands of Canada happily and competently. A “bad” culture on the other hand will lead to implosion or extinction if not remedied before its too late.

      • eljay
        September 2, 2017, 2:43 pm

        || Bont Eastlake: Eljay … ||

        Bont.

        || … Bad cultures can and does exist … ||

        So although you wrote “All cultures are by definition good”, what you meant was “Not all cultures are by definition good”. Got it.

      • Bont Eastlake
        September 2, 2017, 10:39 pm

        Eljay

        The thing is, there is a legit culture and there are forcefully imposed behaviors that masquerades as culture. Think of it as culture and pseudoculture. One is organic, voluntary and loving, while the other is hateful, angry and violent.

        Being Canadian is a pseudoculture for many native people of Canada, as it was imposed upon them and did not evolve organically within their society. In the same way, being Aussie is also a kind of pseudoculture based on hatred of Islam, POC, aboriginals, matriachy and spirituality.

        You know how white people are known for having no culture? Its because being white means you have adopted the pseudoculture of whiteness.

      • RoHa
        September 3, 2017, 12:49 am

        “you do not have to learn to ski … to be a Finn”

        Surely they have to learn to ski just to move around. We all know that Finland is covered in snow all the time.

      • RoHa
        September 3, 2017, 3:03 am

        “Your spewing nonsense again”

        You’re spewing nonsense…

        “The white Australia policy was enacted as a failsave”

        failsafe

        “against any attempts to topple white domination of the Australian landmass,”

        Of course. I said “one of the reasons”. It was mostly directed against the yellow people of East Asia.

        “Australia was designed …to sustain and secure the interests of global white supremacy through occupation of the Australian landmass.”

        Wrong. First, it was a place to dump all the convicts. Then it was to secure the interests of British global supremacy. Dammit, the French were swarming all over the Pacific!

        “All cultures are by definition good”

        No, all cultures have good and bad aspects.

        “thats what culture is there for. A huge set of micro and macro behaviors that were nurtured and refined over generations in order to ensure smooth societal functioning through high times and low.”

        Exactly. And if you include a group that has a very different set, that societal functioning will be less smooth. This is the real reason why people feel anxiety and distrust of some immigrant cultures. If the immigrants make it clear that they are going to support the mainstream culture and its fundamental values, rather than insist on the bad aspects of their culture, the anxiety goes away. Even if they do eat weird food.

        “a culture is what allowed Native Canadians to live through thousands of years in the uncertain and unpredictable vast lands of Canada happily and competently.”

        And the good aspects of the Australian culture allowed Australians, in a very short time,to develop the uncertain and unpredictable vast lands of Australia into a technologically advanced country with a standard of living that is the envy of much of the world, as well as being a world leader in political rights for women and inventing refrigeration for beer.

        Does this justify the wrong done to the Aborigines?

        Of course not!

        Does this justify asking immigrants to support and adopt those aspects of Australian culture?

        Yes, it damned well does.

        “All hallmarks of the great Aussie way of life you are so sad to see vanishing away.”

        I’ve been told there are Australian children who have never eaten an iced finger bun.

      • Bont Eastlake
        September 3, 2017, 9:07 am

        Roha,

        ~ “And the good aspects of the Australian culture allowed Australians, in a very short time,to develop the uncertain and unpredictable vast lands of Australia into a technologically advanced country with a standard of living that is the envy of much of the world, as well as being a world leader in political rights for women and inventing refrigeration for beer.” ~

        You’re starting to sound alot like the Zionists in defending the theft of aboriginal land and subsequent capitalist fuelled development on it.

        So it was your highly developed Australian culture that allowed transforming vast deserts into an oasis, not capital inflow gained through centuries of British colonialism in Asia. Centuries of stolen labour, stolen gold and silver, stolen resources must have helped speeding up the process surely?

        Ability to build concrete jungles, glass buildings and tarred roads are not exactly what I would consider proof of culture, not when injustice and oppression are baked into the process.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 3, 2017, 9:29 am

        Bont:

        “You know how white people are known for having no culture? Its because being white means you have adopted the pseudoculture of whiteness..”

        Now here we certainly have too best pals: Bont and Jeff. Both with their racial ideologies.

