Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 893 (since 2010-05-16 13:01:05)

I live in Italy and I'm interested in finding the truth about the ME-conflict (versus propaganda and one-sided, blind criticism).

Showing comments 893 - 801
Page:

  • Roger Waters appeals to fellow musicians -- Endorse the cultural boycott of Israel
    • Poor man! He pretends to be an human rights activist, calling for a cultural boycott of Israel, but he hasn't uttered a single word on the ongoing slaughter in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Darfur etc. and on the policies of segregation in the Arab world (including the Palestinian territories). Anti-Israel hypocrisy at its finest.

  • 'I'm anti-Zionist,' Helen Thomas declared, in twilight of long career
    • annie (July 26, 2013 at 6:28 am) -

      jonah, do you know the hebrew word for palestine?

      Peleshet: link to hebrew-streams.org

    • annie (July 25, 2013 at 10:48 am) -

      The exodus of the Jews from Arab lands is today a proven fact. In most cases it was a coordinated plan for the expulsion of Jewish citizens living in the country for generations. As you may know, from 800,000 to one million Jews had to leave their countries of origin in the space of little more than twenty years (1947-1970).
      You say that my comment does not support the premise of the argument, but obviously you do not know my premise (not the Thankgod's one). Unlike the anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli narrative, my position considers the exodus of the Arabs from (mandatory) Palestine not a deliberate act of ethnic cleansing, but as a direct consequence of the ongoing war. Today, hundreds of thousands of civilians are fleeing from Syria because of the civil war, and the same thing happened in post-mandatory Palestine during the fury of the first Arab-Israeli war.
      The two phenomena of expulsion resp. exodus of Arab from Mandatory Palestine and Jews from Arab lands appear to be the direct or indirect consequence of the war between the Arab states and Israel. However, I consider the expulsion of the Jews from Arab countries a form of deliberate ethnic cleansing, as Arab governments started pogroms and confiscation of property of their Jewish citizens as retaliation and revenge for the creation of the State of Israel, while the Palestinian exodus 1948 occurred amid the Jewish struggle to survive the combined attack of five Arab armies.
      Furthermore, Israel was willing and able to absorb the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, not so the Arab states which misused the Arab Palestinian refugees problem to keep the pressure on Israel.

      The following link can give you the needed information.

      link to meforum.org

      Also wikipedia is quite informative:

      link to en.wikipedia.org

    • Shingo (July 25, 2013 at 9:31 pm) -

      You need a refresher in basic history and etymology.
      "Palestine" was the name the exiled Jews in the Diaspora used when they referred to the old Land of Israel, "Eretz Israel": link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org
      For sure "Palestine" was never in history referred to a state or any united, circumscribed and organized entity of the "Palestinians" as the sole Arab inhabitants of the geographical place called "Palestine". Under British Mandate "Palestinians" were considered both Arabs and Jews (or even Christians) of Palestine - also referred as "Palestinian Arabs" and "Palestinian Jews". The name "Palaestina" was used by the Romans the as they renamed the geographical region of Judea after having destroyed the Jewish Kingdom of Judah and expelling its Jewish inhabitants.

    • jonah (July 25, 2013 at 4:56 pm) -

      I consider the expulsion of the Jews from Arab countries the real ethnic cleansing, as Arab governments started pogroms and confiscation of property to the detriment of their Jewish citizens as a pure form of retaliation and revenge for the creation of the State of Israel, while the Palestinian exodus 1948 occurred amid the Jewish struggle to survive the combined attack of five Arab armies.

      Let me add that out-and-out pogroms against the Jews in Arab lands started before the establishment of Israel, so in Irak 1941 and in Lybia 1945, as well as anti-Jewish riots in Yemen, Egypt, Marocco and Algeria.

    • Shingo (July 25, 2013 at 6:17 am) -

      You need to read the full text of the declarations and explanations made by Israel, in particular on the problem of the Arab refugees:

      1. The problem of the Arab refugees was a direct consequence of the war launched by the Arab States which were entirely responsible for that as well as for other forms of suffering inflicted by that war;

      2. The ensuing problem had raised a humanitarian issue and also had serious implications for the future peace, development and welfare of the Middle East. The Government of Israel believed that a solution of the problem was inseparably linked with a solution of the outstanding issues between it and the Arab States and that no satisfactory solution was possible except by the restoration of peace in the Middle East. A solution could be found only within a final settlement creating conditions of co-operation between Israel and its neighbours;

      3. The Government of Israel was earnestly anxious to contribute to the solution of that problem although the problem was not of its making. That anxiety proceeded from moral considerations and from Israel's vital interest in stable conditions throughout the Middle East. Any rehabilitation of Arab refugees in any part of the Middle East, whether in Israel or in the neighbouring countries, involved intricate tasks of resettlement. The two most widely advocated principles were (a) resettlement of the refugees in the places from which they had fled, thus creating a large minority problem and a possible menace to internal peace and stability and also placing masses of Arabs under the rule of a Government which, while committed to an enlightened minority policy, was not akin to those Arabs in language, culture, religion or social or economic institutions; (b) the resettlement of the refugees in areas where they would live under a Government akin to them in spirit and tradition and in which their smooth integration would be immediately possible with no resultant friction. A study of the economic, irrigation and other potentialities of the under-populated and under-developed areas of the Arab States revealed greater possibilities for a stable solution by the latter method than by resettlement in Israel. Therefore, the Government of Israel contended that resettlement in neighbouring areas should be considered as the main principle of solution. Israel, however, would be ready to make its own contribution to a solution of the problem. It was not yet ascertainable how many Arabs wished to return under conditions that might be prescribed by the Assembly or how many Arabs Israel could receive in the light of existing political and economic considerations. Israel's first objective at Lausanne would be to reach an agreement by direct negotiation on the contribution to be made by each Government toward the settlement of that grave problem. The extent of the contribution of the Israeli Government would depend entirely on the formal establishment of peace and relations of good neighbourliness between Israel and the Arab States;...

    • talknic (July 25, 2013 at 12:15 pm) -

      Here we go again: the name 'Palestine' was revived by the British to define the territory west of the Jordan river under their Mandate between 1922 and 1948. In this sense, "Palestinians" were both locals and immigrants, both Arabs and Jews. The Mandate explicitly states :

      Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;

      Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country -

      See more at: link to unispal.un.org

    • G.L. (July 25, 2013 at 8:03 am)

      Jonah, you are falsely equating the presence of Jews (e.g. Palestinian Jews) in that area with the existence of a Jewish state (i.e. Israel) in that area.

      Or maybe you don't like the idea that Jews can exert self-determination and self-governance through their own state, and not only live as 'dhimmiyeen' in a Arab Muslim country.

    • talknik (July 25, 2013 at 2:14 pm) -

      it is NORMAL for states at war to either expel or inter possible allies of their enemies (5th column) from their own territory .... It is also NORMAL to allow their return after hostilities have ceased. The US, UK, Australia did after WWII. Israel hasn’t.

      Are you maybe suggesting that Israel should and had the right to do the same with her enemies (5th column)?

      And please tell me: since when the hostilities between the Arab states, including the Palestinian Arabs, and Israel have ceased? Yet another (and in my opinion useless) round of peace talks has yet to begin ....

    • annie (July 25, 2013 at 10:48 am) -

      The exodus of the Jews from Arab lands is today a proven fact. In most cases it was a targeted and coordinated plan for the expulsion of Jews living in the country for generations. As you may know, from 800,000 to one million Jews had to leave their countries of origin in the space of little more than twenty years (1947-1970). Without many words we can speak of 'ethnic cleansing' as a result of the civil war in (mandatory) Palestine as well as of the Arab-Israeli wars that followed.
      Now, you say that my comment does not support the premise of the argument, but obviously you do not know my premise (not the Thankgod's one). Unlike the anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli narrative, my position explains the exodus of the Arabs from (mandatory) Palestine not as a deliberate act of ethnic cleansing, but as a direct consequence of the ongoing war. Today, hundreds of thousands of civilians are fleeing from Syria because of the civil war, and the same thing happened in post-mandatory Palestine during the fury of the first Arab-Israeli war.
      In this context, the two phenomena of expulsion resp. exodus on both sides should be considered at least equivalent, since they appear to be the direct or indirect consequence of the war between the Arab states and Israel. However, I consider the expulsion of the Jews from Arab countries the real ethnic cleansing, as Arab governments started pogroms and confiscation of property to the detriment of their Jewish citizens as a pure form of retaliation and revenge for the creation of the State of Israel, while the Palestinian exodus 1948 occurred amid the Jewish struggle to survive the combined attack of five Arab armies.
      Furthermore, Israel was willing and able to absorb the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, not so the Arab states which misused the Arab Palestinian refugees problem to keep the pressure on Israel.

      The following link can give you the needed informations in this regard. Read it before you (pretty lightly) dismiss it as hasbara.

      link to meforum.org

      Also wikipedia is quite informative:

      link to en.wikipedia.org

    • American -

      there is another explanation: your account of the events is pretty distorted and false. Only so you can make such misleading and slanderous comparisons.

