Trending Topics:

‘The one and only Jewish state,’ Netanyahu says, pounding the rostrum

Israel/Palestine
on 190 Comments

Netanyahu meeting with Ban Ki-moon in Jerusalem yesterday reflected the widespread view among Israel supporters that the unrest in Arab countries means that resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict has no urgency. Note that the UN Secretary General doesn’t buy it.

Netanyahu: I think it’s important to discuss the real problems and not those that are often discussed in the media. You know it wasn’t till so long ago that people said that the root cause of the instability in the Middle East was the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and now you can’t say that with a straight face, because from the Atlantic Ocean to the Khyber Pass you can see this endemic instability that is plaguing so much of the the Arab and Muslim World. We of course would like to see it, not only restore stability but also restore peace and move toward prosperity and equitable relations among nations including with our nation. But I think today today everybody understands that the root cause in the Middle East and beyond has to do with the convulsion that is historic and cultural in nature of which the Israeli Palestinian conflict is merely one of many, many such manifestations.

As far as the Israeli Palestinian peace process, we have to get to the root cause of the problem, and the root cause was and remains the persistent refusal to recognize the Jewish state in any boundary. It doesn’t have to do with settlements. That’s an issue that has to be resolved, but this is not the reason that we have a continual conflict. The conflict preceded the establishment of a single settlement by a half century…

It’s important to understand that if we build a few hundred apartments in Gilo or Ramot or other Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem or in urban blocs that everyone knows… will be part of the final peace map in Israel– I think these are not the real issues that we need to discuss. The real issue is how to get a demilitarized Palestinian state to finally recognize and accept the one and only Jewish state. [thumping the rostrum].

Ban Ki-moon excerpts:

The Prime Minister knows that occupying Palestinian land is not a long term solution….

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

190 Responses

  1. ramzijaber
    ramzijaber
    August 17, 2013, 11:38 am

    Some random thoughtlets on “the jewish state”:

    – states do not recognize each other based on their religion
    – no state in the world has ever recognized another state to be a state of religion X
    – the zionist entity can call itself whatever it wants
    – the early zionist leaders specifically and explicitly stayed away from this notion
    – now say, for the sake of argument, that the whole world does actually recognize the zionist regime as “the jewish state”, then……..
    — what happens to its non-jewish residents, would they allow the Galilee to cecede
    — what happens when the non-jewish residents become more than 50%
    — what happens if the jewish residents change religion
    — what happens if other countries in the world call themselves “the christian state” or “the moslem state” or “the buddhist state” or “the hindu state” or “the atheist state”…….

    A slippery slope I must say but hey, who cares, call yourself whatever you want but we are not going to do so. Just give us back the land you stole.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      Maximus Decimus Meridius
      August 17, 2013, 1:23 pm

      I’ve asked myself similar questions myself. If a state defines itself as a ”Jewish state” what are the implications for the 25% or so who are not Jewish? Is there an upper limit on the % of non-Jews which is acceptable in a Jewish state? If so, what is that figure? 30%? 40%? And if the non-Jewish population reaches that level, what happens? Is the state no longer a ‘Jewish state’? Are non-Jewish women limited to a certain number of children each? Can ‘surplus’ non-Jews be forcibly deported to prevent them sullying the purity of a Jewish state?

      These questions might sound far-fetched, but when a state defines itself along ethno-religious lines, they are questions which need to be answered.

      • eljay
        eljay
        August 17, 2013, 3:48 pm

        >> If a state defines itself as a ”Jewish state” what are the implications for the 25% or so who are not Jewish?

        “Liberal Zionist” Richard Witty had an elegantly immoral solution: If a non-Jewish demographic in “Jewish State” becomes too great, re-draw the borders of “Jewish State” so as to excise that non-Jewish demographic from it.

        I other words, strip undesirable non-Jewish citizens of “Jewish State” of their citizenship and render them stateless.

        He was a real Zio-supremacist peach, that guy.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 18, 2013, 4:59 pm

        In other words, strip undesirable non-Jewish citizens of “Jewish State” of their citizenship and render them stateless.

        Everyone is probably familiar with the fact that Jews were involuntarily deprived of citizenship under the laws adopted by the Nazi regime. The effects of those Nuremberg race laws were declared null and void in the post-war German Constitution and the citizenship of both those Jews and their descendants was restored.

        The secessionists in the Confederate States also did the same thing. They arrested US officials and deprived everyone subject to their jurisdiction of any rights or privileges held under the United States. In line with the US Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, they held that blacks born in their jurisdictions were never citizens at all.

        After the war between the states, the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was adopted. It is an example of the customary practice of prohibiting any state from denying the naturalized or natural born inhabitants who are subject to their jurisdiction of any of the privileges or immunities of citizenship and demanding they all be given equal protection under the law.

        In a case involving a person who voted in an Israeli election, the Supreme Court even ruled, that the federal government lacks the power under the US Constitution to involuntarily deprive persons of their US citizenship. See Afroyim v. Rusk http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0387_0253_ZS.html

        So it’s ironic when someone suggests adopting this shopworn solution once again. We’ve been there and done that, and it just doesn’t work.

    • a blah chick
      a blah chick
      August 17, 2013, 6:27 pm

      “states do not recognize each other based on their religion.”

      Thank you. This is a fact that seems self evident to me but seems to escape the notice of the MSM.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      August 17, 2013, 10:32 pm

      Some random thoughtlets on “the jewish state”: . . .

      Well here is another one that will perhaps put what you are trying to say a little more clearly: U.S. Code Title 22, Chapter 32, Subchapter III, Part I, § 2378b “Limitation on assistance to the Palestinian authority” requires Hamas to publicly acknowledge “the Jewish state of Israel’s right to exist”.

      But if the tables were turned on our lawmakers, they’d find that it isn’t legally possible to establish a Jewish state anywhere in the USA, without violating the existing rights and position of our non-Jewish communities under the terms of the 1st and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution:

      *The 1st Amendment would prohibit the Congress from adopting any law respecting the establishment of the Jewish religion.
      *The 14th Amendment would prohibit any State from making or enforcing any law abridging the privileges and immunities of any citizens born or naturalized in the United States or denying any person within its jurisdiction equal protections under the law, based upon their non-Jewish race, or ethnicity.

      So I’ve always wondered why it’s supposed to be considered so illiberal of the Palestinians to insist on preserving their existing rights and position in exactly the same way, or why we Americans insist that the Palestinians should grant the Jewish people rights that we ourselves would never consider granting to them? Hillel advised “That which is hateful unto you do not do to your neighbor.”

      • Xpat
        Xpat
        August 17, 2013, 10:49 pm

        …in my experience, at that point, the supporters of the Jewish state bring in the Holocaust. We Jews have had an exceptional history etc. American Jews are afraid that, if the economy went very bad, the goyim would take it out on the Jews, pogroms would ensue, but, never fear, Israel would be there to save us. QED.

    • Naftush
      Naftush
      August 18, 2013, 4:21 am

      Slippery slope, indeed. You’re skidding down two slopes, no less. First, it takes one to know one: No half-informed Muslim would accept a definition of Islam as a mere religion. So don’t preach to the totally uninformed by defining Judaism as a mere religion. Both embrace a world of characteristics, including nationhood. Zionism’s blazing-fast success in establishing a flourishing nation-state proves the point on the Jewish side.
      Second, the “zionist entity” does call itself what it wants, the State of Israel. Can’t bring yourself to say it?

      • MRW
        MRW
        August 18, 2013, 6:30 am

        No half-informed Muslim would accept a definition of Islam as a mere religion….Both embrace a world of characteristics, including nationhood

        That’s bullshit. There are 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide in over 120 countries, and they are not clamoring for nationhood in the vast majority of them, nor do they hew to the ferkahkta idea that there’s a designated nation state of Islam that the diaspora of Muslims belong to as some sort of uber-Muslim nation in the sky that they all have to pay obeisance to…if they want to be perceived as ‘good Muslims’.

      • ramzijaber
        ramzijaber
        August 18, 2013, 9:32 am

        Naftush, two simple points:

        – judaism IS a religion, and a great religion indeed
        – Zionism is an outdated political movement that has turned to racism and illegal activities to steal, murder, and oppress

      • Ecru
        Ecru
        August 18, 2013, 4:21 pm

        @ Naftush

        I know plenty of Muslims – they’re happy to call it a religion. Yet another hasbarite fail.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 18, 2013, 9:22 pm

        So don’t preach to the totally uninformed by defining Judaism as a mere religion.

        Well apparently you are still uninformed. I specifically pointed out that the prohibition in the 14th Amendment would prohibit the establishment of a Jewish State on racial or ethnic lines. So it really doesn’t matter if you want to discriminate against the other inhabitants on the basis of either your religion, or simply on the basis of a secular ethnic culture. Your objections about slippery slopes are moot.

      • ziusudra
        ziusudra
        August 20, 2013, 2:11 am

        Greetings Naftush,
        Ethymology of Judaism.
        The Pharisees write:
        Jacob was the father of 12 sons forming the 12 tribes.
        Juda one of his sons & grandson of Abraham.
        This son is the basis of the Religion of Judaism.
        (Jacob on his deathbed gave Juda the leadership of
        Israel. Israel was a concept of tribal identity at that time.)
        A subject of the 3rd Kingdom, the Kingdom of Judea,
        was called a Jew (english).
        What the Pharisees didn’t know or realize was that the
        12 tribes ne’er met up with Abraham, a Chaldern from
        Mesopotamia migrated to the Canaan, 1700BC, where the
        tribes didn’t get there till 1200BC. They simply adopted &
        judaised these stories after freedom in Mesopotamia 536BC.
        World Judaism knowing it is a multiple Euro/ ME & No. African
        conglomerate of many languages & customs only goes by
        their last Kingdom & their religion as identity, whereas nations
        decline to identify by ethnicity or religion.
        Iran is fully aware that they are an Afro/Euro ethnicity. So does
        Saudi Arabia know that they are an Afro/Asian ethnicity.
        ziusudra
        PS Just like the Yarmulka was non existent in Judaism under the ancient Semites in ancient times, Jew is rather
        silly as identity for today of a Kingdom that was destroyed in 586BC!
        These People are:
        Citizenship: Israeli or US or both.
        Religion: Judaism
        Ethnicity: Khazarian/Euro

    • ramzijaber
      ramzijaber
      August 18, 2013, 9:28 am

      Thanks to all who replied. Very insightful exchange.

  2. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw
    August 17, 2013, 12:16 pm

    Ramzi Jaber. ” states do not recognize each other based on their religion” many states do, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia come to mind, If the Israeli state officially changed its name at the UN to the ‘Jewish state of Israel’, it would be proper for them to insist on that change to be recognized in any official communication with that state, I would not agree with any such designation since Israel has a large non Jewish minority so it is patently not a Jewish state, also the minority are being discriminated against by state laws now, such a change could only have negative consequences. Let’s see if they have the nerve to change it, I somehow doubt it.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      Maximus Decimus Meridius
      August 17, 2013, 1:19 pm

      ”Ramzi Jaber. ” states do not recognize each other based on their religion” many states do, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia come to mind,”

      KSA’s official name is ”The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” – there is no mention of Islam in it. Iran does call itself an ”Islamic Republic” but no foreign state explicitally recognises it as such – they simply recognise it as the nation state of Iran, just as they did under the Shah. Similarly, the Israelis can refer to their entity by whatever name they wish, but no outsider is in any way obliged to recognise that.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        August 17, 2013, 1:37 pm

        The recognition as a Jewish state nonsense is an attempt to cut off the RoR and demographics. Like in the 1970s Protestants in Ulster insisting Northern Ireland was a Protestant state. It isn’t any more…

      • HarryLaw
        HarryLaw
        August 17, 2013, 2:35 pm

        Maximus Decimus Meridius, ” Iran does call itself an ”Islamic Republic” but no foreign state explicitly recognizes it as such – they simply recognize it as the nation state of Iran” A state can call itself whatever it wants, like the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, if Pakistan insists on its official name in any dealings with other states, it would be diplomatically wrong and bad mannered not to say illegal to use any other shortened description.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        Maximus Decimus Meridius
        August 17, 2013, 3:04 pm

        Illegal? How so?

