Trending Topics:

Republicans want Jerusalem? Herzl promised pope, kaiser and sultan to leave it outside Jewish state

Israel/Palestine
on 50 Comments
 
Herzls portrait over Ben Gurion
Herzl’s portrait over Ben Gurion,
announcing the establishment of Israel, 1948
Republican candidates for the presidential nomination have been falling over one another in promises to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.
And the rightwing prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, proclaims Jerusalem to be the eternal and undivided capital of the Jewish state.
Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967 and annexed it in 1970. The world refuses to recognize that annexation. Meanwhile, Israel digs up neighborhoods all around the Old City to find coins showing a Jewish presence there in ancient times– justifying the eviction of more Palestinians from their Jerusalem homes. 
All international plans for Jerusalem have called for Jerusalem to be an international city.
And (as I first pointed out 2-1/2 years ago) Theodor Herzl, the Hungarian-Austrian journalist/playwright (1860-1904) and founder of political Zionism, promised many world leaders that he would internationalize the city if Jews could have Palestine.
In the last five years of his life, Herzl went from chamber to chamber of powerful men in Europe, and made these promises.
I have been rereading his diaries, and would offer these ten excerpts, all containing that promise, explicit and implicit:
 
1. May 7, 1896: Herzl’s intermediary to Sultan Abdulhamid II of the Ottoman Empire tells Herzl that the Sultan  “would never give up Jerusalem. The Mosque of Omar must remain forever in the hands of Islam.”
“We can get around that difficulty,” I said. “We shall extraterritorialize Jerusalem, so that it will belong to nobody and yet everybody; and with the the Holy Places, which will become the joint possession of all Believers–a great condominium of culture and morality.”
2. May 19, 1896: Herzl meets the Papal Nuncio Antonio Agliardi in Vienna and offers him the same assurance. 
“We require only the consent of the Great Powers, and in particular that of His Holiness the Pope; then we shall establish [a republic] ourselves–with the extraterritorialization of Jerusalem understood..”
Agliardi smiled: “He will be highly pleased. You propose, then, to exclude Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth, and set up the capital, I take it, more to the north?”
“Yes,” I said.
3. June 17, 1896: Herzl recounts a meeting with a high Turkish official in Constantinople, where Herzl has gone to offer money to Sultan Abdulhamid II in exchange for Palestine.
His objections were: the status of the Holy Places. Jerusalem must unconditionally remain under the guardianship of Turkey. It would run counter to the most sacred feelings of the people if Jerusalem were given up. I promised a far-reaching extraterritoriality. The Holy Places of the civilized world should belong to no one but must belong to all. 
4. Berlin Oct 7, 1898. Herzl meets with Count Philipp Eulenberg, German ambassador at Vienna:
I mentioned, as a matter of course, the extraterritorialization of the Holy Places.
5. Potsdam, Oct 9, 1898. Recounting meeting with Friedrich, Grand Duke of Baden, when Herzl promised:
There [in Russia] we must leave no doubt as to the extraterritorialization of the Holy Places—the extra commercium.
6. Palestine, October 31, 1898. Herzl’s one visit to the actual Jerusalem. Diary entry:
I am firmly convinced that a splendid New Jeruslaem can be built outside the old city walls. The old Jerusalem would still remain Lourdes and Mecca and Yerushalyim. A very lovely beautiful town could arise at its side.
7.  May 8 1901 En route Budapest to Vienna. Envoy of the Sultan Hamid says to Herzl:
“You mustn’t talk to him about Zionism. That is a phantasmagoria. Jerualem is as holy to him as Mecca.”
 
8. St Petersburg, Russia, August 11, 1903. Herzl meets with the Czar’s minister of finance, Count Witte. Herzl asks Witte how he feels about the fact that Turkish soldiers are in Jerusalem.
 
“That is less intolerable than if the guards were Jewish,” said the friend of our people.”
[Herzl responds] “We want to settle farther to the north. Away from Jerusalem.” 
 
 
pope
Pope Benedict XVI speaks in cordoned Bethlehem in 2009
9. Rome Jan 23, 1904. Herzl meets with the Pope’s secretary of state, Cardinal Merry del Val.
“We are asking only for the profane earth. The Holy Places are to be extraterritorialized.”
[Cardinal responds:] “Ah but it is virtually impossible to think of them as set apart, one from the other, in such terms” 
 
10. Rome. Herzl meets Pope Pius X, Jan 26, 1904. Pope says:
“Gerusalemme was not to be placed in Jewish hands.” …
[Herzl] “…But, Holy Father, the Jews are in a terrible plight. .. We need a land for these harried people.”
“Must it be Gerusalemme?”
“We are not asking for Jerusalem, but for Palestine—for only the secular land.”
philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