    • ThankGod -

      Which Arab state was founded on lands ethnically cleansed of non-Arab population to make room for Arabs?

      A large number of Arab states:

      link to jpost.com

      link to jewishrefugees.blogspot.ch

    • talknic -
      >>Since being declared, only Israel has illegally acquired, illegally annexed and illegally settled in the territory of its neighbours, showing no “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”<<

      So why was Israel admitted as member of the United Nations in 1949?
      link to unispal.un.org

    • MHughes976 -
      So according to your mind, why should the Palestinians have the right to a own state?

    • kalithea -
      The right of the Jews to settle in whole land of Israel west of the Jordan isn't only because of their "karma", but also according to a very precise legal right written in the Mandate (which the British didn't respect, let alone the Arab under the British Mandate and Arab states).
      The accusation of stealing other people's land is simply incorrect. International law does not acquire validity only when you can use it against Israel, sometimes it also speaks in favor of the Jewish state.

    • andrew r -
      The connection of the Jews to the land of Israel is undeniable, in the same way the connection of the Arabs say to states like Egypt, Iraq and Syria is undeniable. The political, cultural and historical and spiritual roots of a country can not be simply brushed off with a sponge.

    • Israel is in the Middle East, not in Europe, although the only democracy in ME. So why do you equate Israel with Nazi Germany?

    • The "Jews" are not only a religion, they also are a people. And it happens that peoples have their own nation - after 2000 years of diaspora and since 65 years also the Jews. Nothing wrong about that. Israel as Jewish state has at least as much right to exist as many modern Arab states, whose borders where artificially drawn by European imperial powers during the 19th and early 20th century.

    • "I mean, Jewish-only roads?"
      "The Israelis are not even Semites!"
      "Did a Jew write this?"
      "Do the Jews ever look at themselves? ... And they have this persecution. That’s true, but they shouldn’t use that to dominate..... "
      "who are these people? Why do they think they’re so deserving? "
      "You’re Jewish, aren’t you?"
      "That’s what I thought. Well, you know damn well they have power."

      Ms. Thomas is a good example of the extent to which anti-Zionism can be impregnated with anti-Semitic ideas. She seems unable, while speaking about Israel, to suppress her perception of the Jews; and she can not help but confirm the impression given in her infamous phrase .... Also in the interview with "Play Boy", she is pretty outspoken and doesn't mind to openly deny Jews the right to have their own nation. But that has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, of course. The anti-Zionist always has a lot of Jewish friends and is himself a true friend of the Jewish people, but - at the same time - he has right and the moral obligation to make Israel the Jew among the nations. This is indeed what anti-Zionism is all about.

  • Is EU's stand on settlements a carrot or a stick?
    • Well, let's read again what Julius Stone wrote on this subject in 1980:
      "That because of the ex iniuria principle, Jordan never had nor now has any legal title in the West Bank, nor does any other state even claim such title. Article 49 seems thus simply not applicable. (Even if it were, it may be added that the facts of recent voluntary settlements seem not to be caught by the intent of Article 49 which is rather directed at the forced transfer of the belligerent's inhabitants to the occupied territory, or the displacement of the local inhabitants, for other than security reasons.) The Fourth Geneva Convention applies only, according to Article 2, to occupation of territory belonging to 'another High Contracting Party'; and Jordan cannot show any such title to the West Bank, nor Egypt to Gaza.".

      Support to Stone's assertion can be found in Lauterpacht's writing in 1968:
      "Thus Jordan's occupation of the Old City-and indeed of the whole of the area west of the Jordan river-entirely lacked legal justification; and being defective in this way could not form any basis for Jordan validly to fill the sovereignty vacuum in the Old City [and whole of the area west of the Jordan River]."

      And professor Rostow concludes that the Convention is not applicable to Israel's legal position and notes:
      "The opposition to Jewish settlements in the West Bank also relied on a legal argument - that such settlements violated the Fourth Geneva Convention forbidding the occupying power from transferring its own citizens into the occupied territories. How that Convention could apply to Jews who already had a legal right, protected by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, to live in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was never explained."

      And on the relevance of Article 80 of the UN Charter you might find worth reading this review of basic international law:
      link to algemeiner.com

    • Harry, civilian Jewish population has never been deported or forcibly transferred in the West Bank. They moved and live there voluntarily.

    • Carrot or stick, you ask? In truth an act of malevolence.

      The baseless hatred of the EU towards Israel

  • In 'earthquake' diplomatic move, EU calls on Israel to 'recognize in writing that the West Bank settlements are not part of Israel'
    • Annie -
      If you don't like flame, maybe you will accept the U.S. Department of State which expresses the same arguments. link to state.gov

      So you believe that Israel is behind the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also behind all the deployments But are you aware of how many U.S. troops are deployed around the world and how much does all this cost? More than 300'000 personnel worldwide for a total cost of $96 billions in 2012. link to whitehouse.gov None of them are stationed in Israel. Nevertheless, in your opinion Israel (and its 'lobby') is responsible for all US spending in the ME, isn't it? I ask you: How can you be so blind to the evidence?

      In fact, this accusation are unfounded and stems from a hidden bias: not only the critics of Israel say that Israel is a parasite of America, they even claim that Israel (thanks her 'Jewish lobby') dominates US politics from within and is the driving force behind the interventionist American foreign policy in ME. Besides, Israel appears in their words as the main and only cause of war there, also this a clear misconception of history.
      All these anti-Israel preconceptions demonstrate undeniable parallels to classical anti-Semitic stereotypes, as you just need to replace "Israel" with "Jews" and America with "Germany" or "Europe" to get the old result. This doesn't necessarily mean you are anti-Semites, but it indicates that you do use masked anti-Semitic concepts on Israel as the the only Jewish state in ME and worldwide.

    • Thank you all for confirming evidence of your anti-Semitic prejudice. Let me remind you that the term "parasites" is a stereotype of the classical anti-Semitism. Jews were considered "parasites" for their "host peoples", a concept that became central in the Nazi ideology. link to calvin.edu

      Using this very stereotype to characterize Israel in relation to the US turns out to be the modern rendition of the old anti-Semitic prejudice, the same way as anti-Israel criticism related to BDS appears to be infected by this kind of ugly prejudices.

      Yet, it's not only ugly and anti-Semitic, it's in fact also wrong and calumnious as it can be only a bias driven by hatred. To speak of Israel as a "parasite" of America is completely misguided and malicious, and the reasons are obvious:
      US Foreign Assistance is roughly 1% of the total federal budget, for example, in the fiscal year 2011 the United States spent $31,7 billions in foreign economic aid to a total of approximately $3,600 billions of federal spending. To these $31,7 billions, $17,8 billions more are added in foreign military assistance, for a total of $49.5 billion.
      The top recipients in 2011 were Afghanistan with over 12 billions (in 2012 $2,3 billions), the Arab countries (Iraq, Paqistan, Egypt, Jordan) with a total of $7 billions and finally Israel with $3 billions, the only democratic country in the Middle East and reliable ally and partner of the United States in all domains, in a region shaken by war, extremism and terror. link to en.wikipedia.org

      Some other hard facts about the benefits of US-Israel relations worthy of note for people sadly in denial like you: [.......]

    • "Israel is fooling itself if it thinks that China can replace America as its parasitic host. Ain’t gonna happen."

      Here we go with the anti-Semitic topoi. They couldn't miss, since anti-Israel discourse mostly hints at them.

  • The horror: 'Breaking the Silence' releases women's frightful testimonies of occupation
    • If the so-called West Bank was sovereign to Jordan 1950-1967, why a sovereign state as Jordan is launched hundred of terror attacks against another neighboring sovereign state during this period? An sort of creeping war of attrition, what do you think?

    • straightline -

      I think, Avraham Burg have got it wrong. The reality is far more complex than his oversimplifications.
      It is a well established fact that Arab children are taught from an early age to hate Israel and the Jews. Incitement to hatred is present in all domains of the Palestinian society and life, at school, in politics, in the media and not least in the mosques. Furthermore, people who have committed acts of terrorism against Israel are glorified as "Shahids" (martyrs) and entitled to a full, guaranteed and regular salary by the Palestinian Authority.

      The occupation is an excuse for the perpetuation of the conflict, once the occupation will be over, there will be another excuse.

      These are embarrassing facts that the pro-Palestinian supporters will never admit, because in fact they dismantled their anti-Israeli ideological construct. For this reason, they rarely pass the censorship.

      "Where did the word Palestine originate? It comes from “Philistine” – the name that the ancient Greeks gave to the people of southern coast of Canaan. And what’s your problem with that?"

      Well, in truth the Philistines were not part of the Semitic Canaanite population. So why did the Arabs under Jordanian occupation gave themselves the name Palestinians?

