Trending Topics:

‘NYT’ sees end of 2SS in Levy report, Munayyer sees Israel’s growing int’l isolation

News
on 37 Comments

The Levy report, the Israeli government’s legal finding that Jews are free to settle in Judea and Samaria because of the League of Nations a century ago, is turning out to be a good wake-up moment. Below are a number of responses. The Yousef Munayyer quote is at the end– “Israel exists in an isolated realm completely separate from the rest of the world.” 

In its editorial blasting the report as bad, bad, bad (law, politics, policy), the New York Times rightly glimpses the end of the two state solution:

Palestinian hopes for an independent state are growing dimmer all the time. Israel is pushing ahead with new settlements in the West Bank and asserting control over new sections of East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claim as their capital. Meanwhile, peace talks — the best guarantee of a durable solution — are going nowhere….

Now comes another, potentially disastrous, blow.

The Jerusalem Post has done a story on the Times editorial. The Times ends with the statement, “Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will have a chance to drive that [anti-settlement] message home when she visits Israel next week.” Somehow I doubt it.

J Street sees just what the Times sees in the report and calls for Israel to renounce it.

Adopting the Levy Committee’s recommendations would be tantamount to condemning all parties to unending conflict under a one-state paradigm. This nightmare scenario would force Israel either to cede its Jewish character to an Arab majority or to invite the world’s unprecedented condemnation and isolation as a profoundly undemocratic state.

Meantime, here is the ADL defending settlements and attacking the UN for seeking to investigate them:

“We have very little faith in the impartiality of those selected by the Human Rights Council to head up its fact-finding mission tasked with investigating Israeli settlements,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “The Council’s decision to dispatch a mission of this nature reeks of hypocrisy, and is further tainted by the expressed biases against Israel of those charged with overseeing this latest chapter in the UNHRC’s anti-Israel agenda. Two of the panelists are already on record with distorted statements and reports regarding Israel.”

At the Nation, Robert Dreyfuss ties the Levy report in to a superb report by NPR’s Lourdes Garcia-Navarro on the occupation the other day:

As Lourdes’s report notes: “Last year, 1,100 Palestinians — more than half of them children — were displaced, an 80 percent increase from the previous year. And demolitions this year continue at a high rate.”

Here are three responses to the Levy report gathered by the Institute for Middle East Understanding:

MOUIN RABBANI, Visiting Senior Fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies, Policy Advisor to Al-Shabaka: The Palestinian Policy Network, contributing editor with Middle East Report and Jadaliyya, and former Senior Middle East Analyst with the International Crisis Group:

Whether or not the Israeli government formally adopts the Levy Report and its insistence that the occupation does not exist, the document accurately reflects Israel’s position on and policies towards the occupied Palestinian territories since 1967. In Israel’s view, the Palestinian people and individual Palestinians have no legitimate title to these territories, Israel and Israelis do. That is why Israel has for decades been treating Palestinians as illegal squatters on sovereign Israeli territory, and the state and its citizens can do as they please.

‘Israel is now just a formality away from wholesale renunciation of international law. In practice it undertook this step decades ago. The most effective response would be one that declares the occupation illegal, and adopts measures to ensure that Levy’s determination that it does not exist becomes a reality.’  

NOURA ERAKAT, human rights attorney and adjunct professor of international human rights law in the Middle East at Georgetown University, Legal Advocacy Coordinator for the Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Refugee and Residency Rights:

 ’As a legal matter, the occupied status of the Palestinian Territory has been affirmed by the International Court of Justice, UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, countless General Assembly Resolutions, as well as Israel’s own High Court of Justice. The Levy Report’s legal analysis uses outdated and stale arguments to counter this legal reality in order to evade accountability, including for war crimes such as transferring Israeli civilians into the territory it occupies, which is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and a war crime under Article 8 of the Rome Statute.