50 Responses

  1. hophmi
    hophmi
    December 20, 2011, 9:46 am

    So? I’m sure he meant it too. And I’m sure in a perfect world, where the Jewish right to self-determination was truly accepted, Arabs were liberal democrats, and Catholics sanctioned gay marriage, it would be so. But the lives of nation-states are not perfect, particularly when so many competing ethnicities and religions live in the same nation-state, and no country is exactly as its founding fathers envisioned it. Herzl died in 1904, not 1954. The question is how states as new as Israel, which is 63 years old, and with Israel’s challenges, which are immense, have fared in similar circumstances.

    • Exiled At Home
      Exiled At Home
      December 20, 2011, 9:59 am

      The “Jewish right to self-determination” is not dependent upon the conquest of Palestine and the subjugation of its rightful inhabitants. The Chosen People. The Master Race. Oh, wait…

    • justicewillprevail
      justicewillprevail
      December 20, 2011, 10:01 am

      Miss the point spectacularly. Then throw some wishy-washy false generalisations. Then deploy the old standby “we’re not perfect’ which apparently legitimises all the land theft, the lies, the ethnic cleansing and endless violence. Wrap up with an absurd ‘question’, which is supposedly the ‘real’ (ie pointless and illogical) question. Post inane comment. Done.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        December 20, 2011, 10:19 am

        “Miss the point spectacularly.

        Oh yeah? What’s the point, then? Republicans and Democrats say this every four years. No one ever does it. So what indeed is the point?

        Do you think the Palestinians are down with internationalizing the city? I don’t think they are. Do you think the Arabs were down with that plan in 1947? I don’t think so.
        ]
        Did the Jordanians treat Jerusalem as an international city when they controlled it from 1948-1967? No.

        Did they allow Jews to visit the Western Wall? No.

        Did they treat Jewish holy places nicely? No.

        Do you have any clue how utterly ridiculous the politics are in the Old City? You can start with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre#Status_quo
        These Christians can’t even agree on who gets to walk in which door. And this nonsense did not start in 1967.

        And you want to internationalize this place and put the UN in charge of it?

        You think that will make anything better or anyone happy?

      • justicewillprevail
        justicewillprevail
        December 20, 2011, 5:38 pm

        Ah yes, it’s all the other people’s fault, always. Never mind the international agreements. Yes it would make things better and Palestinians, Christians and many others much happier. Because it would be fairer.

      • annie
        annie
        December 20, 2011, 7:00 pm

        hophmi: “Do you think the Palestinians are down with internationalizing the city? I don’t think they are. therefore it makes perfect sense we kick them out, break our promises and take all the holy land for the jewish state……

        These Christians can’t even agree on who gets to walk in which door. And this nonsense did not start in 1967….. therefore it makes perfect sense we kick them out, break our promises and take all the holy land for the jewish state

        Did they allow Jews to visit the Western Wall? No. …….therefore it makes perfect sense we kick them out, break our promises and take all the holy land for the jewish state”

        And you want to internationalize this place and put the UN in charge of it?
        yes
        You think that will make anything better or anyone happy?
        yes, it will make me happy

        tho only result you want it for israel to control all of it, you’re so transparent.

        ethnically cleanse jerusalem! then everyone will be happy!/NOT

      • talknic
        talknic
        December 21, 2011, 4:33 am

        hophmi December 20, 2011 at 10:19 am

        “Did the Jordanians treat Jerusalem as an international city when they controlled it from 1948-1967?”

        A state of war existed. BTW Israel has claimed it for Israel, in case you didn’t notice. (If you’re attempting to show folk how rife ignorance and stupidity is amongst your kind, you’re doing a great job)

        “Did they allow Jews to visit the Western Wall?”

        A state of war existed. Did the US allow Japanese into the US during their war with Japan? Furthermore a 1948 Israeli Military ordinance appended to the law of entry, forbade Israelis from entering the territories of a hostile entity (incl Arab Israelis). You’ll find it still exists. Oh, except for illegal Jewish settlers.

      • tree
        tree
        December 21, 2011, 5:28 am

        Did they allow Jews to visit the Western Wall? No.