    • Yes, you did. Your comparison is malicious and defamatory, thus slanderous. And as such, it pursues the implicit, in fact barely concealed, purpose of demonizing the opponent. A quite well known tactic to deny Israel's right to exist on the one hand, and to justify terrorism against Israeli Jews on the other side.

    • "Without the occupation, there would be no terrorism."

      Wrong. There was quite a lot of terrorism against Israel before 1967 from the Gaza strip and the West Bank occupied by Jordan.

      link to en.wikipedia.org

    • Slander doesn't help your cause, eljay.

    • "They were part of the program to steal land."

      This is your reading. From the Israeli point of view it was and is a necessary act of defense against terror attacks from the WB.

      BTW, Ramadan Shalah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader, publicly admitted that Israel's security fence is an important obstacle to the terrorist organizations. At least he is honest:

    • Well said!

    • G.L: "Palestine must be reunited, just like Germany was reunited."

      "Palestine"... . Wonderful name, but do you at least know where it originated?

      And tell me G.L., what makes you believe that ME and Europe are even remotely comparable? Maybe Eurocentrism?

      "Palestinians just defend themselves ..."

      So why do they attack civilians in Israeli cities with bombs and missiles? Maybe you can try to be clearer about the size the land of "Palestine" should have for you, ok?

    • Without control of the territory through checkpoints and military presence, Palestinian terrorists (or "shahids", as called by their people or "freedoms fighters", as called by their Western supporters) would have carte blanche to hit any kind of civilian target in the WB and in Israel. If terrorism was really the result of closure and colonization, as stated by the critics of Israel, how do you explain then that hundreds of suicide attacks or attempts to commit such acts were perpetrated on Israeli soil, in Israeli cities, within the 1949 lines, and only a small part in the disputed territories?
      Is the purpose of Palestinian violence to hit "colonization" or Israeli Jewish civilians wherever they are? What do you think?

    • Checkpoints are used to control the movement of people from one place to another. If we look back to the origin of the checkpoints, they were mostly erected from 2000 onwards, and not surprisingly, given that the Second Palestinian Intifada - a euphemism for an unprecedented wave of Palestinian terrorism directed at the heart of Israeli cities - began at that time. The same is true for the separation barrier, which originally had and still has the purpose of preventing terrorist attacks coming from the Palestinian territories. Before that, the checkpoints were rudimentary structures which did not hinder the Palestinian people to move from a region to another, nor to go to Israel.
      So, it is helpful to put the issue in the proper perspective: there may be cases of abuses at the checkpoints and this is surely reprehensible and should be pursued, but what are checkpoints compared to the terror war engaged by Palestinian extremists against the Israeli population? Israel is preventing that the Palestinian territories may become like what is taking place before our eyes today in Syria - an area of ​​open civil war, with indiscriminate massacres of the civilian population. Checkpoints are a purposeful act of self-defense against the scourge of terrorism and chaos that plagues the Arab world.
      But on this, the human rights champions of the BDS and all the nice company are, as usual, strangely silent.

  • Alice Walker to Alicia Keys: Boycott, because Palestinian conditions are worse than they were in US South
    • And after Woody Tanaka and the BDS movement will have obtained "rights and equality to all" in Israel, they will then finally be free to focus their attention on the violated civil rights and the discrimination of the Palestinians (but ... only of them?) in surrounding Arab countries, included the PA territories, right?

      BTW: Some refreshing reality check for Mrs Walker and the BDS movement:
      link to haaretz.com
      link to israellawcenter.wordpress.com

  • Dershowitz calls Hawking an 'ignoramus,' a 'lemming,' and likely an anti-Semite
    • Shingo : the entire UNSC recognized Jordan’s annexation as of 1966, as proven by UNSC228, that refers to Hebron as Jordan.

      The Jordanian-Israeli agreement stated: "... no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations" (Art. II.2), "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto." (Art. VI.9). link to avalon.law.yale.edu

      Jordanian annexation of the West Bank in April 1950 was unlawful and was never recognized by the international community, with the exception of U.K. and Pakistan. In 19 years of Jordanian rule, the Palestinian Arabs never attempted to establish an independent state in the territory alloted to them by the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan. They cooperated with the unilateral annexation by Jordan und were granted Jordanian citizenship.
      Furthermore, the Jordanian “occupation” of the West Bank was very abusive of the rights of Jews and Christians, or any resident of Israel. During the 1948-1967 period of its occupation, Jordan permitted terrorists to launch raids into Israel. Jewish and muslim residents of Israel were not permitted to visit their Holy Places in East Jerusalem. The Jewish Quarter in the Old City was destroyed; fifty-eight synagogues were also destroyed or desecrated. All this in direct contravention of the 1949 armistice agreements.

      Hostage: It (the armistice agreement) legalized any Arab occupation of Palestine pending a final settlement or until Hell freezes over. It also recognized the sovereignty, legal jurisdiction, or legal competence of the new joint Kingdom to lawfully dispose of the territory in a final settlement agreement.

      There was never such a final agreement regarding the West Bank or the Gaza Strip, not with Jordan and not even with the later self-appointed only holders of the rights on those lands, the self-proclaimed "Palestinians". Nor any Jordanian sovereignty over the occupied territories was ever recognized by any international body. The armistice agreements did not contemplate the question of sovereignty and were to serve only as interim agreements until replaced by permanent peace treaties.
      Here can you find some views on the transitional nature of the lines:

      During the debate in the Security Council before the outbreak of hostilities in 1967, the Jordanian ambassador stated:
      “There is an Armistice Agreement. The Agreement did not fix boundaries; it fixed a demarcation line. The Agreement did not pass judgment on rights political, military or otherwise. Thus I know of no territory; I know of no boundary; I know of a situation frozen by an Armistice Agreement.”
      Prof. Mughraby wrote in the Beirut Daily Star:
      “Israel is the only State in the world which has no legal boundaries except the natural one the Mediterranean provides. The rest are nothing more than armistice lines, can never be considered political or territorial boundaries.”
      President Lyndon Johnson is on record stating:
      “The nations of the region have had only fragile and violated truce lines for 20 years. What they now need are recognized boundaries and other arrangements that will give them security against terror, destruction and war.”
      In this context, international jurists have also acknowledged the limited effect of the armistice lines:
      Elihu Lauterpacht, in his booklet, Jerusalem and the Holy Places, states:
      “Each of these agreements…contains a provision that the armistice lines therein laid down shall not prejudice the future political settlement. It would not therefore be accurate to contend that questions of title…depend on the Armistice Agreements. Questions of sovereignty are quite independent of the Armistice Agreements.”
      Judge Steven Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice, stated in 1994:
      “The armistice agreements of 1949 expressly preserved the territorial claims of all parties and did not purport to establish definitive boundaries between them.”

      In conclusion, the claims of the Palestinians as the only legitimate owners of the occupied (or rather disputed) territories is based on an unlawful Jordanian annexation of these territories, and as such they do not have an absolute, but at best a relative and partial valence.

      Shingo: Right of return is guaranteed under international law. Israel actually agreed to UN194 as a condition of memership at the UN.

      There isn't any sort of explicit conditionality between Israel's admission to membership in the UN and the implementation of UNGA Res. 194, as revealed in the neutral language of paragraph 5 ("taking note") to Israeli "declarations and explanations", records of which reveal that Israel did not commit itself to any specific action or time frame for implementing Resolution 194.

      And let's be honest for once: What other refugees in the world can still retain its right to return after more than 65 years? None other than the "Palestinian people". And note well, not the right to return to their nation-state, as for all other refugees, but the right to flood the sovereign neighboring state that happens to be, for more 65 years now, the state of the Jewish people.
      Obviously a Trojan Horse.

    • Dershovitz is of course right. The BDS movement is a direct emanation of the PLO and other Palestinian NGOs. Its main goals are the same as those pursued by the Fatah, that means
      "1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
      2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
      3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194." link to bdsmovement.net

      The first point assumes that the West Bank is solely Arab Land, while in fact the illegitimate claims to these territories were simply and unlawfully transferred from the illegal occupying force Jordan to the PLO in 1988. "Arab Lands" means in fact Islamic Lands since Islam believes that once conquered lands have to stay for ever under Muslim rule. However, this can never be a legitimate and acceptable argument for a claim to absolute domination over those territories.
      The call for the dismantling of the wall is hypocritical and dishonest, because it does not consider at all the need to protect Israeli civilians from Palestinian terrorism. Without the terrorist attacks there would be no wall, as it was before the Second Intifada. But since the BDS has integrated in its statutes the goal of the Palestinians to weaken and finally demolish the state of Israel, it is not surprising that the wall is seen only in its function of separation and alleged segregation and not as protection as in fact in has (but Israeli jews have apparently no right to protect and even less to defend themselves).

      The second point is obscure, since the Arab citizens of Israel already have full civil and political rights, which the citizens of any other state in the Middle East, included the people in the territories governed by the Palestinians themselves, could only dream of. The height of all this is that Palestinian leaders and probably also the followers of the BDS movement, exclude a priori the idea of ​​a Jewish minority living in the territories of their future envisaged state. We can call this for what it is and what is already well established in all the Arab countries towards non-Muslims, that is: full Apartheid.