        I don’t know, majority of the Finns are quite white as are our neighbours in Russia, Estonia, Sweden and Norway. I would be happy to be told what is this no-culture-pseudoculture of whiteness which we all share. For me, I find quite big differences between our cultures, which I am only happy about.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 3, 2017, 9:44 am

        RoHa:

        “And the good aspects of the Australian culture allowed Australians, in a very short time,to develop the uncertain and unpredictable vast lands of Australia into a technologically advanced country with a standard of living that is the envy of much of the world, as well as being a world leader in political rights for women and inventing refrigeration for beer.

        Does this justify the wrong done to the Aborigines?

        Of course not!

        Does this justify asking immigrants to support and adopt those aspects of Australian culture?

        Yes, it damned well does”

        I agree! I hope my broken English is enough to get my message correct: Many of the immigrants come, because they want to have “their share” of that success. That is why they also need to give their fair share to the common good = to support and adopt those aspects of Australian culture.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 3, 2017, 9:52 am

        RoHa:

        “We all know that Finland is covered in snow all the time..”

        Midsummer 2014:

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 3, 2017, 10:09 am

        And Bont:

        All though I might be described as a white person (yellowish pink??), I do not identify myself with any colour.. I identify myself as a Finn, because I have grown up in Finland and my first language is Finnish, but not all the Finns are white and I have also lived in Denmark, Tanzania and Israel* in local families as “the only Finn” around. And I have only met people. Individuals who represent their cultural backgrounds (language, cultural habits), but all the same.

        When you move to a different country, you find your way to be yourself and be part of that new culture. Not trying to change it to yours, but finding your way to live in it. I have never had any problems with it.

        *In Israel with Mizrahim

      • eljay
        September 3, 2017, 10:25 am

        || Bont Eastlake: Eljay … ||

        Bont.

        || … The thing is, there is a legit culture and there are forcefully imposed behaviors that masquerades as culture. Think of it as culture and pseudoculture. One is organic, voluntary and loving, while the other is hateful, angry and violent. … ||

        So far, all I see is you dancing around your inability to admit that your original assertion was wrong.

        || … Being Canadian is a pseudoculture for many native people of Canada … ||

        But for non-native Canadians it’s a culture – organic, voluntary and loving. I feel your envy.

      • echinococcus
        September 3, 2017, 12:18 pm

        Kaisa,

        Many of the immigrants come, because they want to have “their share” of that success. That is why they also need to give their fair share to the common good = to support and adopt those aspects of Australian culture.

        And many others want no part of any success but needed to save their ass. In exchange for being safe, the least one must do is avoid disturbing one’s hosts.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 3, 2017, 12:59 pm

        Echi:

        Thanks for your addition!

      • RoHa
        September 3, 2017, 8:43 pm

        Kaisa,

        And now we know what Santa does for the rest of the year.

      • Bont Eastlake
        September 3, 2017, 9:29 pm

        Eljay

        ~”But for non-native Canadians it’s a culture – organic, voluntary and loving. I feel your envy.”~

        Not necessarily. It depends on particular ethnic or sociopolitical group, but I believe most non-white groups like Asians and Muslims are cultured.

        White Canadian is not a culture though. They are a political unit under the global brand of white supremacy. Like “Jews” in Zionist Israel.

      • RoHa
        September 3, 2017, 9:58 pm

        “You know how white people are known for having no culture?”

        No, I don’t know that. I’ve heard some mind-bogglingly asinine things in my time, but never that specific piece of stupidity.

        “Its because being white means you have adopted the pseudoculture of whiteness.”

        Hold on. I thought that a pseudoculture was “forcefully imposed behaviors that masquerades as culture.”
        So the question is “Who imposed it on the white people?”

        Further, it seems that pseudocultures are bad cultures, and we are told that

        “A “bad” culture on the other hand will lead to implosion or extinction if not remedied before its too late.”

        And yet white people, with their pseudoculture of whiteness, have managed to establish global white domination. A society that can do that would surely be one that can function pretty smoothly through high times and low.

        So it seems that the bad white pseudoculture works just as well as, if not better than, the good cultures of non-whites.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 3, 2017, 10:49 pm

        roha, you should have disengaged at “Australia was designed to be the Israel of the Pacific”. bont’s just the latest incarnation of simulcuz (or whatever his name was, and his other characters who all got banned) who spend all his time here pontificating on whiteness — same guy who said we/anyone/ could choose to be a poc. think dolezal. a lecturing holier than thou wannabe.

      • RoHa
        September 3, 2017, 10:20 pm

        “You’re starting to sound alot like the Zionists in defending the theft of aboriginal land”

        And I explicitly rejected that defence.

