Trending Topics:

‘Economist’ says Palestinians, denied statehood, increasingly ‘question the point of the P.A.’

News
on 41 Comments

Excellent piece in the Economist from Balata Camp in Nablus states what anyone who visits the occupation knows, this can’t last. The political efforts to end the occupation have failed, the likelihood of violence is high. And, implicitly, the Palestinian Authority is a stooge government like the Bantustan governments the South Africans sought to install (a devastating theme of the great new film, Roadmap to Apartheid, which I saw last night in New York).

Economist:

Nablus’s commercial regeneration cannot cure a gnawing national malaise. “There is no political horizon,” say disgruntled Palestinians. They increasingly question the point of the PA. It has failed to usher in a Palestinian state, and appears powerless to prevent Israeli military incursions or the relentless expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank. “All the windows are closed, and the political elite has no keys to open them,” says Raid Nairat, an academic. The West Bank’s 30,000 security forces seem unkeen on a recent quest for reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas that would force them to share power. Their recent round-up of 150 Hamas men helped dampen hopes of a deal….

Few Palestinians call for a renewal of violence. But such talk is again in the air. In some West Bank towns Hizb ut-Tahrir, an extreme Islamist group, has been making headway. “A Muslim army should defend Muslims, not Jews,” says an angry Islamist, denouncing the PA’s security co-ordination with Jewish kuffar (unbelievers).

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of Mondoweiss.net and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

41 Responses

  1. yourstruly on June 28, 2012, 1:47 pm

    with liberation day approaching will the puppet palestine authority go the way of the puppet south korean regime 37 years ago?

  2. seafoid on June 28, 2012, 2:03 pm

    The only thing the PA can do under the current system is pay its employees. There is no point to anything else it is allowed to do, which isn’t much anyway.

    Fuck Israel . So many Palestinians believed in the 2 state solution. So many people built up institutions for the day they would have their state.

    Edward Said was right.

  3. radii on June 28, 2012, 3:03 pm

    good for the Palestinians – they should do people power in the streets first against their own leaders and then continue with non-violent actions that bring the world’s media to cover them

    • ColinWright on July 1, 2012, 5:11 am

      “…good for the Palestinians – they should do people power in the streets first against their own leaders…”

      This may be unavoidable but it is hardly desirable. First, Israel can use the unrest to ‘demonstrate’ that the Palestinians are violent and can’t govern themselves. Second she can prolong the violence by adjusting the ability of the PA to cling to power by providing support and making token concessions.

      If it has to be, it has to be. But Israel is going to rack up points like mad.

  4. ToivoS on June 28, 2012, 6:53 pm

    Edward Said was completely right and in 1992 I thought he was an unreasonable extremist. The PA is bought and paid for by the US and EU — they accept the money and doll it out to their militias. The militias then control the Palestinian people for Israel’s benefit. One would think that there must still be some national pride among those enforcers for the PA that can’t be compromised by a pay check? But I am not in their shoes, so maybe they honestly believe this is the best they can do.

    • seafoid on June 29, 2012, 5:07 pm

      I think the PA deserve more credit. Nobody who saw Abbas at the UN last year could say that he did not do his utmost to serve his people. His counterpart on the Israeli side is a sociopath as all Zionists ultimately are.

      Of course Said was right. But the PA walked the walk for 2 decades and proved that the Zionists are bastards. It was a trap but the irony is that it is now Israel that is trapped.

      Any social indicator you care to name for Israel is worse now than it was 20 years ago. YESHA is death by a thousand cuts.

      the Zionists are wedded to the Palestinians thanks to 1967. They are no longer in control of their own future.

      Once the donors give up on the PA Israel will realise what has happened.

      • ColinWright on July 1, 2012, 4:44 am

        Israel is only trapped by its own greed.

        Even today (and probably for another few years) they could simply negotiate terms with the Palestinians and withdraw to the pre-1967 cease fire lines.

        They could even agree to a ‘right of return.’ Any Palestinian who was actually born in Israel can return. The youngest would be 64.

        The whole world would gush about how reasonable Israel was, we and the EU would rush to bankroll any expenses, and of course Israel could write in so many restrictions that the Palestinian ‘state’ would look more like an Indian reservation than a country.

        This is actually one of the scenarios that worries me. Thank God for greed.

      • Hostage on July 1, 2012, 9:25 am

        Israel could write in so many restrictions that the Palestinian ‘state’ would look more like an Indian reservation than a country.

