Total number of comments: 149 (since 2009-08-21 14:11:50)
es1982
Israeli grad student, supporter of a Two State solution.
Website: http://es1982.blogspot.com
Showing comments 149 - 101
Page: 2 1
Showing comments 149 - 101
Page: 2 1
-
-
- New York City Council official urges Brooklyn College to hire … 0
- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says … 36
- Mohammed Assaf, singing sensation out of Gaza refugee camp, torches … 12
- Activists call for a SodaStream boycott at the 2013 Cannes … 3
- Video: Palestinian demonstrators break a hole in the wall during … 3
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite … 42
- Palestinian-American Raed Zidan plants flag on top of Everest, dedicates … 3
- Exile and the Prophetic: Disappearing Massad, disappearing Palestine 8
-
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 784
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 314
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 149
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 145
- San Francisco bus ads condemn Israeli apartheid: backlash begins 121
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 106
- Washington state bus-ad campaign dares to state: ‘Equal rights for … 100
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 91
-
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 96
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 88
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 84
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 74
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 72
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 69
- Uncompromising hope inspired by Ghassan Kanafani 63
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 62
-
- New York City Council official urges Brooklyn College to hire ‘professor from Israel’ http://t.co/T6Npj8RMoq, 27 mins ago
- Mohammed Assaf, singing sensation out of Gaza refugee camp, torches Arab Idol competition http://t.co/tFBLHWMBYq, 33 mins ago
- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says Haaretz — but ‘NYT’ treats it as gospel http://t.co/p2iX5BcZws, 33 mins ago
- RT @MaxBlumenthal: .@IJasonAlexander you headline Friends of IDF fundraisers and pose as a peace advocate -- then you lecture me on integri…, 35 mins ago
- RT @agoodcuppa: The most accurate GIF I have seen in my life, ever - Tel Aviv Airport Security http://t.co/0F9Pdwzk2u, 35 mins ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says Haaretz — but ‘NYT’ treats it as gospel (36)
- Donald: “You know how hard it is to carry off satire. ;-)” Yeah, we’ve seen that here a few times,...
- Donald: I remember thinking this ten years ago when I read the Fallows piece that Peter in SF links to...
- Donald: “We mean the best for the people under our control; stability, democracy, prosperity, are our goals;...
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite history: They fled ‘of their own free will’ (42)
- Hostage: Nowhere in this or the linked documents does it show that Kennedy (or any president) insisted on a “right”...
- Hostage: and am not familiar (or have forgotten if I ever knew) about the other countries. Historian Rafael Medoff,...
- Shingo: “Most of the dead are civilians killed by the shelling.” Rubbish. Qusair is a rebel stronghold and the...
- Mohammed Assaf, singing sensation out of Gaza refugee camp, torches Arab Idol competition (12)
- Inanna: Yes, the judges love him. I think we all appreciate his talent but the fact that he is Palestinian doubles...
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ forum on Nakba (74)
- German Lefty: Here’s a German article about George Galloway walking out of a debate when he learnt that the...
- German Lefty: You’re repeating yourself ad nauseum and it’s not helping your case at all cuz you keeping...
- German Lefty: Israel is a democracy, meaning that the leadership and Israel’s policies are the result of a majority...
- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says Haaretz — but ‘NYT’ treats it as gospel (36)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
Max Blumenthal distorts the truth. Yes, the people who said racist things in his videos really did say them, but how many non-racists are left on the cutting room floor to make Israelis or pro-Israel activists look like a racist bunch? Sounds like Matin Himel uses the same tactic - interviewing a lot of people who don't know who he is and cutting out anything that doesn't help him prove his point (at least from the descriptions here, since I've never heard of him before).
Himel shouldn't use such tactics. Neither should Blumenthal.
How hypocritical of PennBDS to ban him. When Max Blumenthal uses the same tactics as Martin Himel, Blumenthal is praised by anti-Israel activists.
I know an Israeli whose family is Moroccan and pronounces it neither humus or khumus, but khomus. I have no way of knowing which pronounciation is correct. Maybe there are a few correct ones, because of the different dialects in Lebanon, Morocco, the Negev etc.?
I know that a lot of what Israelis consider their own isn't originally Israeli, like Israeli salad (which Israelis often actually call "Arab salad"), falafel, couscous, hummus, etc., but I'm surprised about the so-called "Israeli couscous" (which Israelis call "ptitim", literally meaning flakes). I was sure that was an Israeli invention.
At least tell me please that we Israelis really did invent Bamba and Bisli!
If that's the case, we can't accept that. I have no problem with compensating refugees, even letting a certain number into Israel, but we can't leave it entirely to the refugees' own choice. Israel has to agree to the number of refugees who would become Israeli citizens and also have the right not to accept certain people (let's say Khaled Mashal, for example).
So you admit that Israel is a success story... :)
More seriously though, the creation of Israel isn't exactly a good example for a forced solution working. Generally speaking, the solution proposed by the UN was supposed to achieve four things: creation of a Jewish state, creation of an Arab state, internationalization of the Jerusalem area and peace. Only one of those four came to fruition.
Besides, I meant more specifically that a solution leading to peace can't be imposed. You need minimal trust for peace, and you can't force Israelis and Palestinians to trust each other.
Believe it or not, I agree with Annie (though the people she mentions - at least the ones I recognize - are to the left of me). You're angry at Israel so you're being aggressive and disrespectful towards me, an individual Israeli who is actually trying to engage you in serious, civil conversation.
That's exactly what I'd do if I were in power - I'd accept it with caveats. The million dollar question is how to demonstrate good faith. Neither side believes in the other's good faith, and that's part of the problem. No solution can be reached without a minimum of mutual trust.
Drink a glass of water and take a deep breath. Take a walk around the block to cool down. If you want to continue this conversation you'll have to tone down your aggression.
I didn't mean that we'd only agree to exactly what we want. We won't get all we want, just like the Palestinians won't get all they want. There are some things in the Arab Initiative that Israel can't accept (for instance, we'd need to find some solution for East Jerusalem where we keep the Western Wall, which the Arab Initiative doesn't seem to allow for).
Forced solutions don't work.
Woody, you and I have been able to have civil debates before. There's no reason to get aggressive.
For argument's sake, let's say we accept every word of the Arab Peace Initiative. We'd still need to negotiate over it, since some of it is very general. For instance, the Initiative says this about refugees: "Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194". A solution can't be agreed upon without negotiations.
It's close to what most Israelis want, but not exactly. If it's a "take it or leave it" situation, we'd have to leave it. Palestinians and other Arabs wouldn't appreciate it if Israel proposed a plan and said "take it or leave it", either, and they'd be right to reject it. You just can't solve this conflict without negotiations over East Jerusalem, borders, etc.
