Trending Topics:

Kerry tries to get out of Jewish-state trap set by Netanyahu and the lobby

on 91 Comments
Kerry traveling to London on March 14

Kerry traveling to London on March 14

John Kerry’s peace initiative is hitting choppy waters. Earlier this week he told the Senate Foreign Relations committee that Israelis and Palestinians had never been so far apart during his nine months of negotiations. And what is the stumbling block? Israel’s demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Kerry now says that the demand is a “mistake.” But he and Obama both accepted it when Benjamin Netanyahu stated it, and restated it.

Here is a wrapup of recent reports on the demand, emphasizing the degree to which American media parrot the Israeli demand even as Haaretz expresses opposition to it.

First, the Jerusalem Post‘s quotation of Kerry’s comment to Congress on the demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state:

“I think it’s a mistake for some people to be raising it again and again as the critical decider of their attitude toward the possibility of a state, and peace, and we’ve obviously made that clear,” Kerry told the House Foreign Relations Committee, in a hearing on budget matters.

Yesterday, Kerry told a Senate panel that Israel and the Palestinians had less trust in one another than at any point in over nine months of negotiations.

“‘Jewish state’ was resolved in 1947 in Resolution 181 where there are more than 40– 30 mentions of ‘Jewish state,'” Kerry continued. “In addition, chairman Arafat in 1988 and again in 2004 confirmed that he agreed it would be a Jewish state. And there are any other number of mentions.”

Here is Haaretz’s strong editorial against the demand. Note that Haaretz calls out the “Jewish lobby” in the U.S. for supporting Netanyahu over Kerry and says that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas cannot accept the demand:

The time has come for people in Israel and the Jewish lobby in the United States – which blindly supports Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s demand that the Palestinians publicly recognize Israel as the Jewish state as a condition for a peace agreement – to internalize U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s conclusion: “I think it’s a mistake for some people to be raising it again and again as the critical decider of their attitude toward the possibility of a state and peace.”…


Chemi Shalev in Haaretz says that Netanyahu and the lobby played the American leaders, and Kerry is now trying to save his framework by pressuring Netanyahu:

Kerry knows, or should know, that he may be trying to bolt the barn doors after the horses have fled. It was the Americans, from President Obama on down, who almost nonchalantly adopted the demand for recognition and allowed it to become a peace process mantra and a new rallying cry for Israeli supporters in Congress, in the American Jewish establishment and in both Israeli and American public opinions. But after committee members repeatedly badgered him about it, Kerry exposed his belated awareness that this supposedly marginal issue was a ticking time bomb threatening to derail his entire diplomatic initiative…

But the molehill slowly turned into a mountain, and Kerry pointed his finger at the party he deems responsible. … The more that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu amps up the volume on his demand for recognition, the Americans believe, the more he makes it harder for Abbas to accept it. The more that Israel describes recognition as the lynchpin of the entire process, the more it becomes a symbol of capitulation and humiliation for the other side, one that even braver leaders than Abbas would hesitate to accept.

“Yes, the demand for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state means that they accept the falsity of Palestinian narrative of Israel’s establishment,” one Jewish leader said in a closed forum in New York this week, and the Palestinians tend to agree.

Ilene Cohen writes in an email that the US walked right into this.

The Palestinians were right to stand their ground on this latest outrageous stumbling block thrown out by Netanyahu.

The Israelis are good at laying traps, and, alas, the US is good at getting caught in them…

To his credit on one issue at least, Obama did not let Netanyahu lure him into an Iran red line.

But his administration was trapped by Netanyahu’s Jewish state red line. I would remind the president and the secretary of state that if you draw a red line that turns out to be a big mistake, it’s better to suffer a little humiliation than to stand by the mistake and go down the rabbit hole.

The Jewish state business as a “condition” for an agreement was always B.S. (sorry about that, but it’s the most polite way I could put it), and shame on the US for falling for it. Indeed, when is the US going to acknowledge that there are no terms for peace that are acceptable to Netanyahu?

Now let’s turn to the docility of the American press. The New York Times did a piece in January characterizing the demand as a legitimate one, with scarcely a suggestion of Ilene Cohen’s understanding, that Netanyahu was using it to kibosh a Palestinians state.

Without acceptance by the Palestinians that their neighbor is and will be, in Israel’s favored formulation, “the nation-state of the Jewish people,” Israelis argue that they can never be convinced that an agreement truly spells the end of the conflict.