        Belgium had been a neutralized state at the outbreak of WWI. Involuntarily “neutralized states” went the way of the dodo bird in international law in the aftermath of the war and President Wilson’s 14 Points Speech (item VII. Belgium):

        Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired.

        When Obama and Netanyahu say that Palestine will have security responsibility for a “sovereign, non-militarized state”, no other member of the international community takes them seriously, e.g.

        “As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated,” President Obama told American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) attendees on Sunday.

        –http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/22/obama_israel_must_be_able_to_defend_itself_by_itself_against_any_threat.html

        If Palestine joins the United Nations, it will enjoy the protections of sovereign equality contained in Articles 2(1), 2(4), and Article 51 of the Charter.
        *http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art2
        *http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art51

      • seafoid on July 1, 2012, 11:42 am

        I think the most important aspect of the occupation is what it has done to Israeli society. On the surface the situation is stable and the occupation rolls on but underneath at the level of how Israel is structured the extremists have taken over and the poor have been shafted with the secularists next . And it is only going to get worse.

  5. Patrick on June 28, 2012, 11:46 pm

    “Few Palestinians call for a renewal of violence. But such talk is again in the air. ”

    Let’s hope not. Violence is how the Israelis want to confront the Palestinians. It’s familiar terrain for Israel in which it has all the advantages, and it brings much needed political support internationally. It’s non-violent protest and resistance that Israel is incapable of addressing effectively.

    • Charon on June 29, 2012, 3:27 pm

      Israel is only capable of addressing non-violent protest violently. The ‘non-violent protest will inevitably turn violent, therefore we use violence’ excuse. The American media will then spin it in Israel’s favor without mentioning such protests starting out non-violently. Unless somehow the Palestinians resisted without defending themselves. That would be hard to spin, yet they would still make an attempt. I don’t expect anybody to allow themselves to be slaughtered instead of defending themselves. The media will spin either outcome in Israel’s favor and that’s a problem, especially in the US. One of these days something will go viral in the US and the media won’t be able to stop it.

      • seafoid on June 29, 2012, 5:17 pm

        I don’t think the Israeli elite understand how the ground has been shifting since they got Obama to veto statehood last September.

        In the West Bank for the IDF nothing has changed but without international support Israel would shut down tomorrow. 2 years of Bibi have done enormous damage. Throw in recession across the EZ and see how many taxpayers in the EZ want to underwrite Jewish hatred in the name of Israeli nationalism. When Greece and Spain are suffering nobody cares about what happened 70 years ago. And isn’t it time to get over it? The fact is that Israel has bitten off more than it can chew and is dependent on the caprice of strangers.

        Already the head of the bank of Israel is warning that Israel can’t afford the 3% budget deficit required by the politicians. YESHA was always too expensive but now it matters.

        It’s the economy, stupid Israel .

      • ColinWright on July 1, 2012, 5:12 am

        We’ll just give them more money.

        It’s a disgusting realization but it’s possible that Israel only goes down when we go down.

        It’s at times like this that I start thinking about emigrating again.

    • ColinWright on July 1, 2012, 4:55 am

      Israel can always bait the Palestinians into violence. If all else fails, they just open fire and say the Palestinians were being violent.

      The whole requirement for non-violence is a crock, anyway. There were terrorist bombings and killings going off all through Gandhi’s ‘satyagraha’ campaigns. He wasn’t doing them, but others were. ‘Non-violence’ is a requirement it’s highly unlikely the Palestinians could meet. They’re not the Borg Collective. Whatever most Palestinians may agree on, not all Palestinians will agree on. Israel knows that. That’s why she imposes the condition.

      Sometimes I think the Palestinians have made a fatal mistake in letting Israel and her supporters define the terms to the extent that they have. They themselves keep telling each other ‘they must be non-violent.’

      Well, I doubt if they can, and in any case, it’s questionable if it’s the right tactic. The Second Intifada was extremely effective — and at a very unpropitious time. It seriously weakened the Israeli economy, reduced immigration, and led Israel into a series of acts that substantially damaged her legitimacy in the world. It’s not going to be my skull that gets pierced by a .223 round, but I’d suggest doing it again. People understand that the Palestinians have every right to be angry.