As I've said before, if it were up to me, Israel would accept the Arab Peace plan as the basis for negotiations with members of the Arab League.
Now that I think of it, I wonder if the Arab Peace Plan will survive the Arab Spring. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Arab citizens hate Israel more than their governments do.
I didn't say I'm surprised, just said it depresses me. The complete rejection of Israel by many Arabs is depressing to me. No matter what we've done, we exist, and I don't see how there can be peace (or even negotiations towards peace) if the other side doesn't even accept the reality of our existence.
Israelis would be willing to integegrate economically in the Middle East (in a two-state solution scenario, not one, which we'd never accept). We wouldn't be willing to integrate politically and culturally. We may like belly dancing and Middle Eastern music and food, but that's about as much of Arab culture as I see us adopting. We prefer to see ourselves as part of the West with much closer links to North America and Europe than to the sorrounding countries.
Maybe if the Arab Spring succeeds and brings democracy to Arab countries, we'd be more willing to integrate. Only time will tell.
By the way, I for one, refuse to accept that the two-state solution is dead, since it is the only solution that can work.
"Israel is in Palestine. One refers to country, the other to geographical area."
True, Israel is in the historical area of Palestine, just like the West Bank and Gaza are in the historical Land of Israel (since Palestine/Land of Israel are pretty much interchangeable terms, though they're politically charged). The problem is that this isn't what this Lebanese man is saying. By adding the word "Occupied" to the word "Palestine" in reference to pre-1967 Israel, he's denying that such a country even exists.
Since he says he's trying to keep the word "Palestine" alive, I hope that he'd at least be willing to say the word "Israel" once Palestine exists as a country in the West Bank and Gaza, and not just as a geographical designation.
What some find inspiring, others find utterly depressing.
"Magic?"
Why didn't I think of that before? I'll look for the peace in the Middle East incantation in my Wiccan guidebook!
Well, I have written details of my preferred solution on Mondoweiss, in other blogs' comment sections and on my own blog. If it weren't 1 AM now, I'd write my whole manifesto for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Maybe I'll do that some other time, but for now, if you wish, you can piece it together by searching my blog and MW profile for terms like "refugees", "East Jerusalem", "borders", etc.
I don't want to wait another decade. I'd rather see a peace treaty signed today, but unfortunately that's just not realistic.
Remember that in 2006, just three years before being elected Prime Minister again, Netanyahu lead the Likud to a third-place finish in the elections, with just 13 seats in the Knesset. The party seemed like a gonner. Then, in 2009 it was Labor's turn to get 13 seats, and they too seemed like gonners. Now it looks like they're being revived and will be the second largest party in the next Knesset. They will lead the left, not Kadima (which doesn't call itself a leftist party).
Now, in a few years, when a real left-wing government is elected, things won't magically get solved. There will still be a lot of problems and things will take time, but at least there will be more hope for things to get better than under the current government.
While the Likud is still in charge, no, there probably won't be a two-state solution. But the Likud won't stay in power forever. Netanyahu is likely to win the next election, but the one after that just might see the return of the left to power. A lot can change in Israeli politics.
Starting at the 16 minute mark, Beinart clearly states that he opposes a one state solution (emphasis mine):
Beinart is warning against what will happen if the two-state solution is not implemented. Cultural/binational Zionism isn't his vision of what should be. When he says American Jews should listen to Palestinians from the West Bank, and not just to Israeli Jewish Zionists, he isn't saying they should become Israeli citizens, but that they should be heard, because as long as the occupation continues, they are ruled by Israel.
They voice their opposition in the Knesset and elsewhere, but since they're currently the minority, they aren't able to block funding of the settlements. The Israeli media sometimes shows left-wing and right-wing politicians exchanging barbs over settlement construction, but I don't think foreign media is especially interested in that.
Of course there are. The three Meretz MKs are the most vocal about it, especially Zehava Galon. There's also Dov Khanin of Chadash and the Labor Party MKs. There are also Kadima MKs (Kadima is quite a hodge-podge on this - Ze'ev Elkin, the number 2 pro-settlment MK, was a member of Kadima in the previous Knesset).
I myself am not convinced that Likud has accepted the two-state solution. The big question is how the party platform will look like during the next elections. I expect a big fight at the party convention, not so much between those who support and oppose two states, but between those who want to seem moderate and those who don't.
I disagree that Likud is the same as other parties when it comes to a Palestinian state. Labor, Kadima and Meretz truly support its establishment.
I'm no fan of Likud, but I feel the need to point out the inaccuracy of this post. This isn't the Likud "Charter", it is its party platform from the elections to the 15th Knesset in 1999, when Netanyahu lost his seat to Ehud Barak - that's ages ago in Israeli politics. Platforms change significantly from election to election. The line about the “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza", all in present tense, should be a clear sign that this is from long ago, before the disengagement plan.
The Likud hasn't become a dovish party, but it has accepted the idea of a Palestinian state (though Netanyahu wouldn't be heartbroken if it never came to be).
It isn't a residency permit. It's an entry permit, kind of like a short term visa. It is issued to Palestinians regularly.
I don't know.
Yes, Palestinians in the West Bank are governed under Israeli military law (or rather a mixture of Israeli military law, pre-1967 Jordanian law, British Mandate laws and Ottoman laws, to be exact), unless they have Israeli citizenship, in which case they're governed by the same laws as the Jewish settlers.
No, Palestinians without Israeli citizenship need a permit to enter East Jerusalem, since under Israeli law it is considered Israel proper.
Mental note: Annie calls me and anyone who isn't an anti-Zionist a troll (though she doesn't consider that ad hominem, for some reason) and tells me to buzz off. Never waste time replying to her again.
I know there are a few hundred Arab students at Ariel College. They aren't collaborators, they just decided to study there for whatever reasons they have.
An Israeli Arab would probably get stopped by police/IDF, but once he shows his Israeli ID, they have to let him continue on his way - he won't be in trouble.
True of most settlements, but not all.
I think you're referring to the Israeli women who have driven Palestinians from the West Bank into Israel. There the problem isn't that they have Palestinians in their cars, the problem is that the Palestinians don't have permits to enter Israel. If the Palestinians have entry permits, there is no legal problem.
It's occupation, not apartheid. These are different kinds of injustice, with different kinds of remedies.
Both. The occupation should end, but even while Israelis are still there, at the very least there shouldn't be separate roads and towns for Israelis and Palestinians.
Yes, you do attack arguments, but also people. In response to Taxi's comment about me you basically accused me of being a propagandist here:
And here is just a little sample of you attacking someone else personally, rather than his arguments:
I know there are Palestinian-Israelis in Ariel, the fourth largest settlement in the West Bank. I don't know about other settlements.