‘Under international human rights law, settlement expansion policies also constitute a grave violation for forcibly transferring, segregating and ghettoizing populations based on their ethnic and racial composition. This practice violates the United Nations Apartheid Convention, specifically articles II(c) and II(d) and constitutes a crime against humanity. The Levy Report cannot wash away these grave and egregious violations of international law with the stroke of a pen.’ 

YOUSEF MUNAYYER, Executive Director of the Jerusalem Fund and the Palestine Center in Washington DC:

‘Some might argue that the implications of this report, if adopted by the government, would mean the de facto annexation of the occupied West Bank, thereby ending even the currently fanciful notions of a two-state solution. In reality, long before this report was written, the Israeli government’s behavior has been consistent with an intention never to relinquish the occupied territories. It has settled Israeli citizens in every corner of the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem, and integrated them politically, economically and infrastructurally into Israeli society for over 45 years, or 70% of the state’s history. It has similarly usurped and monopolized Palestinian resources in the occupied territories in contravention of international law.

‘The Levy Report is the latest and perhaps most clear indication that the State of Israel exists in an isolated realm completely separate from the rest of the world when it comes to its understanding of its relationship with the Palestinians. That the Palestinian territories are occupied is universally understood, except apparently by the Israeli government, as is the illegality of Israel’s colonial settlement enterprise. The report might have implications for internal Israeli politics, which are increasingly appearing to the rest of the world, and even some Israelis for that matter, as operating in a parallel Orwellian universe where occupation is not occupation and colonization is legal. In reality, however, it is merely the most recent byproduct of an Apartheid system attempting to exist in a world where Apartheid is no longer acceptable. The Levy Report is as absurd and detached from reality as the unjust system which produced it.’

Munayyer’s point echoes what Ali Abunimah said on Democracy Now (see our David Samel post) this morning, debating Jonathan Tobin of Commentary. Abunimah sees the report as a desperate measure by Israel to forestall the growing chorus of international criticism. “Israel is trying to manufacture legitimacy for a completely illegitimate violent settler-colonial enterprise…”

Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

37 Responses

  1. Denis on July 11, 2012, 1:27 pm

    @Phil: “Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will have a chance to drive that [anti-settlement] message home when she visits Israel next week.” Somehow I doubt it.

    quote………………….
    Headline: “Obama Administration Slams Levy Report”
    “We do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity and we oppose any effort to legalize settlement outposts,” State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told reporters whena sked about the Levy committee report.

    “US secretary of state Hillary Clinton will visit Israel later this month, and her team may raise the report’s conclusions with officials in Jerusalem.”

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/157714
    end quote…………………………

    What’s the fuss? The Jews move in and take control of Palestinians’ land. But the part we’re missing — THE PALESTINIANS ARE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION. So, in the eyes of an Israeli Jew, how can that be considered anything other than more than fair? I mean, compensation for something they were going to take anyway.

    American Jews, please donate to JNF today so they can buy up the whole West Bank by force. JNF has set up a Canada Park on stolen land, it is time for a US Park.

    • echinococcus on April 11, 2016, 4:28 pm

      “Compensation”? Yeah, last time anyone checked with the owners it was still called “give us our land back and go back to where you came from!” The compensation talk was offered by non-representative bodies with no valid title.

  2. Sin Nombre on July 11, 2012, 2:08 pm

    Gee, it only took 40-some years of land-gobbling for people to cotton on to the idea that Israel really wanted land more than peace?

    Anyway, one has to laugh at the reported legal thinking behind the Levy Report’s advice: Legalizing the appropriation of the lands it is concerned with is right and just because while out of international public relations considerations the Gov’t of Israel always said it was wrong and indeed illegal to appropriate them … in secret and in reality it was indeed *helping* with such appropriation. Ergo, to be true to the law … the opposite of the law should be recognized.

    Next up, Elena Kagan and Alan Dershowitz reflecting further on the Israeli reverence for the Rule of Law. (Now probably along the lines of … “Everyone else sucks even worse!”)