  6. ColinWright on June 28, 2012, 11:54 pm

    Functionally, the PA is a Quisling regime. This is not to say that those participating in it have that intention — but since the net effect of the restrictions imposed on the PA by the United States and Israel is to force it to act as arm of the occupation, that is what it is.

    I can understand that those leaders whose positions and livelihoods depend on the existence of the PA would be reluctant to bite the bullet, but really — the PA should dismantle itself. There should be (a) an open political organization devoted to agitation and such but refusing to perform any governmental functions unless and until Israel meets a specified list of demands, and (b) an ‘illegal’ governmental body that operates without Israeli sanction or approval ala Hamas.

    Under current conditions, ‘cooperation’ with Israel is essentially indistinguishable from submission to Israel. I suspect that will always be the case.

  7. seafoid on June 29, 2012, 8:39 am

    The most important point that came up in that Economist piece was that donors are getting tired of the whole palaver .

    It may have made sense if the PA was a transitory arrangement on the road to a state. But Israel never wanted that.

    Why underwrite Israel’s policy of pauperisation ?
    Why don’t Jews pay for it ? if they want Erez Israel shouldn’t they pay for all the off balance sheet costs ?

    If they want to herd all the Palestinians into concentration camps couldn’t they at least have the decency to fund the programme?

    • Hostage on June 29, 2012, 12:57 pm

      Why underwrite Israel’s policy of pauperisation ?
      Why don’t Jews pay for it ? if they want Erez Israel shouldn’t they pay for all the off balance sheet costs ?

      Because you’d end-up subsidizing the government of Israel anyway or initiating a humanitarian crisis. In 1947, the Secretary General and UNSCOP reported that the proposed Arab state would always require foreign assistance to provide for its essential public services. The UN proposed an economic union with the Jewish state which had been granted sovereignty over the bulk of the Arab revenue generating lands and properties to help reduce the amount of aid required.

      There was an article in the JPost the other day which explained that Israel itself couldn’t get a modest loan in the amount of $9 billion in 2003 in order to make up for a funding short fall. It had to obtain US backing for the loan. Israel would require the same amount of foreign assistance as the PA. See Fischer warns PM against raising budget deficit http://www.jpost.com/Business/BusinessNews/Article.aspx?id=275621

      • seafoid on June 29, 2012, 5:41 pm

        Hostage

        Israel spends around $5bn on YESHA annually. There is enough money in Israel to pay for the Palestinians who live in Erez Israel. Why should Spain and Portugal have to pay for it ?

      • Hostage on June 29, 2012, 8:21 pm

        Israel spends around $5bn on YESHA annually.

        My point is that they are incurring deficits in order to spend any money on “Judea” and “Samaria” at all.

        Israel would have to spend even more than they are currently spending to relocate the settlers to the Israeli side of the Green Line and to provide them with housing and public services. So none of the current expenditures could be easily diverted to support the occupied population.

        There is enough money in Israel to pay for the Palestinians who live in Erez Israel.

        I gave you a link which says that Israel has been experiencing deficits year after year. The Palestinian Authority has been funded by the members of the 15 state Ad-Hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC). http://www.lacs.ps/article.aspx?id=6

        Why should Spain and Portugal have to pay for it?

        Why shouldn’t they? Both countries were among the founding members of the League of Nations that imposed the Zionist mandate on the Palestinians in the first place.

      • seafoid on June 30, 2012, 1:52 am

        Hostage

        The argument that they can’t afford to relocate the settlers so it has to go on won’t wash when TSHTF.
        You seem to argue that Israel can’t pay reparations to the Palestinians but that Greece and Spain are responsible because of something that happened 70 years ago. This is a very weak position you take.

        Maybe if would help if we defined YESHA as unfunded “Jewish entitlements. “

      • Hostage on June 30, 2012, 5:45 am

        You seem to argue that Israel can’t pay reparations to the Palestinians but that Greece and Spain are responsible because of something that happened 70 years ago.

        No, I just said that you’d end-up subsidizing the necessary borrowing of the government of Israel anyway. There is no money to remove settlers or pay compensation without deficit spending, and that would entail loans and loan guarantees.

        The Shekel is the only currency transferred to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank from Israeli banks. If you’re suggesting that Israel simply print more shekels to get out of debt, then the Palestinians would be getting practically worthless paper.