        “So it was your highly developed Australian culture that allowed transforming vast deserts into an oasis, not capital inflow gained through centuries of British colonialism in Asia.”

        Capital inflow from Britian helped initially, though it was the culture that made it possible for that captial to be used effectively. But Australia soon became an exporter of food, gold, and minerals.

        “Ability to build concrete jungles, glass buildings and tarred roads are not exactly what I would consider proof of culture, not when injustice and oppression are baked into the process.”

        As I said before, cultures have good aspects and bad aspects. The injustice and oppression are bad. Being a leader in giving women the right to vote and to stand in elections is good.*

        And refrigeration of beer (and meat) is exceptionally good.

        (*Terribly white Finland was another leader. So was New Zealand, but we pretend not to notice.)

      • RoHa
        September 3, 2017, 10:44 pm

        My heart bleeds for you, eljay.

        As a white Canadian, you haven’t got a “huge set of micro and macro behaviors that were nurtured and refined over generations in order to ensure smooth societal functioning through high times and low.”

        I don’t know how Canada holds together. Is it that railway?

        You have to struggle with a pseudoculture that is hateful, angry, and violent. Well, we all know those are the characteristics Canadians are famous for.

      • eljay
        September 3, 2017, 11:07 pm

        || Bont Eastlake: Eljay … ||

        Bont.

        || … White Canadian is not a culture … ||

        You flounder, the goalposts move. We were talking about Canadian culture. It’s nice, just like us Canadians. :-)

      • eljay
        September 3, 2017, 11:16 pm

        || RoHa: My heart bleeds for you, eljay. … ||

        I appreciate the blood loss. :-)

        || … As a white Canadian … ||

        …I’m a subset of Canadian – just one small part of a rich and polite culture.

        || … I don’t know how Canada holds together. Is it that railway? … ||

        It’s the maple syrup. Sticky stuff.

      • RoHa
        September 3, 2017, 11:39 pm

        ‘roha, you should have disengaged at “Australia was designed to be the Israel of the Pacific”’

        But I think it is essential to remind all beer-drinkers how much they owe Australia.

      • MHughes976
        September 4, 2017, 6:55 am

        I don’t think that a persona one of whose features is making negative remarks couched in the language of skin colour has a place on an anti-racist site.

      • Bont Eastlake
        September 4, 2017, 9:36 am

        MHughes,

        How would one argue against the system of white supremacy, without using the white nomenclature?

        You can’t make up a sociopolitical identity based on skin color, build a system that support such identity and then complain when people oppressed by the system question its purpose and goals.

        By the way, racism is a product of prejudice and power. Since white people occupy the top most hierarchy of power both locally and globally, you cannot be racist against them.

        You can be sexist against white women, you can be ableist towards disabled white men, you can be classist towards poor white families….but you cannot be racist towards white people.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 4, 2017, 11:50 am

        RoHa:

        “And now we know what Santa does for the rest of the year..”

        In Finnish you can say: “Nauru pidentää ikää” = “A laugh makes you live longer”.

        With this comment of yours, you have just given me several years more to defend the rights of the Palestinians!!

      • Mooser
        September 4, 2017, 11:54 am

        “White Canadian is not a culture though.”

        Of course not. It’s the name of a drink.

      • Mooser
        September 4, 2017, 11:58 am

        “How would one argue against the system of white supremacy, without using the white nomenclature?”

        Oh, you can, you can. As soon as you define “white”.

      • Mooser
        September 4, 2017, 12:15 pm

        “who spend all his time here pontificating on whiteness”

        And fishing, fishing, fishing for the person he can’t find here. In every iteration, he keeps fishing for someone to answer him one his own racist terms. And not finding them here, which always makes me feel good.

      • gamal
        September 4, 2017, 1:42 pm

        “White Canadian is not a culture though.”

        foot poutine mouth again

      • Mooser
        September 4, 2017, 1:54 pm

        You thought I was kidding?

        “- white Canadian. This is a delicious drink made of vodka and goat’s milk.”

      • Bont Eastlake
        September 5, 2017, 5:31 am

        “Capital inflow from Britian helped initially, though it was the culture that made it possible for that captial to be used effectively. But Australia soon became an exporter of food, gold, and minerals.”

        —-

        First of all, that capital inflow was sourced from criminal activity in a geopolitical scale. Regardless how it was used, it doesnt negate the moral deficieincy of such endeavor.