        I can’t even recall how many times I’ve had to debunk this. My great aunt (Jewish) visited East Jerusalem and the Western Wall in the early 60’s (prior to ’67) Jordanian did not restrict Jews, it restricted Israelis, whether Jewish or Christian or Muslim. Israeli Muslims were not allowed to visit the Al Aqsa Mosque or the Haram al Sharif, Israeli Christians could not visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and Israeli Jews could not visit the Western Wall. The restriction was not based on religion, it was based on Israeli nationality and had to do with the antagonisms beteen Israel and Jordan at that time. Israel put the same restrictions on Jordanians (many of them refugees denied a return to their homes in Israel) preventing them from entering Israel. But the hasbarist ignores the restrictions Israel created against the Palestinians it exiled and tries to imply that there was only a restriction on Jews when that is clearly not the case.

    • Cliff
      Cliff
      December 20, 2011, 10:08 am

      hophmi said:

      And I’m sure in a perfect world, where the Jewish right to self-determination was truly accepted[…]But the lives of nation-states are not perfect[…]

      Look, you clown, the issue is not the ‘right to self-determination’ IN AND OF ITSELF, but rather how it manifested in reality.

      Zionism is not a benign ideology and Israel is not innocent by any stretch of the imagination in any of it’s wars.

      In fact, you understand this reasoning very well but refuse to apply it to your favorite country:

      “I don’t think you’ve ever read the Koran. It prohibits restricting women’s rights.”

      LOL. It doesn’t matter what the Qu’ran says. Practice is different. The Bible doesn’t restrict women’s rights either.

      http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/likuds-perfect-candidate-newt-gingrich.html/comment-page-1#comment-403013

      THERE. Do you understand your own words, hoppy? Practice is different.

      No one would give a damn about Zionism if it wasn’t the source of constant war, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, colonialism, racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, etc. etc. etc.

      There was a non-Jewish majority. You could not create a Jewish majority without getting rid of all those non-Jews. That is what happened. That is what is STILL happening.

      Zionism is a destabilizing logic inherently.

      This latest comment of yours seems like an advertisement.

      […]which is 63 years old, and with Israel’s challenges, which are immense[…]

      Like we didn’t know how old Israel is. And the last bit is obfuscation. You say this garbage whenever Israel goes out and kills a bunch of people, or passes a racist law, or steals Palestinian land/resources.

      ‘It’s complicated.’

      ‘It’s a tough neighborhood.’

      You have never criticized Israel. Instead, you spend your time on an anti-Zionist blog WHINING that we’re all extremist while simultaneously noting the blog is popular, albeit without giving credit where credit is due.

      Poor hophmi, chained to his computer, forced to view MW everyday!

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        December 20, 2011, 10:27 am

        “Look, you clown, the issue is not the ‘right to self-determination’ IN AND OF ITSELF, but rather how it manifested in reality.”

        Sure. In reality, it manifest itself in a liberal democratic state with a 20% Arab minority.

        “Zionism is not a benign ideology and Israel is not innocent by any stretch of the imagination in any of it’s wars.”

        Do you know of an innocent country, Cliff?

        “THERE. Do you understand your own words, hoppy? Practice is different.”

        Yes, practice is different. That’s why you can’t act as if the entire world observes every UN convention to the letter and you can’t act as if the Palestinians and the Arab world are innocents who believe in plurality and singing kumbaya.

        “No one would give a damn about Zionism if it wasn’t the source of constant war, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, colonialism, racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, etc. etc. etc.”

        The Catholic Church and the world’s Islamic states have done infinitely more war, ethnic cleansing, colonialism, racism, and antisemitism than the Zionists ever did or were accused of. I don’t see you giving a damn about them.

        “Like we didn’t know how old Israel is. And the last bit is obfuscation. You say this garbage whenever Israel goes out and kills a bunch of people, or passes a racist law, or steals Palestinian land/resources.”

        Yes, because states must be judged relative to history and other states in similar circumstances, not against some abstract ideal that no state meets or has ever met.

        “You have never criticized Israel”

        Bullshit; I have many times, here and elsewhere. You have never criticized the Palestinians or the antisemitism in your own community of pro-Palestinian activists.

      • eljay
        eljay
        December 20, 2011, 10:58 am

        >> In reality, it manifest itself in a liberal democratic state with a 20% Arab minority.

        Where “liberal democratic state” = colonialist, expansionist, religion-supremacist “Jewish state” with a second-class minority.

        >> The Catholic Church and the world’s Islamic states have done infinitely more war, ethnic cleansing, colonialism, racism, and antisemitism than the Zionists ever did or were accused of.

        “Israel: We may not be as good as the best but, hey, at least we’re not as bad as the worst!” (c)

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 20, 2011, 11:10 am

        “In reality, it manifest itself in a liberal democratic state with a 20% Arab minority.”