        And using a state’s official full title might be good diplomatic practice, but doing so is not at all the same thing as formally recognising, say, Jordan as a Hashemite Kingdom, or Iran as an Islamic Republic. There is no legal obligation on any state to do so, and no procedure to that end. When the Kingdom of Iran ceased to exist, and became instead the Islamic Republic of Iran, foreign states did not have to re-recognise it, as they had never recognised Iran as anything other than plain old Iran.

      • piotr
        piotr
        August 18, 2013, 6:15 am

        There is some type of recognition, an admission to OIC, Organization of Islamic Cooperation. I guess it would be a diplomatic snub to exclude a country that deems itself Islamic/Muslim. But I guess it would be weird if, say, Indonesia asked Singapore to be recognized as an Islamic state.

        So Satmar Republic of Rockland County may refuse to recognize that Israel is a Jewish state because it views itself competent to recognize what a Jewish state is — in the case of Israel, a bunch of heretics. But why non-Jews should have any type of opinion?

      • HarryLaw
        HarryLaw
        August 18, 2013, 7:29 am

        Maximus Decimus Meridius, “illegal? How so?” If a formal treaty is concluded between states, and if one of those states insists on the correct official name of their state on that treaty document, [especially if that states official title is registered at the UN], as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is, how can that be legal? I am reminded of the 1985 Anglo Irish Agreement when both sides agreed to call the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [its official name] simply the United Kingdom, they did this to avoid the Republic of Ireland having to recognize in an official document, that NI was part of the United Kingdom. The Republic of course could do no such thing since they claimed in articles 2 and 3 of its constitution that Northern Ireland and its territorial waters was legally part of the Island of Ireland, this duplicitous arrangement failed, but not because the two conspirators failed to agree on the correct countries titles, but on the majority in Northern Ireland who would not go along with the conspiracy see here..http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/aia.htm

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 18, 2013, 1:26 pm

        Didn’t Abbas say that Israel was welcome to call itself the “Zionist Jewish Empire”?

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        Maximus Decimus Meridius
        August 19, 2013, 2:53 pm

        The above is quite a different scenario

        Firstly, we’re talking about one specific document between two countries. Secondly, there was no mention of the ethnic or religious make up of the UK – the Brits weren’t asking the Irish, or anyone else, to recognise the UK as a Protestant state (even though in some respects it is one). More importantly, Ireland had full diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – there is/was an embassy in Dublin with those words on the gate, and British citizens travelling to Ireland carried passports with those words stamped on them. So, whatever fudge they might have chosen for this particular purpose, in fact Ireland did tacitly recognise the UK as the UK of GB and NI.

        So I repeat: No nation state is obliged to recognise another state’s preferred ethno-religious description of itself.

  3. Xpat
    Xpat
    August 17, 2013, 12:22 pm

    Phil – I misread your headline to mean that the root of the unrest in the Arab world is its refusal to recognize a Jewish state – which is not at all what Netanyahu says.

    • philweiss
      philweiss
      August 17, 2013, 12:47 pm

      Maybe I should fix then. But I understood Net to say that the root of the conflict is the Arab refusal to recognize the one and only Jewish state, and of course the root of the wider unrest is Arab problem…
      Thanks

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        August 17, 2013, 5:32 pm

        Phil- he has been churning out that same crap for 40 years.

        Netanyahu was a Zionist wunderkind in his youth . He was always so sure of himself. Always loaded up with hasbara, always ready with a quip.

        When the Likud came along in 77 he was one of their shining lights. But what an inept leader, what an asshole.
        And what does it say about Israel that such a man could dominate its politics for almost a generation?

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        August 17, 2013, 8:23 pm

        Philip Weiss says:Maybe I should fix then.
        —————–
        While you are at it, why did you amplify thumping into pounding?

      • Qualtrough
        Qualtrough
        August 18, 2013, 9:07 am

        You think thumping is an amplification of pounding?? If anything it is the other way around. Quite a reach there though.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 18, 2013, 5:35 pm

        While you are at it, why did you amplify thumping into pounding?

        Maybe its a reference to the popular old aphorism? There’s one that advises “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If both the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”

        — See for example the version cited by Carl Sandberg in The People, Yes, (1936) Reprint Mariner Books, 1990, page 69

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        August 18, 2013, 8:13 pm

        Qualtrough says: You think thumping is an amplification of pounding??
        ==================
        Of course it is the other way around, which is how I stated it. Regardless, the question remains why the headline was editorialized.

      • Xpat
        Xpat
        August 17, 2013, 8:44 pm

        I saw Netanyahu as being vague and insinuating stuff and then pulling back. It read to me that he could still deny that the “problem” in the second para is not the same as the “convulsion” in the first one.

    • miriam6
      miriam6
      August 20, 2013, 4:13 am

      But I think today everybody understands that the root cause in the Middle East and beyond has to do with the convulsion that is historic and cultural in nature of which the Israeli Palestinian conflict is merely one of many, many such manifestations.

      I think what Netanyahu is referring to here is the spectre of SECTARIANISM amongst other things- like militarism.

      However , given the context of his speech which links those words about historical and cultural convulsions with his own demand for a Jewish state obviously he can’t say the word sectarianism out loud , for fearing of calling his own sense of national identity and policies into question…

      What was so inspiring and hopeful about the Arab Spring was the possibility it offered for a less sectarian Middle East.

      That possibility also offered up the hope than it might , eventually , help to break the deadlock of the I/P conflict.

      For one thing it might have meant that with a less sectarian ME Israel could no longer rely on conjuring up the threat of Islamism as a justification for its sense of national identity and policies.

      Now it seems that the Arab Spring must go back to the drawing board.

      The sectarian inclinations of Morsi’s short-lived government was one of the reasons at least half the population of Egypt hated Morsi’s government, – for example , the sectarian rooting out of all non-Muslims from the civil service in Egypt.

      See Private Eye ;

      Letter From Cairo

      http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=columnists&issue=1265

      The coup is a disaster. The Arab peoples must now go back to square one…
      Cont..

      http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/egypt_the_end_of_the_arab_spring/13801#.UhMh_OJwbIU

      However, our problem is that we are our worse enemy. We are caught in a stupid and artificial Shia-Sunni feud that was brought into life by our enemies, and also by our inability to become citizens instead of faithfuls. Anyone reasoning in these sectarian terms is an enemy worse than the Zionists, the enemy from within.

      https://www.facebook.com/dyab.a.jahjah?fref=ts

  4. seafoid
    seafoid
    August 17, 2013, 12:30 pm

    ‘That’s an issue that has to be resolved, but this is not the reason that we have a continual conflict. The conflict preceded the establishment of a single settlement by a half century…”

    It has ALWAYS been about 1948. The Israelis still refuse to discuss it. One of Sayyid Qutb’s motivations was Egyptian corruption and weakness in 1948, BTW…

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      August 17, 2013, 5:59 pm

      @ seafoid
      Why wouldn’t the conflict be about 1948? Of course it’s about 1948. ’49 & 67 just heightened the basic problem.

      • john h
        john h
        August 19, 2013, 12:34 am

        Actually, 1948 came from 1947, and 1947 from 1917….

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 19, 2013, 2:15 pm

        Events of 1914 were essential. Primary one was blunder by Ottoman Empire.

      • heartbeatt
        heartbeatt
        August 19, 2013, 6:49 pm

        No, go back to the early 1900s, when Weizmann began the organized and audacious infiltration of the British government. Without understanding that, you will not understand what 1948 solidified.

  5. eljay
    eljay
    August 17, 2013, 12:32 pm

    >> As far as the Israeli Palestinian peace process, we have to get to the root cause of the problem, and the root cause was and remains the persistent refusal to recognize the Jewish state in any boundary.

    “Jewish State” is a supremacist construct. No-one should be expected or required to “recognize” (in other words, validate) the existence of a supremacist state, especially not:
    – the people terrorized and ethnically cleansed from the territory granted to that state;
    – the people who remain unable to exercise their lawful right of return to the homes and lands from which they were driven by that state;
    – the people subjected to a 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction, torture and murder by that state; and
    – the people who are not granted full and equal rights as citizens within that state.

    The only people who think “Jewish State” is a construct worth validating are hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists and their equally hateful and immoral supporters.

    • Blank State
      Blank State
      August 17, 2013, 2:00 pm

      “……Zio-supremacists and their equally hateful and immoral supporters”

      Would that be virtually every American Jew I’ve ever talked to, who support Israel, even while exhibiting profound ignorance of the facts? What about the non-zionist Jews who repeatedly vote using the AIPAC playbook?

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        August 17, 2013, 6:08 pm

        @ Blank State
        And also all the Dick and Janes who either are Christian fundies who believe the contemporary state of Israel is the very same Israel mentioned in the old testament, and that their own ascendance into heaven is conditioned on total support of the modern state Of Israel, right down to sacrifice of all your pocket cash and the blood in the veins of both their own children and yours, and/or to all the American Gentile politicians who genuflect to Israel to get or keep AIPAC donor support, or to prevent such rich Zionist cash from going to their political opponents, It’s just the little ignorant man Truman, repeated endlessly.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 18, 2013, 1:21 pm

        And the “Reverend” John Hagee looks forward to the end of the world! As soon as Israel drives all non-Jews out of “the Land of Israel”! What an idiot.

      • john h
        john h
        August 19, 2013, 12:41 am

        “It’s just the little ignorant man Truman, repeated endlessly”…

        … by so many mindless, heartless, and clueless clowns who have likewise sold their soul for a mess of pottage, happy to genuflect ad infinitum to their petty little golden calf.

      • Blank State
        Blank State
        August 19, 2013, 10:03 am

        Monitor……..are you afraid of the truth?

      • ziusudra
        ziusudra
        August 20, 2013, 2:24 am

        Greetings Citizen,
        …..ascendance into heaven……
        Judaism has no concept of heaven.
        As the ancient Pharisees ne’er met Abraham!
        Abraham brought anthropo theism to the Canaanites
        long before the tribes reached Canaan (Falesteena).
        ziusudra
        PS They forgot to question the Canaanites, whom they
        took everything from arriving 500 yrs after Abraham.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        August 22, 2013, 6:00 am

        @ ziusudra

        Hagee’s Christian Zionism is all about heaven, while Judaism has no concept of heaven–or at least, it’s not a core belief of Judaism, and totally unnecessary to be Jewish. The non-Christian Zionist Israel Firsters here, and the Jewish Israelis mock the Hagee types behind their back, after taking Hagee cash, which he got from his mostly impoverished true believers. Israel doesn’t care what the Hagees think will happen in “the end days” because they know Left Behind is a bad joke book series–Israel considers the CZ fundies cheap tools. It’s pie in the sky absurdity versus real politic.

    • mondonut
      mondonut
      August 17, 2013, 8:20 pm

      eljay says:“Jewish State” is a supremacist construct.
      =============================
      Maybe it is, but no more than to say the land is Arab. The point of it is two fold. First it deflects the RoR, which does not exist as the Palestinians define it. And secondly to illustrate the Israeli perception that their opponents quite simply Hate the Jews.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 18, 2013, 7:17 am

        Maybe it is, but no more than to say the land is Arab.

        Not if if bongs to the Arabs.

        First it deflects the RoR, which does not exist as the Palestinians define it.

        Yes it does, though we appreciate that you have given up the claim that it does not exist at all.

        And secondly to illustrate the Israeli perception that their opponents quite simply Hate the Jews.

        Their perception is just an excuse they use up keep breaking the law.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        August 18, 2013, 11:48 am

        Shingo says: Not if if bongs to the Arabs. Yes it does, though we appreciate that you have given up the claim that it does not exist at all. Their perception is just an excuse they use up keep breaking the law.
        ====================================================
        But it does not “belong to the Arabs” (racist claim) it belongs to the Stage of Israel and hopefully to the emerging State of Palestine. And yes, strictly for the sake of argument it is easier to refer to the RoR as I did. As for their perception, it is supported by nearly everything they see and hear from their neighbors as well as their entire history.

      • eljay
        eljay
        August 18, 2013, 7:47 am

        >> Maybe it is, but no more than to say the land is Arab.

        Although I dislike the term “Arab land”, the term itself is not an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        August 18, 2013, 11:52 am

        eljay says: Although I dislike the term “Arab land”, the term itself is not an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state.
        ==================================================
        If, as you would have it, the Jewish people found themselves under the heel of the Arabs all evidence suggests it would indeed be both oppressive and supremacist.