The other day National Public Radio echoed this talk of the Jewish people, when it quoted Ari Shavit on the justice of the Jewish state recognition demand:

Shavit: I’ll tell you why I think it’s is a just demand. The real conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is based on mutual blinders. We did not see they should have a state of their own. And they did not see that we should have a state of our own. So if Israel does recognize now the Palestinian people, its legitimate rights and the right of the Palestinians to have a Palestinian state, I do not see any reason why the Palestinian would not recognize the Jewish people, its legitimate rights and its right to have a Jewish state.

SIEGEL: One objection Palestinians raise is that Israel has made peace with Egypt and with Jordan, and they didn’t require the Egyptians or the Jordanians to acknowledge that Israel was the nation state of the Jews. Why must the Palestinians do so?

SHAVIT: Exactly because this is a unique bitter, deep conflict; much deeper than the conflict between Israelis and other Arab nations states. We are tragic twins. We share a land and this is why this piece is so difficult to reach. And that’s why it needs a deep emotional, moral and ideological level. It’s not like a formal peace, a strategic peace between countries that just draw a line.

Haaretz’s editorial answers Shavit. You are asking Palestinians to accept the Nakba as a just historical outcome:

Netanyahu’s insistence on the declaration is designed to push Abbas into an impossible position, making him turn his back on the Palestinians who live within Israel. Without entering into the history of the conflict and the question of who is more responsible for the Palestinians’ fate, Netanyahu and the right are simply ignoring the fact that the State of Israel was created on the ruins of 400 Palestinian villages and hundreds of thousands of refugees. Abbas cannot state publicly what Netanyahu is asking of him.

Back to the New York Times. Today Ethan Bronner carries more water for the demand in a piece on Israeli leaders reaching out to American Jews for advice on how Israel can stay “Jewish and democratic.” And what do those Jews say?

The American Jews who gathered to discuss Israel overwhelmingly felt that the Palestinians should be required to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Bronner’s piece says that the gatherings were arranged by the Jewish People Policy Institute–a Jerusalem thinktank that promotes the idea of a Jewish people with national rights. The Jews they are polling are surely part of the American Jewish lobby, in the words of Haaretz.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

91 Responses

  1. Shuki on March 16, 2014, 12:40 pm

    I’m sure the pal’s demands play no role in the stalemate…

    • annie on March 16, 2014, 2:29 pm

      i think that may be the smartest thing i have ever heard from you suki .maybe hanging out here is rubbing off a little. glad to see you coming around, reality’s been knocking at your door.

      and how i do love Ilene Cohen. she’s the bomb baby!

      • Kathleen on March 17, 2014, 12:23 pm

        Ilene nails it “Indeed, when is the US going to acknowledge that there are no terms for peace that are acceptable to Netanyahu?”

    • eljay on March 16, 2014, 2:41 pm

      >> I’m sure the pal’s demands play no role in the stalemate…

      How could they? The Palestinians demand justice and accountability.

      Oh, right, I see: The Palestinians aren’t willing to discard and then piss on justice and accountability the way the Zio-supremacists have been doing for over 60 years, or to forego their rights as refugees, or to accept Israel as a supremacist “Jewish State”. And that makes the Palestinians the bad guys.

    • Hostage on March 16, 2014, 3:36 pm

      I’m sure the pal’s demands play no role in the stalemate…

      The Palestinian demand for a final settlement based upon international law and UN resolutions certainly does amount to a deal breaker for the troglodytes governing Israel and those who aid and abet them. The known details of Kerry’s framework already violate the applicable UN resolutions and international law to such an extent that the framework cannot result in the conclusion of a valid treaty agreement. The issue of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is a manufactured crisis that distracts attention away from the real dilemma. International law prohibits the type of deal that Kerry is proposing.

    • Sumud on March 16, 2014, 8:27 pm

      Who’s pal? Kerry’s pal? Bibi’s pal? You mean Adelson?

      You aren’t making any sense Shuki.

    • amigo on March 17, 2014, 4:47 am

      “I’m sure the pal’s demands play no role in the stalemate…”shuki

      They are called “PALESTINIANS” you racist turd and no , their demands do not play a role.

      Israel,s refusal to give back what it has stolen is the reason for decades of stalemate.

    • talknic on March 17, 2014, 7:52 am

      Shuki “I’m sure the pal’s demands play no role in the stalemate…”

      Lemme see.

      The Palestinians demand their legal rights under the Laws and UN Charter Israel agreed to and is legally bound to uphold. The Palestinians are under no legal requirement to forgo any of their legal rights, even in negotiations and why should they?