Technically and legally, they are "Israeli only", not Jewish only - so Muslim and Christian Palestinians with Israeli citizenship can use those roads and live in the bigger settlements. The smaller settlements, of course, wouldn't accept Arabs. I oppose this entirely - there shouldn't be separate roads, whether based on citizenship, ethnicity or religion.
Am I missing a reference? Why an orange?
Actually, you weren't on my mind when I wrote that. You usually attack my arguments and not me, unlike Taxi, Annie and some others.
Woody, what you're describing isn't Israel. Though it is the same government that rules there, the West Bank is a different regime. There I would agree that there is an Apartheid-like regime (though, technically, Palestinian citizens of Israel who move to the West Bank would have the same rights as Jews, which is the case, for instance, with Palestinian-Israelis studying and living in Ariel). It's a reprehensible situation that should end even before Israel and the Palestinians reach a peace treaty.
The core problem is our disagreement over the definition of Occupied Palestine. According to your definition, that's where I live. According to mine, I live outside of it, since I live in Israel proper.
I have to say, I am repeatedly struck by how badly some commenters on this site need to take courses about civil discourse and anger management.
Oh, Taxi, I love you too.
Apartheid Israel hasn't committed anything, good or bad, since it doesn't exist. As for the real Israel - yes, it has committed state terrorism in the past and I condemn that. Cast Lead wasn't a case of state terrorism. It was a case of a state trying to end the firing of rockets on its civilian population. Unfortunately, it didn't really succeed.
That's not what I said. Cast Lead itself was not a crime.
You haven't answered my question: are Amna Muna and Ahlam Tamimi heroes in your opinion?
Woody and Robert: Israelis who use illegal weapons such as white phosphorous and/or purposely target civilians are not heroes - they're war criminals and should be prosecuted and go to prison.
Here's my question: do you see Ahlam Tamimi and Amna Muna as heroes?
Nice to see that two of the prisoners whose release you celebrate here are Ahlam Tamimi and Amna Muna. Tamimi drove a suicide bomber to the Sbarro restaurant, where he killed 15 civilians. Muna tricked 16-year old Ofir Rahum into coming to Ramallah, where she participated in his brutal murder. She later taunted Israeli investigators and prison guards by imitating how Rahum cried for help in his final moments.
These are your heroes.
Annie, Hamas regularly targets civilians, including children in its suicide bombings and rocket fire on Israeli towns in the south. They'd never take any precautions to make sure children aren't harmed. Israel takes such precautions regularly.
It depends on whether or not there was actual indifference - whether they mistakenly believed there were no civilians or didn't care.
Annie, if those who attacked the Hamas commanders knew there were children and civilians there, they shouldn't have attacked. That isn't a heroic action.
Let's see if I can complain if I or one of my loved ones is blown up by a bomb on a bus or a Qassam on my house:
* I've participated in Israeli-Palestinian dialogue groups, though I've never participated in a demonstration against the occupation - borderline
* I voted for Meretz in the last elections, and before that voted for Labor and Shinui - I guess that's borderline again.
* I've served in the IDF, though not in the West Bank, Gaza or East Jerusalem, and neither was I in a combat unit - disqualified.
So, it is unjust to kill me, but I can't complain. Do I understand you correctly?
Can you provide a link to that? I've done a Google search and all I could find was Israel trying to coordinate with Egypt and Fatah - nothing about Israel intentionally breaking the ceasefire.
In other words, terrorism is unjustified, but complaining about it is just as unjustified. By the same token, it could be said that neither side has a right to complain about injustices against it, because it inflicts pain and injustice on the other side.
I'd say the exact opposite. Both sides have legitimate grievances, and both sides have the right to express them.
I don't think that if the motivation is justified, then every action is justified. There were many unjustified actions during Cast Lead, but there were far more justified ones. The targets of the operation were terrorists (not civilians) and weapons caches and those are absolutely justified targets.
Annie, I find it disturbing that you just can't find it in yourself to condemn Palestinian terrorism. Instead, whenever asked about the subject, you always say Israelis are worse - either today's soldiers and settlers or the pre-1948 Jewish militias.
Let me do something I doubt you'll ever do - acknowledge that both sides can do terrible, wrong things. I don't only condemn Palestinian terrorism, I condemn Jewish terrorism as well. The Irgun and Lehi were indeed terrorist organizations which targeted Arab civilians and that was an unjustified crime. The fanatic settlers who attack Palestinians and destroy their olive trees and fields are criminals who belong in jail. The policy of taking children to jail in the middle of the night is horrible. Israeli soldiers who target civilians (killing or abusing) are also criminals.
I can criticize my own side without losing faith in it. The other side should be able to do the same.
That's a twisted justification for terrorism. You know the old saying - two wrongs don't make a right. No Israeli action can validate terrorism against civilians.
According to AP:
"Hamas militants were in the area as the interview was being set up. One of them stood behind Schalit's chair, wearing a black face mask, a green headband of the Qassam brigades – Hamas' military wing – and filming with a video camera in his hand."
"against his will? do you have any links..i’d be interested in reading about that."
At worst it was forced, at best it was exploitation of a man in a very sensitive situation. The guy is in the middle of being released from five years of captivity and is still on foreign soil. I wouldn't think that he'd like to sit down for an interview, instead of crossing over to Israel and/or speaking with his family. In the interview itself he says seeing so many people after being in isolation is hard on him - another indication that he doesn't really want to be interviewed. Neither is he expected to give any more interviews anytime soon.
Annie:
i’m glad the egyptians interviewed him. i liked seeing him smile for the first time when they asked about palestinian prisoners and he said he hoped they were all freed and could go back to their families.
Notice that he said he'd like the Palestinian prisoners to be freed if they won't continue fighting Israel and it will be part of a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.
As for the smile - who knows what it meant. He could have been thinking "I just got out of captivity and haven't even returned to my country yet and you're already asking me political questions? Seriously?"
I think his response to the question was excellent, as was how he handled the whole interview. It was remarkable, especially considering the circumstances. But I also think putting him in that situation against his will was abusive and unethical on the journalist's part.
Elhanan Tannenbaum wasn't a spy. He was a drug dealer. That was perhaps the dumbest prisoner exchange Israel ever agreed to - three dead bodies and one living criminal in exchange for hundreds of prisoners.
Believe me, DBG, the Israeli leadership would be happy to do a 1:1 (or even 1:100) prisoner exchange. It's the Hamas that demanded so many prisoners.
Chaos:
If you only count Americans with an opinion, 55% support the protests - that's still a lot less than Israeli support for our own version. My whole point was that your assertion that Israelis call the OWS protesters anti-Semites is baseless. I didn't claim Americans opposed the protests.
As for the occupation - it is our main political problem, but not necessarily our main economic problem. It is one of many. Israel definitely can survive without the territories - after all, the loss of revenue from natural resources there would be balanced out by a lot of the defense-related spending that would no longer exist (like military protection of settlements).