      • seafoid on June 30, 2012, 5:56 am

        The Israelis like everyone else have to live within their means. they don’t need YESHA and they don’t need a bloated IDF. If they want to run concentration camps in the West Bank they need to be able to pay for them out of their own budget. They need to rebalance their spending to cover the costs of pauperisation of the Palestinians. It is not the responsibility of anyone else. This is Israeli policy so Israel pays.

        Greece can no longer run deficits funded by the rest of Europe. Israel is no different.

      • Hostage on June 30, 2012, 6:53 am

        The Israelis like everyone else have to live within their means. they don’t need YESHA and they don’t need a bloated IDF.

        Sorry, but I don’t believe in magic. Israel is a country of 7 million people. It can’t afford to move, house, or compensate 5 million Palestinian refugees and move and house 600,000 of its own citizens at the same time by living within its means or laying-off its military personnel and foregoing foreign military assistance. The one state solution leaves Yesha right where it is and makes token compensation a matter falling entirely within the domestic jurisdiction of the new state. The two state solution would either require compromises or it will require unprecedented population transfers, enormous disruption, and borrowing.

      • seafoid on June 30, 2012, 8:01 am

        It isn’t a question of what Israel can or cannot afford based on Israeli self assessment.
        the whole lesson of the financial crisis is that countries and communities have to live within their means. Vallejo CA went bankrupt because of the impossibility of paying for its outgo with its income. Israel will be no different.

        It is not the responsibility of the goys to subsidise YESHA. If Jews want YESHA they will have to stump up for it.

        If it’s too hard to relocate three quarters of a million Jews, tough titty. That is what Israel is going to hear. The world today is different to that inwhich the fruitcakes planned YESHA. Nobody ultimately will give a [email protected] about” Jewish suffering” when the therapy involves systematic persecution of the Palestinians.

        Many Americans will ultimately lose their access to healthcare because the bills are too expensive. Jews are going to have to drop YESHA by the same token. Welcome to the real world Israel.

      • Hostage on June 30, 2012, 2:42 pm

        It isn’t a question of what Israel can or cannot afford based on Israeli self assessment. If it’s too hard to relocate three quarters of a million Jews, tough titty.

        You’re suggesting that about 6.5 million people finance the population transfer, housing, and infrastructure for up to 6 million other people. That would be an unprecedented and historic accomplishment.

        Many Americans will ultimately lose their access to healthcare because the bills are too expensive. Jews are going to have to drop YESHA by the same token.

        I can’t imagine why Israel would unilaterally abandon the settlements, when so many leaders of the Palestinian solidarity and Israeli peace movement are endorsing a one state solution. Jews living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem would stay right where they are and become legal residents. There’s no motivation for the Zionists to stop creating facts on the ground – win or loose – if everyone agrees in advance not to pursue Palestinian statehood.

      • seafoid on July 1, 2012, 2:15 am

        You’re suggesting that about 6.5 million people finance the population transfer, housing, and infrastructure for up to 6 million other people

        4 million of them live in the same jurisdiction, Hostage. Forget about the refugees for a minute. Just consider the Erez Israel provinces of Judea, Samaria and Azza. It already is de facto one state where the bots control all the assets.
        Currently the Palestinians are financing the unsustainable lifestyle of the bots, Hostage.

        “There’s no motivation for the Zionists to stop creating facts on the ground – win or loose – if everyone agrees in advance not to pursue Palestinian statehood. ”

        The bots have strangled it. The Palestinians must get their rights. And if they are denied basic economic rights the bots have to pay for the consequences.

        And all of this spiel about there being no motivation for the bots to do anything. They are sleepwalking into a disaster.
        The whole situation screams unsustainable.

        From the start this story has been outside international law and international law won’t be the basis on which it is resolved. Zionism is too extremist. The house has been bet on YESHA and the bet is already lost.

      • ColinWright on July 1, 2012, 4:58 am

        If Israel is unable to afford to maintain her subjects, then she should let the subjects go.

        As to the settlers, if the IDF withdraws, the settlers will follow on their own. There’s no need to spend a dime on them.

      • Hostage on July 1, 2012, 10:10 am

        4 million of them live in the same jurisdiction, Hostage.

        I don’t mean to be dickish, but they’re no longer refugees, unless they’re going to be repatriated to some other jurisdiction.

        It already is de facto one state

        And my point is that there’s never going to be any financial cost to Israel for relocating settlers. The leadership of the solidarity movement is shreying for a one state solution in which those “illegal” settlers would have the right to remain where they are in most cases.