      Israel demands non-Israeli territory and demands to be recognized as a Jewish state, for which there is no legal basis. Furthermore Israel ignores the Law and UN Charter and relative conventions. Why should it?

      It’s not hard to figure out who is causing the stalemate pal, the Zionist Movement’s little rogue state…

  2. seafoid on March 16, 2014, 1:10 pm

    The jewish state trap is procrastination and nothing else. Bibi is not in any position to allow a Palestinian state so he resorts to time wasting. The bots have no answers to the big question. They never did. The Palestinians are the achilles heel of Zionism. 1948 is the original sin, the recurring nightmare, the issue that will never die.

  3. Cliff on March 16, 2014, 1:15 pm

    There is no such thing as a sovereign ‘US’ government.

    There is just a bunch of lobbies, special interests and identity politics that swerve the country in every which way.

    When it comes to the Middle East, that ‘special interest’/lobby is the Israel Lobby.

    We have no sovereign American policy. We have Israeli policy dictated to us by American Jews who are fanatical Zionists.

    Their Christian zombie footsoldiers are present too but they simply parrot what the mothership beams down to them.

    So this talk about how the ‘US’ falls into Israeli-set traps is nonsense.

    This is a farce. The US on the Middle East IS Israel. The US is something else when its a different issue.

    • Krauss on March 16, 2014, 2:53 pm

      Then what lobby controls our China policy? That with Germany?

      Hyperbole shouldn’t substitute careful analysis.

      • Cliff on March 16, 2014, 3:53 pm

        I didn’t say it was *just* lobbies but I do think ‘special interests’ is, albeit a blanket term, accurate.

        Do you think ‘most people’ are politically active? Or they elect people who they think will do what they ran their election on?

        I think we elect people, then complain. We think political activism means voting for people who tell us what we want to hear.

        We vote, then complain.

        I am recalling something Chomsky said relating to activism. He said that ‘the other side’ is doing it, and they have virtually unlimited funds. The other side devotes itself to activism because it’s part of their job.

        I don’t know if there’s a lobby for our China policy. I think when it comes to Israel, the Israel lobby and Zionism are the central instigators.

        On other issues I think it can be more complex insofar as ‘concentration’ of instigators is diluted (more variety).

        As well as the fact that it’s China and not a defeated people that no one will militarily intervene on behalf of.

  4. Krauss on March 16, 2014, 1:19 pm

    You can already map out the post-fiasco hasbara on this one.

    1. Kerry made tactical blunders by accepting this demand!
    (ignoring that the Jewish lobby pushed for it, as a way to back up Likduniks in Israel who don’t want a Palestinian state that is actually viable and not a Bantustan)

    2. He & Obama was pressuring Bibi too much, backing him into a corner and failing to work his opposition so that he could have felt politically safe!
    (ignoring the complete dominance of Bibi as the solar star in the Israeli political galaxy)

    Aaron David Miller, who is sometimes portrayed as a “peacenik”, basically did the argument no.2 as he must surely smell where this disaster is heading.

    Unsurprisingly, he takes Bibi’s side vs Obama’s under the guise of analysis:

    Key quotes:

    The timing for any real pressure is misplaced.

    This is a remarkable quote in of itself, even with all his caveats(some of which I’ll quote further down).

    Miller is essentially arguing the Likudnik line here, not even the “liberal” Zionist one. ANY pressure on Israel is misplaced. Because if you do, it will retreat etc etc. The same zombie arguments are ressurected time and again for decades. They never seem to die because their purpose is always the same: bury the process if Israel can’t hold all the cards.

    Moreover, it’s not as if there are tons of options at Obama’s disposal. Would he sanction Israel? Do so at the United Nations? Threaten to support Palestinian statehood outside the peace process? Cut back on military aid? Wage a P.R. war? None of these are good choices — and they’re never going to happen.

    Cut back on military aid is a mistake? It’s one of the few choices Obama could use, but Miller doesn’t want to see any real pressure happening. The real question isn’t if it is a good idea – it is – but whether Obama could get away with it politically.

    That a U.S. president, confronted by so much skepticism and straight-out opposition in Congress and facing so many tough decisions when it comes to a comprehensive nuclear deal with Tehran, would jam the Israelis on two fronts at the same time strains credulity to the breaking point.

    Here he is trying to again argue against any real pressure on Israel by using Iran as a smokescreen.