      • eljay
        eljay
        August 19, 2013, 2:58 pm

        >> If, as you would have it, the Jewish people found themselves under the heel of the Arabs all evidence suggests it would indeed be both oppressive and supremacist.

        1. “If” is a hypothetical. Oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” is a reality.

        2. “[T]he Jewish people” will never find themselves “under the heel of the Arab” because “the Jewish people” are citizens of nations around the world.

        3. I have never said I “would have it” that Jews should live “under the heel of the Arab” or of anyone else. That’s your warped Zio-supremacist mind turning anything and everything into victimhood, even as you and your co-collectivists:
        – continue to engage in – or justify and support – aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, torture, destruction and murder;
        – refuse to be held accountable for past and on-going (war) crimes; and
        – refuse to engage in sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

      • ziusudra
        ziusudra
        August 20, 2013, 2:37 am

        Greetings mondonut,
        ….the J. People found themselves under the heel of the Arabs……
        These migrants from Europe started migrating in the late 19thC.
        into Falesteena.
        They eventually legally owned 7% of land of an area including
        Jordanian 91.0 Sq Km & today’s Falesteena 21.0K Sq Km,
        squatting around Hebron, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv & Haifa!
        This is no different of what we Euro Christians did in the Americas,
        Australia, New Zealand So Africa!
        They & we came as Conquerers!
        ziusudra
        PS The Dutch being the first in the US didn’t treat the English migrants fairly. The English did the same to the German, Irish, Italian & Greek migrants. We all erased the Indians. On & on till today.

      • Qualtrough
        Qualtrough
        August 18, 2013, 9:10 am

        Can you please explain how a RoR apparently exists for any Jew in the world, even converts, but not for the Palestinians? How does that work?

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 19, 2013, 2:37 pm

        Presumably, Palestinians would be able to “return” to Palestine, but not to area stolen or cut out of Palestine by creation of Israel.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 18, 2013, 5:49 pm

        First it deflects the RoR, which does not exist as the Palestinians define it.

        Spoken like a totally clueless Jewish supremacist who’s forgotten the Zionists were the party that first codified the idea of a Law of Return that still works after countless generations to recapture a supposedly golden era of their history, and forget that Palestine played the same role to its population during the Arabian Golden era.

        On the day he introduced the Law of Return and the Nationality Laws, during the 160th Sitting of the First Knesset, David Ben Gurion said that Israel was the revival of the ancient Jewish State. He quoted the Jewish historian Josephus and also said: “These two laws determine the special character and destiny of Israel as bearer of the vision of the redemption of the Jewish Nation. . . . On 14 May 1948 the Jewish State was established not as something completely new but as the restoration of our ancient glory, 1813 years after our independence had been destroyed, supposedly forever, at the time of Bar Kochba and Rabbi Akiva. . . . Neither can the revival of the Jewish State be understood without knowing the history of the Jewish people during the period of the First and Second Temples, the history of Jewish prophecy, spirit and vision, the history of the Jewish diaspora and the concept of messianism, and its various manifestations, the incessant attempts of the wandering nation throughout the generations to return to its land and the history of the eternal culture which was forged in this land and its influence on the Jews and the rest of the world.” The motives for unconditional immigration to Israel that he cited were “yearning for redemption, ancient memories, religious sentiments and love of the homeland”. He said “The Law of Return is one of the State of Israel’s Basic Laws. It encompasses one of the central missions of our country, the in-gathering of the exiles.”
        — See Lorch, Netanel (ed), Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981, Volume 2, JCPA/University Press of America, 1993, pp 611 – 613 (pdf pages 142-143)

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        August 18, 2013, 8:25 pm

        Hostage : Spoken like a totally clueless Jewish supremacist who’s forgotten the Zionists were the party that first codified the idea of a Law of Return
        ===================
        Thanks for the history lesson but the Law of Return has nothing to do with the Palestinian RoR.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 19, 2013, 10:23 pm

        Thanks for the history lesson but the Law of Return has nothing to do with the Palestinian RoR.

        Only in the feeble Zionist imagination mondonut.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        August 20, 2013, 12:53 pm

        Hostage says: Only in the feeble Zionist imagination mondonut.
        ============================================
        Pretty weak reply Hostage. You are not going to explain how a legally established national immigration policy is the same as a demand foisted upon a nation by outside forces? Where is the lengthy legal diatribe of obscure and tenuously connected Lexis Nexis cut and pastes?

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 19, 2013, 1:24 am

        mondonut “the RoR, which does not exist as the Palestinians define it”

        UNGA res 194 (’48) is how they define it. Propagandists for Israeli belligerence define it by the UNRWA definition (’49), which is, by definition, not the definition for RoR.

        “And secondly to illustrate the Israeli perception that their opponents quite simply Hate the Jews”

        In the same sentence, in true mondonut propagandist style, it changes from Israeli (the deservedly hated Occupying Power) to Jews, 50% of whom are not citizens of the Occupying Power, do not live or vote in Israel.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        August 19, 2013, 1:49 am

        talknic:

        “the RoR, which does not exist as the Palestinians define it” UNGA res 194 (’48) is how they define it.

        I don’t necessarily disagree, but could you provide some evidence that major Palestinian leaders, negotiators or popular organizations strictly interpret “RoR” that way? Thanks.

  6. rensanceman
    rensanceman
    August 17, 2013, 12:59 pm

    There would be no need for the Israeli/U.S. demand that “negotiations” be the method for resolving the I/P issue IF Israeli would accept numerous U.N. Resolutions condemming its behavior and asking that it comply with U.N. mandates on borders, right of return, occupation, refugees, the Seperation wall, apartheid, transfer of population, et al. Of all people, the head honcho of the U.N. does not give any indication that Israel is a serial violator of the U.N. Charter. It simply ignores them or castigates the U.N. for daring to single it out for condemnation.
    It is puzzling why Israel continues to be a member in good standing in the community of nations when it arrogantly goes about committing war crimes, threatening war, harshly abusing the Palestinians, engaging in collective punishment,etc. The moral standing of the U.S. is being demeaned by our unconditional support for this criminal, pariah of a state. It is time to decertify Israel from the U.N. and establish a trade and cultural embargo. It has sufficiently demonstrated its stay-the-course determination to fulfill the Zionist dream of a Jewish only Palestine from the Med to the Jordan.

    • Denis
      Denis
      August 17, 2013, 7:43 pm

      “IF Israeli would accept numerous U.N. Resolutions condemming its behavior and asking that it comply with U.N. mandates on borders, right of return, occupation, refugees, the Seperation wall, apartheid, transfer of population, et al.”

      I love this thought, but it needs symmetry. Base the demands on both parties on UN and UNSC resolutions with respect to both sides. Use those resolutions — all the way back to 1948 — as the “road map.” I don’t recall anyone having suggested this. One would think Moon would be the first.

      “The moral standing of the U.S. is being demeaned . . .”

      Now ya’ got me down of the floor laughing. The last shred of moral standing the US ever had in the Middle East went up in smoke with shock-and-awe. Obama’s drone attacks, particularly the double-taps, have just served to emphasize what a moral vacuum USG operates in.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 18, 2013, 6:01 pm

        I love this thought, but it needs symmetry. Base the demands on both parties on UN and UNSC resolutions with respect to both sides. Use those resolutions — all the way back to 1948 — as the “road map.” I don’t recall anyone having suggested this. One would think Moon would be the first.

        Then educate yourself. The 1988 PLO declaration of the State of Palestine based its legitimacy upon resolution 181(II). But the government of Israel simply responded by unilaterally declaring it null and void, just like it unilaterally declared the 1949 armistice agreements null and void, and unilaterally declared the Oslo Accords null and void. That’s why many of us think that the State of Israel should be declared null and void and a single state for both the Jewish and Palestinian inhabitants established in the territory of the former mandated State. Of course the Zionist view democracy as an existential threat.

  7. Justpassingby
    Justpassingby
    August 17, 2013, 1:15 pm

    Two chumps having a press conference. One warmonger, One puppet.

    What are ban ki moon doing in israel anyway? Why does he go to Gaza too? No of course not, hes “forbidden” to do that by Israel and the US.

    Typically Israel try to bury their stealing of palestinian land by poiting at other issues in the middle east.

  8. upsidedownism
    upsidedownism
    August 17, 2013, 1:40 pm

    “The Prime Minister knows that occupying Palestinian land is not a long term solution….”

    The Prime Minister knows no such thing! The Prime Minister in fact believes that occupying Palestinian land IS the long term solution….

    • braciole
      braciole
      August 17, 2013, 6:41 pm

      What someone knows and what that same person believes are two entirely different things. Knowledge is based on fact, belief can be based on any old crap.

  9. Xpat
    Xpat
    August 17, 2013, 2:22 pm

    we build a few hundred apartments in Gilo or Ramot or other Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem or in urban blocs that everyone knows… will be part of the final peace map in Israel

    Translation: since you failed to stop us creating “facts on the ground” why don’t you quit whining about it because we’re gonna keep on colonizing whether you like it or not.

    I think these are not the real issues that we need to discuss. The real issue is how to get a demilitarized Palestinian state to finally recognize and accept the one and only Jewish state

    The two state solution is actually the one army solution

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      August 17, 2013, 4:09 pm

      Netanyahu hopes he and the illegal Jews settling in the West Bank are creating “facts on the ground”. Operative word: “hopes”.

      • Xpat
        Xpat
        August 17, 2013, 4:28 pm

        No, there is no conceivable way that the entire settlement project will be undone. There isn’t the money or political will to fund it or make it happen in the U.S. or Israel. This is nothing at all like the Israeli withdrawal from Egypt thirty years ago or the more recent dismantling of Gaza settlements. In that, Netanyahu is right. But that doesn’t make Israel’s colonization of “greater Jerusalem” legal. And it’s not ok to publicly insult the Palestinians at the beginning of so-called peace talks. Of course, Netanyahu, with Kerry and Obama’s backing, is confident that the peace talk game is risk free.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        August 17, 2013, 4:33 pm

        “No, there is no conceivable way that the entire settlement project will be undone. ”

        There is, Elliott. A lot of people would die. I wouldn’t rule out anything regarding Israel.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 17, 2013, 6:52 pm

        I continue to see no need to “dismantle” illegal colonies of Jews in West Bank. And I see no need to change borders of Palestine to put those colonies in Israel.

      • American
        American
        August 17, 2013, 7:20 pm

        James Canning says:
        August 17, 2013 at 6:52 pm

        I continue to see no need to “dismantle” illegal colonies of Jews in West Bank.
        ”>>>>>>

        I continue to not see what you dont understand about ‘illegal’…on what grounds can you justify letting people living on land stolen and therefore illegally in their hands keep it? I dont get your rationale on this at all.

      • Xpat
        Xpat
        August 17, 2013, 7:43 pm

        @ James – sorry, I should have clarified “facts on the ground” is an Israeli expression and is synonymous with Jewish construction on the West Bank.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 18, 2013, 1:17 pm

        @American – – I think many of the illegal colonists would elect to return to Israel. Let rich Jews pay for their relocation. Not the US taxpayer.
        Compensation for land stolen by illegal Jewish colonists would have to be paid. And those who stayed would have to obey laws of Palestine.

        Taxes would be payable, obviously. Housing discrimination on grounds of religion might well be prohibited. Etc.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 18, 2013, 1:29 pm

        @Elliott – – Yes, “facts on the ground” is code for the growth of illegal Jewish colonies on land Israel hopes to incorporate into Israel by virtue of growing those illegal colonies of Jews. In the West Bank.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      August 17, 2013, 6:17 pm

      ” … we build a few hundred apartments in Gilo or Ramot or other Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem or in urban blocs that everyone knows… will be part of the final peace map in Israel.”

      This is ultimate chutzpah. Nobody calls him on his “everybody knows.”
      He’s got the mind of the ostensibly mostly goy US broker firmly in his Zionist grasp.
      He knows; after all he went to the ivy league too.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 18, 2013, 1:11 pm

        Netanyahu knows well the power of the Israel lobby in the US. Even if most Americans do not.

  10. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    August 17, 2013, 2:49 pm

    RE: “As far as the Israeli Palestinian peace process, we have to get to the root cause of the problem, and the root cause was and remains the persistent refusal to recognize the Jewish state in any boundary.” ~ Netanyhu

    IN OTHER WORDS: The Palestinians must recognize the Jewish state of Israel in whatever boundary Israel unilaterally decides upon! ! !