      The third point represents the Trojan Horse of the so called 'moderate' 'soft' Palestinian struggle against Israel, embodied by the Fatah under rule of Mr. Abbas, and its aims at the demise of the Jewish state (as a state with Jewish majority) by means of demographic invasion of millions of Palestinian refugees.

      In some ways, I feel a bit sorry for Hawking, because I don't think that he, unlike many acolytes of the BDS movement, has anti-Semitic motivations behind his decision, he certainly has been put under intense pressure by BDS from the day he announced his acceptance to participate at a conference in Israel. He is just, as Dershovitz has rightly stated, a "lemming" who did not have the guts to stand up against the aggressive campaign waged by the BDS movement. But like all those who support the boycott of Israel, he should at least have the honesty to give up his computing devices, since they all run on Israeli intel chips.

  • Israel allocates 70x more water to settlers than Palestinians in the West Bank
    • It is not the first time that the Palestinian water authority complains about alleged shortage and theft of water destined for the Palestinians, obviously putting all the blame on Israel. Indeed, the accusation against Israel is systematic and is part of the overall strategy of always keeping the Palestinians as a victim of Israeli aggression, clearly well also as a means to cover the many failures and illegal actions that distinguish their own work. But these are for the most part mere allegations without factual basis, and they are suitable to impress only those who are already biased against Israel.
      Conversely, the Israeli side regularly publishes authoritative studies that refute the plain unfounded accusations by the PWA - this for example.

  • One apartheid state, with liberty and justice for Jews only
    • ADDENDUM: The PA through the mouth of Fayyad is complaining again ......

      link to ynetnews.com

    • enjoy your own execution, there’s peace in submission to the inevitable.

      still dreaming the destruction of the hated enemy rather than see the own sinking ship ...

    • .... errata corrige: politically dead, it rejects, Palestinian people ....

    • The Palestinians are by now politically death. On the one hand, Hamas - considered a terrorist organization by Europe and America - has no weight in the political process, since it reject any kind of peace negotiation with Israel, as written in its Charter. It is committed to the liberation of all of "Palestine" and will never relinquish to its wet bloody dream.
      On the other hand, the Palestinian Authority, headed by a PLO veteran and Arafat's former right hand man, remains in power without mandate of the people and is too weak (and unwilling) to pursue a policy that would bring about a lasting peace with the Jewish state. Moreover, the ruling clique in Ramallah is corrupt to the core and is interested in safeguarding privileges and monetary interests, derived from the millionaires donations from around the world, Europe and America in the forefront. The international community - in the absence of alternatives - prefers to turn a blind eye to its failed child rather than draw the necessary consequences of its bankruptcy support. All actions taken by the PA are nothing but a bad omen for any progress in the peace process: their incitement to hatred of Israel, the glorification of terrorists, the anti-Israel propaganda and the failed attempts to be recognized as state in the UN, the futile efforts to reunify with Hamas. But it has, indeed, a clear intent: to do everything possible to ensure that nothing happens. The Palestinian people
      Israel for its part will not want to go beyond what Olmert offered Abbas in 2008 and was dropped by the Palestinians without any answer. Even the Netanyahu government t accepted the principle of a Palestinian state, but the Palestinian refusal to negotiate does not come as a surprise.
      Thus, the status quo is by far the best solution, until a new pragmatic generation of Palestinian politicians will be able to reach a durable peace agreement with Israel. Until this comes true - it will takes years, probably decades - the Jews will continue to build in Judea and Samaria, as do their closest neighbors the Arab Palestinians.

      So relax and be optimistic: The 'disputed territories' will eventually become the model of peaceful coexistence of different ethnies for the whole Middle East and beyond. With tacit, wise blessing of the world. Inshallah!

  • Adelson-backed ad campaign features Jewish Dem claiming Netanyahu represents 'all' Jews
    • Even the 25,000 Iranian Jews turned out largel cahs bribed to move to Israel.

      They don't need to be convinced with bribes, the situation must only worsen in regard to Israel and they will be kicked out with one way ticket (at best).

    • (without typos:)

      Jews don’t refuse to live in Israel, but Israel is small, and as long as Jews can live in peace where they are, and anti-Semitism doesn’t force them to leave, they are also content to love and help Israel from a distance.

    • Jews don't refuse to live in Israel, but Israel is small, and as long as Jews can live in peace where they are and anti-Semitism don't force them to live, they are also content to love and help her from a distance.

  • No Palestinian athletes will represent Israel in the Olympics
    • When you've last visited Israel, Mooser? Have you ever been to Israel?

      Based on what you speak about Israel, cynically pontificating from your comfortable chair somewhere in the U.S.? Perhaps based on what you find on Mondoweiss? Mondoweiss is so self-referential and self-serving as you, have you not noticed yet?

    • By the way, I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but Hamas, Hezbollah and Assad aren’t actually states.

      Ok, do I understand you correctly that you are very critical of states, especially of Israel, but rather lenient on terrorist groups and oppressive regimes, such as those mentioned above? That would explain why your "facts" can not stand objective scrutiny of reality.

    • BTW eljay, if the terminology here commonly used to define Israel corresponds to the facts, as you state, so how shall we then describe regimes like those of Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad, Iran and others?
      Some particular rhetorical device is here needed ... What about: ultraoppressive, superterrorist, hypersupremacist, megaexpansionist?

      Sounds cool, yes? ;-))

    • Well, I think your corrections show clearly enough that you've lerned your lesson pretty well, even better than the Arab MKs in the Knesset. My congratulations. As for the apartheid-topos please ask fellow Goldstone (now ex-fellow indeed), he knows better ....

    • israel is an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state. it’s worth repeating imho. over and over and over if need be.

      Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it the truth.

      Anyway, rather than engaging in a long and probably sterile discussion on the above demagogic terms, I prefer to refer to a comment made by a person who, from personal experience, has the means to discern truth from lies - despite the fact that he lent himself to the anti-Israeli front in the UN to chair an inquiry whose report was proved inaccurate and biased, as he later admitted.

      link to nytimes.com

    • There’s nothing legitimate about an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state.

      The systematic use of falsely axiomatic, tautological and inflammatory wording doesn't add any substantial value to your points. Actually, it devalues them.

    • The Arab MKs of the Knesset are very zealous in attacking the very legitimacy of the Jewish State, taking full advantage of their position to harm Israel from within. I could make a long list of inflammatory comments and anti-Israel conducts displayed by these champions of Palestinians rights. Nevertheless, they are still there, despite their open incitement and deeds intended to harm the cohesion of the state. This only thanks to the fact that Israel is a democracy, strong enough to contain such destabilizing elements in its midst, even if sitting in the highest legislative body of the country.

      But there are also initiatives in the Arab-Israeli political field that oppose such a destructive policy, and at least this is a sign of hope:
      link to news.jonzu.com

  • The crisis of Jewish identity
    • Palestinian thesis: It’s ‘Occupation of our Land’, our worldly property

      Aha, "our [Palestinian] land" is now equivalent to "our worldly property".

      Maybe you are kind enough to elucidate what "worldly property" should mean, which borders this "worldly property" should have (had), and why ( based on what exactly: from a historical, legal point of view) it should be considered "their" property.

      Or perhaps - hypo-thesis, no anti-thesis - do you take these concepts "for granted"?

    • Woody -

      I don't deny the Palestinian Arab "Nakba". I just put this in its proper historical context, the same way I see the mass departure, flight and expulsion of Jews, primarily Sephardi and Mizrahi, from Arab and Muslim lands (800'000-1'000'000) in the context of the Arab-Israeli wars, even if persecution of Jews in Arab countries dates back to well before 1948 link to middleeastfacts.com.

      The ostracist call to expel me from this site (as happened with other users before) may show a lack of dialectical thinking on your side, the will - dictated by ideologically hardened positions - to get rid of opponents of thought rather than confront them with convincing arguments.

    • GLefty -

      >>Two wrongs don’t make a right.

      But you still need to understand where is the wrong.

      >>Besides, Palestinians had absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust.

      Don't be so sure about that:
      link to youtube.com
      link to en.wikipedia.org

      >>Even if Israel was NOT ENTIRELY built on private Palestinian property

      Stick to the historical and legal facts, not to fantasy.

      >>So, why [Palestinian Arabs] are they punished for it?

      For their wrong political choices, their terror tactics, their anti-Semitic incitement and deeds, their unwillingness to reach a workable compromise for peace. But on this you will never find anything on Mondoweiss or the sites you are used to visit.

      >>an ethnic nationalist state is unacceptable

      Oh my my, you sound so naiv and misinformed. So let's see: how many Palestinian Arabs live today in Israel, and how many Jews live in the whole Arab world? Please, find the answer and then use your brain.

      >>Violence or conquest is NEVER a legitimate way to acquire property

      Stick to the historical and legal facts of the ME-conflict, not to tags. And consider the present with impartiality.