    Is it just me, or do all “liberal” Zionists morph into Dennis Ross at a sufficiently crucial stage in any real negotitation? Miller, after all, is very good at doing the “shoot and cry” after the fact, but admitted himself that he and Dennis Ross acted as “Israel’s lawyers” during the Clinton negotiations.

    In his latest piece, we can understand why. But the key fact is while Miller admits to all his biases, he is remorseless in keeping them.

    Just like the Sodastream debacle: whenever there is any *real* pressure, all Zionists come into one tent. So now the so-called “peacenik” Zionists are acting like Bibi’s lawyer.

    As I said: once the Kerry mission is declared dead, a lot of so-called “peaceniks” will attack Obama but with a few fig leafs of token criticisms of Bibi to maintain credibility. This is how peace is buried, time after time, because Bibi knows he can fundamentally count on Zionists within the democratic establishment to whitewash his hatchet job and turn it into tactical criticism of Obama which is designed to disguise the unease of actually giving the Palestinians a decent state of their own.

    • Shingo on March 17, 2014, 3:52 am

      Thanks Krauss,

      The hasbrats have been flooding FP with these articles over the last month. They seem to be in a state of panick.

  5. William Burns on March 16, 2014, 1:22 pm

    Meanwhile, by passing, with government support, the plebiscite requirement for giving up land Israel claims, Netanyahu’s government has made the vaunted “land swaps” immeasurably more difficult. Is the mainstream American media treating this as an obstacle to peace?

  6. CloakAndDagger on March 16, 2014, 1:28 pm

    We are continuing to delude ourselves that Obama’s administration, or any future administration, for that matter, is going to resolve the IP issue. It is not just the Ron Paul libertarian in me that scoffs at the idea of the government solving anything, but the fact that we have been spiraling in this state of increasing impotence, that has not only failed to solve the crisis, but exacerbated it to the point that we ourselves have been in crises after crises, with endless wars, deteriorating economy with increased poverty and homelessness, and the rape of the constitution by corporate puppeteers.

    No, if change is to be brought about, it has to be from the grassroots, and even the Diebold-fixed elections can be influenced by a united citizenry against the tyranny of those that rule us.

    I submit that the way to make a difference is to turn every political office up for (re)election into a stage for a choice between US prosperity versus Zionist control. We need to make the electability issue one of a choice between a US-firster or an Israel-firster. We need to show up at every town hall meeting by political candidates, from the lowest village positions to the highest senate and gubernatorial posts, and demand whether the candidate owes allegiance to the US and its constitution or to paymasters in the Lobby. We need to broadcast their campaign contributors with relevant context to Lobby funds and challenge them on where their loyalty lies.

    Additionally, we need to get controversial issues onto ballots, at the very least to educate the voting public, if not to rouse their emotions to throw their bodies against the machine. These should range from ceasing to be the policemen of the world, to prohibiting the occupation of government offices by non-US citizens (who even get security clearance!) and dual-nationals.

    This, and only this, can restore the republic and save the world in the process. Depending on the venal and cancerous politicians who have ensconced themselves in the belly of our nation, to extract us from the quicksand of our destruction, is only wishful thinking and hastens our demise.

    Mondoweiss is a great weapon in that endeavor and a good platform to catalyze such action. BDS is starting to make a difference too, but it still does not grab the hearts of most Americans who are engulfed in their domestic problems and the daily struggle for survival. We are still a long way from the day when Americans see the plight of the Palestinians as interconnected with their own plight. But, therein lies the strategy that we should pursue: make this a battle for America, rather than a war for the world.

    We need to attack the politicians and demonstrate their complicity with the Lobby for the current plight of the US. We need to show how wars are fought, how US lives are lost, how families are rendered homeless, how our treasure is funneled to foreign nations that do not benefit the US, how politicians are funded by foreign governments to remain in permanent power while serving alien needs to the detriment of US needs, by a vicious and insidious corruption of our system of governance, that has brought this great nation to its knees.

    We need a strategy to mobilize activists across this nation to educate, unite, and refocus the populace. They are few, and we are many. If we unite, they will crumble.

    So, let us help put together those small, energetic, groups of activists, to blanket the nation and turn this ship around. I am not a leader and lack the skills to make this happen, but I will gladly contribute my hard-earned cash to help fund such a movement. There must be many an Annie Robinson and many an Allison Weir in this nation to carry that flag, and I, and hopefully many others, will happily support them in other ways to make this happen.