    FROM WIKIPEDIA [Iron Wall (essay)]:

    [EXCERPT] . . . [Ze’ev] Jabotinsky argued that the Palestinians would not agree to a Jewish majority in Palestine, and that “Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.”[1] The only solution to achieve peace and a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, he [Ze’ev Jabotinsky] argued, would be for Jews to unilaterally decide its borders and defend them with the strongest security possible. . .

    SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Wall_(essay)

    ENTIRE ‘IRON WALL’ ESSAY: “The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)”, By Vladimir Jabotinsky, 1923 – http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/ironwall.htm

    P.S. ALSO SEE: “The Ethics of the Iron Wall”, By Vladimir Jabotinsky, 1923 – http://www.jabotinsky.org/multimedia/upl_doc/doc_191207_181762.pdf

  11. ramzijaber
    ramzijaber
    August 17, 2013, 3:02 pm

    One question to nutnyahoo and the zionists: can any of you explain how jewish and democratic REALLY works? Thank you.

    • Xpat
      Xpat
      August 17, 2013, 3:10 pm

      I once asked a Jew who leads a Jewish organization the same question. His reply: “I don’t know the answer but we have to keep working on it”.
      Catholics have transubstantiation; Jews have ‘Jewish and democratic.
      It’s our religious mystery. To doubt that the apparent dialectic can be resolved is to lack faith.

      • ramzijaber
        ramzijaber
        August 17, 2013, 3:18 pm

        I hope he’s still working on it. LOL!!!

        I have a clue for him: both live in parallel universes………….

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        August 17, 2013, 3:45 pm

        My wife was making pancakes this morning. Our daughter asked her why the first pancake is never as good as the ones that follow. I guess it must be the same for Jewish States…

      • piotr
        piotr
        August 18, 2013, 6:27 am

        As a practical tip, it is easy to avoid spoiling the first pancake: start from making the second one. More precisely, you need to wait five minutes until the pan is sufficiently hot so the batter does not stick.

      • tree
        tree
        August 17, 2013, 3:36 pm

        Catholics have transubstantiation; Jews have ‘Jewish and democratic.
        It’s our religious mystery. To doubt that the apparent dialectic can be resolved is to lack faith.

        Priceless!

      • piotr
        piotr
        August 18, 2013, 6:24 am

        Many Jews came to Israel from Catholic counties, so some osmosis of ideas is to be expected. To me the paramount example is the Doctrine of Immaculate Conception, i.e. the creation of the State of Israel without Nakba. It defies mundane understanding, but fully comprehensible in the language of miracles.

        I imagine a series of paintings in oil or fresco. Annunciation: Hertzl visited by an angel.

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        August 17, 2013, 4:41 pm

        It’s a metaphysical ‘kinda thing. So I guess the idea of a physical Zionist-Jewish only and Democratic state is something outside perceived reality. The ZioZone.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      August 17, 2013, 5:53 pm

      One question to nutnyahoo and the zionists: can any of you explain how jewish and democratic REALLY works? Thank you.

      Members of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee have stated for the record that:

      “There cannot be a constitution in a Jewish and democratic state if it does not defend the unequal values of Judaism – and they are unequal, . . . “If you want equality in the constitution, it must be limited.”

      See MKs debate protection of ‘equality’ in future constitution http://www.haaretz.com/news/mks-debate-protection-of-equality-in-future-constitution-1.234565

      So you’re correct to question that. Non-Jewish listeners are never expected to test the “value proposition” that Netanyahu is selling. If they did, they’d soon discover why he and his predecessors have always found it necessary to literally sell it to the Palestinians at gunpoint. Jabotinsky’s “The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)” describes the necessity of using that method for establishing settlements and the futility of conducting negotiations with members of his Zionist movement:

      All of us, without exception, are constantly demanding that this power strictly fulfill its obligations. In this sense, there are no meaningful differences between our “militarists” and our “vegetarians.” One prefers an iron wall of Jewish bayonets, the other proposes an iron wall of British bayonets, the third proposes an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be satisfied with Baghdad’s bayonets – a strange and somewhat risky taste’ but we all applaud, day and night, the iron wall. We would destroy our cause if we proclaimed the necessity of an agreement, and fill the minds of the Mandatory with the belief that we do not need an iron wall, but rather endless talks.

      http://www.danielpipes.org/3510/the-iron-wall-we-and-the-arabs

      Any one can find out exactly how Jewish and Democratic REALLY works for themselves, by simply following the documentary record. The juxtaposition of values comes from the Declaration of Establishment of State of Israel. http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/declaration%20of%20establishment%20of%20state%20of%20israel.aspx

      It was not just an announcement of independence. The United Nations actually required the new governments to make a declaration acknowledging their obligations to establish the new states on the basis of democracy, equality, and guarantees of fundamental human rights. But the government of Israel has always treated those key portions of the text as nothing more than legal tinsel – and that has always been the actual root of the problem.

      When the Jewish People’s Council met on 14 May 1948 to discuss the Draft of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel no Arab citizens were present and none had been invited. The Chairman, David Ben-Gurion stated explicitly that the purpose of the declaration and interim constitution (the Transition Act) were “to establish Jewish rule.”
      – See Netanel Lorach, Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981, Volume 1 – People’s Council and Provisional Council of State, 1948-1949, pp 44 (pdf page 36 of 184)
      link to jcpa.org

      A day earlier, Ben Gurion had rejected a proposal from America that, the Executive should issue a communique, before making the Declaration, saying that the first meeting of the new Provisional Government would be convened to discuss the issue of the return of the Arab population of the Jewish State to their homes. See the verbatim minutes of the meeting of the People’s Council on 13 May 1948: http://books.google.com/books?id=DWhgIe3Hq98C&lpg=PP293&pg=PA293#v=onepage&q&f=false

      When the Declaration was belatedly cited decades later in a Basic Law, the Knesset members grandfathered all of the many existing laws that discriminate against non-Jews and stipulated that any new law befitting Jewish values could preempt the values of democracy and equality. See Articles 8 and 10 of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty: http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic3_eng.htm

      Compare that to the criteria established by the international community. UN Resolution 181(II) Part B stated that the Steps Preparatory to Independence included a requirement that:

      The Constitutions of the States shall embody Chapters 1 and 2 of the Declaration provided for in section C below and include, inter alia, provisions for: . . . Guaranteeing to all persons equal and non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association;

      Resolution 181(II) Part C. Declaration recited those rights and added:

      The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

      In the Status Quo Agreement with World Agudat Israel, Ben Gurion noted that the UN would not consent to the establishment of the State, unless the Jews provided such assurances and demonstrated that they weren’t going to establish a ethnic theocracy. link to books.google.com

      During the People’s Council discussion on the 14th of May, several of the members were highly offended by the non-religious or democratic tone of those UN-prescribed portions of the text, while others were disturbed because the paragraph dealing with “speech” had failed to mention freedom of the press, assembly, and etc. explicitly.
      Contrary to the UN requirement that the declaration serve as the fundamental law of the State, Ben Gurion replied: This is not a constitution.” and that it was “not the law of the land” either. He said that “We have put in the basic phrases demanded by the UN, and I am sure that they, and more, will be included in the law of the land.
      – See Netanel Lorach, Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981, Volume 1 – People’s Council and Provisional Council of State, 1948-1949, pp 53 (pdf page 40 of 184)
      * link to jcpa.org

      But equality has never been included in either the law of the land, or a constitution. Those omissions have been quite deliberate, as mentioned above:

      The second section is the primary source of authority in the Israeli legal system. Some were inclined to view the Proclamation of Independence, and especially its declaratory section, as a constitution, but the Supreme Court stated, in a series of decisions, that the proclamation does not have constitutional validity, and that it is not a supreme law which may be used to invalidate laws and regulations that contradict it.

      See The Proclamation of Independence link to knesset.gov.il

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        August 17, 2013, 6:00 pm

        ” But the government of Israel has always treated those key portions of the text as nothing more than legal tinsel – and that has always been the actual root of the problem

        Great post, Hostage.

        And it is the basic problem now with Zionism . When the mayor of upper Nazareth says “If I’m racist then this state is racist” the answer is “quite, old chap” .

        And that sort of institutionalized cheap bigotry is anathema to young people all over the world, Holocaust notwithstanding .

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        August 17, 2013, 6:33 pm

        @ Hostage
        We get it. The Israeli state had to afford all its citizens full equality because the Non-Jewish nations demanded it as a minimum criteria to join the UN and be recognized by the UN. Israel complied in its declaration or independence. But to date, no other Israeli law or policy has honored that document. No Constitution, just Basic Laws and a hodgepodge of other laws, policies, judicial decisions that spread jewish privilege throughout all land and people Israel controls.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 18, 2013, 7:17 pm

        @ Hostage
        We get it. The Israeli state had to afford all its citizens full equality because the Non-Jewish nations demanded it as a minimum criteria to join the UN and be recognized by the UN.

        That’s correct. But there was such a great disparity between what was required and the things that the Zionists were doing instead, that Ad Hoc Committee members repeatedly mentioned the fact and asked the Government of Israel on the record if it had ever supplied the required declaration? The representative of Israel replied in the affirmative and cited the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (a signed document). He falsely claimed it had been promulgated as fundamental law in accordance with the resolution and published in the state gazette.

        The government of Israel subsequently made the equally false claim that it had offered to supply a declaration, but had been admitted as a member without one.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 19, 2013, 6:33 pm

        Big distinction here, between what Israel agreed to do and actually does.

      • a blah chick
        a blah chick
        August 17, 2013, 6:42 pm

        My understanding of the timing of their (Israel’s) declaration of independence was so that they could continue their ethnic cleansing which had begun the year before (1947). Had Israel accepted the Partition plan the UN was putting forth they would have had an Arab population even higher than what they have to day (50% if memory serves). Considering how they squawk today about the 20% they have now I’m suppose to believe they would have accepted more than twice that many non-Jews at that time?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 18, 2013, 6:57 pm

        Had Israel accepted the Partition plan the UN was putting forth they would have had an Arab population even higher than what they have to day (50% if memory serves). Considering how they squawk today about the 20% they have now I’m suppose to believe they would have accepted more than twice that many non-Jews at that time?

        Well the ratio of illegal Settlers to Palestinians in the territories today causes many reasonable people to conclude that it’s impossible to establish an independent, and viable state there. But the ratio today isn’t comparable to the nearly 50-50 proposition that the Zionists supposedly accepted. Draw your own conclusions. The UN plan still called for a common currency, common transportation system with right of transit, and a common market. The latter was supposed to be jointly governed and included a plan for sharing custom revenues from the ports located in the Jewish state.

        Once again, the Jewish People’s Council turned down a UN Truce proposal and rejected a request from America the day before the mandate ended that the new provisional government issue a communique regarding the return of the Arabs of Palestine to their homes. That suggestion has always been rejected. All of that happened before the declaration and the entry of the armed forces of the Arab states into Palestine.

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 19, 2013, 5:50 am

        @ a blah chick ” Had Israel accepted the Partition plan the UN was putting forth “

        Rabbi Silver for the Jewish Agency to the UNSC Friday, 5 March 1948

        “Nevertheless, reluctantly but loyally, we accepted the decision which appeared fair and reasonable to the United Nations”

        “We feel under the obligation to make our position unmistakably clear. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision. “ http://pages.citebite.com/l1t3s9i2x5shf
        MORE @ http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yx

        “… they would have had an Arab population even higher than what they have to day … I’m suppose to believe they would have accepted more than twice that many non-Jews at that time?”

        WE APPEAL – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/declaration%20of%20establishment%20of%20state%20of%20israel.aspx

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 19, 2013, 12:03 pm

        Rabbi Silver for the Jewish Agency to the UNSC Friday, 5 March 1948

        “Nevertheless, reluctantly but loyally, we accepted the decision which appeared fair and reasonable to the United Nations”

        If you mean to imply that Rabbi Silver or the Jewish Agency used the term “accepted” in the normal legal sense, then you are mistaken. He made it clear that when he spoke about “the decision which appeared fair and reasonable to the United Nations” that he only meant the part of the plan regarding the establishment of a Jewish State. In his view, implementation of the whole plan, including the establishment of the Corpus Separatum, the Arab State, and the Economic Union, were neither necessary nor conditions that could affect the establishment of the Jewish State. He said as much in his full remarks to the Security Council on the subject.