        No, in reality, it controls a population which is 50% Palestinian, but where only a small percentage are afforded their human right to participate in the government which controls their lives.

        “Do you know of an innocent country, Cliff?”

        So you admit Israel’s guilt?

        “That’s why you can’t act as if the entire world observes every UN convention to the letter and you can’t act as if the Palestinians and the Arab world are innocents who believe in plurality and singing kumbaya.”

        Irrelevant. A criminal is not suddenly innocent by pointing to the fact that others are also breaking the law.

        “The Catholic Church and the world’s Islamic states have done infinitely more war, ethnic cleansing, colonialism, racism, and antisemitism than the Zionists ever did or were accused of. I don’t see you giving a damn about them.”

        Then all you’ve done is establish why we should be concerned about all of the various manifestations of non-progressive politics. I agree. Now will you join us in opposing the one called “Zionism”? Or was that exercise merely one grant logical fallacy?

        “Yes, because states must be judged relative to history and other states in similar circumstances, not against some abstract ideal that no state meets or has ever met.”

        Wrong. The whole point of much of post-WWII international law is the fact that there are “abstract ideal[s]” that states will be held accountable to, even if they explicitly reject those ideals.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        December 20, 2011, 11:27 am

        “Wrong. The whole point of much of post-WWII international law is the fact that there are “abstract ideal[s]” that states will be held accountable to, even if they explicitly reject those ideals.”

        Correct, because the only country to which so-called post WWII international law is really applied is Israel. Israel’s being held to a higher standard than other states.

        “Then all you’ve done is establish why we should be concerned about all of the various manifestations of non-progressive politics.”

        No, I’ve established that there is strength in numbers, and that strength is used to persecute others historically and make obtuse pie-in-the-sky arguments about how states with different challenges should act.

        “Irrelevant. A criminal is not suddenly innocent by pointing to the fact that others are also breaking the law.”

        The fact that others break the so-called law much more brazenly than the so-called criminal is relevant to establishing both the legitimacy of the law and the fairness of its application, particularly in a political context.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        December 20, 2011, 11:39 am

        Sure. In reality, it manifest itself in a liberal democratic state with a 20% Arab minority.

        Sure, by way of a war in which 750K Palestinians were ethnically cleansed. The 20% Arab minority is under constant threat of expulsion by the Zionist mainstream. The Arab minority is discriminated against by racist Zionist laws that privilege Jews over non-Jews.

        Israel is not a liberal democracy.

        The Israeli Arabs are subject to institutional discrimination and viewed as a fifth column in Israeli society.

        Do you know of an innocent country, Cliff?

        No, I don’t. I also would criticize ideological and cultist supporters of those countries for obfuscating reality with meaningless phrases like ‘it’s complicated’.

        Yes, practice is different. That’s why you can’t act as if the entire world observes every UN convention to the letter and you can’t act as if the Palestinians and the Arab world are innocents who believe in plurality and singing kumbaya.

        The Palestinians are not the occupiers, Israel is. The Palestinians are not the recipients of 3 billion dollars in direct foreign assistance each year. The Palestinians are not shoving Jews through checkpoints and controlling their daily lives in spite of the FACT that Israel kills 10 times as many Palestinian children and 5 times as many Palestinian civilians.

        There is no parity between the occupier and the occupied. That is how practice is different.

        You whine about some vapour of an argument. A mystification of how Israel is criticized and then flip reality to paint the Palestinian people as having any clout whatsoever in any meaningful sense.

        I never said the Arab world was wholly innocent.

        YOU were the ideologue who said that Israel ‘lives in a tough neighborhood’ and other worthless hasbara catch-phrases.

        You were the one who said Palestinians supported Hitler, a very explicit statement that does not need any further analysis. It was a lie, a lie you kept repeating several times in the subsequent weeks that followed without substantiation. Oh and then you lied that you didn’t bring up the Mufti who was not supported by the Palestinian people and who was thought of as a useful idiot by Ben-Gurion.

        The Catholic Church and the world’s Islamic states have done infinitely more war, ethnic cleansing, colonialism, racism, and antisemitism than the Zionists ever did or were accused of. I don’t see you giving a damn about them.

        Really? How did those Islamic States come about, hoppy? When did they come into existence?

        This is your standard fare reflexive Zionist response. You don’t have any actual argument against what I wrote so you go with the STANDARD response you’ve been taught.

        I don’t support any State that has carried out similar crimes or worse. I have never made any statement in support of this amorphous blob you refer to as ‘Islamic States’ which you lazily compare to Israel.