      >>Also, I stated previously that when people compare the Holocaust to Zionist crimes, then this refers to the ideology/mindset of the perpetrators

      There is no possible comparison between Zionism and the Nazi ideology, but there are similarities between Nazism and the Islamist ideology, whose branches within the Palestinian liberation movement are committed to Israel's destruction.

      >>Both is ethnic nationalism. Both is ethnic cleansing.

      Totally wrong. The goal of Zionism was the foundation of the Jewish state of Israel in the ancient land of Israel, and it had no deliberate intention to ethnically cleanse the country from its Arab inhabitants. If the Arabs abandoned their homes (and were expelled to a limited extent), this was due to a situation of ongoing war (of aggression), started by the Arab states and with the support of the Arab-Palestinian militias, whose stated purpose was to destroy the Jewish community of Palestine. In this, they were similar to the Nazis.

      >>Both is conquest of new living space in the east.

      Ask your grandfather what was meant with conquest of new space in the East.

      >>No, that’s not true! Klaus already refuted your claim by giving this example: “The far right National Zeitung had a positive article about Israel and said that in Israel the German far right party NPD would be a party of the center.

      What a joke! If one journalist writes some non-sense in a far right newspaper, it doesn't mean that the German far right is pro-Israel! Rather, the neo-Nazi party NPD appears to be much more closer to the ideology of the BDS-movement and that of Die Linke when it comes to giving prominence to its openly anti-Israel position. Wir gratulieren!

      link to jpost.com
      link to news.de

      >>Oh my! That’s the typical Zionist logic, “What Zionists to do Palestinians is not as terrible as what Nazis did to Jews. And that makes Zionist crimes okay.”

      You got it wrong again. I was referring to the aggression war waged by the Arabs against the the newborn State of Israel. Use your lovely brain, not your conditioned reflexes.

      Can I suggest a book to begin with? Quite fair, neither too right, nor too left
      ;-)

      link to amazon.com

    • GLefty -

      Two wrongs don’t make a right.
      But you still need to understand where is the wrong.

      Besides, Palestinians had absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust.

      Don't be so sure about that:
      link to youtube.com
      link to en.wikipedia.org

      Even if Israel was NOT ENTIRELY built on private Palestinian property

      Stick to the historical and legal facts, not to fantasy.

      So, why [Palestinian Arabs] are they punished for it?

      For their wrong political choices, their terror tactics, their anti-Semitic incitement and deeds, their unwillingness to reach a workable compromise for peace. But on this you will never find anything on Mondoweiss or the sites you are used to visit.

      an ethnic nationalist state is unacceptable

      Oh my my, you sound so naiv and misinformed. So let's see: how many Palestinian Arabs live today in Israel, and how many Jews live in the whole Arab world? Please, find the answer and then use your brain.

      Violence or conquest is NEVER a legitimate way to acquire property

      Stick to the historical and legal facts of the ME-conflict, not to tags. And consider the present with impartiality.

      Also, I stated previously that when people compare the Holocaust to Zionist crimes, then this refers to the ideology/mindset of the perpetrators

      There is no possible comparison between Zionism and the Nazi ideology, but there are similarities between Nazism and the Islamist ideology, whose branches within the Palestinian liberation movement are committed to Israel's destruction.

      Both is ethnic nationalism. Both is ethnic cleansing.

      Totally wrong. The goal of Zionism was the foundation of the Jewish state of Israel in the ancient land of Israel, and it had no deliberate intention to ethnically cleanse the country from its Arab inhabitants. If the Arabs abandoned their homes (and were expelled to a limited extent), this was due to a situation of ongoing war (of aggression), started by the Arab states and with the support of the Arab-Palestinian militias, whose stated purpose was to destroy the Jewish community of Palestine. In this, they were similar to the Nazis.

      Both is conquest of new living space in the east.

      Ask your grandfather what was meant with conquest of new space in the East.

      No, that’s not true! Klaus already refuted your claim by giving this example: “The far right National Zeitung had a positive article about Israel and said that in Israel the German far right party NPD would be a party of the center.

      What a joke! If one journalist writes some non-sense in a far right newspaper, it doesn't mean that the German far right is pro-Israel! Rather, the neo-Nazi party NPD appears to be much more closer to the ideology of the BDS-movement and that of Die Linke when it comes to giving prominence to its openly anti-Israel position. Wir gratulieren!

      link to jpost.com
      link to news.de

      Oh my! That’s the typical Zionist logic, “What Zionists to do Palestinians is not as terrible as what Nazis did to Jews. And that makes Zionist crimes okay.”

      You got it wrong again. I was referring to the aggression war waged by the Arabs against the the newborn State of Israel. Use your lovely brain, not your conditioned reflexes.

      Can I suggest a book to begin with? Quite fair, neither too right, nor too left
      ;-)

      link to amazon.com

    • @klaus

      Who are you, the guardian angel of the young lady from East Germany called GermanLefty? And why are you diverting from the topics addressed in the comments above? Do you think it's interesting for me to hear that anti-Israel distortions and smears can be found in German far right Zeitungen as well as in far left Zeitungen? As if this were a novelty!
      I know your opinion on Israel, klaus: a "unique fascist-democratic state". Alles klar!

    • @Germanlefty

      unaware of your past, you are not even able to judge the present. Your last response further confirms this impression. How old are you, if I may ask?

      Anyway, I suggest you better take care of your own history and present time rather than venturing to judge the history and present reality of others without full knowledge of the facts. Maybe that is the easiest approach for you, but it reverses the logic of understanding and can only produce unsatisfactory results, as becomes evident throughout your line of argument:

      If some strangers just stole your private property, you would become hostile to them, too.

      What was exactly their "private property"? And why do you use terms as "strangers" and "stole"? Have you ever got to the bottom of the matter, or have you simply borrowed these words out of convenience and intellectual laziness?

      The land property issue in Palestine (a geographical name) in 1947 is much much more complicated than your obtuse equation above want to make us believe. Serious researches prove this anti-Zionist (anti-Israel) claim to be wrong and misleading. The full picture can be summarized as follows:

      Out of the total land area of Mandatory Palestine – 26.3 million metric dunams, the total area of Mandatory Palestine, well over half was state land (the Negev is 12.5 million dunams - almost impossible to cultivate - and state lands in other parts of the country as well + Waqf endowed lands etc.).

      The Jews bought and owned in June 1947 over 1.8 million dunams which were about 7%.
      Apart from that there were lands in the hand of Christian Churches and missions, private effendis from the Middle East, and almost a million dunams (4%) were ex-private lands of the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II.

      In other words, Palestinian Arabs possessed in 1947 less than 40% of the total territory of Mandatory Palestine.

      The UN partition plan allocated 11.4 m. dunams to the Arab State and 14.92 m. dunams to the Jewish state (the Negev 12.5 million dunams and what the Jews already owned + ). In contrast, Palestinian Arabs were to be allotted over 75% of the cultivable land).
      When the fighting ended in 1948, the land area of Israel had grown to 20.6 m.d. According to various estimates, Palestinian abandoned land ranged from 4.2 million dunams to 5.8 million dunams. 867,000 dunams were cultivated by Israeli Arabs in 1949.

      Read here for a detailed account:

      link to wordfromjerusalem.com

      Besides: The First Arab-Israeli War was started by the armies of five Arab states committed to destroy the newborn Jewish state of Israel. Without doubt a war of aggression, Israel acted in self-defense and in compliance with International Law, as reflected in UN resolutions naming Israel a "peace loving State" when it applied for membership at the United Nations. Both the Security Council (4 March, 1949, S/RES/69) and the UN General Assembly (11 May, 1949, A/RES/273 (III) declared: "[Security Council] Decides in its judgment that Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter ..."

      Ditto for the outcomes of the Six-Days War and related question of the disputed Territories, as clearly reflected in Resolutions 242 and 338, both based on the concept of lawful occupation. That means that, always according to international Law, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war is only given when "territorial acquisition or special advantage" is "resulting from aggression", otherwise it "shall be recognized as lawful" (11 March to 12 April, 1974, Article 5, paragraph3, RES 3314), thus from a offensive war, as repeatedly launched by the Arab states, together with their various terrorist affiliates.

      In conclusion, NO "stolen land", but conquered in a war of defense.

      OMG, this is what happens when you believe dumb shit from an old book. “God gave us this land.”

      Yeah, so let's dismantle that little "shitty country" which takes its right to exist from the "dumb shit" written in a "old book", yes? The lost of historical and cultural conscience makes you look really desperate, lefty.

      "I have never heard of this phrase."

      Doesn't surprise me at all.

      First of all, EVERY crime is unique.

      No, there is no comparison with the Shoah in history, especially for the radicalism and the addition of characteristic factors. In every other genocide you find one or more, but never all of these characteristics together:

      link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

      Using the Holocaust-terminology to describe the treatment of the Arab Palestinian by Israel reveals a complete misconception of reality and borders on insanity.