    • Citizen on March 16, 2014, 1:36 pm

      @ CloakandDagger
      Yep. Here; it costs you nothing but a few minutes of time to sign this petition:

    • Kathleen on March 17, 2014, 12:27 pm

      All of these alleged negotiations just moving the whole situation towards where it was clearly going. One state, one person, one vote. And in between Israel being totally exposed for what it is …an apartheid state. Mearsheimer explained years ago exactly where things were headed

  7. Shmuel on March 16, 2014, 1:31 pm

    Yesterday, Kerry told a Senate panel that Israel and the Palestinians had less trust in one another than at any point in over nine months of negotiations.

    And less respect for the US role than ever before. The US not only accepted a preposterous and obviously unacceptable (to the Palestinians) condition, but a preposterous and unacceptable condition intended from the very beginning merely as a ploy in the blame game, with no real intention (on Israel’s part) of reaching an agreement.

    Accepting this “condition” is probably the furthest the US has ever gone in placating the Israelis and disregarding the Palestinians. All pretence of being an “honest broker” has been abandoned, making it absolutely clear (for anyone who still had any doubts) that the Palestinians cannot possibly trust US mediation, and the Israelis cannot possibly take any intimations of US pressure seriously.

    • Hostage on March 16, 2014, 3:48 pm

      The US not only accepted a preposterous and obviously unacceptable (to the Palestinians) condition

      Accept it? The Congress has embedded it in the U.S. Code as a matter of US public policy:
      — 22 U.S. Code § 8602 – Statement of policy —

      It is the policy of the United States:
      (1) To reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state.
      As President Barack Obama stated on December 16, 2011, “America’s commitment and my commitment to Israel and Israel’s security is unshakeable.” And as President George W. Bush stated before the Israeli Knesset on May 15, 2008, on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel, “The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty.”.
      (2) To help the Government of Israel preserve its qualitative military edge amid rapid and uncertain regional political transformation.
      (3) To veto any one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security Council.
      (4) To support Israel’s inherent right to self-defense.
      (5) To pursue avenues to expand cooperation with the Government of Israel both in defense and across the spectrum of civilian sectors, including high technology, agriculture, medicine, health, pharmaceuticals, and energy.
      (6) To assist the Government of Israel with its ongoing efforts to forge a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two states living side-by-side in peace and security, and to encourage Israel’s neighbors to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
      (7) To encourage further development of advanced technology programs between the United States and Israel given current trends and instability in the region.

  8. a blah chick on March 16, 2014, 1:39 pm

    “…when is the US going to acknowledge that there are no terms for peace that are acceptable to Netanyahu?”

    Thank you and why aren’t people like this on TV more? This is why I stopped watching network news years ago. Then there was this gem from Avi “ethnic cleansing is more humane than genocide” Shavit: “We did not see they should have a state of their own. And they did not see that we should have a state of our own.”

    No, that is not correct. They did not see why Palestinian Arabs, who were the overwhelming majority, should have their land carved up and part of it given away to a minority ethnic group, most of whom were recent immigrants.

    That’s the thing I have noticed about being Palestinian: numbers never work in your favor. If you are the majority then that is a state that must be overcome, through death or ethnic cleansing, because there are too many of you and you are in the way of progress. And if you are a minority then they can ignore you because you don’t have the numbers that quality to be listened to.

    • Donald on March 16, 2014, 3:24 pm

      “That’s the thing I have noticed about being Palestinian: numbers never work in your favor”

      Nothing works in their favor. If they use violence (whether against soldiers or against civilians), they’re terrorists. If they use the standard techniques of nonviolent resistance, they’re echoing the boycotts of Jews by anti-semites. If they shoot back at Israel after Israel kills some Palestinians, they break the ceasefire.

      Someone should compile a list, but I think it’s true that everything Palestinians do or don’t do is used against them in the American press.

      • philweiss on March 16, 2014, 4:12 pm

        Thanks Donald, Well put

      • tree on March 16, 2014, 4:57 pm

        I remember reading Uri Avnery’s take on the Israeli mentality towards the occupation years ago (probably nearly 15 years ago). He said that the Israeli thinking was that when there was any Palestinian unrest then Israel couldn’t possibly end the occupation at that time because to do so would be “rewarding” Palestinian violence. But if there was no unrest and everything was quiet there was no need to end the occupation then either, because there was no urgency to end it if there wasn’t any Palestinian violence occurring. Lack of violence was interpreted as acceptance of the status quo on the part of the Palestinians. In essence, it was never the right time to end the occupation according to the Israeli consensus.