    Sort of hard not to conclude that Israelis in general feel they’re involved in one giant, massive con job on the rest of the world.

    Who the hell can deal with people who think in this way? Who the hell would even *want* to?

    And how the hell can the Israelis and indeed jews in general who go along with this sort of thing not recognize how it plays into the deepest and most classic anti-semetic memes out there to a T? (E.g., you can’t trust a jew’s word as shown by the Kol Nidre declaration and/or etc.)

    What a freaking government they’ve got over there. It’s more like a front organization than a government. Isn’t there anyone over there who cares about how they look to the rest of the world?

  3. chinese box on July 11, 2012, 2:08 pm

    The title of the editorial “Wrong Time for New Settlements in the WB” implies that there is a right time for them–maybe when no one is paying attention? And the op ed writer’s main argument is that settlements will mess up chances for sanctions on Iran. If one needed any more proof that the NYT’s only concern is Israel’s image, rather than justice, this is it.

    • Rusty Pipes on July 11, 2012, 5:53 pm

      When it’s always an image problem the only solution, as the NYT and the Israeli kindergartner know, is “better PR.”

  4. seafoid on July 11, 2012, 3:19 pm

    Munayer, Erekat and Rabbani are fantastic analysts who wipe the floor with anything coming out of the bot side. What can Oren say ?

    “we will talk without preconditions” is no longer valid.

    “We believe in San Remo” doesn’t have that wow factor.

    The funny thing is that Israel via its kneejerk support for the settlers will fatally undermine the US politicians who have sold their souls to the lobby. When AIPAC (budget USD 70m) can’t even get 2/3rd of Presbyterians to vote for Caterpillar the message is in serious trouble. Soon they won’t even be able to spin the news for the politicians. $70 m for what exactly?

    And the Arabs have the people to speak truth to power now.Only 10% of Yanks need to understand what is changing for the facts to become common knowledge

  5. Roya on July 11, 2012, 3:37 pm

    From the NYT article: “[The new settlement policy] is unsustainable, and it is damaging to Israel’s security and regional peace.” Even the NYT realizes that Israel is committing suicide.

  6. dbroncos on July 11, 2012, 6:42 pm

    I wonder why Zionists would want their genocidal campaign against Palestinians, continuing at an accelerated pace and off the agenda of Western governments, to attract more a attention with a recomendation like this one? The US government was content to allow settlement construction to continue unimpeded – and to foot the the bill to boot! Now, the Zionists have called into question (again) the settlements, their legitimacy, and the legitimacy of the whole Zionist enterprise. These are all very unwelcome, revealing and embarrassing questions for POTUS and Clinton to anwer. The day is coming, very soon I hope, that Israel will cross one bridge too far – even for POTUS and the Sec. of State.

  7. Kathleen on July 11, 2012, 8:28 pm

    “This nightmare scenario would force Israel either to cede its Jewish character to an Arab majority or to invite the world’s unprecedented condemnation and isolation as a profoundly undemocratic state.”

    Prof Mearsheimer has been saying this for quite some time

    • straightline on July 11, 2012, 11:05 pm

      Yes that’s what happens to countries over time. Australia will, at least on current rates of growth, cede its Anglo-Celtic character to Asian and the US will cede its Anglo-Celtic character (if it still exists) to Hispanic – both within a timescale on a par with that of the lifetime of the state of Israel. But will they really? If the character is built into the culture of the country, then minorities adopt much of that culture and mix it with their own, enriching both – provided they are accepted as full and equal citizens. If they are excluded and discriminated against they will reject the culture. Israel can solve this problem if it so chooses but it has to move fast and make a radical shift in its treatment of Palestinians.

      • MLE on July 12, 2012, 5:30 am

        Exactly, the rate of Hispanic American growth doesn’t scare me in any way shape or form. My children and grandchildren will probably have to be bilingual in Spanish and English, which is something I would encourage because who doesn’t want their progeny developing more skills, signs will be printed in English and Spanish- who cares, it’s like that in a lot of places already, more foods from Central and South America is always yummy. No aspect of my American identity is threatened by a Hispanic majority.