      The link you provided refers to an article about right-wing extremism. Indeed, some right-wing extremists (mis)use criticism of Israel to cover their Jew-hatred. Nobody denies that. However, the people on MW are usually lefties.

      Then perhaps you need to update your knowledge about left-wing anti-Semitism. Here an article about the persistence of anti-Semitism on Britain Left, which can be considered paradigmatic for the Left in general.

      link to jcpa.org

      Anyway, I'm happy that you consider yourself an honest critic of Israel, but along with the criticism of Israel it also takes an objective look at the reality of the conflict, not only strongly biased positions.

      Note also that if it's true not all critics of Israel are anti-Semites, certainly all anti-Semites are "critics" of Israel.

      The thing is that Israel claims to be a Western country. Western country means Western standards. That’s why Israel must be compared to Western countries, not to other ME countries.

      You make me laugh, Lefty. If so, let's say that Israel is a Western country with middle eastern standards, ok? Or do you believe that her neighborhood may be compared with that of Switzerland?

      Putting all Arabs under general suspicion of being Jew-haters and equal rights deniers is totally racist.

      Yes, but Jews need to be cautious since the Arabs - all Arab states - have a long cruel record of rights deniers. As for the the Palestinians (their corrupt political elites), they are even less able to give any assurance in this regard, let alone to start any reconciliation with the Jews of Israel. So, you know who is the real racist here.

      He keeps EUR 56 of your money, and you get EUR 44 back. Would you accept it? Certainly not. Subsequently, the thief calls you a hater, because you are not willing to compromise and share your private property with him.

      But think, there is also the kind of thiefs who wants to kill you immediately for the reason to kill you and to rob you of all your money. You can guess who tried to act in this way since the Jewish state came into being.

    • GermanLeftist -

      Just out of curiosity, are you an Israeli Jew or an American Jew?

      Neither of them. But tell me (just out of curiosity): are you a Christian German living in Germany or in the USA?

      Also, Holocaust survivors are probably too traumatised to be able to look at the situation objectively and recognise the parallels.

      No, they made a clear choice. You can read it here:
      link to www1.yadvashem.org

      Of course it was not an easy choice: They came from Europe as survivors and had to fight for their own and their new home's survival against a very hostile Arab neighborhood. So why go to Israel and not to the U.S., where anti-Semitism was quite widespread at that time, but they had not to struggle for their very survival? - This is the meaning of homeland.

      Therefore, Grass is not a leftist, but merely a left-leaning moderate. By the way, I liked the message of his poem.

      Are you maybe admitting that you share its not even so implicit anti-Semitic message?
      This may interest you: link to spiegel.de
      And here auf Deutsch: link to sueddeutsche.de

      Whose historical responsibility?

      There is also a responsibility shared by the entire nation. Germany as entire nation fell within a few years and in an unprecedented collapse of civilization into the most cruel barbarism that swept Europe in the catastrophe and brought the Jewish communities of Europe on the brink of total annihilation. This terrible black mark will remain forever indelibly imprinted in the history of Germany. But the post-war Germany has become a modern democratic state and has taken, again as an entire nation, the historical responsibility for the war in general and for its greatest crime, the Holocaust of the Jews. It drew the necessary conclusions, giving his commitment to help the Jewish people and its national state, well aware of what offense and what crimes the Jews have endured and may be subject in the future. But there are now those who invoke the so-called "Gnade der späten Geburt" to escape historical responsibility, and there are others who go even further by using the obscene comparison of Nazi Germany and Israel to deny the uniqueness of the Nazi crime, making the victims of the past to the tormentors of today. These groups and individuals, more or less consciously, not only show they have not understood the basic lessons of history, but also that they intend to misrepresent the reality of the present time. To define this type of manipulation of consciousness there is a specific term, as already seen for Paradebeispiel G. Grass. On the trasformations of the classical anti-Semitism in Germany and elsewhere there are serious studies. This one for example, very worth reading (in German): link to bpb.de

      Germans just know due to history that ethnic nationalism is inherently unjust and that’s why we reject it on principle, no matter which nation does it.

      But when it comes to Israel - the Jewish State - even more, I would add ...

      Which blogs do you frequent?

      For example the debates on zeit-online or spiegel-online ... You can get a taste, if you like. link to zeit.de. Nearly at the level of debate on mondoweiss ....

      Yes, and? That doesn’t mean that we want to destroy Israel. The opposite is true. Actually, we want Israel to expand into Gaza and the West Bank and achieve real democracy by giving all its citizens – Jews and Arabs – equal rights.

      Look at Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Irak, Iran and all the other states today. Are there equal rights in these countries, is there democracy? Are there any Jewish communities left, can they live there freely, without fear, with "equal rights"? How are minorities treated in the Muslim world? What will be the fate of Christians?
      Your formula "equal rights for all" sounds fine but is hollow and means actually the dissolution of the Jewish community in Israel, thus in ME, since there is no, absolutely no guarantee that an overwhelming Arab-Muslim majority would be able and willing to safeguard the "equal rights" of the Jewish citizens. Based on the lack of willingness to compromise on Palestinian side today (to put it mildly) one can guess what could happen once the Arabs had power in their hands ....

      Well, Roya should have written “Zionist Israel” instead if just “Israel”. However, it is clear that by “Israel” Roya meant “Israel as it is now”.

      Your correction does not reassure me, frankly. Maybe ask him what he really mean. You may be surprised.

    • @German Lefty @Roya - (rivised version)

      The comparison between the Zionist State of Israel and Nazi Germany is in my eyes very offensive, a major falsehood circulating in the anti-Zionist/anti-Israeli discourse. Ask Holocaust survivors living in Israel if they feel like in Germany from 1933 onwards. For them, Israel - the newborn Jewish State - was the only possible and conceivable destination after the horrors of the Nazi death camps. On the other hand, the relationship with the Arab Palestinians is tied to the broader Arab-Palestinian conflict and must be seen in that perspective.

      The absurdity of this comparison shows how many anti-Zionist activists (but also Palestinians) really think. By labeling Israel as "fascist state" and associating the Palestinian Nakba with the Shoah not only they are grossly misrepresenting history for political purposes, but they are projecting their own goals on the object of their resentment, that means they ascribe to Israel the hostile aims which is in fact part of their own ideological agenda.
      German Lefty: There are Germans (Paradebeispiel Günther Grass, a true leftist as you may know) who today use this blame-Israel-card in order to alleviate the historical German guilt for the Holocaust. Very unfortunate attempts to whitewash one's own historical responsibility. I'm not saying you are this way, but the tune on German blogs which I visit sometimes (I can German) isn't very encouraging.

      As for considering Israel and Zionism two different things, you need to remember the goal of early Zionism as national movement: the creation of a Jewish state in the ancient Land of Israel. The aim of modern Zionism is the preservation of the Jewish and democratic state of Israel. So, if you pretend to be against Zionism (the "Zionist regime") while implicitly asserting that Israeli statehood and people are to be respected, you are maybe not fully aware of the extent of your thoughts, since Zionism intimately expresses the essence and goal of the Israeli statehood and people, namely to be a Jewish and democratic State with Jewish majority. Being against Zionism means to be against the very idea of the Jewish people having their own state called Israel, with its peculiar Jewish and democratic identity. Anti-Zionism emerges very often as to be intended to undermine the State of Israel as a Jewish state, a state in which Jews can determine their own national fate. In other words: anti-Zionism and anti-Israelism are place on the same level.

      This fact is well confirmed by some of your fellow anti-Zionists. You need only to read a couple of their statements to get the true picture. Roya for example writes here: "The main difference between Nazi Germany and Israel is that when Nazi Germany was on its deathbed nobody was lobbying for its right to exist as a fascist state and insisting on prolonging the Holocaust." This language sounds quite eloquent to my ears.

    • ... subtends your mind-set?

    • Zionism is nearing its deathbed and I hope for your own sake that after it gets tossed into the ash

      Sounds hateful and delusional like Ahmadinejad. When you talk about dying Zionism (yes, in your wet dreams), this can only mean the State of Israel and its people as a whole, who represent the historical, tangible realisation of the very Zionist ideals. The two things can not be separated. Do you belong to this sort of enemies of Israel that wish every day her demise?

      Can I ask you what kind of ideology subtends mind-set?

    • That’s funny, I speak based on the same source you use.

      The fact that you are in intentional denial about the status of Jews under Islamic rule (which is the premise for historical revisionism), doesn't change the historical facts: Jews under Islamic rule were tolerated at best, traditionally discriminated and consistently persecuted. Please take note:
      link to antisemitism.org.il
      link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org.html

      So there can only be limited “anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish brainwashing.

      Again, you seem not aware of the reality. There is in fact a systematic anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic propaganda in the Arab/Muslim world. Please take note:
      link to adl.org

      Peled-Elhanan’s Palestine in Israeli Schoolbooks: Ideology and Propaganda in Education.