        Secondly, Australia becoming an exporter of valuables is hardly a positive accomplishment, considering the land itself was illegally settled and colonized by a foreign government without the approval or blessing of the natives. Its not like the money gained from these exports go to natives…it goes to the corporations and the government. In turn they use the money to support oppressive regimes in the world, like Israel and conduct wars in Asia and Middle East.

      • RoHa
        September 5, 2017, 11:44 pm

        So, no good aspects even to the Australian bit of white “pseudoculture”, eh? But still a pretty effective pseudoculture.

        Never mind. I expect that before long white global supremacy will be replaced by yellow global supremacy. But before you get too excited about whitey’s discomfiture, remember that the Indonesians said that three years of the Japanese was worse than three centuries of the Dutch. Hope that the Chinese will have a lighter hand.

  29. JeffB
    September 2, 2017, 5:47 am

    @Kaisa

    So in Jeff’s world, are all the people categorized by their genetical inheritance, their ideologies and their religious beliefs, then divided into closed groups and settled to live in their own closed areas, to keep their genes, ideologies and beliefs to stay as pure as possible?? Or what was it, he was thinking??

    No in JeffrB’s world genetics doesn’t matter. He doesn’t support any racial claims of superiority at all whether emerging from leftists or rightist. Which means he is equally dismissive of the idea that all blacks are stupid, Jews have some sort of special soul, Finns have an inherent genetic moral superiority because of their supposedly peaceful history, or your claim that land should be permanently allocated to people on their basis of the genes. He doesn’t support creating situations where peoples are exterminated either directly or indirectly by depriving them of the mechanism for survival based on that genetic superiority. He is consistent on these issues, unlike European Greens who are hardcore racists while considering themselves non-racist because they support different races than the rightwing racists.

    JeffB holds that humans and insects are the species on this planet that construct super societies, that is large scale societies involving many thousands of individuals. Insects breed in ways to create close genetic relations between the members of their super societies that humans are incapable of. Hench, human super societies can either be tyrannies where an aristocracy rules without much concern for the opinions of the members or have to rely on constructed shared identities. To pick an example, the reason Brussels doesn’t bother much with building consent for their programs is that they can’t. Europeans don’t share enough common culture to agree on the nature of the good. Super-societies create tremendous economic opportunity, that is to say much higher standards of living for all people. An aristocracy ruling by force is bad. Consequently common identity is important to advance the common good. Thus he supports nation-states as being superior to local / tribal government or empire. To achieve best possible government states need to enhance the natural formation of national identity through things like providing shared schooling for the young.

    Take what you claim to believe in, and actually hold those views consistently.

    • Kaisa of Finland
      September 2, 2017, 8:50 am

      Jeff:

      I represent only me and my own point of views, not all of the Finnish people (I hardly know all of the 5,6 million people and their thoughts).

      “that land should be permanently allocated to people on their basis of the genes”

      Where ever you got this from?? I have only opposed the violent invaders. (And no, because the Vikings did it in the past, it doesn’t have to be acceptable in the 21st century!)

      If you knew something about the Finnish history, you’d know that there are only guesses about from where Finns actually came to Finland and the latest researches show that genetically the Finns from the West Coast are as “far” from the Finns form Eastern part of Finland as are the Germans and Brits from each other (And still, the Finns at the West Coast are genetically closer to Russians than those at the Eastern side. So no Russian connectin either..). So there is a bit of some Finnish history for you. (You must have read some 19th-20th century history, with some racial theories where people’s intelligens was still measured by the size of their skull.)

      All that other b*ll s*it you keep writing up there, I’ll leave it to you yourself to digg in it deeper.

      P.s. “To achieve best possible government states need to enhance the natural formation of national identity through things like providing shared schooling for the young” And how is this done in Hebron?

      • JeffB
        September 2, 2017, 3:03 pm

        @Kaisa

        “To achieve best possible government states need to enhance the natural formation of national identity through things like providing shared schooling for the young” And how is this done in Hebron?

        Hebron had a rich Jewish community in the 1920s. It was the site of one of the nastiest Palestinian attacks against the Jewish communities in Israel in 1929. Complete destruction of the Jewish community (a community I might add which was non-zionist). The city was mostly free of Jews. In 1931 the Zionist movement wanted to establish a fortress in Hebron to reassert a Jewish presence, this mostly didn’t work. After the 47-49 war the entire city was ethnically cleansed of its entire Jewish population.