According to a Rasmussen poll 33% of Americans hold a favorable view of OWS (not 40% like I mistakenly said before), 27% hold an unfavorable view and 40% have no opinion. In July, 87% of Israelis supported the J14 movement. I couldn't find a more recent poll, but it is safe to assume that support remains at around 80%, if not more.
As for Israeli support for OWS, there are no polls I know of on the subject.
I would imagine that there is more support among Israelis for the Occupy Wall Street movement than there is in the States. After all, something like 40% of Americans support OWS while at least 80% of Israelis support a similar movement - J14. Besides, it is an economic protest, which most OWS participants don't associate with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Max, you've reported from just one place - the tents at Rothschild Blvd. Sure, it is where everything started and where the self-appointed leadership is from, but this is essentially a leaderless, decentralized movement. There are many other Tent Cities around Israel (even Tel-Aviv has more than just the Rothschild tents), with each Tent City having a slightly different focus and approach, based on local needs and interests. Not only do the different Tent Cities not agree on a central list of demands, even the "leadership" is divided.
As for the inclusion of the plight of Palestinians in the movement: Yes, it is true that Gazans and West Bankers are not part of the call for social justice, but Arabs citizens are. At least two major protests that I know of had Palestinian citizens of Israel as speakers. Also, take the Be'er-Sheva tents, for example. It was the first Tent City outside of Tel-Aviv and one of Israel's largest. The Negev's Bedouins and their needs are a central issue at this encampment.
"But don’t be surprised that people don’t give a shit about Israel’s self-fufillment when Palestinians are still getting their teeth kicked in."
There's a difference between not giving a shit about the protests and outright opposing them. I don't expect anyone who isn't an Israeli to care about internal Israeli issues and to join the J14 movement. But why go out against it and try to paint it as an evil racist movement?
The IDF does not operate against Israeli citizens within Israel. If anyone would evacuate the tent cities, it would be the police, but because of the popular support for the tent cities, the main tent cities will probably not be touched.
Besides, even if someone does tell the police to evacuate the tent cities, it would go rather peacefully and there is no danger of anyone being shot. Just look at the building in Tel-Aviv evacuated of squatters the other day.
Sorry to dash your hopes for blood-soaked tent cities.
This was clearly a terrorist attack against civilians. The six civilians murdered were not merely collateral damage:
* Egged Bus No. 392 is a regular civilian bus between Be'er-Sheva and Eilat, with many stops along the way. On Thursdays a lot of soldiers use this bus (like any other bus or train line on days where typically soldiers go home for the weekend or return to base), but also a lot of civilians. Saying that this is a legitimate taget because of the presence of soldiers is like saying that any Israeli means of mass transit on Sundays, Thursdays and Fridays is a legitimate military target.
* After the attack on line 392, terrorists shot bullets and rockets at random vehicles on the road, killing five civilians (four family members in one car, another man in another car).
* A terrorist detonated an explosive near another bus, which, fortunately, had no passengers other than the driver, who was killed.
* Contrary to your contention (and the Angry Arab's post you linked to), it is clear who the casualties are. The six civilians were all in their fifties, and were clearly not members of the military.
Israel isn't conducting a "splendid little war" at all. It has shown amazing restraint over the last 48 hours, in an effort to reach a ceasfire, while rockets from Gaza kept coming. Despite the fact that the ceasefire was supposed to kick in at 9 PM last night, rockets continued to be launched at Ashkelon and the Eshkol region last night and this morning.
Since the message said that "we hope to be able to return at a more peaceful time", rather than "we hope to be able to return after the end of the occupation", it seems quite clear to me that the security situation in Israel is what prompted this, not a concern for Palestinian rights.
How about reacting to what "the Zionists" said, rather than launching some general attack?
It seems quite absurd to automatically assume this band is participating in the boycott, while the reality just as well might be that they are frightened by the terrorist attacks and the ensuing violence. Do you think there is absolutely no chance that they cancelled their performance for reasons other than the ones you're hoping for?
This isn't necessarily an endorsement of the boycott. They could have just freaked out because of the terrorist attack on Thursday just a few miles north of where they were supposed to perform. Maybe they're afraid to be blown up by Palestinian terrorists coming in through Sinai.
You aren't up to date. This victory of yours has been reversed. Ben Gurion University and the University of Johannesburg will continue their joint water and biotechnology research projects.
Is there any special significance to the date, July 8? Is it the anniversary of a special event?
Catholic priests and bishops were portrayed quite positively on shows like Blue Bloods and Mad Men, just to name two recent examples. I'm sure there have been more characters of Catholic priests than characters of rabbis (in fact, I can't think of any rabbis who have been on American television recently). Also, I remember a lot of shows where people mentioned going to midnight mass on Christmas or showed them going to a confession. I'd say catholic practices are shown more often than Jewish practices - after all, most Jewish characters are secular and don't tend to discuss Jewish traditions.
Joey Tribiani was a Catholic on "Friends".
Citizen, like I said, peace is the responsibility of both sides. It isn't only the Palestinians' fault that there's no peace, just like it isn't only Israel's fault.
True, the settlements are entirely Israel's fault and responsibility. If I got elected PM, I'd evacuate all settlements immediately. Unfortunately, there are so many settlers that it would be hard to get everybody out, which is why Israel wants to keep settlement blocks, in exchange for land swaps. But again, it is a problem of our own creation.
Woody, it isn't true that we can just leave on our own. We need to leave safely, knowing we aren't giving over the area to people who will turn it into a base for a war against us, like what happened when we unilaterally withdrew from southern Lebanon and Gaza. We can only leave as part of a peace deal - and reaching such a peace deal is a responsibility shared by both Israel and the Palestinians.
No, if your message is that the occupation is wrong, you should boycott the occupation. If you boycott Israel as a whole, you're sending the message that the very existence of Israel is illegitimate.
As Jon says, and as I wrote in a comment on a different post, an all-out boycott is counter-productive. My reaction to BDS is anger, not "oh, quick, let's get the hell out of the West Bank before our economy is ruined" - and I'm one of those who want to leave the West Bank!
BDS is also simplistic, as if the situation is entirely Israel's fault. It takes two to tango (and to reach a peace agreement).
Let's see which products they mentioned:
Osem couscous and falafel mix: As far as I know, Osem only manufactures inside pre-1967 Israel.
Binyamina Cabarnet Merlot: Manufactured in a winery in Binyamina, also well within pre-1967 Israel.
Ener-G Wheat Free Crackers: I don't know where this is manufactured - whether in pre-1967 Israel or the territories.
Kedem Kosher Tea Biscuits: Ditto - don't know if it is made in pre-1967 Israel or the territories.