      Ms. Peled is a well-known leftist with radical views on the Israeli society. Her researches are considered biased and find no consensus in the academic world.
      link to impact-se.org

      the Palestinian Nakba is still going on

      The Palestinian have chosen - from the first moment of their nationalist movement - terror and war rather than peace. Their "on-going Nakba", as you call it, is mainly self-inflicted. If they don't want or can not change their strategy, they will in the long term lose the opportunity for their own state and will eventually be absorbed by neighboring countries.

      <i<so why can’t Palestinians who have been expelled for a fraction of that time have the same desire?

      They can but it makes only sense through the will for peace process, compromise and true reconciliation.

      see Shlomo Sand’s The Invention of the State of Israel

      Sorry to correct you again: it's called "The invention of the Jewish people". But don't worry: this Freudian slip says it all ....

    • without typos:)

      Roya -

      So let me get this straight, the very moment that a zygote formed from the gametes of two Muslim Arabs turns into an embryo, there’s some Jew-hating gene taking form?

      No, but from the anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish brainwashing the Arab society is subjected in school, politics, media and mosque.
      A couple of recent examples:
      link to youtube.com
      link to youtube.com

      No, so why in the world would you propose that Israel is a safe haven for Jews?

      Because in Israel they will not be not threatened or persecuted for the simple reason of being Jewish. But this is the case in Azerbaijan, America or Europe. The threats against Jews in Israel come, once again, from outside, their hostile neighbors (Palestinians or other Arab/Muslim groups or countries).

      FYI: Anti-Semitism in world is still a widespread scourge : link to antisemitism.org.il, regardless of Israel, or better: Israel is often the alibi to let out anti-Jewish instincts.

      Ok, I will put this in broad terms....

      Of course, of course: that's why also Austria still claims South Tyrol, which was annexed by Italy after WWI; or why the Sudeten Germans still hate so deeply the Czechoslovak state because of their expulsion in the immediate aftermath of WW2 and want to regain the lost territories, together with all their descendants; or why, if you prefer, the American Indians still want to restore their immense property of land that white settlers from overseas came to steal; or why, last but not least, the Mizrahi Jews still want all their properties back, stolen after the majority of them was forcedly expelled from and by their Arab lands ............ Have you got the hint or should I continue the endless list?

      "I’m not condoning anything, just telling you a bit about how life works."

      I could say the same.

      While dhimmis had certain restrictions, any respectable scholar can tell you that their rights were fully protected.

      Full protected? You speak in denial - or out of ignorance.

      link to en.wikipedia.org
      link to en.wikipedia.org
      link to en.wikipedia.org

    • @seanmcbride @Bumblebye

      Are you suggesting that the Arab lands were right to take revenge against their own Jewish citizens because of the outcomes of the first Arab-Israeli war for the Palestinian Arabs? If this was not outright anti-Semitism, what then?
      BTW: Did you know that pogroms against Jews in Arab lands occurred already prior to the foundation of Israel?

      link to en.wikipedia.org

    • waves of immigrationforced emigration

    • FYI, Israel became a safe haven for one million Jewish refugees from Arab countries, not to mention the many European Jews who survived the holocaust. I think you still need to understand that if the neighboring Arab nations are hostile to the existence of the Jewish state in ME, this is a problem related to anti-Semitism prevalent in the Arab-Islamic world, not to Israel itself. This anti-Semitism was already present in embryo before the creation of the Jewish state in the state of subjugation of the Jews in the Arab world (the status of "Dhimmi"), but like a long-infected pus bubble that finally bursts under the skin, it erupted with violence at the surface because of Arab- Islamic nationalism which resulted in xenophobia, that is in open anti-Semitism, when Israel was declared an independent state. Just like Europe, but without reaching its horrors, Arab anti-Semitism pre-existed the birth of Israel and, triggered by Arab nationalism, caused the wave of immigration of Jews to Israel.

      Here some crude facts:
      link to jcpa.org

    • Intercontinental ballistic missiles can reach also Washington D.C.
      Your fear of a military threat is not a very a convincing argument for not having the Jewish State. But 2000 years of nearly constant persecution is well an argument to have it.

    • "... throw out the eccentric idea that Jews Jews can continue being Jewish post-Israel, just like they did for 2,000+ years before the inception of Herzl’s brainchild."

      Yea, 2,000 years of anti-Semitism and persecution. For 60 years Israel is the Jewish bulwark against it, so rest assured that she will not disappear so soon to satisfy your eccentric ideas.

  • The (what about) China syndrome
  • Attack on historical maps ad says Israelis have only gained land thru 'defensive wars'
    • Who really owned the land in Palestine 1880-1948? A necessary corrective to the distortions of the 'maps of contention':

      Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880-1948
      by Moshe Aumann
      "A great deal has been spoken and written over the years on the subject of land ownership in Israel—or, before 1948, Palestine. Arab propaganda, in particular, has been at pains to convince the world, with the aid of copious statistics, that the Arabs "own" Palestine, morally and legally, and that whatever Jewish land ownership there may be is negligable. From this conclusions have been dr awn (or implied) with regard to the sovereign rights of the State of Israel and the problem of the Ar ab refugees. The Arab case against Israel, in the matter of Jewish land purchases, rests mainly on two claims: (1) that the Palestinian Arab farmer was peacefully and contentedly working his land in the latter par t of the 19th century and the early par t of the 20th when along came the European Jewish immigrant, drove him off
      his land, disrupted the normal development of the country and created a vast class of landless, dispossessed Arabs; (2) that a small Jewish minority, owning an even smaller proportion of Palestinian lands (5 per cent as against the Arabs' 95 per cent) , illegally made itself master of Palestine in 1948. Our purpose in this pamphlet is to set the record straight by marshalling the facts and figures pertaining to this very complex subject, on the basis of the most reliable and authoritative information available, and to trace the history of modern Jewish resettlement purely from the point of view of the sale and purchase of land .........."

      link to wordfromjerusalem.com

  • NY ads depicting Palestinian dispossession are termed anti-Semitic by 'Jewish community'
    • far more busier ...

    • Israel is considered as blight on humanity

      Ouch, here you've got just a little bit out of balance, shingo. This is rather worthy of a speech by the Iranian President or one of his regime colleagues than of a civil debate. Should this kind of discourse be taken as a paradigm for the Palestinian Arab general attitude towards the Jews (of Israel), it would not be surprising that the majority of the Israelis prefer by far the status quo to a Palestinian state and a so-called "peace". This use of inflammatory language and speech is the humus in which grows extremism.

    • "... Palestine was already the national homeland of a still living nation of Palestinian Arab people."

      Let's assume your last statement is correct and let's go down the path of your beliefs: Can you enlighten me about that "still living nation of Palestinian Arab people", but please without the usual cherry-picking of quotes Zionist quotes in support of your claims? Can you bring instead some quotes by "Palestinians" about their own "nation", maybe even before the coming of the Zionist movement in the early 19th century? And what kind of nation was it, what form of government did it have? When was it created? Which were its fundamental institutions? Who were their national representatives? You have certainly also some reliable source from the "Palestinian national archive", right?
      From the pro-Palestinian ME 'experts' I always hear so much about Israel, but so little about "Palestine" and the "Palestinians". This imbalance, almost a sort of unfairness of treatment toward the "Palestinian Arab people", needs to be corrected. Or maybe not so relevant?

    • However, ‘Palestinians’ are necessarily ‘the people of Palestine.
      Not only is your definition of the Palestinians apodictic, it is also tautological.
      Maybe you need first and foremost to get your facts straight on the term "Palestine", which was always only a geographical term, regardless of any particular ethnic, national or religious connotation:

      link to 1911encyclopedia.org

      link to peacefaq.com

      I don't dare say more because the shear of mondoweiss is always ready to hit when you bring into question its dogmas.

    • Thank you for your replies. It will be hard to answer to all, so I'll try to respond to some selected excerpts from your posts.
      The question raised by many of you on the exact meaning of the term "Jewish national home", contained in Balfour Declaration and later incorporated in the British Mandate, is outdated and overtaken by history, so a non-starter. In the declaration of independence of Israel link to davidbengurion.com, the Jewish character of the nascent state is explicitly stated, so as to leave no doubt about its interpretation: "[...]WE HEREBY PROCLAIM the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be call Medinath Yisrael (The State of Israel)."
      As you may know, Israel was admitted as a member of the United Nations by majority vote on 11 May 1949. The resolution regarding the admission of Israel as sovereign, independent state - a binding resolution - implies the terms expressed in the Israeli declaration of indipendence, thus also the mention of Israel as "Jewish state", or Jewish nation. But unlike the professed ambitions by Palestinians concerning the rights of minorities in a future Palestinian State (no major Jewish communities will be tollerated), the Jewish character of Israel means, in so far as possible, the realisation of "equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; [...] freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; ]...] safeguard the Holy Places of all religions [...]", as written in the Declaration of Indipendence. So, to close this preamble, the non-recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is nothing but a misleading anti-Zionist construct without factual basis.

      Shingo said: "The US was not created by a British decalration creating a national home."