        In 1967 when Israel took the city the residents of Hebron explicitly surrendered since at that point they feared a full retaliatory massacre in revenge for ’29. The people of Hebron violated their terms of surrender. Jews moved back there the locals reacted violently.

        The people of Hebron are being taught that you don’t have the right to kill ethnic minorities and you have to learn to live peacefully with people different than yourselves. They are being taught this by a government which unlike the British is willing to do whatever it takes to make it clear to Hebron that 1929 will not repeat.

        Hebron for the first time in a century is experiencing the most basic establishment of the rule of law.
        1) It is being made clear to the residents that every inch of Hebron is Israeli territory and subject to Israeli law.
        2) As the sovereign power the government of Israel alone will decide who lives there and who doesn’t. Violent mobs will not decide the demographics of the city.
        3) A settlement fortress is constructed in Hebron in line with the Zionist stated plans of 1931.
        4) That fortress will revert to a neighborhood and later mixed housing once the population is pacified to mixed housing.

        Not much different than what the United States had to do when it forcibly integrated neighborhoods that were violent to outsiders especially with Catholics minorities in the 19th century and with blacks in the 20th.

        That’s what’s going on in Hebron.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 2, 2017, 3:49 pm

        The people of Hebron are being taught that you don’t have the right to kill ethnic minorities and you have to learn to live peacefully with people different than yourselves.

        this is hysterical. palestinians alive in al khalil today had nothing to do with whatever happened in 1929 and the idea israel is teaching them any kind of moral lesson about living peacefully is absurd. thanks for reminding me again to gloss over your worthless supremacist hasbara.

      • JeffB
        September 2, 2017, 3:09 pm

        @Kaisa

        “that land should be permanently allocated to people on their basis of the genes”

        Where ever you got this from?? I have only opposed the violent invaders.

        You use a racial definition for “violent invaders” vs. natives since you are applying it as an eternal characteristic of people based on their ancestry. Which means you are opposing races not actions.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 2, 2017, 3:41 pm

        You use a racial definition for “violent invaders”

        actually she didn’t.

        you are applying it as an eternal characteristic of people based on their ancestry

        hmm, no she didn’t.

      • Mooser
        September 2, 2017, 3:43 pm

        Not much different than what the United States had to do when it forcibly integrated neighborhoods that were violent to outsiders especially with Catholics minorities in the 19th century and with blacks in the 20th.”

        “Kaisa”, that never happened. Have no idea where he cooked up that toxic historical stew. “forcibly integrated”? He is full of it.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 2, 2017, 3:46 pm

        Jeff:

        The race is in your head. I do not believe in different races. For you seem to think Jews are one united race. I ‘ll leave it up to you Jews to decide, if you are a one big race or just individuals representing different cultural backgrounds, ideologies and political views.

        Finns are certainly not a race, so one can become a Finn by living here long enough to feel oneself as one.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 2, 2017, 3:56 pm

        Thanks Annie!

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 2, 2017, 4:03 pm

        Mooser:

        Well, his knowledge of Finnish history was deffinitely not from the Academic Historians either. So I won’t take anything what he writes for a fact.

      • Mooser
        September 2, 2017, 6:47 pm

        “So I won’t take anything what he writes for a fact.”

        I take everything he writes for a fart.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        September 3, 2017, 7:27 am

        JeffB, in reply to yours of September 2, 3:03 pm:

        “every inch of Hebron is Israeli territory and subject to Israeli law. as the sovereign power the government of Israel alone will decide who lives there and who doesn’t.”

        Israel has legal sovereignty only within the borders it declared on 14th May, 1948, and on which it was recognized by other states. Hebron is outside those borders. The Armistice agreements of 1949 gave Israel de facto rule of territory within the Green Line, pending a peace agreement. Hebron is outside that line. Israel is the occupying power in the West Bank, and can only legally do what is allowed by the laws of war. However, it may well be that a court would decide that the return of Israeli citizens to a place they had previously inhabited and from which they had been expelled by the hostile nation was not a breach of the 4th Geneva convention.

        These types of problem are automatically solved by the One-State-Two-Nation proposal. There is a new border determined under certain principles, which as I explained would result in a significant part of the West Bank ending up in Israel, and I did suggest that Hebron might be an example. Furthermore, there is an almost free right to change residence from one nation to the other.