That was a case within the ultra-orthodox sect, which largely doesn't even recognize the Israeli courts' authority over them. Most Israelis found the discrimination disgusting. And the court decision wasn't exactly overturned. There was some weird compromise that still did not allow discrimination, but that the ultra-Orthodx parents and rabbis could live with. Even this compromise wasn't reached because of any demonstration, but because the ultra-orthodox parents listened to their rabbi and went to jail for contempt of court en masse. I doubt the residents of the small communities that the new law addresses would be willing to go to jail.
Halakha isn't the law of the land in Israel. Besides, religion is one of the factors the law forbids to take into consideration.
But again, it is a weird, contradictory law. Only time will tell how it will be applied.
I believe the rule barring non-Muslims wasn't in place at the time. I do remember that Ehud Barak, who was then both PM and Minister of Defense, had the option of barring Sharon from entering, and decided against it for some reason.
I think the number 1 powder keg of the Middle East (the area of the Western Wall and the Al-Aqsa Mosque) is quite an extreme case. I'm not aware of any place within the green line where people's freedom of movement has been restricted based on ethnicity, nationality, religion or any other basis since the end of martial law in 1966.
Good question. This law doesn't make much sense and is full of contradictions. It seems to be designed to allow people to live with neighbors "like them" in homogenous communities. The factors the law does allow are economic ability (wouldn't the ability to buy a house be enough?), whether or not the person's center of life will be in the community (I can understand if they don't want a house staying empty most of the year, but I'm not even sure that's what this clause means), and whether the person will fit with the social and cultural fabric of the community. What the hell that means, I have no idea. It is just so broad. The committee can't say the person doesn't fit the social or cultural fabric of the community because he is an Arab, a Muslim, a Communist or whatever else they can't use as a factor. So what else does that leave? People who are loud or seem deranged don't fit the cultural and social fabric of the community, maybe?
Haram el-Sharif/Temple Mount is a special case: no non-Muslims can enter at all. So, on Fridays without age restrictions, a 27 year-old Muslim male Israeli citizen would have more access to the area than a Christian Israeli or Jewish Israeli of the same age, or of any age.
Like I said, I oppose this law, which means I don't think it is okay. My point wasn't that it is legitimate to discriminate on a small scale, but that the law does not apply to the vast majority of localities in Israel, meaning that discrimination in Israel is not the same at all as it is in the West Bank.
No, that's also illegal, according to this law. Here are all the factors that the law says cannot be used to reject a person: race, religion, sex, nationality, disability, marital status, age, parenthood, sexual orientation, country of origin, political views and political party affiliation.
Discrimination is everywhere in the world. There's discrimination in the United States, in the UK, in France etc. - but there's no apartheid there, nor would you call it apartheid.
The question of where the line is drawn between regular discrimination and apartheid could be the subjects of whole books and college courses. I won't come up with it right now. However, here are some of the factors that show there is no apartheid inside Israel:
* Palestinians are free to participate in elections, both as voters and as candidates. There are Arab members of the Knesset, including a Deputy Speaker. If it weren't for Arabs boycotting elections, they could have had about 25 Knesset members and been a force to be reckoned with, instead of just having about 10 seats in every Knesset. Despite attempts by right wingers to bar Arab parties from running, they never succeeded.
* Palestinian citizens of Israel are free to study at any Israeli university or college, and study whatever field they choose. There are Palestinian citizens of Israel with PhDs, and they are also employed by Israeli universities as lecturers and professors.
* Palestinian citizens of Israel enjoy full freedom of movement, like any other Israeli.
* Arab Israelis have freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
* There's no ban on mixed marriage between Arabs and Jews. Yes, because only religious marriages (no civil marriage) can be performed in Israel, a mixed couple must marry abroad for it to be recognized as a regular marriage. Common-law marriage, however, is recognized between any two people. This is also the situation for other groups that can't (or don't want to) get married with an orthodox rabbi, but that isn't aimed particularly at Arabs. It's a general problem of orthodox influence that must be fixed by instituting civil marriage.
* Arabs receive the same social security and unemployment benefits as Jews. If they have a lot of children, they get paid quite a large amount by the state every month.
Palestinian Israelis have access to those roads, too. If you're a citizen of Israel, you can drive on the Israeli-only (not Jewish-only) roads in the West Bank, regardless of religion or ethnic group. Does this make it okay? No, there shouldn't be separate roads for Israelis and non-Israelis at all, but if you're going to get technical (that I can go on those roads if I want) I'll get technical too.
And about the wall - it may separate me from the Palestinians on the West Bank, it doesn't separate me from Arabs inside Israel, nor should it.
You're making it sound like there is a concensus among South Africans in Israel about this issue. I haven't conducted a poll, but I am confident most South Africans who were anti-Apartheid activists and are familiar with the I/P situation, would say this is not Apartheid.
Also, does Karon call only what's happening in the West Bank Apartheid, or the situation in Israel proper (pre-1967 borders)?
No, I don't. Saying it isn't apartheid isn't excusing it.
I wasn't aware of the wall in Lod. I also don't dispute the fact that there is serious discrimination. As for Adallah's report: some of it is true, some isn't. For instance, it isn't true that no Arab municipalities have been formed since 1948 (unless they don't count Bedouins as Arabs, for some reason). Also, there is now an effort to solve the problem of the unrecognized villages in the Negev.
It is true that Arab towns suffer discrimination in funding, housing, education and other areas. This must be changed, and I don't excuse the current deplorable situation.
It is also true that most areas in Israel have either a Jewish or Arab population, but Jews and Arabs are free to move to each other's areas. Why they don't do this is a question for sociologists, economists and geographers.
There is serious discrimination in Israel, however it does not amount to apartheid. Not even close.
I'm not absolving myself of responsibility. Israelis inside Israel should be held accountable for what happens in the West Bank. That doesn't change the fact that inside Israel, the situation is totally different.
I'm familiar with the law and oppose it. However, it is limited to small communities (not neighborhoods) with up to 400 families, and explicitly states that applicants can't be rejected based on ethnicity or religion. It doesn't apply to cities and towns, where most Israelis live. I do fear it may be used as an excuse to reject Arabs (though not for security reasons, like Mo's signs say), but in practice, Arabs almost never move to these places anyway. Gay couples and single mothers are much more likely to be hurt by the new law than Arabs.
If you care about accuracy, then you're missing one word: "We demand the same rights our Israeli settler friends enjoy". The vast majority of Israelis - those who don't live or spend any time in the West Bank - don't have Jewish-only roads or Jewish-only neighborhoods, where Arabs cannot drive or live, and don't have walls separating them from Arabs.
I'm not saying there is no discrimination inside Israel, but from these three signs, it seems like your point is the occupied area, not Israel proper.
Haaretz published an article about this in today's paper (Hebrew here, English here).
Dozens of new comments have been added since the last time I was here, and I've had a long day, so sorry for not answering all comments aimed at me.