        Silver also made an impassioned plea that same day for permission to organize a Jewish militia, “while there was still time”. This, despite the fact that he represented an Agency that had already spent more than a decade building a far-flung network of fortified settlements and conscripting, organizing, training, and deploying a well-equipped force of at least 60,000 fighters, who were already engaged in combat operations and conquests.

        Among other things on the Security Council agenda latter that day, there was a report from the United Nations’ Palestine Commission [UN document S/663], in which the representative of the United Kingdom was quoted as stating: “. . . the Jewish story that the Arabs are the attackers and the Jews the attacked is not tenable.”

        Neither was Silver’s claim that the Zionists had loyally accepted the decision adopted by the General Assembly.

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 19, 2013, 12:18 pm

        @Hostage
        Indeed. They are never the less the words of the Jewish Agency. It shows they could not be trusted and;

        Israel’s plea for recognition was by the UNGA res 181 boundaries . It shows Israel cannot be trusted and;

        Well …. I’m sure you’re well aware of the rest

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 19, 2013, 12:42 pm

        Well …. I’m sure you’re well aware of the rest

        Yes, when the Provisional Government of Israel came back to the United Nations requesting membership, it proved once again that its assurances about implementing resolutions 181(II) and 194(III), and its willingness to fulfill the Charter obligations of a member state, still couldn’t be trusted.

      • Xpat
        Xpat
        August 17, 2013, 7:07 pm

        Thank you, Hostage. That should go up as an article.

      • Castellio
        Castellio
        August 18, 2013, 6:41 pm

        Agreed!

      • southernobserver
        southernobserver
        August 17, 2013, 8:14 pm

        An excellent summary. It has been an ethnic theocracy from the beginning. The only difference that I can see, is that it is now adding overtones of simple racism.

      • ramzijaber
        ramzijaber
        August 18, 2013, 9:33 am

        Hostage, you taught me a lot today. Thank you!

    • talknic
      talknic
      August 17, 2013, 8:31 pm

      Ramzi Jaber “One question to nutnyahoo and the zionists: can any of you explain how jewish and democratic REALLY works?”

      There’s no mention of democracy in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, contrary to the requirement that the state be democratic under UNGA res 181, which is BTW enshrined in the Declaration.

      There is though, mention of the required constitution under which a legal government was to be elected. No constitution, no legally elected govt.

      The only legal govt Israelis have ever had was the Provisional Government who saw fit to disregard the lack of a constitution and hold an election anyway. 65 years later the constitution has yet to be writ. They’re still trying, so they say and still trying to reconcile being a Jewish state with democracy. Simple logic tells us it is irreconcilable.

      The declaration also says:

      THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel ; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

      The prophets of Israel had some weird ideas

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 18, 2013, 12:59 am

        There’s no mention of democracy in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, contrary to the requirement that the state be democratic under UNGA res 181, which is BTW enshrined in the Declaration.

        Well the Justices and Attorney Generals have always claimed that the principle of democracy was incorporated by reference to the UN resolution and the pledge that the Constituent Assembly would adopt a Constitution by 1 October 1948. That was “one of the necessary steps” that the people were required to take in order to implement the resolution. Those steps were acknowledged in the the text of the Declaration itself.

        The resolution said:

        Calls upon the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect;

        The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall, not later than two months after the withdrawal of the armed forces of the mandatory Power, hold elections to the Constituent Assembly which shall be conducted on democratic lines. … The Constituent Assembly of each State shall draft a democratic constitution for its State and choose a provisional government to succeed the Provisional Council of Government appointed by the Commission. The Constitutions of the States shall embody Chapters 1 and 2 of the Declaration provided for in section C below . . . (& et seq).

        http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

        The Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty as amended says:

        Basic principles

        1. Fundamental human rights in Israel are founded upon recognition of the value of the human being, the sanctity of human life, and the principle that all persons are free; these rights shall be upheld in the spirit of the principles set forth in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.

        Purpose 1(a). The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

        P.S. As we all know, Israel is (not) the only democracy in the Middle East;-)

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 18, 2013, 1:53 am

        There is though, mention of the required constitution under which a legal government was to be elected. No constitution, no legally elected govt.

        Well the High Court started a constitutional revolution, when they began using the articles of the draft constitution, or Basic Laws to overturn conflicting legislation and regulations. So the problem is that these rights are only “upheld in the spirit” of the principles set forth in the Declaration and in line with the Jewish and democratic values, as defined by all the loopholes in the Basic Law.

        So “in spirit”, the State will establish a one person one vote democracy, i.e. “ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex;” except of course for all those discriminatory existing laws (Law of Return, Nationality Law, & etc.) and any laws befitting the values of the Jewish state of Israel.

        The Knesset can still nullify any High Court of Justice ruling by simply adopting a law and stipulating that it reflects the values especially befitting the Jewish people or Jewish State, since “complete equality of social and political rights” has never been entrenched in any of the Basic Laws anyway. Equality can, and has been preempted by Knesset statutes, Ministry administrative regulations, and even Judge-made laws.

        Even the most liberal Israeli Supreme Court Justice admits that Jewish values can be the final deciding legal factor in a case. See Aharon Barak, The Values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/isdf/text/barak.html

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 19, 2013, 1:41 am

        @ Hostage… The Israeli Supreme Court was instituted in ’48.

        In short, before the people of Israel could have a constitutionally elected government, an unconstitutional regime was firmly in place.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      August 18, 2013, 2:32 am

      Ramzi Jaber says: “One question to nutnyahoo and the zionists: can any of you explain how jewish and democratic REALLY works? Thank you.”

      A Jewish democracy is a new type of democracy: As long as Jews are a significant majority Nonjews have the right to vote. Otherwise they have to be kept expelled and denationalized. You can also call it Jewish Apartheid – it’s the same.

    • ramzijaber
      ramzijaber
      August 18, 2013, 9:34 am

      What a valuable exchange. I have copied it all and saved it for future reference and to refresh my weak memory down the road…….

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        August 18, 2013, 11:30 am

        Jewish democracy -first identify a region and shunt all the locals into refugee camps. If anyone doesn’t like it, shoot them.

        You then start a democracy. It can be socialist where everyone is equal as long as everyone is Jewish.

        Every so often you bomb the refugees.

        None of the locals are allowed back in to Judistan.
        Under no circumstances can a local be a minister, a university dean , a trade union leader or an orchestra conductor.
        Local political parties are not allowed to partake in Government
        And you need the blessing of the rabbis for all of it.

      • heartbeatt
        heartbeatt
        August 19, 2013, 10:55 am

        Excellent link. What the The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel fails to mention is that the Balfour Declaration only favoured favour the establishment in Palestine of a NATIONAL HOME (not a state) for the Jewish people – and the rest is always left out: ….. it being clearly understood that NOTHING shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
        Of course, even at the time, it was already an outrageous and deceitful document, as Palestine was never Britain’s to give away or distribute parts of and the fact that it refers to the indigenous people as ‘non-Jewish communities’ is symptomatic of the kind of language crafted and inserted in documents repeatedly since then.
        As for lines like “proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country”, one can only be incredulous that such a claim was ever taken seriously.
        There’s a very good book that should be read by all interested in the necessity of starting history before 1948: “Might Over Right” by Adel Sefty. The details of deceipt and bullying and lobbying are important to recognize what goes on today. Only ignorance and constant propaganda allow Israel’s might over right to continue and I, for one, ask Israelis to question whether any healthy state can be built on the foundations of might over right. If one goes back again to the 1930s in Germany and looks closely at the way in which citizens were coerced, intimidated and lied to, including the very young, how an ‘enemy’ was set in stone, how laws were made to keep doctrines in place, how dispossession was legalized, one will find alarming parallels to the Israel of today.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 19, 2013, 1:52 pm

        @Heartbeat – – Lord Balfour did not promise to “give away” parts of Palestine. Jews could expect to relocate in Palestine, but there was no promise to use British power to create a state run by Jews carved out of Palestine.

      • heartbeatt
        heartbeatt
        August 19, 2013, 6:34 pm

        Did you read my post? read the original Balfour Declaration, which I quoted parts of.
        Apart from that, I repeat, Britain had NO RIGHT to even favour a ‘Jewish Homeland’ in Palestine, let alone give Zionists rights to the land or participation in colonial government policy discussions.
        It is also interesting that much of this happened because apparently men like Balfour were averse to more Jewish immigration into Britain from Eastern Europe and Russia, so willingly assisted the destination of Palestine, where many Jews did not wish to go. Jews were also to form the bulwark against the ‘barbarians from the East’ and protect British interests in the region (if necessary, to be canon fodder like the settlers today).
        And not all who arrived there were of Zionist inclination. They were, however, pushed aside. The prevailing notion was that Palestinian Arabs must go, the land must be taken, not shared, and they should be perceived as the enemy who resisted Jewish immigration.
        The fate of persecuted Jews was never the most important question. Zionists even prevented the US and Britain from raising their quotas, so that Jews had to go to Palestine, where they were needed to fill the land that was being dispossessed. This is one of the most shocking details of the whole story.
        I quite frankly feel that Jews were severely wronged by the ultra-Zionists and still are. To deceive and brainwash and use for Zionism’s own ends is criminal.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 19, 2013, 9:13 pm

        Balfour himself said that “national home” did NOT mean a Jewish state. In fact, irony of inronies, Zionists were dismissing rumors of plans for a Jewish stats as an anti Zionist conspiracy.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        August 19, 2013, 10:31 pm

        Shingo @;

        Balfour himself said that “national home” did NOT mean a Jewish state..

        On the subject of the Balfour Declaration:

        His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…

        cont..

        However , I think that, since the aspirations of the Palestinian people and the Zionist Jews were utterly incompatible, the Declaration COULD only lead to partition.

        After all, if the two sides could not settle their differences what possible outcome could there be of adopting such a policy of ‘promising’ a ‘home’ national or otherwise to the Jews , other than Partition?

        Even if the Declaration had ‘ nothing to say ‘ about partition surely the spectre of partition was already there, waiting in the wings.

        An eventual partition as a solution just seems to me to be IMPLICIT in the Declaration’s favouring of the establishment of a Jewish ‘home’ ( which, according to the London Conference might not have amounted to much more than allowing FURTHER , though with restrictions in place ,Jewish immigration into Palestine and , another possibility mooted by the 1939 White Paper was the creation of Jewish and Arab ‘cantons’) in mandatory Palestine.

        In any case, The Balfour Declaration showed the British were already moving down a path of attempting(and ultimately failing) to reconcile two utterly incompatible goals, that of creating a ‘home’ for Jews and also at the same time satisfying the Arab demands for national self-determination.
        Actually there is plenty of evidence that the Arabs were dismayed by the Balfour Declaration and THEY feared it would lead to the placing of a Jewish state in Mandatory Palestine:

        Reaction to the Declaration ;

        Arab opposition

        The Arabs expressed disapproval in November 1918 at the parade marking the first anniversary of the Balfour Declaration.
        The Muslim-Christian Association protested the carrying of new “white and blue banners with two inverted triangles in the middle”.
        They drew the attention of the authorities to the serious consequences of any political implications in raising the banners.

        Later that month, on the first anniversary of the occupation of Jaffa by
        the British, the Muslim-Christian Association sent a lengthy memorandum and petition to the military governor protesting once more any formation of a Jewish state.

        On November 1918 the large group of Palestinian Arab dignitaries and representatives of political associations addressed a petition to the British authorities in which they denounced the declaration.

        The document stated:…we always sympathized profoundly with the persecuted Jews and their misfortunes in other countries… but there is wide difference between such sympathy and the acceptance of such a nation…ruling over us and disposing of our affairs.

        Zionist reaction:

        Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow, the principal Zionist leaders based in London, had asked for the reconstitution of Palestine as “the” Jewish national home. As such, the declaration fell short of Zionist expectations.

        Jewish National Home vs. Jewish State

        The records of discussions that led up to the final text of the Balfour Declaration clarifies some details of its wording.

        The phrase “national home” was intentionally used instead of “state” because of opposition to the Zionist program within the British Cabinet. Following discussion of the initial draft the Cabinet Secretary, Mark Sykes, met with the Zionist negotiators to clarify their aims.