        The bots have strangled it.

        I disagree with Ali Abunimah and Omar Barghouti, but I still include them among the good guys with the best of intentions and they both oppose the current Palestinian statehood bid.

        From the start this story has been outside international law and international law won’t be the basis on which it is resolved.

        International law is based on consensus, opinio juris, the conviction of States about what is required. From the very start, the Jewish and Palestinian belligerents have established that this conflict isn’t going to be resolved by a negotiated political solution. It will eventually be resolved in accordance with international law and international consensus when elements of US, Israeli, and Palestinian exceptionalism become the subject of approbrium and formal sanctions.

        As to the settlers, if the IDF withdraws, the settlers will follow on their own. There’s no need to spend a dime on them.

        There’s no need for Israel to withdraw under a one state solution or if it manages to retain the three major settlement blocks under a two state solution. Even if the IDF leaves about ten percent of the population will go on providing clandestine support of the nature outlined in the Sasson report. Individuals like Jack Abramoff, Sheldon Adelson, Irving Moskowitz, and the major Jewish organizations will continue to funnel arms and money to the settlers.

        Here is an article written by a past president of B’nai B’rith International, president of the American Zionist Movement, and chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations extolling the virtures of those who funded the Irgun terrorist organization during the Mandate era. http://wymaninstitute.org/reichremarks.php

        If you think these despots are going to give-up without formal legal sanctions being adopted, gimme some of whatever it is you’re smokin.

      • Hostage on July 1, 2012, 10:49 am

        As to the settlers, if the IDF withdraws, the settlers will follow on their own. There’s no need to spend a dime on them.

        So you think that the government of Israel is going to withdraw the IDF knowing that 600,000 homeless voters are going to make a mass exodus overnight looking for shelter inside the Green Line? How would Netanyahu or any other leader sell the idea that this wouldn’t cost anyone a dime?

        The State majority-owned and private lenders who are left holding all of the mortgages on the housing in those presumably empty settlements might need a financial bailout from the central bank. The entrepreneurs who own the malls, theaters, supermarkets, and etc. in Modi’in Illit, Maale Adumim and Betar Illit might expect compensation too. After all the government has been telling them that it’s safe to invest in those locations because they will be part of Israel under any possible agreement.

        I’m always fascinated when people act as if Zionists are going to humbly commit suicide. Unless you enforce international law and the two state solution through an ultimatum, a political settlement will have to make sense to the Israelis and contain some sort of attractive offer that will entice them into withdrawing the IDF.

      • seafoid on July 1, 2012, 11:33 am

        Hostage

        “I don’t mean to be dickish, but they’re no longer refugees, unless they’re going to be repatriated to some other jurisdiction”

        Most of the people living in the West Bank are not refugees. It costs Europe money because Israel pauperises them. The issue is who pays for the off balance sheet costs of the occupation. Why should it be the goys?

        “From the very start, the Jewish and Palestinian belligerents have established that this conflict isn’t going to be resolved by a negotiated political solution.”

        the Palestinians and the Arabs have offered a political solution. The problem is the nature of Zionism. They think they can have it all. The 2 state solution was strangled by Israel. Moscowitz and the rest of the sociopaths think they can push through Erez Israel with enough time.

        “And my point is that there’s never going to be any financial cost to Israel for relocating settlers.”

        That is the bet the Israelis have made. They reckon that once there are enough settlers the game is won .The costs of retreat- reparations and Jewish civil war- mean they can only go forward. The goys will accept apartheid.

        Have you ever read “the march of folly” by Tuchman?

      • Hostage on July 1, 2012, 2:21 pm

        The issue is who pays for the off balance sheet costs of the occupation. Why should it be the goys?

        Because that is preexisting situation that was recognized in the partition plan approved by the goys. They have been using a coalition of 15 states. the AHLC to funnel support to Palestine since 1993. But many, including the US, have provided financial aid since 1948:

        Clarification should be sought with regard to the problem of the viability of the two states. On page 53 of the UNSCOP report it is stated that “the creation of two viable States is considered essential to a partition scheme”. Yet on page 48 of the report it is indicated that the Arab state will be forced to call for financial assistance “from international institutions in the way of loans for expansion of education, public health and other vital social services of a non-self-supporting nature.” Moreover, the technical note on the viability of the proposed states prepared by the Secretariat (pp. 55-56) is not conclusive as regards the viability of the Arab State. In view of the central importance of the question of viability as stressed in the Committee’s report, a special subcommittee of the Ad Hoc Committee should be established to consider this question. —link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        That is the bet the Israelis have made.