Woody:
Such a definition is way too broad, in my opinion. It includes all descendants of refugees as having been personally banished, even before they were born. This would mean that every single member of all future generations of Palestinians who do not move to Palestine or Israel would also deserve compensation personally for not being in their ancestral homeland, even though their ancestors already got compensation and citizenship in their countries of residence or other countries as part of the agreement between Israel and Palestine.
Having said that, I assume we'd have to reach some compromise and give some kind of compensation to descendants (those born before the agreement is signed). If it were up to me, compensation would be based on factors such as socio-economic status and citizenship. Someone like Ali Abunimah, who is an American citizen and seems to be doing quite well for himself, would get much less than someone of the same age who has lived in a Lebanese refugee camp without citizenship all his life.
On second thought, that might not be a bad idea. That way, Palestinians would feel much less threatened by Israel. It's worth considering.
Woody, it seems I mixed up different people. Indeed, you didn't call me a racist and I apologize.
First of all, wanting to remain a Jewish state is not racist. It doesn't come from thinking we're better, it comes from the belief in our right to self-determination. Even if democracy could be guaranteed in a binational state, I still want two states, with Israel being the democratic nation state of the Jews, with Arabs and other minorities having equal rights.
Second of all, you've asked me for specifics, so I'll ask you too: what are these procedural and legal arrangements you talk about and how can they guarantee there won't be a civil war?
Some solution can be found for them, too. Whether they'll also get compensated or only get citizenship in their current locations/get relocated, I have no idea. I'm just one person - it's not like I have to come up with all the details of the treaty.
It won't just be the US, it will be other countries as well. These countries have contributed large amounts of money for humanitarian causes before, including for Palestinians. They'll be willing to pay again, especially if they believe doing so would make the world more stable and peaceful, which is in their own national interest. Again, Israel will also pay.
That might be true about compensation for property only. If we're also compensating them for suffering (especially if also the descendants get paid), then they definitely would have suffered less in regular towns than in refugee camps, and would have suffered less as citizens of their countries of residence.
Re: a Palestinian military. It is all about trust, and both sides have a point. Israel doesn't trust the Palestinians so it still needs an army and can't allow Palestine to be armed. On the other hand, Palestine doesn't trust Israel so it feels it needs an army to protect itself. These two positions are both understandable and can't be reconciled easily, and I don't know how exactly it can be done.
And no, there wouldn't be foreign troops on Israel's borders, precisely because Israel still needs its military against other threats, besides the Palestinians.
Of course new military threats are created all the time, but the countries they threaten don't willingly create them. That was my point.
A Palestinian state, an end to the occupation and a solution for all refugees would end their torment.
I agree that Israel should have acted upon the Arab Initiative and started negotiating with the Arab League immediately after it was proposed.
So I understand that you'd rather all those who disagree with you leave the site, so only like-minded folks can stay here and heartily agree with one another. Long live Mondoweiss groupthink!
Well, you said: "It [ROR] is a human right, and it could only be threatening to a racist." I'm threatened by it, meaning that you called me a racist.
Obviously, Palestinians will stop demanding the right of return as part of an agreement that will say exactly how much would be paid.
The original refugees will get compensated. The money that would have gone to those who have died already will go to their heirs.
First of all, Israel would not be able to pay all reparations on its own, unless each refugee gets peanuts. We just don't have that amount of money. Second of all, the international community shares responsibility for the refugee problem. The world has done nothing to rehabilitate the Palestinians, instead it kept them in squalid refugee camps for political reasons.
By the same token, I can ask what state would allow the creation of a new military threat against it right on its border.
In order for Israel to give up its military, it would need to be assured no other country would ever try to attack it. At minimum, it needs to achieve peace agreements not just with Palestinians, but with all Arab states and Iran. I hope that happens one day.
Well, that's what the State of Palestine is for.
I'm probably a fool for even answering you after you repeatedly called me a racist, but I'll do it anyway.
I don't know exactly how much. It would probably go according to the value of property lost, plus some more compensation for suffering. The recipients would be the refugees themselves, and it would come from a fund that Israel and other countries would finance.
Palestine would be demilitarized, which doesn't make it any less of a real state. There are a number of countries without militaries.
As for Israeli troops, if it were up to me, I wouldn't keep any inside the Palestinian state. I would, however, keep an international force along the borders for a few years, to make sure that Palestine is indeed peaceful and isn't trying to smuggle arms to continue the fight against Israel.
Of course no country can be forced to grant Palestinians citizenship. Those who are denied citizenship in their country of residence would be relocated to countries willing to accept them.
I'd hope most of the areas of East Jerusalem would become part of Palestine, but the Palestinians in the parts that become part of Israel would become Israeli citizens.
I'm sure enough countries would be found that are willing to accept refugees in order to end their suffering. The costs would be paid by the same fund that pays reparations.
Ofer, as a fellow Israeli, you are well aware of the Israeli siege mentality. BDS only reinforces such a mentality, pushing more Israelis into thinking the whole world is against us.
At peace with its neighbors, perhaps, but at peace with itself?
With a two-state solution, there is just as much chance of Israel being at peace with its neighbors, and much less of a chance of civil war breaking out.
So what do you have in mind? McDonald’s Happy Meals? Clothes that say “Zionists stole my homeland and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt”? Maybe a post card: “Don’t Wish You Were Here…”
Reparations, plus refugees would be able to return to the new State of Palestine, become citizens in their current countries of residence or resettle in other countries.
Maybe this should annoy me, but it just amuses me. I guess when I criticize Netanyahu it is just meant to lower your defenses and plant Satanic Zionist seeds in your minds.
It is quite telling how open you are to opposing views if you think that anything that doesn't fit your own talking points must be Hasbara talking points.
The return of refugees, which is not a human right, is threatening indeed.
That's the thing - you do need as many of us as you can. After all, nobody is going to impose a solution militarily. BDS is trying to force Israel to do something, by making Israelis feel there is no other choice if they want to have a sustainable economy. In practice, it isn't convincing any Israelis. Your main problem is the fact that your ultimate solution is more threatening than the boycott itself.
Why do Mondoweiss commenters keep calling those with opposing views trolls and propagandists? Must one be an anti-Zionist to participate in discussions here? Unlike you, I haven't attacked anyone personally, only ideas and views.
I agree that we need to address what happened in 1948 and recognize Palestinians' suffering and our part in it, but I disagree on how to address it. We also disagree on what constitutes justice. According to the BDS movement, justice is nothing short of the return of the refugees into Israel, and I cannot accept such a position.
I'm committed to peace and the implementation of the two state solution despite the BDS campaign, not because of it. The BDS campaign is counterproductive because of the reaction it gets out of most leftists like myself - it pisses the hell out of us. You wanting to boycott me makes me want to work for Palestinian rights less, much less, not more. Whether you like it or not, you need to get more Israelis into the peace camp in order to succeed, and making us feel like we're under siege only pushes us to the right.