        His official report back to the Cabinet categorically stated that the Zionists did not want “to set up a Jewish Republic or any other form of state in Palestine or in any part of Palestine”.

        Both the Zionist Organization and the British government devoted efforts over the following decades, including Winston Churchill’s 1922 White Paper, to denying that a state was the intention.

        HOWEVER, IN PRIVATE,MANY BRITISH OFFICIALS AGREED WITH THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ZIONISTS THAT A STATE WOULD BE ESTABLISHED WHEN A JEWISH MAJORITY WAS ACHIEVED

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 20, 2013, 6:46 pm

        Lord Balfour had been trying to keep Russia in the war, and thought Jewish opinion could help.

  12. just
    just
    August 17, 2013, 3:19 pm

    How very ironic to see the display of the Israeli flags betwixt and between the UN flags.

    No Israeli leader has ever respected the UN, much less adhered to International law(s). They have constantly thwarted the will of the world via that institution… with our help.

    And no, Rostrum Thumper Netanyahu, you cannot steal other peoples’ land, lives, freedom or resources to fulfill your messianic dreams of your Jewish only State.

    Both the US and Israel are outlaw States, and are descending into the unfortunate realm of pariah states, by virtue not only of their violent actions (wars, drones, incarceration, etc) but also because of their unhealthy symbiotic relationship.

  13. alfa
    alfa
    August 17, 2013, 3:24 pm

    I loved the way Nutsy recoiled when he realized he was being told what.

    Ban Ki-moon–>”–>”The time is now for Israel to be fully respected as a member of he International community. In this regard, I would welcome a more constructive relationship between Israel and the Human Rights Council. I believe Prime Minister Nuts recognizes that Israel will never realize it’s potential internally as well as externally as long as there is not peace with ??-distant neighbors the Palestinians. The Prime Minister knows that occupying Palestinian land is not a long term solution….”.

  14. James Canning
    James Canning
    August 17, 2013, 4:07 pm

    Wrong, Bibi. Israel/Palestine is the single largest problem in the Middle East. Many other problems flow virtually directly from Israel/Palestine problem.

    • just
      just
      August 17, 2013, 4:23 pm

      Exactly correct. Our outright hypocrisy is a huge part of the problem and much of the reason that others hold us in utter disdain and distrust and dislike.

      (I am attempting to be polite…why, I do not really know)

      • bintbiba
        bintbiba
        August 18, 2013, 7:58 am

        Well said, Just….. as usual.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      August 17, 2013, 5:11 pm

      http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ee10def2-05ae-11e3-8ed5-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2cGFc9V9V

      “Israel’s finance minister has denounced what he called growing anti-Israeli sentiment overseas and raised concerns over its impact on the country’s export-based economy even as its leaders sit down for peace talks with the Palestinians.

      In an interview with the Financial Times, Yair Lapid, the centrist former television presenter who was the big winner in January’s elections, said he was concerned anti-Israel lobby groups in Europe were gaining more legitimacy to “do their thing”, which would be “more and more painful” to Israel economically.

      The past decade had seen a growth in lobby groups talking of “the new apartheid” in Israel, raising the spectre of the country being economically isolated as South Africa was in the 1980s, Mr Lapid said. “We are not there yet,” he said of the country’s isolation, but added: “I’m not going to pretend that this doesn’t hurt us.”

      Mr Lapid criticised as “horrible” last month’s publication of new EU guidelines restricting access to European funds for Israeli entities operating on occupied Palestinian lands.

      “There is a lot of plain old-fashioned anti-semitism out there disguised as peace-loving, pro-whatever, 1960s kind of slogans that is hurting us,” he said on Thursday. “You don’t want to have more things like this EU decision, and you don’t want to have markets closed down.”

      “Mr Lapid’s remarks are the latest indication that Israel’s growing diplomatic isolation over the occupation is raising concern about possible economic consequences at the highest levels of Israel’s government”

      • amigo
        amigo
        August 18, 2013, 6:30 am

        “In an interview with the Financial Times, Yair Lapid, the centrist former television presenter who was the big winner in January’s elections, said he was concerned anti-Israel lobby groups in Europe were gaining more legitimacy to “do their thing”, which would be “more and more painful” to Israel economically.”

        Well hot damn.the Occupation Nation has been doing their thing for decades.

        It is time they felt some pain.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        August 18, 2013, 11:07 am

        Lapid is a real lightweight. His electoral success speaks volumes about Israeli politics. His secular constituency have zero interest in peace with the Palestinians- they just hate the Haredim.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 18, 2013, 12:59 pm

        Israel’s economy doubled in size in ten years, this century.
        But more pain would be a good thing for Israel.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        August 19, 2013, 2:51 am

        More pain would be a good thing for Israel….

        You mean like the sort of pain America and the international community inflicted on Iraq via sanctions and has been inflicting on Iran?

        Or the pain inflicted by America’s decades long ILLEGAL embargo against Cuba?

        What a fine upstanding progressive leftist you are (NOT)

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 19, 2013, 8:51 am

        You mean like the sort of pain America and the international community inflicted on Iraq via sanctions and has been inflicting on Iran?

        You mean the sanctions inflicted on Iran by the US on behalf of Israel?

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 19, 2013, 2:20 pm

        Yes, inflicted on Iran by the US, on behalf of Israel.

        Iranian blunders have helped bring about this situation, sadly.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 19, 2013, 2:57 pm

        @Miriam6 – – Agreed, US policy toward Cuba is idiotic and self-defeating.

        Sanctions against Iraq had in fact caused Saddam Hussein to destroy his WMD. What is interesting, and sad, is that he lacked the good sense to make this fact clear to the entire planet.

        US policy to Iran is extremely foolish.
        And has been self-defeating.

        Your recommendation for ways to inform Israeli gov’t it cannot expect to annex most of the illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank?

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 19, 2013, 2:58 pm

        “Hate the Haredim”. For good reasons?

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 19, 2013, 3:14 pm

        miriam6 “You mean like the sort of pain America and the international community inflicted on Iraq via sanctions and has been inflicting on Iran?”

        If sanctions can be placed of countries acting in their own sovereign territories, why not Israel for its illegal activities in non-Israeli territory?

      • Donald
        Donald
        August 19, 2013, 3:30 pm

        “More pain would be a good thing for Israel….

        You mean like the sort of pain America and the international community inflicted on Iraq via sanctions and has been inflicting on Iran?

        Or the pain inflicted by America’s decades long ILLEGAL embargo against Cuba?”

        I don’t know if James meant anything that severe, but there’s not a chance in the world that the US would inflict the sort of agony on Israel that it did on Iraq or is doing to Iran. And of course with the support of most “progressives” in the US, the sort of “progressive” who doesn’t give a damn when we hurt Muslims.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 19, 2013, 5:57 pm

        @Donald – – I agree. ZERO chance of significant pain, that US would inflict on Israel. EU may give a quick kick or two, but nothing major. At least in the shorter term.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 19, 2013, 8:28 pm

        Sanctions against Iraq had in fact caused Saddam Hussein to destroy his WMD. What is interesting, and sad, is that he lacked the good sense to make this fact clear to the entire planet.

        Wrong on both counts.

        1. It was UNSCOM that destroyed most of Iraq’s WMD. The WMD that Saddam did destroy was to comply with UN resolutions

        2. He told the world pretty clearly that there were no WMD. So clearly I fact that Condi and Powell both admitted he had no WMD in Jan and July of 2001. 911 made them magically re-appear.

        He also submitted a 12,000 page report to the UN regarding the destruction of WMD. The US intercepted the report, pulled 9,000 pages from it and them dismissed the remaining 3,000 pages as inconsequential.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 19, 2013, 8:36 pm

        Iranian blunders have helped bring about this situation, sadly.

        The only blunder is not taking orders from Washington.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        August 20, 2013, 12:01 am

        Shingo @said ;

        You mean the sanctions inflicted on Iran by the US on behalf of Israel?

        James Canning @said;

        Yes, inflicted on Iran by the US, on behalf of Israel.

        Oh what utter rubbish Shingo and James.

        I’m guessing you both must be young given your ahistorical outlook.

        Virtually EVERY country in the world imposes sanctions or punishments’ of one kind or the other on Iran.

        To single out one country Israel – is an absolute nonsense and you know it

        America and the so-called international community impose sanctions on Iran.

        Since 2006 the UN has imposed EIGHT resolutions against Iran.

        The European Union has imposed restrictions on Iran

        Even China and India have Beijing has tried to accommodate US concerns about Iran…

        Restrictions have also been imposed by Canada and Australia

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran

        America’s interest in controlling the ME including sanctions on Iran , began as soon as the WW2 ended if not before as referenced here by these Chomsky interviews / articles

        The more recent sanctions imposed are just the latest part of a long standing Western / American desire for global control plus control of the ME region.

        Noam Chomsky;

        The US has substantially maintained control — and the significant reverses, such as the overthrow of the Shah, were not the result of the initiatives of the Lobby.

        http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm

        Oh, yes. I mean, control over the Middle East, especially the energy-producing regions, has been the driving force of American foreign policy since World War II. The documentary record wasn’t completely available then, but it was already clear.

        Actually, I didn’t know it then, but U.S. efforts to control the Middle East had been the leading theme in U.S. foreign policy since World War II.

        One of Roosevelt’s main advisors, A. A. Berle, said around the late 1940s that if we can control the Middle East, we can control the world.

        The State Department described the Middle East as a “stupendous source of strategic power,” the “greatest material prize in history.”

        Those were the common conceptions of planners in the late 1940s. In fact, even during the war they began to sense this, with a mini-war going on between the U.S. and Great Britain over who would control Saudi Arabia.

        http://www.palestine-studies.org/journals.aspx?href=fulltext&id=11394&jid=1

        Iran, 1953:

        When the government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian oil company, the resulting sanctions on the country led by Great Britain and the United States resulted in economic hardship and political unrest. Fearing that such instability could result in a communist takeover and concerned about the precedent of nationalization on American oil companies elsewhere in the Middle East, agents of the Central Intelligence Agency organized a military coup in 1953, ousting the elected prime minister. The United States returned the exiled Shah to Iran, where he ruled with an iron fist for more than a quarter century…
        Cont..

        http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0210-07.html

        (Chomsky):-cautions against making the Israel lobby in US a monolith or too powerful. Most are Zionist Christians.

        “When a domestic lobby coincides with political interests, you can’t tell which one is influential. When their interests conflict, the lobby disappears.

        http://beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2006/05/4090.shtml

      • dbroncos
        dbroncos
        August 20, 2013, 1:12 am

        @James Canning-

        “Sanctions against Iraq had in fact caused Saddam Hussein to destroy his WMD. What is interesting, and sad, is that he lacked the good sense to make this fact clear to the entire planet.”

        The plan for regime change in Iraq was in place before Bush was elected. Saddam’s reluctance to cooperate with WMD inspections had no bearing on the neocons decision to destroy him and his country for the benefit of Israel.

    • Naftush
      Naftush
      August 18, 2013, 4:28 am

      Name one. Explain how it “virtually directly” ties in.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 18, 2013, 7:47 pm

        Name one. Explain how it “virtually directly” ties in.

        Duh! Well lets see, there are millions of people living in refugee camps throughout the Middle East today, because your government drove Palestinians into exile there and wouldn’t let them return to their homes. You misappropriated their property for yourselves and sent the rest of us the bill for their upkeep ever since. You take it for granted that Israel can use the sovereign territory of the neighboring states to warehouse the undesirable non-Jewish population of Palestine forever without suffering any negative consequences.

        Then there is the rather bizarre idea that Israel has a right to quiet possession and enjoyment of nuclear power plants and weapons, despite a record of constant aggression outside its boundaries, including attacks on nuclear power plants in the neighboring states. At one and the same time, Israel claims the right to preemptively attack other states for even harboring the idea of developing nuclear weapons.

        FYI, the State parties that authored and adopted the Non-Proliferation Treaty recognized that threats to national security, like the ones made by Israel against Iran, justify the proliferation of nuclear weapons. That fact is acknowledged in the terms of Article X of the Treaty:

        Article X
        1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

        It is in the international interest to keep Iran in the NTP, and to stop the threat or use of force in violation of the UN Charter by either Israel or its supporters in the US.