      So, maybe we can at least agree that the United States were created on the trampled rights and the expropriation of Indigenous Peoples of America, the Native Americans.

      ColinWright said: "Finally, the Palestinians have an unrestricted right to national sovereignty in Palestine for the same reason that the Greeks do in Greece, the French in France, and the Norwegians in Norway. It is their land.

      On what factual and legal basis is it "their land"? I mean, can you substantiate this claim with historical and legal facts, or is it simply an apodictic statement?

      Straightline said: Pray tell us the real history but please don’t expect us to believe Israeli government sites or jewishpress.com. They don’t have a lot of credibility in these parts. Give us some objective sources.

      Read carefully Resolution 242 and ask yourself honestly, if only Israel has an obligation in this matter; read carefully the Fourth Geneva Convention (in particular the third section, article 49) and ask yourself honestly, if a document drawn up to protect the civilian population from the horrors of Nazi occupation, in which Jews were the first victims, can be applied to the letter to the reality of the Middle East today, especially to the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (renamed 'West Bank' during the Jordanian occupation). Think also about the actual validity under international law of the rights on these territories that former unlawfully occupying power Jordan has reliquished to the Palestinians. Moreover, consider that the same Paestinians are far from recognizing Israel as a sovereign state ("Jewish" or not) and that they have rejected up to now many attempts to mediate a peace between the two peoples, without ever renouncing terrorism. If you look carefully at these issues, maybe you can glimpse a bit of light through the cracks of the anti-Zionist ideology.

      Misterioso said: The Levy Committee’s rulings have rightfully been dismissed around the world, including the US State Dept.

      The US State Dept. has reiterated a political statement adopted world-wide, but hasn't provided any significant argument to refute the validity of the conclusions reached in the Levy Committee report. However, if I missed something, let me know. Thank you.

    • 1) National home = Nation
      2) So let's say that also the North American people do not have the right to a nation called US. Or that the Arab Palestinian people do not have this very right. This should be ok for you, right?

    • There is a fair amount of crude simplification, distortion, in this abused map of the territories, as well as in the legend that mentions a very misleading figure of refugees. It displays a so large degree of simplification that it borders on outright lie, or even slander. In this sense, the Jewish community speaks the truth: this kind of misinformation can foment anti-Semitism. And it can be rightly said, given that Israel has become the target of criticism and hate by a large front, ranging from the most staunchest anti-Zionist groups up to the mainstream, which tends (more or less ostentatiously) to question the legitimacy and self-determination of the Jewish State (as embodied by the Israel), that means the right of the Jewish people on a own secure national home.
      Actually, it would be enough for these champions of the Palestinian and Arab rights (versus Jewish rights) to have some basic knowledge of history and international law (the real one, not the distorted anti-Zionist version) to understand that reality is far more complex than shown in their advertisement for simpletons. I might suggest to these gentlemen for example to read the Levy committee report on the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (also called West Bank from the Jordanian occupation onwards), published a few days ago by three Israeli experts in international law, headed by retired judge of the Supreme Court of Israel Edmund Levy. link to pmo.gov.il
      I could also make them aware that not the Jewish settlements are the primary cause of the failure of the peace process, but rather the anti-pacifist attitude of the Palestinians (I mean expressly the so-called moderates, let alone the others), as evidenced by this fine article by journalist Khaled Abu Toameh: link to jewishpress.com
      But I am afraid of having to face the obvious and impervious: What is the point to show someone who sees only red that the world actually has different colors? He stubbornly and against all best arguments will persevere in seeing only red (especially when it comes to Israel). That's why his arguments must be called for what they in their evident anti-Israeli/-Jewish manicheism are: as the modern form of anti-Semitism.

  • What's the difference between South Africa and Israel?
    • At the same time, I recognize that something needs to be done to get through to them. But how? Unless we can come to grips with this phenomenon, how can we devise an effective policy?

      This is easier than you think. You have discovered the Naqba, but your discovery has been superficial, in the same way your anti-Zionism, uncritically inherited from the parents, appears to be a quite gross distortion of the reality that has bhrought you to see the reality upside down. If you want to get to know the Israeli psyche, you need first to recognize that there is anti-Semitism in the Arab-Muslim world as well as in the anti-Zionist ideology, both directed against the State of Israel, and that you must fight this anti-Semitism the same way as the ancient prophets fought the worst forms of idolatry. Not the Israelis are suffering from psychic disturbance, but the anti-Israel front is, believe me.

  • Report: Israel to give US only 12-hour warning before attacking Iran because Netanyahu doesn't trust Obama
    • "campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder"

      This list of epithets has become a lame excuse not to engage in concrete productive peace negotiations with Israel. The useful mantra of the BIS (Blame Israel Syndrom).

    • Yeah, I’m disgusted too Winnica.

      FYI, it's 25% not 70%. But it's still too much. That's the consequence of being a small beleaguered nation: it is forced to mantain massive spending for the defence and the security of its citizens (10-15% of the overall budget and biggest ratio of defense spending to GDP) and has too little left for the social issues.

      But if you really care about the well-being of the Shoah survivors (beyond the ostentatious sterile contempt), please, you can help here concretely: link to zdaka.org

  • Obama begins push for Jewish support in 2012 by touting the 'unbreakable bond' between Israel and the US
    • It's indicative to see how the (extreme) left and the (extreme) right are here united in condemning Obama's support for the Jewish state of Israel as propaganda, each side for its own purposes.

  • NY labor leader says Netanyahu's bad-faith negotiating tactics foster Arab 'contempt' for Israel (and Israeli official talks w/ his feet)
    • Settlers out is the only solution . otherwise give everyone the vote and forget about Israel

      Settlers out isn't the solution since this would not lead to peace. And the Palestinians are the first who will not agree to get the vote by Israel. So forget about it.

    • Well, Krauss, you need to get the whole picture. Not even the Palestinians seem so favorable to the two-state solution. Fatah and Hamas seem to be reconciled and are on track to form a government of national unity. FYI, Fatah does not accept Israel as a Jewish state (its official ceremonies, however, incite to hatred against Jews indiscriminately, Israeli and beyond), while Hamas does not accept the existence of Israel itself. So where do you see the willingness of the Palestinians for a two-state-solution? More fantasy than reality. Moreover, can you imagine that they agree to accept ONE state of Israel of which they become citizens? But if their intention is to eliminate it, how can you assume that they would like to join? Impossible, my friend.

      The presence of 750'000 settlers is not a problem, if there is the willingness on both sides to find a compromising solution. But there isn't. Israel knows that giving up the settlements does not mean peace (at least until the Palestinians do not radically change their eliminative aims). The Palestinians, for their part, will not stop wanting to eliminate the state that they think is the cause of all their woes and troubles (at least as long as there are Jewish settlements and, I would add, Israel itself).

      So, I would not be sure that the narrative shift will happen soon, or that it will happen at all. And if it happens, who knows if something will change? Or do you think the world will attempt to impose the One-state solution to the two contenders, as it attempts to impose today the two-state solution?

      Bet a penny that One it has the same chance of success as Two - that is, no chance.

  • A message of anti-Islamic hatred on the streets of Jerusalem
    • And yes, eee. This seems to be a very sensitive and embarassing topic for the pro-Palestinian anti-Zionist discourse indeed. Chu's so eloquent maxim "you reap what you sow" justifies implicitly that even religious anti-Semitism as political means to fight Jews indiscriminately is legitimate.

      Is this sane? I don't think so and I believe that this casts a pretty grim light not only on the Palestinian Authority which plays the trustworthy partner for peace (at least in front of Western cameras), while it promoting the ugliest anti-Semitic hatred to its people; but also on the anti-Zionist movement, which can not distance itself from this kind of despicable attitude because this would probably turn upside down their very ideological premises. If they are for justice, peace and human rights, why this embarassed silence, even veiled justification?

      It's pathetic.

    • you reap what you sow

      Are you saying that removing the skullcap from the Dome of the Rock is a legitimate act, since the Palestinians never stopped to incite to kill the Jews and this goal will still remain their priority in future? And are you saying that Israel should continue to settle Judea and Samaria, since the Palestinian authority promotes events which can be considered a declaration of war against any presence of Jews in ME? You reap what you sow. Is this what you want to suggest?

      BTW Chu, is it really clear to you that the Mufti in his sermon is referring to an old traditional religious Hadith according to which the Muslims have an Islamic obbligation to kill the Jews? That this Hadith, promoted during official Palestinian cerimonies and broadcasted on the PA (Fatah) television, is much earlier than the state of Israel and that it targets all the Jews indiscriminately? That this is anti-Semitism to the core, promoted by that same Palestinian authority which claims to be a reliable peace partner for a two-state-solution in the eyes of the West?

      Are you now able to get the implications of your self-righteous reap-and-sow-maxim, or do you still think that promoting religious anti-Semitism as political tool against the existence of the Jews in "Palestine" is a legitimate act?

Showing comments 893 - 801
Page:

Comments are closed.