        And many in the Palestinian Solidarity movement too. Anyone who endorses a one state solution is going to have to accept the continued presence of the settlers.

      • American on July 1, 2012, 2:58 pm

        “” that Israel can’t pay reparations to the Palestinians

        Speaking of reparations does anyone have a Allies Report or other official report on how many Jews were liberated from concentration camps Nazi occupied countries? The US Gov Archives are useless because you can’t view the records on line, http://www.archives.gov/research/military/ww2/refugees.html#rg43 so forget that.
        I saw a article in JTA that said the US was increasing social services aid to holocaust survivors in the US and gave the number at 127,000. Previously I have seen Israel put the numbers in Israel at 250,000.

        Nothing I can find substantiates those numbers. I looked at the Holocaust Museum and even did the numbers according to them, camp by camp, as in these examples:

        #Allies liberated Flossenbürg on April 23, 1945, just over 1,500 prisoners
        American forces liberated more than 20,000 prisoners at Buchenwald.
        There were 21,000 prisoners in the Buchenwald camp on the day that it was liberated, including around 4,000 Jews, most of whom had been brought to Buchenwald after the Auschwitz camp was closed. The typhus epidemic in the camp was being brought under control, but there were still 3,000 sick prisoners

        #On April 26, 1945, as American forces approached, there were 67,665 registered prisoners in Dachau and its subcamps; more than half of this number were in the main camp. Of these, 43,350 were categorized as political prisoners, while 22,100 were Jews, with the remainder falling into various other categories. ”

        I also checked:

        http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/judentum-aktenlage/hol/EncJud_DPs-ENGL.html
        Encyclopaedia Judaica

        Displaced Persons (DPs) and DP camps in central Europe 1945-1953

        At the war’s end an estimated 50,000 Jews were liberated from concentration camps in Germany and Austria.

        http://remember.org/guide/Facts.root.aft.lib.aft.html
        The Holocaust–A Guide for Teachers
        Displaced Persons (DP) Camps
        By the end of World War II, there were eight million persons who had been driven out of their native countries by the hostilities. By the end of 1945, as many as six million were able to return. There remained two million who were unable to be repatriated, and were put into Displaced Persons (DP) camps administered by the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. Among them were 50,000 Jews who had been liberated from the concentration camps.’

        Every source I look at even the Jewish sources say there were 50,000 Jews liberated ‘from camps’..iow, only 50,000 actual Holocaust survivors. Also looking at records it appears that Jews were not the majority of prisoners in the camps.

        So then you get to the 8 million “Displaced Persons/ DPs”. 6 million of whom were resettled in original country. Of the 2 million left it included Poles, Czechs, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Croatians, Slovenians and Serbs and others who refused to return to regimes that were Communist and those still occupied by the Soviets. It doesn‘t include the ethnic Germans expelled from other countries.
        If you can go by the Blackwell Reference 450,00 of the 8 million DP’s were Jewish:
        http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631187288_chunk_g97806311872889_ss1-149
        In 1947 this body was replaced by the International Refugee Organization. Between 1948 and 1950 the majority of the 450,000 Jews in camps for displaced persons emigrated from Europe to Israel, the US, and elsewhere.

        Obviously the zionist and Israel redefined Holocaust survivor to include the DP Jews and countries like Germany Austria and others have been paying reparations to Jewish DP’s– but not to the other 7,555,000 DP’s displaced by the Nazis and German occupations who suffered the same displacement.
        I can’t any fair reason for this regardless of Jewish claims of being killed ‘for what they were’, their religion or ethnic, since we know the Nazis also killed many others for “what they were” also, Gypies, gays, Catholics, etc..

      • ColinWright on July 1, 2012, 3:15 pm

        “So you think that the government of Israel is going to withdraw the IDF knowing that 600,000 homeless voters are going to make a mass exodus overnight looking for shelter inside the Green Line? How would Netanyahu or any other leader sell the idea that this wouldn’t cost anyone a dime?”

        I have no expectation that Israel will do anything that will resolve the situation and make possible the continued survival of Israel. Indeed, I hope they don’t, and if there are insuperable political obstacles to their doing so, that’s reassuring.