I had an extremely negative reaction even before I read that one of the principles BDS is working for is the right of return, which means that even the two-state solution isn't good enough for BDS activists. Maybe they'll keep boycotting us even after Israel recognized the State of Palestine, because of the refugee issue!
I hope that one day, an influential artist wholeheartedly condemns BDS as the vile anti-peace movement that it is, instead of trying to avoid the issue by claiming that this is music, not politics.
That's an odd argument. The Declaration of Independence may be our founding document, but it isn't the source of all legitimacy. The fact that we never followed through on the promise to write a constitution doesn't make all governments and Knessets illegitimate and undemocratic.
Israel has free and fair elections, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, (imperfect) freedom of religion, impartial courts, etc. - those are the things that make us democratic.
I think Netanyahu made sure today that at least one key EU member would vote in favor of recognition - France. Sarkozy offered to host a peace summit in Paris and threatened to support the UN vote if no progress is achieved in negotiations. Netanyahu rejected the offer.
I'm not crazy about the idea of land swaps - I'd rather evacuate all settlements and not give up parts of Israel proper within the green line - but it seems like some kind of swap is the only practical solution, and "agreed, minor and equal land swaps", as they write in their letter to Obama, seems like the best solution.
I agree with all six points of the proposed framework. I wouldn't mind so much if the UN Security Council adopted it. It is much better than a one-sided resolution that only deals with recognition of Palestine, its borders and East Jerusalem as its capital.
In truth, Shamir completely slipped my mind. I was thinking of the PMs since Oslo - Rabin's second term and onwards. Shamir definitely did not have any intention of giving anything up.
That previous Israeli governments were unwilling to concede as much as you, or even I, would have liked, doesn't mean they've been fooling Palestinians all along. Netanyahu definitely, Sharon probably, but not the others. I do think leaders such as Rabin, Peres, Barak and Olmert offered what they really did think was fair, and in the case of the latter two, permanent and viable.
This American move may not be as one-sided as you think it is. Wouldn't pushing the peace process along be no less pro-Palestinian (even more pro-Palestinian) than sending out flotillas to Gaza? After all, flotillas achieve nothing but PR victories for the Palestinians, while negotiations, in theory, could actually give them independence.
This is all theoretical, of course, since Netanyahu would foolishly reject Turkish-mediated talks, just like he foolishly rejected French-mediated talks today.
I'm not hijacking the thread as long as what I say (especially in my original comment) has to do with the contents of the post - in this case, the first paragraph. It's not my fault that people on this website tend to reply to my comments by claiming the very idea of Israel is illegitimate, thus moving away from the original topic to a certain degree.
And by the way, hasn't Kathleen "hijacked" the thread no less than me when she started a discussion of whether or not Jews are as pro-justice as they are considered? It's legitimate to talk about it here in this particular thread - after all, that is the nature of conversations - they don't always stay on the same exact topic.
When someone says something you agree with, it is the truth, and when you disagree with it it's propaganda? I could just as well say this site is full of pro-Palestinian/anti-Zionist propaganda.
Anyway, I'll stop commenting on this post.
First of all, most of the Palestinian diaspora wasn't born here. Second of all, yes, we can say that the Palestinian homeland is the future Palestinian State, because it is the only way for both the Jewish people and the Palestinian people to each have a homeland. Both Jews and Palestinians have historical ties to the entire land, from the Jordan to the Sea, but in one single state either both sides will not be able to exercise their self-determination, or only the side in the majority will.
Your analogy is incorrect. There's a difference between the situation now and the situation in 1948. Now, even after there will be a Palestinian State, Israel will have no right to expel its Arab citizens (just like it currently doesn't have such a right). The War of Independence/Nakba was whole different story. It was a war of mutual ethnic cleansing and its outcome cannot be undone.
You're confusing different things here. These aren't kids from Kibbutizm. Nowadays, Kibbutzniks (who no longer sleep separately from their parents, by the way) are one of the most leftist peacenik groups there is in Israel.
Zionists who support a two state solution do not deny the Palestinians' right to a homeland and self-determination. As for the Palestinian citizens of Israel, they should have equal rights. The equality of Arabs within Israel certainly is one of the major problems we have to fix.
Bumblebye, I'm not quite sure I understand your argument. That Israel was founded as a Jewish State doesn't make Judaism a subgroup of Zionism. Zionism is more of a subgroup of Judaism, although even that is far from accurate.
As for political parties, the law says that parties can be denied the right to run in Knesset elections if they oppose the Jewish and/or democratic character of the state. I think they should only be required to support democracy. In practice, the only party ever to be barred from running was Kahana's Kach, because it was an undemocratic party. Arab parties don't support the concept of a Jewish state (nor do I expect them to), but are free to run in elections, despite the right wing's repeated attempts to bar their participation.
Is it really? A few years ago, Le Pen got more votes than the Socialist candidate in presidential elections and made it to the run-off. Polls show his daughter may be able to reach a run-off in the next election.
Zionism, at its core, is a national movement (not a nationalist or racist movement - and there is a difference) that believes in the Jewish people's right to self-determination. Most Zionists don't believe we're better than others, just that we believe we have the same right to our own country as other nations do.
In a way, you can compare Zionism to feminism in the fact that some say feminism means believing women are superior to men (like some say Zionism is believing Jews are better than Arabs and others), while in truth, most feminists believe in gender equality. I'm sure this comparison will piss the hell out of most of you, but I really do think it is an appropriate analogy.
Perhaps evangelicals/Christianity isn't a good example, because it seems like I'm implying that Zionism is a religion, or that Zionism equals Judaism. I'm not. I wanted to give an example of a subgroup within a larger group. Maybe a better analogy would have been to ask whether you could say about Jean-Marie Le Pen's supporters that "this is France".
I do mean that this isn't the only face of Zionism, but I also think that saying that "this is Zionism" rather than a form of Zionism implies that it is representative of all Zionists. Would you say about extremist evangelical Christians "this is Christianity"?
And where are their teachers? Probably rallying with them. The religious high school yeshivas are a hotbed for nationalistic racism, and they are, unfortunately, funded by the government. If it were up to me, all funding would stop and the rabbis (who are the teachers in the yeshivas) who promoted racist views would be indicted for incitement of violence.
Again, I'm not excusing this inexcusable behavior. I'm disputing the premise of the first line of the post. Had Phil not started this with "what has Zionism done to Jewish identity" you'd hear nothing but condemnation for these racists from me.
Yes, unfortunately. I don't dispute the fact that there are a lot of racists in Israel and that the current government is no good. I just disputed the assertion that "this is Zionism".