  8. Abuadam on July 11, 2012, 10:12 pm

    Everyone QUICK!
    Write your congressman/women and Senator and tell them they need to support Israel’ Levy Report on the settlements;
    and all with Israeli citizenship write your MKs to make it the LAW of the LAND.
    Nothing but good will come out of this!!!!!!!!!!

  9. Sibiriak on July 12, 2012, 1:01 am

    “This nightmare scenario would force Israel either to cede its Jewish character to an Arab majority or to invite the world’s unprecedented condemnation and isolation as a profoundly undemocratic state.”

    Israel is clearly going the “invite” route.

  10. Sibiriak on July 12, 2012, 1:03 am

    “‘We do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity and we oppose any effort to legalize settlement outposts,’ State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told reporters whena sked about the Levy committee report.”

    I.e., existing settlement blocks are okay.

  11. DICKERSON3870 on July 12, 2012, 1:19 am

    RE: “The Times ends with the statement, “Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will have a chance to drive that [anti-settlement] message home when she visits Israel next week.” Somehow I doubt it.” ~ R.S.

    MY COMMENT: Now Phil! I’m confident she will express her “concern” (the old “concern” mantra) to the Israelis. What more do you expect with an election just a few months away?!?!
    Now, don’t be unreasonable, Phil!
    And don’t expect anything different after the election.

    FROM MERRIAM-WEBSTER: concern (noun)
    Definition of CONCERN
    1
    a : marked interest or regard usually arising through a personal tie or relationship
    b : an uneasy state of blended interest, uncertainty, and apprehension

  12. jon s on July 12, 2012, 3:54 am

    I agree with J Street ,namely that the end of the 2 state solution would be a nightmare.
    I do think that there’s still a window that’s open for its implementation, though I don’t know for how long.

    Hey, I’m back!

    • Roya on July 12, 2012, 5:24 pm

      @jon s: I noticed you’re an Israeli history teacher, so I was wondering if you’ve read Nurit Peled-Elhanan’s book and if you have, what you think of it if you don’t mind my asking.

      • jon s on July 13, 2012, 12:47 am

        Roya, No, haven’t read it, and I don’t mind you asking. You should see the pile of books on my night table “waiting to be read”.

      • Roya on July 13, 2012, 12:24 pm

        Oh ok, well it’s called Palestine in Israeli Schoolbooks: Propaganda and Ideology in Education so it’d be interesting to hear an Israeli history teacher’s thoughts on it if you get the chance to read it.

  13. giladg on July 12, 2012, 6:35 am

    What is called the West Bank today was never owned by a collective people called the Palestinians. This should be clear to anyone who has studied the history of the Middle East. Towns and villages are and were owned by the inhabitants of the area. When the Ottoman Empire controlled the region, the inhabitants of the West Bank knew they needed to answer to the Turks. When the Turks sided with Germany and lost WWI, they were punished (maybe rewarded in some ways). They lost control of the West Bank plus all of their empire. The British took over as we know and when they left and war broke out in the region, Jordan took over the West Bank. Jordan has zero historic claim to the West Bank and has officially stated this. Was Jordan occupying the West Bank between 1647 and 1967? As over 70% of Jordanians are Palestinians, this may gain validity if Jordan was to be viewed as Palestine. As they say they are not Palestine, then when Israel defeated Jordan in 1967, the West Bank was then liberated from illegal Jordanian control. As the Geneva Convention states that in order to be called an occupier, one country has to occupy the land of another country. As Jordan has no claims on the West Bank and as the inhabitants of the West Bank were never a “collective people”, then Israel is not and occupier. As Israel has legitimate claims to the West Bank, the area called the West Bank is contested territory, and no preconditions should can be placed on Israel prior to negotiations.
    Abbas is using the story of the West Bank to further his larger aims and objectives and Jewish interests will be severely damaged if he gets his way. Jews, who support the Palestinian struggle, do not understand what damage they are doing to the long term interests of the Jewish people. They are short sighted and wrong. Israel is far from perfect but compared to what the Palestinians have in store for the Jewish people, supporting Israel is the only option at this point. When the Palestinians start talking about sharing, this would indicate a major turning point and a review of positions.