        You have never criticized Israel and you justify or excuse it’s crimes by pointing the finger at other States. Slavery once existed and not it’s gone. Just because States once practiced slavery would not give Israel the right to practice slavery (at which point you’d begin your finger-pointing-Zionist-circus-act).

        Yes, because states must be judged relative to history and other states in similar circumstances, not against some abstract ideal that no state meets or has ever met.

        Actually, States should be judged with respect to basic concepts of human decency which arise from the Zeitgeist of whoever does the criticizing.

        In Israel, Israelis are openly racist against non-Jews. In America, we have different political and societal pressures that affect our attitudes towards minorities.

        So the standards differ from place to place.

        Israel should be judged according to international law and international norms.

        I suppose you don’t care about the suffering of the people of S’Derot now though because they have experienced absolutely NOTHING in comparison to the Palestinians of Gaza. And Israelis, in general, have experienced nothing in comparison to the Palestinians, in general.

        That is truly judging States “relative to history”.

        If other States were practicing slavery, or had practiced slavery, you would justify Israel practicing slavery by pointing the finger at past misdeeds by X, Y and Z country.

        It’s a disgusting way to look at the world but one that a cultist like you have become accustomed to.

        Bullshit; I have many times, here and elsewhere. You have never criticized the Palestinians or the antisemitism in your own community of pro-Palestinian activists.

        You have NEVER criticized Israel. NEVER.

        As for me, if there is something worth criticizing vocally then I do it and anyone can search my comment section.

        The antisemitism in the pro-Palestinian community is something I would criticize if it was worthy of attention. I don’t talk about Gilad Aztmon, for example, because he is not an organizer of BDS or a respected speaker of Palestinian rights.

        I don’t criticize Hamas because I don’t support them at all by-definition. I don’t feel the need to criticize something so black and white just to meet your quota.

        I don’t support the Itamar killings perpetrators or their justification for their actions and I don’t feel I need to express that fact because it’s also a black-and-white issue to me.

        There is no comparison between us. You are a liar and a pathetic ideologue. I can quote you effortlessly and accurately for the racist nationalist side-show that you are.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        December 20, 2011, 11:44 am

        hophmi said:

        The fact that others break the so-called law much more brazenly than the so-called criminal is relevant to establishing both the legitimacy of the law and the fairness of its application, particularly in a political context.

        Bullshit. The word “brazen” is defined as:

        Bold and without shame.

        Few other countries, as viewed in OUR (you know, the country you LIVE IN, hoppy) political culture, break the law so openly as Israel.

        Israel gets away with murder, theft and lies repeatedly. Israel boards a flotilla in international waters and MURDERS the activists on board because they defended themselves with whatever they had with them. A flotilla that had no weapons but rather, books, toys, medicine, etc. for the people of Gaza.

        Countries like Iran or N. Korea are made out to be part of ‘an axis of evil’, whereas Israel is our ‘eternal ally’.

        ‘Brazen’ is then a matter of opinion. Israel gets away with it’s crimes in our political culture and those ‘other countries’ do not.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 20, 2011, 11:54 am

        “[T]he only country to which so-called post WWII international law is really applied is Israel. Israel’s being held to a higher standard than other states.”

        Baloney. Part of the justification that the US has been using over the last 30 years as it’s been ravaging people around the world with “freedom” and “liberation” was this post-WWII international law concerning abstract ideals. Don’t you remember Chimpy McHitler screeching about “no more Munichs, no more Yaltas”? What do you think that was about?

        “No, I’ve established that there is strength in numbers,”

        LOL. No, you haven’t. In fact, the history of the middle east over the last 100-150 years demonstrates that numbers is one of the least relevant factors in determining strength.

        “and that strength is used to persecute others historically and make obtuse pie-in-the-sky arguments about how states with different challenges should act.”

        There is nothing “pie in the sky” about a statement that every state should be required to provide full human rights to everyone under its control. It’s basic decency.

        “The fact that others break the so-called law much more brazenly than the so-called criminal is relevant to establishing both the legitimacy of the law and the fairness of its application, particularly in a political context.”

        Not really. But even if it did, so what? Neither of those things demonstrates that the criminal is innocent and both sound like the kind of garbage that bad defense lawyers argue as a way of assisting a guilty client get away with murder.

        And, here, you already admitted Israel’s guilt. And how could you not, it’s a state which controls a population which is 50% Palestinian, but where only a small percentage of those Palestinians are afforded their human right to participate in the government which controls their lives.