This isn't Zionism as a whole, just one branch of it. This is the shameful racist, extremist far right wing religious Zionism (members of this branch, by the way, are pretty much the only people in Israel, other than government officials, that actually celebrate Jerusalem Day). This isn't Judaism as a whole, either. It does not represent the majority of Jews and Zionists in Israel.
I'm a Zionist Israeli, and I'm just as ashamed as you by these racists.
It just didn't seem to make sense, and even Kate wrote she isn't certain this story is true. Maybe Avi is right and it is a provocation. I couldn't find this latest Obama settlement, but I did find an Obama outpost in the West Bank that was destroyed by Israel two years ago.
I didn't run off without replying. The moderators ran off without approving my response.
I doubt the story about a new settlement being named after Obama in gratitude. Gratitude for what? Netanyahu and the settlers hate him for saying Israel should withdraw to a line based more or less on the 1967 border.
It isn't the mentality of Israelis. It is one soldier who should be disciplined for his inexcusable behavior.
I don't doubt this happened. Apparently, though, this didn't happen "the other day". Look at the second paragraph of this post from one year ago.
I'm sorry for his loss, and sorry for the soldier's behavior. I'm a little confused, though, since there are no Israeli soldiers stationed at the Rafah crossing.
12 were killed, not 112. I won't get into the argument whether or not they were killed by the IDF or Lebanese Army.
According to the polls I've seen about the Nakba Day, Israelis don't support the indiscriminate shooting of Palestinians. There was one poll that showed that most Israelis support restraint - 57%, as opposed to 34% who think any means necessary to stop the entry of protesters into Israeli territory should have been used. Also polls show Israelis support a two-state solution, which means most Israelis don't want to continue the occupation.
I support reparations for the refugees and think that those who wish to return, should be able to return to the new Palestinian State, not Israel.
If I were heartless, I wouldn't be disturbed by a comment like this. But I am. Demonization leads nowhere.
I'll watch the video of the event when I have enough time.
Maybe Goldstone didn't quite retract the report, he did make it clear that it would have been a very different document. The following quote from his op-ed indicates the report did claim civilians were intentionally killed by Israel:
I don't see all Palestinians as a monolith, as terrorists or potential terrorists. You shouldn't see Israelis (and Zionists) as a monolith, either.
As for Maroun al-Ras, where it is unclear whether protesters died from IDF or Lebanese Army bullets, I think non-lethal methods of crowd dispersal should have been used to prevent the breach of the border fence.
Well, he did say it would have been a different document.
She takes her orders directly from the president. The letter is symbolic and non-binding.
The letter is based on Richard Goldstone's own retraction of many of the report's findings, especially the false accusation that Israel intended to target civilians. If you're going to accuse these politicians of defaming human rights and international law, you should accuse Judge Goldstone of the same thing.
Israel isn't their country. Hopefully, they'll have the State of Palestine (West Bank and Gaza) to return to.
As for borders: The Israeli-Lebanese border is an internationally recognized border. The borders with Gaza and the West Bank (the green line/1949 armistice lines) aren't international borders, since they aren't borders between two independent nations, but there is no obligation for Israel to allow Palestinians into pre-1967 Israeli territory.
Crossing an international border without a permit, especially from enemy countries, is not non-violent.
As an Israeli, I hope the IDF successfully prevents the entry of demonstrators into Israeli territory without any Palestinian (or Israeli) casualties.
Is it impossible for a Zionist, especially a moderate one, to write his own opinions without it being a conspiracy? Maybe Goldberg really doesn't like Netanyahu, and that's why he's attacking him, and he isn't doing it in order to create a smoke screen?
Phil, you do realize that being frustrated with Netanyahu does not equal being frustrated with the very idea of Zionism.
Great, take a small extremist Hasidic sect that is no more than one tenth of a percent of Israel's Jewish population and make it out to sound like we all behave like them.
You'd actually like the Hasidic sect in question. They're anti-Zionists.
Who would be doing the terumpeting and crying? The newspaper itself or readers?
By the way, who is "us guys"? Israelis aren't monolithic.
If you're worried about bias from Jewish or Israeli reporters, shouldn't you be equally opposed to a Palestinian journalist covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
I don't think a journalist's religion, nationality or who they're friends with matters. It only matters whether or not they are professionals who don't allow their political views to go into their reporting.
Jewish-Israeli self-determination is not more important than Palestinian self-determination. Both are equally important. The two-state solution is the only way for both sides to implement their national rights.
Anas looks like a cute, happy kid.
Since Silwan is in East Jerusalem, there's a good chance his family will be able to move there once the Palestinian state is established. It's a whole different story from areas in Israel-proper.
I wonder, though, whether Anas even wants to move away from Amman, which is probably the only place he has lived all his life. Have you heard from him that his hopes and dreams include the right of return to Silwan, or are you just assuming?
We'd back up the acknowledgement of the Nakba by implementing a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders and compensating the refugees.
Understanding, rather than shying away from, this pivotal moment and its far-reaching consequences is not the same thing as wishing to undo what has been done, or to dwell self-indulgently on the past. What it does mean is recognizing how Arabs, Israelis and America have been, and remain, bound together in a fateful triangle. As President Obama said a year ago, the denial of the Holocaust or a history of anti-Semitism must end. But so too must a prevailing denial of just how important the traumatic loss of Palestine has been to Arabs and how great an injustice it represented to them.
I totally agree with this, in the Israeli-Palestinian context even more than in the US-Arab context. We Israelis need to acknowledge the trauma of the Naqba and our part in it. We can't expect Palestinians to just forget about it and shut up. On the other hand, as Makdisi points out, we can't turn back the clock. Acknowledging the Nakba doesn't mean we're sorry our state exists or that we have to resettle the refugees in our territory, but rather it is an important step towards real peace between Israel and Palestine, two sovereign nations living side by side.
Are you really serious, or am I missing the irony in your tone?
It's Hamas that's demanding that number and unwilling to let Gilad Shalit go for any less. Believe me, we'd be happy if they demanded a one-for-one exchange.
Besides, nothing is being done cavalierly. It has taken four years to reach this point and still, the deal has not been finalized. You should see the debate raging in Israel about whether or not this is too much to pay for one soldier.
Asking the Knesset to call for the release of Bowe Bergdahl and other US soldiers being held captive is not a bad idea at all.
How does this have anything to do with what I wrote about Kagan?
She wasn't being asked what her views about Israel are. She was being criticized by Republicans for her admiration for Aharon Barak, the former president of the Israeli Supreme Court, who conservatives see as overly activist. Her comment about Israel being important to her wasn't meant to show her "Zionist cred" but to explain why she admires Judge Barak even if she doesn't totally agree with his judicial philosophy.
Where was Haithem El-Zabri born? If he's from Palestine, I assume he was born in the West Bank, Gaza or East Jerusalem, since he isn't over 60.