    • Sumud on July 12, 2012, 8:53 am

      Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

      • giladg on July 12, 2012, 11:04 am

        We know that you need sex appeal to get the folks onto the streets in San Fransisco and NY.
        I am sorry Sumud, that the facts are not sexy enough for you and the gang. You carry on sleeping whilst others carry on dying.

      • Roya on July 12, 2012, 2:14 pm

        @Gilad: Well I guess we need more B’tselem videos to get the masses rowdy. That vile IDF creature who kicked the 9 year old Palestinian boy last week wasn’t all that bad looking, hmm maybe that’s why that video went viral. Yeah, it must’ve been the 3-second glimpse of his profile that did the trick.

      • American on July 13, 2012, 1:46 pm

        Zzzzzzzzzz…

        Yea, Ditto, totally immaterial.

    • Talkback on July 13, 2012, 6:00 am

      giladg says:
      “What is called the West Bank today was never owned by a collective people called the Palestinians. This should be clear to anyone who has studied the history of the Middle East.”

      Funny, from my studyng of historsy of this area the Westbank was part of the mandated State of Palestine and belonged to all its citizens which were legally defined as “Palestinians” in the Palestine Citizenship Order of 1925.

      “The British took over as we know and when they left and war broke out in the region, …”

      What do you mean by that? Neither in its first years of occupation nor in its following of being a Mandatory Britain annexed Palestine.

      “As over 70% of Jordanians are Palestinians, this may gain validity if Jordan was to be viewed as Palestine.”

      Oh, so you first expell them in 1948 and in 1967 (some of them both times) to Jordan and then you note that so many Jordans are Palestinians and hence Jordan is Palestine?

      “the West Bank was then liberated from illegal Jordanian control.”

      Do you think that the Palestinians under Jordanian control saw the IFD as liberators?

      “As the Geneva Convention states that in order to be called an occupier, one country has to occupy the land of another country.”

      Where? And the Geneva Conventions doesn’t even have the last word. You have to consider customary law in post colonial times which is of equal importance, because international law it’s not like a fixed Torah and still developing. (I have to remind you that there was no written convention against genocide while Jews were murdered.) People of non-state entities have the right to self determination. And Israel occupied territories outside the borders in which it proclaimed statehood. Another question is if the mandated State of Palestine ceased to exist only because it’s goverment dissolved and seperatists proclaimed a new state in parts of it. Germany, after the collapse of its goverment in 1945 was still a state until two states and goverments were created in 1949 on its territory.

      “As Israel has legitimate claims to the West Bank …”
      Which state has legitimate claims to territories outside the borders of its proclamation and which it occcupies during war?

      Your whole arguments bases on the premise that (former) Citizens of Palestine (pre 1948) have no right to self determination, if they are not Jews. Israel is digging its own grave with these arguments because the outcome is going to be that it has no right to exist at all. You don’t even realize that the Levy report is opening Pandora’s box.

    • eljay on April 11, 2016, 2:43 pm

      || giladg: What is called the West Bank today was never owned by a collective people called the Palestinians. … ||

      What is called Israel today was never owned by a collective people called the Israelis.

      || … Towns and villages are and were owned by the inhabitants of the area. … ||

      That’s right: The indigenous population of Palestine – and not Jewish people from countries all over the world – was its indigenous population.

      || … As Jordan has no claims on the West Bank and as the inhabitants of the West Bank were never a “collective people”, then Israel is not and occupier. … ||

      Israel is the occupier of everything it occupies outside of its / Partition borders.

      || … As Israel has legitimate claims to the West Bank … ||

      No it doesn’t.

      || … Jews, who support the Palestinian struggle, do not understand what damage they are doing to the long term interests of the Jewish people. … ||

      Jews who support the Palestinian struggle are defending international laws and human rights and the protections they offer. They are looking out for the interests of all people including Jewish people.