      • Exiled At Home
        Exiled At Home
        December 20, 2011, 1:48 pm

        Hophmi,

        The fact that others break the so-called law much more brazenly than the so-called criminal is relevant…

        Wait. The Catholic Church and Islamic states are engaging in colonialism, racism, ethnic cleansing and anti-Semitism right now? Israel epitomizes current-day colonialism, racism and ethnic cleansing, and 99% of the worlds so-called “Anti-Semitism” (a distorted euphemism for animosity towards Zionism) comes directly from the actions of Zionists and the state of Israel.

      • lysias
        lysias
        December 20, 2011, 7:24 pm

        Do you know of an innocent country, Cliff?

        When Ireland got its independence, the Catholics there, who were suddenly a majority with power, could have oppressed the Protestants who had formerly oppressed them, for centuries. They didn’t. They gave them equal rights.

        Since Ireland got independence in 1921 (which means it has had 26 more years of independence than Israel,) it has fought zero wars. And it played a key role in achieving the peace that ended the violence in Northern Ireland.

    • patm
      patm
      December 20, 2011, 10:13 am

      “The question is how states as new as Israel, which is 63 years old, and with Israel’s challenges, which are immense, have fared in similar circumstances.”

      Excerpt from Lobbyist Hophmi, trying to change the topic.

      Phil, this is an excellent bit of ‘gathering together’ research. Well done.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        December 20, 2011, 11:28 am

        “Excerpt from Lobbyist Hophmi, trying to change the topic.”

        Not at all. It is very much on the topic to analyze context and add complexity when Phil oversimplifies things, as political polemicists always do.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        December 20, 2011, 11:44 am

        That is not an analysis – it is an advertisement from a Zionist troll. You have no intention of providing us with ‘analysis’.

      • john h
        john h
        December 20, 2011, 4:36 pm

        It is very simple as to context and the resultant complexity of action and reaction, claim and counter claim.

        Just one word: Zionism.

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        December 22, 2011, 2:34 pm

        by oversimple are we to assume speak the truths I don’t want talked about. their isn’t anything complex about the siuation. Israel has from even before it was formed a down right criminal enterprise designed with the porpuse of supplanting a peaceful native agriculural based people, you want their to be complexities that doesn’t exist to excuse the evil committed but their is no excuse.

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        December 22, 2011, 2:32 pm

        and completely bs as no other country was created with the foriegn funding that Israel got.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      December 21, 2011, 1:03 am

      So? I’m sure he meant it too.

      We know that both sides have discussed international supervision in the 2001 Taba talks and the so-called Palestine Papers discussions.

      It doesn’t matter if someone has subsequently changed their mind. Eli Likovski wrote an essay on the Status of the Jewish Agency and WZO which explained that when the Zionist Congress said “to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine, secured under public law” that it meant “public international law”. See page 32 of Daniel Judah Elazar, Alysa M. Dortort (editors) “Understanding the Jewish Agency: a handbook, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 1984

      The subjects of the Ottoman Empire were placed under the protection of European international law for the first time by the Treaty of Paris (1856). See paragraph 20 in International law: achievements and prospects, Mohammed Bedjaoui, UNESCO/Martinus Nijhoff http://books.google.com/books?id=jrTsNTzcY7EC&lpg=PA46&client&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false

      The ICJ addressed the international guarantees regarding freedom of movement/transit and access to all of the Holy sites on both sides of the Green Line in its 2004 Wall decision. See paragraph 129 http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

      The representatives of the Jewish Agency and the Provisional Government of Israel were required to accept a UN minority protection plan which preserved and expanded upon the “existing” internationally guaranteed rights of the various religious communities of Palestine in accordance with Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin (1878), the San Remo resolution, Articles 13 and 28 of the Palestine Mandate, and the resolutions of the League of Nations concerning the steps required prior to the termination of a Mandate regime. FYI, that UN religious and minority rights treaty regime was separate from the plan for the Corpus Separatum and still constitutes a binding legal obligation.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      December 21, 2011, 8:20 am

      hophmi, the Jewish right to self-determination ends where the rights of any other people’s right to self-determination begins. No right is without a curb. That’s why we have criminal and civil law. That’s why folks were hung at Nuremberg.

    • pjdude
      pjdude
      December 22, 2011, 2:25 pm

      there is no jewish right to self determinations as only nations have that right not religions. the 2 states that are openly for religions need to be done away with as the anchronisms they are.