  30. mcohen..
    September 3, 2017, 9:33 am

    The idea of a one state is good but the present reality is this.why should arabs accept anything less than the complete withdrawal of most of the jews from Israel.bds is growing stronger and full sanctions are ahead.most of the world’s oil comes from Arab countries so they have leverage over the west.the un is dominated by the arab block.anti semitism is on the rise worldwide.
    The odds do not look good
    However if I was an European living in the middle east in areas where there are no jews or israelis I would consider leaving.iran might be safe but who knows

  31. Nathan
    September 3, 2017, 9:19 pm

    David Gerald Fincham – In your belated answer to me, you define the source of conflict as “Zionism”. Assuming that you have defined the historic reality correctly, it should now be clear that you do not have a proposal for ending the conflict. The arrival of Jewish immigrants in Palestine starting at the end of the 19th century is one very important aspect of Zionism. The Arabs rejected the very idea that Palestine is the homeland of the Jews, and hence they regarded the immigrants as a foreign invasion. This grievance of the Palestinian Arabs is not addressed in your peace proposal. Even in the establishment of a single state for the two communities, the conflict will remain unresolved. The Arab community would continue to maintain that the Jewish presence in the country is illegitimate.

    You claimed that the perception of the Israeli Jews (that the Jews are a single people and that Israel is their homeland) is “nonsensical”. You should note that your claim is haughty. The identity of a particular collective is not an issue that needs the approval or the agreement or even the understanding of an outsider.

    Finally, if you wish to define the source of conflict in an objective way, you’ll have to include in your analysis the crisis of identity in the Islamic world. Your belief that England and Scotland “provide a striking parallel with Israel and Palestine” is incredibly naive and incorrect.

    • RoHa
      September 4, 2017, 2:33 am

      “The Arab community would continue to maintain that the Jewish presence in the country is illegitimate.”

      Not necessarily. They could take the position that the invasion of foreign Jews was illegitimate, the establishment of the Jewish state was illegitimate, but the presence of Jews who were born in the country is legitimate.

      “You claimed that the perception of the Israeli Jews (that the Jews are a single people and that Israel is their homeland) is “nonsensical”. You should note that your claim is haughty.”

      Haughty is not the same as false.

      “The identity of a particular collective is not an issue that needs the approval or the agreement or even the understanding of an outsider.”

      If outsiders are required to take that “identity” into account, they have an interest in whether it makes sense or not.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      September 4, 2017, 9:38 am

      Nathan

      “Arabs rejected the very idea that Palestine is the homeland of the Jews, and hence they regarded the immigrants as a foreign invasion.”

      The immigrants were a foreign invasion, imposed on the territory by the might of the British Army against the wishes of its existing inhabitants.

      “The Arab community would continue to maintain that the Jewish presence in the country is illegitimate”.

      They do not maintain that. The PLO has recognized the right of Israel to live in peace and security. Hamas wants to eliminate Jewish sovereignty over Palestine, not to expel the Jews (see Article 31 of their 1988 covenant).

      The Zionist idea that all the Jews in the world have a right to go and live in Palestine on the basis that 2 thousand years ago there was a Jewish kingdom in Palestine does not make sense.

      Whether the Jews of today’s world think of Israel as their homeland is up to them. The evidence is that most of them don’t, otherwise they would go and live there. See also my reply to JeffB at September 1, 2017, 5:53 pm.

      “Your belief that England and Scotland “provide a striking parallel with Israel and Palestine” is incredibly naive and incorrect.”

      I listed several parallels: England and Scotland have different legal systems; they have different educational systems; they have different established religions: they both have national sports teams playing in international competitions. The same remarks apply to Israel and Palestine.

      After a history of conflict, England and Scotland decided to unite to form a single state, while retaining their own national lives and identities.

      It was these parallels that led me to the idea of the One-State-Two-Nations solution. The important question is not where the idea came from, but whether it is a good idea or not, and whether it has a better chance of working that the current two-state or one-state proposals.

  32. David Gerald Fincham
    September 4, 2017, 8:20 am

    DaBakr: thank you for commenting.

    No, I do not understand that I am writing ridiculous things that make no sense. It would be helpful if you could explain what ridiculous things I have written and why they make no sense.

  33. David Gerald Fincham
    October 9, 2017, 3:39 pm

    There is a more compact exposition of these ideas on my website; see http://www.religion-science-peace.org/2017/10/07/the-one-state-two-nations-proposal/

Leave a Reply