      Jews who support Zio-supremacism are undermining international laws and human rights – the very protections they will one day need and insist that they are entitled to. Why do Zio-supremacists hate Jews so much?!

  14. American on July 13, 2012, 2:05 pm

    ” or to invite the world’s unprecedented condemnation and isolation as a profoundly undemocratic state.”

    I am convinced this is what they want ….. them against the world (as long as the US protects them). There is some self destructive core in Israeli zionist. They have this psychopathic compulsion to ‘force upon or beat down others’ even if it also destroys them in the process.
    Really they are not sane people. And all the liberal zionist who think they can ‘change’ zionist Israel are just as deluded because even it it was possible to change Israel there is not enough time left to do that before it all detonates.

    • Sibiriak on July 13, 2012, 10:30 pm

      I am convinced this is what they want ….. them against the world (as long as the US protects them).

      It’s not what they want –they are obviously fighting a propaganda war to prevent that–but they certainly are willing to run that risk..

      And all the liberal zionist who think they can ‘change’ zionist Israel are just as deluded …

      As are the one-democratic-state-for-everyone anti-Zionists.

  15. Salubrius on August 17, 2012, 1:25 pm

    On April 25, 1920 the WWI Allies at San Remo granted to the Jews exclusive political rights to Palestine, but in trust so that the grant of sovereignty would not be antidemocratic. That was because at that time, while the Jews had had a plurality of population in Jerusalem since 1845 and a majority since 1863, in all of Palestine they were only 60,000 out of 600,000. The British policy in the Balfour Declaration was chosen as the guiding principle of the grant. Many had opposed the Balfour policy on the grounds that it would be antidemocratic to place a 10% minority in charge of a country. The British Foreign Office issued a memo agreeing in concept with them, but stating that as to be applied the antidemocratic argument would be imaginary. The mandate had been defined as a trust and guardianship by Article 22 of the League Covenant. And the trust res, the exclusive political rights to Palestine were to be placed in trust, not to vest to the Jews until that had attained a population majority.

    With the knowledge that these political rights had been conveyed to the mandatory power or truste, England, in article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres, the Arabs have been trying to take them away from the Jews for the last 92 years. When the Mafia, in the US, attempts to take property from others by threats of violence and actual violence as the Arabs have over this period, we refer to those acts as acts of extortion.

    The view that the grant at San Remo could form the basis for a one lawful Jewish majority state in Palestine west of the Jordan River was known to me even before the publication of the Levy Report. But its entrance into the marketplace of ideas was beset with difficulty. It was blocked at a Harvard conference in March 3,4, 2012 and from a UCLA conference on May 15th, 2012. The first conference has been described by Professor Alan Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School as an anti-semitic and anti-Zionist Hatefest. The panel was exclusively for Arab intellectuals such as Sara Makdisi and Post Zionism history revisionists such as Illan Pappe. Tlhe May 15th conference at UCLA was also erroneously labed a debate but was a debate between two extreme Arabs, Reza Asland and Hussein Ibish. This story is told at the following URL: http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2012/06/salubrius-responds-to-eli-hertz-myths.html

    Professor Berman at Brown University has been critical of the Levy Report. He said that the consensus was that the Levy Report was wrong, and the views in it had been adopted just by a small minority of lawyers representing special interests. His article in the Israel Times is entitled San Remo in Shilo [sic]. You can find my reply in the following URL: http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2012/08/professor-bermans-mistaken-views-on.html