  2. Avi_G.
    Avi_G.
    December 20, 2011, 9:59 am

    http://maxblumenthal.com/2011/08/the-exclusive-revolution-israeli-social-justice-and-the-separation-principle/

    The men and women who set out to build a Jewish state in historic Palestine made little secret of their settler-colonial designs. Zionism’s intellectual author, Theodor Herzl, described the country he envisioned as “part of a wall of defense for Europe in Asia, an outpost of civilization against barbarism.” “All the means we need, we ourselves must create them, like Robinson Crusoe on his island,” Herzl told an interviewer in 1898. The Labor Zionist movement’s chief ideologue, Berl Katznelson, was more blunt than Herzl, declaring in 1928, “The Zionist enterprise is an enterprise of conquest.” More recently, and perhaps most crudely, former Prime Minister and current Defense Minister Ehud Barak described the goal of Zionism as maintaining “a villa in the jungle.”

    In light of Herzel’s candid thoughts, the above citations only prove that he was a deceiving opportunist like Dershowitz and had no intention of fulfilling any promises he made. I’m surprised you would take him at his word. Frankly, that’s bizarre.

    Still, I see what you were trying to do there, vis-a-vis the Republicans.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      December 20, 2011, 11:27 am

      It is ironic that it is now the Jewish state which is barbaric. One of the things I’ve noticed in the last year is how prevalent violence is in Israeli society.

      http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/advertisers-must-pay-nis-50-000-to-run-ads-showing-women-on-jerusalem-buses-1.402457
      http://www.youtube.com/embed/3t_ZjetcSMQ
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqdNi3RM3gI

      It is like a deal with the devil. The price of the state was the mental peace of its people.

      • Avi_G.
        Avi_G.
        December 20, 2011, 3:04 pm

        Israeli commander: Take down the Palestinian flags.

        Palestinian land owner: Why? They are not bothering anyone.

        Commander: Of course they are a bother. They are bothering everyone. Take them down. They are bothering us, OK? We don’t want to see them.

        Palestinian: The settlers are bothering me. This is my land. Why do they come to my land and burn my trees?

        Commander: You know why the border police are here? They are not here because of the flags. There are [colonists] here who want to climb up and rearrange your face. And they are going to beat up everyone there. If that’s what you want, leave the flags up.

        ***

        If a stranger heard this exchange, he would think the colonists were the final authority, not the Israeli military.

        Ultimately, Israel will reap what it sowed with these colonists. Palestinians might finally be able to breathe a sigh of relief when the military and the colonists fight it out. One might call it poetic justice.

  3. seafoid
    seafoid
    December 20, 2011, 10:50 am

    They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they never kept but one: they promised to take our land and they took it. It was not hard to see that the white people coveted every inch of land on which we lived. Greed. Humans wanted the last bit of ground which supported Indian feet. It was land – it has ever been land – for which the White man oppresses the Indian and to gain possession of which he commits any crime. Treaties that have been made are vain attempts to save a little of the fatherland, treaties holy to us by the smoke of the pipe – but nothing is holy to the white man. Little by little, with greed and cruelty unsurpassed by the animal, he has taken all. The loaf is gone and now the white man wants the crumbs.”…

    Luther Standing Bear-Sioux

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      December 20, 2011, 11:19 am

      When I read things like this, it makes me recognize how absolutely awful the United States of America was until it started its modest, halting steps towards decency in the last 30-50 years and how far we have to go.

  4. atime forpeace
    atime forpeace
    December 20, 2011, 12:59 pm

    Does anyone here know who were the stakeholders in the offering?

    3. June 17, 1896: Herzl recounts a meeting with a high Turkish official in Constantinople, where Herzl has gone to offer money to Sultan Abdulhamid II in exchange for Palestine.

    • patm
      patm
      December 20, 2011, 1:14 pm

      I’ve no names to give you, but they would have been wealthy Jews and Christians. I believe English Christians were the first Zionists.

      • FreddyV
        FreddyV
        December 21, 2011, 6:41 am

        British Christians? Absolutely. Check out Edward Irvine, John Nelson Darby, Margaret McDonald, Manuel Lacunza.

        Their Israel based theology predates Zionism by decades.

  5. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw
    December 20, 2011, 2:17 pm

    The attitude of the United States,Israel and the Quartet towards Palestinians could not be more plain,after the UN state recognition,they are telling the Palestinians in no uncertain terms that their appeals for International Law to be applied will not be met, their applications for access to the various legal mechanisms available to all other peoples will be rejected or were they cannot be blocked they will be threatened with the witholding of funds and other terrors of the world in any way they choose. In other words they are trying to make justice through access to justice impossible, telling them in effect they are a non people. The gauntlet has clearly been thrown down the Palestinians must take up the challenge by going straight down the middle with both feet,on the various UN agencies and particularly membership of the ICC. Failure to do so in my opinion will consign themselves to what zionism always had in mind for them imprisonment in Bantustans or expulsion.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      December 21, 2011, 1:38 am

      The gauntlet has clearly been thrown down the Palestinians must take up the challenge by going straight down the middle with both feet,on the various UN agencies and particularly membership of the ICC.