  15. American
    American
    August 17, 2013, 5:06 pm

    ”It’s important to understand that if we build a few hundred apartments in Gilo or Ramot or other Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem or in urban blocs that everyone knows… will be part of the final peace map in Israel– I think these are not the real issues that we need to discuss. The real issue is how to get a demilitarized Palestinian state to finally recognize and accept the one and only Jewish state. [thumping the rostrum].””>>>>

    Sun Tzu says…..’If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. ‘

    I am coming to believe this Sun Tzu nugget may be all we can do. Perhaps we need to feed and encourage the Zionist arrogrance by trumpeting and pretending to accept their dominance until it is so overwhelming even the complict countries political classes can no longer uphold it.

    Faster Netanyahu, faster….make us kneel and acknowledge that the world and all the humans in it must submit to the Chosen’s State’s desires.

  16. seafoid
    seafoid
    August 17, 2013, 5:18 pm

    A very interesting comment from the FT site

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ee10def2-05ae-11e3-8ed5-00144feab7de.html

    Wardiamonds | August 16 1:15am | Permalink

    “Israeli politicians are beginning to realise that the political cover provided by the US and EU will not be sufficient to enable them to sustain the Zionist project in Palestine if the economy is damaged. With an economy dangerously over-reliant on diamonds, a luxury fashion commodity that accounts for over 30% of Israel’s manufacturing exports, Israel is in no position to continue thumbing it’s nose at the international community by expanding Jewish colonies in occupied Palestine and the continued ethnic cleansing and brutal subjugation of the Palestinian people.
    Calls for the Kimberley Process definition of a “conflict diamond” to be broadened to include all diamonds that generate revenue used to fund human rights violations have exposed how diamonds processed in Israel evade the human rights standards applied to rough diamonds. Revenue from the Israeli diamond industry generates about $1 billion annually in funding for the Israeli military which stands accused of war crimes by the UN HRC, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B’tselem. Diamonds that fund an nuclear-armed belligerent regime accused of war crimes are blood diamonds and increasing numbers of jewellers and consumers worldwide are learning about the Kimberley Process charade which allows these blood diamonds to contaminate the global market masquerading as conflict-free diamonds. “

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      August 18, 2013, 10:04 pm

      Seafoid, good article and comments. How do you verify that 30% diamond-export figure?

      With an economy dangerously over-reliant on diamonds, a luxury fashion commodity that accounts for over 30% of Israel’s manufacturing exports, Israel is in no position to continue thumbing it’s nose at the international community …

    • OlegR
      OlegR
      August 19, 2013, 6:44 am

      /With an economy dangerously over-reliant on diamonds, /

      LOL

      • Xpat
        Xpat
        August 19, 2013, 9:13 am

        Oleg,
        The joke’s on you. Take a look at Sbiriak’s link to Ali Abunnimah. You don’t need to read any numbers, just look at his graphs on Israeli exports. The very high bar on the left of the graph – that dwarfs all the other bars -has the word “diamonds” under it.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 19, 2013, 2:48 pm

        What would be the effective tax, if Israeli diamonds had to use third-party export channels?

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        August 20, 2013, 4:07 am

        Come on Elliot why would i think that anything Abunimah says is anything other the propaganda.

        Any way his article says that Israel has a large chunk of the worlds diamond industry.I don’t deny that.

        My LOL refered to seafoid’s claim that
        /With an economy dangerously over-reliant on diamonds, a luxury fashion commodity that accounts for over 30% of Israel’s manufacturing exports,/

  17. August 17, 2013, 6:07 pm

    United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met with students at the UN headquarters in Jerusalem on Friday afternoon, and admitted that his organization was biased against Israel.
    Responding to a student who said Israelis felt their country was discriminated against in the international organization, Ban confirmed that there was a biased attitude towards the Israeli people and Israeli government, stressing that it was “an unfortunate situation.”
    Asked about the split between Fatah and Hamas, the UN chief responded that reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians was highly important. “There can be no solution of three states – the State of Israel and two Palestinian states. The vision is of a two-state solution, and that’s the reason we are trying to advance a Palestinian reconciliation process,” he said.
    Asked about the split between Fatah and Hamas, the UN chief responded that reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians was highly important. “There can be no solution of three states – the State of Israel and two Palestinian states. The vision is of a two-state solution, and that’s the reason we are trying to advance a Palestinian reconciliation process,” he said.
    Asked about the split between Fatah and Hamas, the UN chief responded that reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians was highly important. “There can be no solution of three states – the State of Israel and two Palestinian states. The vision is of a two-state solution, and that’s the reason we are trying to advance a Palestinian reconciliation process,” he said.
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4418776,00.html

    • amigo
      amigo
      August 18, 2013, 6:20 am

      @fnlevit.

      Your post is repeticious .

      Then you repeat the same trollope in the post below.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      August 18, 2013, 7:42 am

      United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met with students at the UN headquarters in Jerusalem on Friday afternoon, and admitted that his organization was biased against Israel.

      The report you linked to is BS and completely misrepresents Ban Ki-moon’s statements. He said nothing to that affect whatsoever.

      Hasbara fail!!

      • just
        just
        August 18, 2013, 8:58 am

        And even IF he had said it, he would be escorted out of the UN pronto, after it made headlines around the world.

        Too bad he did not tell the students that it is their country who has violated international law over and over and over again.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      August 18, 2013, 8:21 pm

      Asked about the split between Fatah and Hamas, the UN chief responded that reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians was highly important. “There can be no solution of three states – the State of Israel and two Palestinian states.

      Where does the UN Charter say that sort of thing falls within the Secretary’s competence? The Land of the Filistin in the Bible was supposedly a confederacy, league, or pentapolis, ruled by “all the kings of the land of the Philistines”, including the Lords of Ashkelon, Gaza, Ekron, Ashdod, and Gath.

      The members of the UN pointed out to the Palestine Conciliation Commission and the government of Israel in 1948 that it was no longer up to the UN to decide whether Arab Palestine could form a union with Transjordan or not, since the peoples living there had been emancipated by the General Assembly and could do whatever they wished.

  18. August 17, 2013, 6:08 pm

    United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met with students at the UN headquarters in Jerusalem on Friday afternoon, and admitted that his organization was biased against Israel.
    Responding to a student who said Israelis felt their country was discriminated against in the international organization, Ban confirmed that there was a biased attitude towards the Israeli people and Israeli government, stressing that it was “an unfortunate situation.”
    Asked about the split between Fatah and Hamas, the UN chief responded that reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians was highly important. “There can be no solution of three states – the State of Israel and two Palestinian states. The vision is of a two-state solution, and that’s the reason we are trying to advance a Palestinian reconciliation process,” he said.
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4418776,00.html

    • amigo
      amigo
      August 18, 2013, 6:14 am

      @fnlevit
      “United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met with students at the UN headquarters in Jerusalem on Friday afternoon, and admitted that his organization was biased against Israel.”

      What,s your point???.

      • amigo
        amigo
        August 18, 2013, 6:43 am

        @fnlevit.

        You should be far more concerned with the crazies amongst you.

        http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/coalition-pact-calls-for-bill-making-israel-jewish-first-democratic-second.premium-1.509903

        Do follow the link and get back with your opinion on the matter.

        No diversions please.

        “Coalition pact calls for bill making Israel Jewish first, democratic second ” haaretz.

      • August 20, 2013, 12:52 pm

        You have your crazies we have ours. Some of them get elected most are not. This is how democracies work. Your, what’s her name, Sara Palin was a Presidential candidate in 2012. But was not elected. Bush started an outrageous war with Iraq, claiming and cheeting with WMD, no proofs, billions of $$$ and …. he was reelected again nonetheless.

        Give me your opnion on that matter. No diversions please.

        Come on stop this idiocy of picking here and there.
        ISRAEL IS A BASIC DEMOCRACY. WITH ALL ITS UNFORTUNATE FAULTS. I think we are actually doing much better than any other western democracy in a similar situation. Have you seen what French are doing in Mali? In Mali!!!! Thousands miles from their home. Take a look
        “Only thirteen days after starting a war in Mali, France is massively escalating its troop presence there, even as reports emerge of escalating ethnic killings by French-backed Malian troops…” http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/01/24/mali-j24.html
        And you and Brits in Afganistan. And Iraq. But dont give this s…t that one wrong does not justify another. True. But it gives you the right proportion of how democracies function and provide understanding (not nevssarily justifications)..

        What the heck …. The MODERATOR will kill this anyway. I really begin to feel like in former USSR – afraid of being cencored out. Are you KGB trained?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 18, 2013, 8:55 am

        What,s your point???

        He doesn’t actually have one.

        The sentence you quoted was the interpretation written by the reporter, but there is no quote from Ban Ki-moon that actually says that.

        Go back and read the link. See if there is any quote from Ban Ki-moon that says the US is biased against Israel.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      August 18, 2013, 7:43 am

      United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met with students at the UN headquarters in Jerusalem on Friday afternoon, and admitted that his organization was biased against Israel.

      No he didn’t. Stop lying.

    • talknic
      talknic
      August 18, 2013, 11:47 am

      fnlevit “admitted that his organization was biased against Israel”

      In his own words? Let’s see. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4418776,00.html

      Nope. No quote there. Try something else … LYING isn’t working. Never has

      • just
        just
        August 18, 2013, 12:53 pm

        It’s the hasbarist way……lying, diverting, plagiarizing, playing the eternal victim hood role, trying to cloak themselves in innocence while committing incredibly dastardly deeds (i.e. “look what they made us do!”), etc. .

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 19, 2013, 9:01 am

        Yes it’s worked do well that the Egyptisn military had tried to adopt it – look what they made us do – but it isn’t working as well.

    • Ecru
      Ecru
      August 18, 2013, 4:37 pm

      @ fnlevit

      Tell you what I’ll believe anything reported about the I/P issue in ynet when you believe anything posted about Jews at Stormfront. Ynet – the Zionist version of Der Sturmer – written by bigoted supremacists for bigoted supremacists.

  19. a blah chick
    a blah chick
    August 17, 2013, 6:45 pm

    “…the root cause was and remains the persistent refusal to recognize the Jewish state in any boundary.”

    The next time he says this someone should stand up and hand him a pencil and a piece of paper and say “please, sir, kindly draw the outlines of the country you want the world to recognize.”

    That’ll shut him up.

  20. gingershot
    gingershot
    August 17, 2013, 8:20 pm

    King Netanyahu issues his latest decree!

    Israel has decided to order the US to continue US aid to the Egyptian Military…

    As reported in Haaretz and the NYTimes

    ‘Netanyahu convened security cabinet for special meeting on Egypt’

    Israeli policy on turmoil in Egypt discussed at two-hour Friday meet; NYTimes reports that Israel has been in ‘heavy communication’ with Egypt’s el-Sissi, making reassurances that U.S. wouldn’t cut off military aid.

    Look for Senators McCain and Graham to snap to attention – Netanyahu has given them their marching orders

    • Xpat
      Xpat
      August 18, 2013, 10:31 pm

      I too was stunned by Netanyahu’s chutzpah . Israel brazenly proclaims that it is in charge of the U.S. Treasury. Not only is the Obama administration violating its own laws in support a military coup against a democratically-elected regime, but will look to Netanyahu for the green light to support the coup.

  21. just
    just
    August 17, 2013, 8:50 pm

    I wonder why Netanyahu didn’t pull out his crayon drawing of the “bomb”…….just before he “thumped the rostrum”.

    Maybe it’s enshrined in some Israeli museum by now.

  22. RoHa
    RoHa
    August 17, 2013, 10:22 pm

    Why is it such a big deal that Israel is the only Jewish state?

    • Stephen Shenfield
      Stephen Shenfield
      August 18, 2013, 7:52 am

      The Jewish Autonomous Region of Birobijan still exists, as a unit in the Russian Federation.

      Netanyahu may also be worried that a rival Jewish state will be set up on Mars.

    • piotr
      piotr
      August 18, 2013, 8:26 am

      I read a book with nice theories explaining religious taboos. A frequent scheme is that if a group A does not do X anyway but a neighboring group B does, then the priests of A declare X taboo and unclean so B-er can be reviled as inferior.

      Jews were originally settlers of hills of Samaria and Judea, and their chief opponents were coastal Philistines who ate shrimp, shellfish and pork.