  16. Salubrius on April 11, 2016, 10:25 am

    There has never been a Palestinian State nor a unique Palestinian People. The Allied Principal War Powers won the subject territories in a defensive war and recognized the Jewish People as deserving of the collective rights to political self-determination in it. Because in 1922 the Jews were only one sixth of the population of the territory of palestine, they created a trust and placed the collective political rights in it. The beneficial interest was to vest when the Jews became a population majority in Palestine west of the Jordan but the Jews could commence settlling immediately on the effectiveness of the Mandate. . Self government was deferred in Palestie until the Jews had met the foregoing conditions. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2679399

    • talknic on April 11, 2016, 11:54 am

      @ Salubrius April 11, 2016, 10:25 am

      “There has never been a Palestinian State nor a unique Palestinian People”

      Strange the Palestinian National Law per the LoN Mandate for PALESTINE (Article 7) was adopted in 1925. Palestine was a Nation State. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7

      “The Allied Principal War Powers won the subject territories in a defensive war”

      A) They won the right to administer the territories until those territories reached independence. Read the League of Nations Covenant http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art22

      B) ‘defensive war’ The Ottomans invaded the allies. WOW!!! Now that is news!

      ” and recognized the Jewish People as deserving of the collective rights to political self-determination in it.”

      But no mention of a Jewish State. As a matter of fact, emphatically no mention of a Jewish State
      http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp
      http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp

      ” Because in 1922 the Jews were only one sixth of the population of the territory of palestine, they created a trust and placed the collective political rights in it. The beneficial interest was to vest when the Jews became a population majority in Palestine west of the Jordan but the Jews could commence settlling immediately on the effectiveness of the Mandate. “

      Read Article 7 of the Mandate you stupid stupid person

      • MHughes976 on April 11, 2016, 2:33 pm

        The basic right to be an enfranchised citizen of a sovereign state, operating where you were born or elsewhere by agreement, is not dependent on what rights your ancestors had or lacked or on what the political map looked like in the past: it wouldn’t be a basic right of it depended on the infinite variations of ancient history.
        You can’t sensibly be said to gain territory in a war that is purely defensive: if you never have any intention but to defend what was yours at the start of the conflict you would not acquire anything as a result. Perhaps you can gain territory by post-conflict treaty or agreement as part of a reasonable effort to eliminate problems that might lead to further conflict, but that is very much another matter.

    • Mooser on April 11, 2016, 12:19 pm

      “There has never been…”

      Oh, look, Rip Van Winklestein woke up.

      • annie on April 11, 2016, 1:03 pm

        mooser, he links to wallace edward brand, an op ed writer for the settler paper israel national news (arutz sheva) author of such works as ‘soviet russia created the plo’. he’s another san remo nutcase. not sure how he ended up here, must have taken a wrong turn somewhere.

        and what’s the point of the “unique” word? heck, i could easily make the argument jews are not unique either. as if uniqueness is some litmus test for recognition.

        edit: lookie
        *Salubrius is the nom de guerre of Wallace Edward Brand

        http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2013/04/salubrius-challenges-wikipedias-entry.html

        he’s also published on the islamophobe neocon daniel pipes’s site.

  17. Mooser on April 11, 2016, 1:26 pm

    “he’s also published on the”

    And came back to Mondo, thanks to Ziocaine Syndrome Amnesia, to repeat what he forgot he said in 2012.

    “and what’s the point of the “unique” word?”

    ROTLMSJAO!! No, really, you were born that way, son, just like me. (Sorry, sorry)

  18. echinococcus on April 11, 2016, 4:36 pm

    JStreet the sleeping beauty pretends to be stirring:

    “This nightmare scenario would force Israel either to cede its Jewish character to an Arab majority or to invite the world’s unprecedented condemnation and isolation as a profoundly undemocratic state.”

    Thank you so much for waiting until years after your oh-so-dreaded invitation has been issued.

    • annie on April 11, 2016, 7:17 pm

      this article is a few years 7/2012 — just thought i’d mention.

Leave a Reply