  8. Hostage on June 29, 2012, 12:31 pm

    The political efforts to end the occupation have failed, the likelihood of violence is high. And, implicitly, the Palestinian Authority is a stooge government like the Bantustan governments the South Africans sought to install . . .

    The South African’s did install Bantustan governments in Namibia in 1972 and they lasted until 1999. Then as now, BDS was one of the political efforts to end the occupation that failed for more than two decades. If history teaches us anything at all, it’s to be skeptical of reports that say its “too late” or that political solutions should be abandoned.

    I don’t get too exercised about reports that say PA security forces are keeping Palestinians from attacking Jews. When Israelis handle that job for themselves, you don’t see 150 members of Hamas rounded-up and jailed, you see reports about hundreds of “militants” and innocent bystanders being killed in disasters like Cast Lead. It isn’t in anyones interest to leave tens of thousands scrambling to find shelter and the basic necessities of life or to turn the West Bank into another blockaded enclave.

    The Palestinian Authority is the mechanism used to pay salaries and provide for essential public services and utilities in both the West Bank and Gaza. Talking about dismantling the PA at the same time that the US and Israel are working to undermine funding of the UNRWA isn’t a very sound idea. They have obviously decided upon continuing the status quo. The notion that abandoning the two state solution will automatically leave the Palestinians better off is simply wishful thinking. Ask Native Americans, American Samoans, Puerto Ricans, and the residents of Washington D.C. about the many legal disparities that exist between these US “nationals” or “citizens” when it comes to voting and other rights in our own “single state” solution.

    It’s hyperbole or propaganda to assert that the PA is working on behalf of the United States or Israel when its officials attempt to impose the usual monopoly on the use of force and resolve the conflict through non-violent political and legal means. The international community of states, convened in a Special Emergency Session of the General Assembly, were responsible for calling upon the Palestinian Authority “to undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks”. — http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/F3B95E613518A0AC85256EEB00683444

    The Palestinian Authority has tried to enforce the government of Israel’s responsibilities under that same resolution by both political and legal means. They have addressed more than 400 situations to the UN Security Council since the 2nd intifada ended and have filed a criminal complaint against Israeli officials in the Hague. Those efforts have been opposed by the United States and Israel.

    Few Palestinians call for a renewal of violence. But such talk is again in the air.

    According to Arutz Sheva, the Palestinian Revolutionary Council (PRC) just released a statement that contained an ultimatum involving another intifada:

    If Israel does not surrender all the lands liberated in the Six Day War of 1967, set up an Arab state with Jerusalem as its capital, and make significant concessions in accepting as citizens descendants of Arabs who fled Israel in 1948, a third intifada should, and must, be conducted. The call for a new “uprising of the people” against Israel was part of a the summation statement issued at the end of the two day Palestinian Revolutionary Council (PRC) general meeting held this week. The meeting was led by Palestinian Authority chief and Fatah party head Mahmoud Abbas.

    –http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/157315#.T-2zNd1mRac

    At the same time the King of Jordan and Hamas Politburo Chief Khaled Mashaal met to discuss Jordan’s support for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and the right of the Palestinian people to return or regain their legitimate rights. http://www.petra.gov.jo/Public_News/Nws_NewsDetails.aspx?Site_Id=1&lang=2&NewsID=76093&CatID=13&Type=Home&GType=1

    • ColinWright on July 1, 2012, 5:03 am

      Note that the 1967 ‘borders’ aren’t borders. They’re merely cease-fire lines.

      The legal borders remain right where they have been since 1947. What’s more, Israel accepted those borders.

      So force Israel to honor her commitment. It’s the first one she made. She can start with that.

      • Hostage on July 1, 2012, 11:15 am

        Note that the 1967 ‘borders’ aren’t borders. They’re merely cease-fire lines.

        Sorry, but the UN General Assembly has acknowledged the declaration of the State of Palestine and the existence of its “borders”:
        *It acknowledged the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine in line with “the exercise of the inalienable right of the Palestinian people” to self-determination. See resolution 43/177;
        *It said that Palestinian statehood is not subject to the peace process or to any veto. See operative paragraphs 1 & 2 of resolution 55/87
        *It adopted UN reports and resolutions on credentials that mention “their State, Palestine”. Those resolutions describe the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967 as “their territory” and say that “the credentials of the delegation of Israel do not cover that territory”. See A/58/L.48, 15 December 2003; General Assembly 58/292, 17 May 2004.
        *The verbatim record of the General Assembly discussion of resolution 58/292 indicates the words “pre-1967 borders” had intentionally been adopted to replace the words “Armistice Line of 1949”. See A/58/PV.87

        Permanent international armistice lines of demarcation imposed under the terms of a Chapter VII UN Security Council resolution are legal boundaries that the parties are required to observe and respect in accordance with the Charter and UN General Assembly, Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1970, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3dda1f104.html [accessed 1 July 2012] .