      A bit of clarification is in order here. The International Court of Justice ICJ is a UN organ. The Statute of the ICJ is part of the UN Charter – a multilateral treaty. The International Criminal Court was deliberately established outside the framework of the UN organization under a separate multilateral treaty. The US had paid lip service to the idea of a permanent international criminal tribunal, but objected to the creation of one that might prosecute US citizens for international crimes. So, the notion of amending the UN Charter to include the Rome Statute was a moot question.

      Palestine already referred the situation in the OPT to the ICC as a non-member State. The current Prosecutor is obliged to consider any member of UNESCO as a State. So, the only thing that is standing in the way of Palestine joining the ICC is the Palestinian leadership and the inability of a state under siege to pay the dues or assessments. A full member of UNESCO or any other UN specialized agency can deposit an instrument of accession with the Secretary General and become a “state party” to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in accordance with the terms of article 80. In accordance with Article 125 of the Rome Statute, it is open for accession to “any state”.

  6. yourstruly
    yourstruly
    December 20, 2011, 2:33 pm

    what gives this guy herzl and the various potentates he negotiated with the right to be divvying-up palestine, anyway? oh, palestine was an occupied land back then too? has been for how many centuries now, with jewish settlers only the most recent? palestine for the palestinians? when? that’s up to the justice for palestine movement.

  7. Justice Please
    Justice Please
    December 20, 2011, 3:01 pm

    Here’s a thought experiment: If US politicians were really pandering to “the Christian extremists”, as whiny people claim when somebody describes the power of the mostly Jewish-Zionist Israel Lobby, wouldn’t at least some of those politicians run on a platform of “we get Jerusalem back for Christianity! No more Jewish-only places! The next religious Jew who spits on a Christian in the Old City will get arrested!”

    • droog
      droog
      December 20, 2011, 4:42 pm

      I think the Fundies are assuming that after all the Jews and Muslims are dead in the big War for Jesus, Jerusalem is theirs .

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 21, 2011, 8:34 am

        I think the Christian Zionists believe only two-thirds of Jews will be dead and the rest will convert, but I guess the result is the same? I’ve not known any kind of Christian fundie who ever imagined the Zionist Jews must ridicule them behind closed doors. Nor any fundie who know that one can be a Jew and an atheist or agnostic too. In fact, I’ve yet to meet a fundie who actually knows a Jew intimately.

  8. Rhys
    Rhys
    December 20, 2011, 6:01 pm

    I am inclined to think that if we removed politicians and radicals from the equation, the extraterritorialisaton of Jerusalem would be an acceptable solution to a lot of people. The City is holy to the three Abrahamic faiths, and should be run by representatives of those three faiths with very strict rule of law within the city. Take Mecca, since time immemorial it has been forbidden to bear weapons, promulgate hatred and violence etc, why not apply the same principle? Jerusalem could become a place of learning, worship and tolerance. It is oft said that religion is the cause of many wars – nay, its power and corruption on a grand scale by those that have vested interests.

  9. atime forpeace
    atime forpeace
    December 20, 2011, 6:48 pm

    Happy Chanuka one and all.

  10. patm
    patm
    December 20, 2011, 7:11 pm

    Happy Winter Solstice one and all. The real meaning of this week’s festivals, I say.

  11. ToivoS
    ToivoS
    December 20, 2011, 10:12 pm

    Merry Mithris Day!

  12. Richard Witty
    Richard Witty
    December 20, 2011, 11:22 pm

    Happy Hannukkah all.

    Remember the light that comes your way. Remember to pass on light further. Remember the light that originates deep within that is a never-ending free well. Remember the light that originates deep within all others.

    • eljay
      eljay
      December 21, 2011, 8:12 am

      Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukkah and Happy Festivus to everyone! :-)

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        December 22, 2011, 4:17 am

        A festivus for the rest of us!

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      December 21, 2011, 8:40 am

      I replied to Witty today on his Happy Hannukkah, but it was not published here. I asked him a question based on the Dreidel, and answered it myself, here, a bit later. That comment was not published either.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        December 21, 2011, 9:34 am

        Witty’s comments here have always been privileged, Citizen.

Leave a Reply