      Now because Jews have one state and Muslim many, one-statedness is a remarkable achievement. In similar vein, if the opponents prefer to use land as a pasture, planting a forest is a remarkable achievement (however inappropriate for the climate).

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 18, 2013, 1:03 pm

        Religious taboos reinforce tribal unity. And often an economic or health factor plays a role.

  23. mcohen
    mcohen
    August 17, 2013, 10:58 pm

    Just give us back the land you stole.
    they are questions which need to be answered
    That which is hateful unto you do not do to your neighbor.”
    Let’s see if they have the nerve to change it, I somehow doubt it.
    , but no outsider is in any way obliged to recognise that.
    It isn’t any more…
    bad mannered not to say illegal to use any other shortened description.
    which is not at all what Netanyahu says
    Thanks
    second para is not the same as the “convulsion” in the first one.
    . One of Sayyid Qutb’s motivations was Egyptian corruption and weakness in 1948, BTW…
    immoral Zio-supremacists and their equally hateful and immoral supporters
    Jews who repeatedly vote using the AIPAC playbook
    the Zionist dream of a Jewish only Palestine from the Med to the Jordan
    by poiting at other issues in the middle east.
    occupying Palestinian land IS the long term solution
    The two state solution is actually the one army solution
    “facts on the ground”. Operative word: “hopes
    is confident that the peace talk game is risk free
    change borders of Palestine to put those colonies in Israel.
    expression and is synonymous with Jewish construction on the West Bank
    P.S. ALSO SEE: “The Ethics of the Iron Wall”, By Vladimir Jabotinsky, 1923 – link to jabotinsky.org
    Thank you
    To doubt that the apparent dialectic can be resolved is to lack faith.
    both live in parallel universes………….

    that about sums it up-parallel universes,

  24. ziusudra
    ziusudra
    August 18, 2013, 3:16 am

    Greetings,
    Democracy.
    Greece had it, but 25 to 35% were slaves.
    the US declared it, but had 4 m. slaves in 1865.
    How many slaves will the State of Israel have.
    Now that nitwit-jahu is saying:
    Israel ueber allen!
    We remember what Adolf said :
    Germany ueber alles!
    Alles: I choose (Germany) over ‘ every Country’!
    Allem:I choose (israel)over ‘everyone’!
    ziusudra

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      August 18, 2013, 8:37 pm

      the US declared it, but had 4 m. slaves in 1865.

      That’s twaddle. The US was a republic that didn’t even have universal suffrage after the 14th Amendment was adopted. One person one vote didn’t happen for almost another century.

  25. quercus
    quercus
    August 18, 2013, 8:02 am

    What a pathetic schmuck is Netanyahu. If it weren’t for the the seriousness of the issue, he would be funny, he is so pathetic.

  26. Sumud
    Sumud
    August 18, 2013, 11:25 am

    The real issue is how to get a demilitarized Palestinian state to finally recognize and accept the one and only Jewish state. [thumping the rostrum].

    Netanyahu is full of shit as usual. Palestine recognised Israel long ago. The fluff (his insertion of ‘demilitarized’ and ‘one and only jewish state’) is irrelevant.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      August 19, 2013, 2:52 pm

      @Sumud – – Netanyahu “full of sh*t”? An apparently correct statement surely, on this point.

  27. James Canning
    James Canning
    August 18, 2013, 12:49 pm

    A very very dangerous “schmuck”.

  28. Nevada Ned
    Nevada Ned
    August 18, 2013, 5:42 pm

    A couple of decades ago, the right-wingers in the Israeli Knesset introduced a bill that would have outlawed the processing of pork. This of course would inflict the dietary laws of Orthodox Judaism on everybody. And a lot of Israeli Jews don’t care at all about religion.

    Opponents of the bill pointed out that if the bill were enacted, it would bring Israel into a very select group of countries that outlaw processing pork: The other members being the Islamic Republic of Iran, Libya (under Qadaffi), and the Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
    Opponents warned, “do WE want to join THEM??”

    The bill didn’t pass the Knesset.

    So the next time you hear someone demanding that Israel be recognized “as a Jewish State”, why not offer a correction: Israel is asking for recognition “as an Orthodox Jewish State”.

    Meaning? In an Orthodox Jewish state, only Orthodox Jews are full citizens. Reform Jews and secular Jews are second-class citizens, battling it out with the Palestinians for the bottom of the barrel.

    The take-home lessons: if you want democracy for everybody, then you don’t want to exclude whole categories of people, based on their race or religion.

    And if you define democracy only for one group of people (“Jewish Democracy” or “Orthodox Jewish democracy” or “Islamic Republic”) then there’s no end of trouble.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      August 19, 2013, 2:50 pm

      How genuinely tiresome, when governments dictate food consumption by consulting priests, or rabbis, or mullahs, etc etc etc.

  29. Abdul-Rahman
    Abdul-Rahman
    August 18, 2013, 9:19 pm

    To add to what many people here have been noting.

    I think Professor Shlomo Sand sums up pretty well what this supposed “Jewish state” really means; in a recent Haaretz article on his new book (that it is said will be entitled “The Invention of the Secular Jew” in its’ English translation version). Quoting from this recent Haaretz article interviewing Sand; “‘Being a Jew in Israel means, first and foremost, not being an Arab,’ he (Sand) writes, comparing the elevated status of Jews in Israel to that of whites in the American south through the 1960s, French settlers in Algeria before 1962, and white and Afrikaner residents of South Africa before 1994”

    And I will also add two more relevant quotes from this angle as well:

    First from writer and activist Henry Lowi noting what exactly this ethnocratic so-called “Jewish state” actually means again; “The State of Israel is ethnic nationalism institutionalized and gone wild. With all the limitations of historical analogies, Israel is a ‘Jewish state’ in the sense that racist South Africa was a Boer state and in the sense that Nazi Germany was an Aryan state. In short, there is nothing ‘Jewish’ worth preserving in the ‘Jewish state’.”

    And then from historian Noel Ignatiev; “Unlike many countries, including the United States, the Israeli state does not belong, even in principle, to those who reside within its borders, but is defined as the state of the Jewish people, wherever they may be. That peculiar definition is one reason why the state has to this day failed to produce a written constitution, define its borders, or even declare the existence of an Israeli nationality. Moreover, in this ‘outpost of democracy,’ no party that opposes the existence of the Jewish state is permitted to take part in elections. It is as if the United States were to declare itself a Christian state, define ‘Christian’ not by religious belief but by descent, and then pass a ‘gag law’ prohibiting public discussion of the issue.”

    And to conclude, from the groundbreaking work of Johns Hopkins University geneticist Dr. Eran Elhaik (http://eelhaik.aravindachakravartilab.org/) in his December 28, 2012 interview with Haaretz entitled “The Jewish People’s Ultimate Treasure Hunt” by Ofer Aderet.

    “The geneticist (Dr. Eran Elhaik) goes on to explain that, among the various groups of European and non-European Jews, there are no blood or family connections: ‘The various groups of Jews in the world today do not share a common genetic origin. We are talking here about groups that are very heterogeneous and which are connected solely by religion.’

    The bottom line, he claims, is that the ‘genome of European Jews is a mosaic of ancient peoples and its origin is largely Khazar.'”

    http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/the-jewish-people-s-ultimate-treasure-hunt.premium-1.490539

    There are two specific groups that both claim Judaism is not just a religion but rather supposedly a “race” (“race” itself being a totally unscientific social construct) and those two groups are Nazis and Zionists.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      August 19, 2013, 1:59 pm

      I wonder of Shlomo Sand will discuss the “honorary whites” in South Africa. Indians (and other South Asians).

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      Maximus Decimus Meridius
      August 19, 2013, 2:56 pm

      “‘Being a Jew in Israel means, first and foremost, not being an Arab,’

      I think this is true. Everyone knows that as many as half of the Soviet ‘Jews’ who came to Israel in the 1990s are not in fact Jews at all – some of them are practicing Orthodox Christians. But that scarcely matters because a) they’re Not Arab and b) they’re white.

    • miriam6
      miriam6
      August 20, 2013, 12:59 am

      Poor Abdul Rahman , still gamely flaunting the ONE dubious history book and the ONE and ONLY genetic study ( the findings of which are in direct contradiction to the findings of the MANY OTHER studies of Jewish genetics over the years ) as so- called proof.

      As for Sand, from whom Elhaik borrowed much of his false historical data about Caucasus peoples , – Elhaik also borrowed a lot of his so – called history from famous kook Arthur Koestler , who in turn relied for his so-called evidence on myths and legends as opposed to real historical fact.

      However, in the case of Elhaik, the evidence is not only weak and misleading, it is based on numerous sources that are not historical, instead employing conjectures and leaps in logic, as well as claims that cannot be substantiated.

      One of Elhaik’s very first claims, that “contemporary Eastern European Jews comprise the largest ethno-religious aggregate of modern Jewish communities, accounting for nearly 90% of over 13 million Jews worldwide” is said to be based on a publication by the United Jewish Communities in 2003, titled the “National Jewish Population Survey, 2000-01.”

      Except this source deals with the demographics of Jews in the United States.

      An inquiry with Dr. Elhaik resulted in a note that this was a mistake that would be corrected, and that the actual source should be Harry Ostrer’s 2001 paper in genetics, “A Genetic Profile of Contemporary Jewish Populations.”

      Except Ostrer wrote that “contemporary Jewry is comprised of ~13 million people… Among the Jews of the United States, ~90% are of Ashkenazi origin.”

      So right from the beginning Elhaik has made a basic flaw in his use of sources, one that was neither caught by the editors of Genome Biology and Evolution, nor the peer reviewers of his paper.

      Yet it is a claim that should have been caught, for most people who study Jews know that 90% of them are not Ashkenazi and their population is much more diverse than that presented by Elhaik.

      However, the real flaws in this new research are historical.

      The author claims a massive knowledge of history that has major implications for his findings…

      Cont…

      http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Terra-Incognita-The-return-of-the-Khazar-myth

    • miriam6
      miriam6
      August 20, 2013, 3:12 am

      Abdul [email protected];

      Given your frequent references and apparent support of Schlomo Sand , what do you make of Sands opposition to anything more than a token right of return for Palestinian refugees?

      Also, what do you make of Sands opposition to a one-state solution?

      In this interview Sands seems to me to be hiding behind his belief that according to him as most Israelis oppose it ( and evidence shows he would be right in his assumption), so does he.

      But Sand opposes anything more substantial than a token right of return for Palestinian refugees.
      “You cannot recognize Israel’s right to exist and recognize the right of return for six million Palestinians.
      It is an oxymoron,” he said.
      “Unlike a lot of other leftists I am not in favor of a one-state solution,” he said referring to the proposed incorporation of Palestinians and Jews into a single state between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.
      When pushed, Sand will admit that he is not “morally opposed” to one-state but that it is merely a “dream,” not a serious political project. “To have one state for the two societies you need the consensus of both societies, and right now most Israelis don’t want that,” he said.

      http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/18203/inventing-israel

  30. Abdul-Rahman
    Abdul-Rahman
    August 18, 2013, 9:41 pm

    A link to the Haaretz interview with Dr. Eran Elhaik that is not behind a paywall http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december302012/jewish-gene-oa.php

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      August 19, 2013, 9:56 pm

      Abdul-Rahman, thanks for the link, and for keeping attention on Elhaik’s important work.

  31. heartbeatt
    heartbeatt
    August 19, 2013, 7:41 am

    It is rather interesting to watch the change in Netanyahu’s facial expression over the years. It has become more and more savage, quite alarmingly so. It seems he has put a cast lead shield between himself and the rest of the non-Zionist-Jewish world. He literally hates the Arabs and any opposition to his worldview. He is a perfect and awful example of the way in which parents can indoctrinate their children.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      August 19, 2013, 2:18 pm

      To what extent have Netanyahu’s rich and pwoerful Jewish friends in the US, and foolish rich and powerful non-Jews, contributed to this?

  32. seafoid
    seafoid
    August 19, 2013, 1:55 pm

    I was thinking about the state of Israel over the holidays. As in the mental state of it.
    Look at the state of Israel.

    • OlegR
      OlegR
      August 20, 2013, 9:27 am

      An Inuit man reads a newspaper in his iglu.
      Then he turns and says to his wife.
      You know dear Honduras has been really bothering me lately.
      The wife responds.
      Well stop fiddling with it and leave it alone .

      And old russian joke.

Leave a Reply