        That has always been the case. See for example:
        *The “Tripartite Declaration Regarding the Armistice Borders: Statement by the Governments of the United States, The United Kingdom, and France, May 25, 1950
        http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/3EF2BAA011AD818385256C4C0076E724

      • ColinWright on July 1, 2012, 3:19 pm

        Sorry, but the UN General Assembly has acknowledged the declaration of the State of Palestine and the existence of its “borders”…”

        But were any of these resolutions legally binding — or did the United States successfully prevent their being enacted in a form that has legal significance?

        As far as I know, the only resolution that ever got through — and the only one that Israel ever accepted — remains the 1947 one. Therefore, wouldn’t those continue to be the legal boundaries of Israel?

        I might be wrong — but you might be trying to have your cake and eat it too.

      • Hostage on July 1, 2012, 7:24 pm

        But were any of these resolutions legally binding — or did the United States successfully prevent their being enacted in a form that has legal significance?

        Of course the decisions of the General Assembly on acceptance of credentials for representation of a territory in the UN organization are binding on UN organs. The US has no way of overruling the decisions of the General Assembly on credentials. There have been other cases including the Union of South Africa, and non-continuator states in the former Yugoslavia and USSR. Many people operate under the mistaken impression that the General Assembly can only make recommendations. But a simple majority in the Assembly can adopt decisions on any question in accordance with Article 18 of the UN Charter. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art18

        The Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (a multilateral treaty) has been recognized as a codification of legally binding principles of customary and conventional law by the International Court of Justice on many occasions. The status of international lines of demarcation, including armistice lines, is explained in the declaration.

        The requirement for the parties to continue to observe the permanent armistice lines with regard to the rules of occupation flows from Security Council resolutions 62 and 73. They remain legally binding under the terms of Articles 24, 25, 39, and 40 the UN Charter. The relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and Security Council were cited in the legal analysis contained in ES-10/13, ES-10/14, and the portions of the 2004 ICJ Advisory Opinion regarding on the legal status of the Palestinian territory and the so-called Green Line. Whenever the route of the Wall crosses the armistice line, it is illegal.

  9. seafoid on June 29, 2012, 5:47 pm

    Anyone in Israel who thinks the con jobs and multigenerational betrayals of trust required to keep Zionism going have a long term future needs a head examination.

    Here the FT sticks the boot in to Zionist tactics in the UK banking industry.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6dc5b9a2-c117-11e1-853f-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1zDmCoqzB

    “Behind the technical language, what has been exposed by British and American regulators is nothing less than a long-running confidence trick played on the public for personal and institutional advantage. Putting that right will take more than a few paltry acts of contrition by Barclays’ bosses and a bit of hand-wringing from the authorities.

    The bankers involved have betrayed an important public trust – that of keeping an accurate public record of the key market rates that are used to value contracts worth trillions of dollars. They did this to make money and to conceal from the wider world their true cost of borrowing. This was market-rigging on a grand scale. It is hard to think of anything more damning – or more corrosive of the reputation of capitalism.

    What is shocking is the casual way in which this con was perpetrated, and how few checks were in place to stop it. The messages swapped between traders – with their promises to reward fiddled figures with bottles of champagne – breathe an easy sense of entitlement. They also speak volumes about the rotten culture at Barclays. Bob Diamond, the bank’s chief executive, gave a lecture last year in which he stressed the importance of culture in establishing an ethos of trust and integrity. “Culture is difficult to define,” he explained, “but for me the evidence of culture is how people behave when no one is watching.” Well, now we know.”

    Zionism will have its day in infamy too. You can’t shaft the world indefinitely.

    • ColinWright on July 1, 2012, 5:05 am

      “…Zionism will have its day in infamy too. You can’t shaft the world indefinitely.”

      So one hopes. I’d give a lot to have it all over with now.

Leave a Reply