        The Palestinian are caught up in an unending series of Catch-22’s of Israel’s making.

  9. eljay on March 16, 2014, 1:39 pm

    Shavit: … if Israel does recognize … the right of the Palestinians to have a Palestinian state, I do not see any reason why the Palestinian would not recognize … [the right of Jews ] to have a Jewish state.

    Here’s the reason, Mr. Shavit:
    – A secular, democratic and egalitarian Palestinian state – a state of and for all citizens in, immigrants to and refugees and ex-pats from the geographic region it occupies- is a just and moral construct.
    – A “Jewish State” – a state primarily of and for i) all Jews in the geographic region it occupies and ii) Jews from all other countries in the world; a state which necessarily and permanently relegates non-Jewish citizens of “Jewish State” to second-class status – is an unjust, immoral and supremacist construct.

  10. John Douglas on March 16, 2014, 1:42 pm

    Perhaps the “Jewish state” business is an Israeli insurance policy. If ever the Israelis are forced to concede stolen land back for a Palestinian state (however Balkanized) wouldn’t the Israelis then have a rationale for a transfer of (non-Jewish) Palestinians out of what all would have recognized as a Jewish state and into what all would have recognized as a Palestinian state. It’s just a matter of everyone retreating to where they belong.

    • annie on March 16, 2014, 2:47 pm

      retreating to where they belong? that is some odd framing. how can an expulsion be a retreat?

      and insurance policies are to protect what you already have, not a pretext to steal what you don’t or set yourself up to justify future crimes against humanity.

      and of course this demand is a set up for “rationale for a transfer”, nobody is stupid. the demand doesn’t resolve the conflict, it extends the nakba way onto the future.

      • breakingthesilence on March 17, 2014, 12:27 pm

        Annie is right to think of the demand for a Jewish State as having consequences. She is right that it presents a “rationale for a transfer.” The real, fundamental issue here is rarely mentioned: Israel stole the Palestinian homeland and has no right to an inch of that stolen land. Yes, Israel is an illegitimate state. Why on earth does this simple and by now well-documented fact not get mentioned more often? The 2-state solution has gotten nowhere. The real solution? Rather obvious: a single truly democratic state for everyone. The idea of a Jewish state is a thoroughly racist notion, justifying laws that favor Jews, the people who stole the Palestinian homeland, and ethical people should be ashamed to promote such an idea.

  11. bilal a on March 16, 2014, 1:52 pm

    Abbas should accept the idea of a Jewish Sate subject to:

    –Freedom from religious discrimination in work, housing, and citizenship/immigration.

    –Protection for religious minorities, including Christians, from state policies that seize their churches for government purposes, and preservation of church properties.

    –Protection form price tagger and other Jewish bigots who assault Christians , or spit on them, etc.

    This would make the whole ‘Jewish sate’ thing meaningless , and the thee above
    points would nullify Jewish privilege that is at the crux of the conflict.

  12. Citizen on March 16, 2014, 1:56 pm

    Not only did Obama/Kerry buy into Netanyahu’s demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel “as the Jewish state,” without even a thought about such recognition not recognizing the Nakba, and kicking Palestinian Israelis and Nakba refugees to the curb, but Obama/Kerry did not even try to trade such conditional demand with an off set demand to stop Israeli settlement expansion, which official US policy use to say was illegal under international law, and now says is an “obstacle” to peace. Assuming both Obama and Kerry really want an I-P peace, if nothing else than so they can put that on their resume to enhance their personal gain, what’s left to conclude other than both Obama and Kerry are ignorant and stupid? Netanyahu plays them like a violin, just as Clinton was played. My guess is that all three goy leaders tried to pull off a fast one, i.e., they’d get stars on their peace resume while still being loyal flunkies of AIPAC/Israel. All three are disgusting goy examples of liberal hypocrisy of the highest order. They are not insane, like the GOP leaders such as Channey, Bush Jr, who see things in black and white, just extremely opportunistic to support anything that feathers their personal nest. Hillary’s like that too. And my guess is she will be next POTUS due to the power of feminism in the USA. I have nothing against feminism; I support it, but as a tipping point in foreign policy–it really sucks!

    And see here:

  13. amigo on March 16, 2014, 2:06 pm

    If the Palestinians did agree (and no they should not), then Israel would come up with another deal breaker demand.

    Palestinians should make some demands themselves, ie.

    If Israel does not drop these time wasting demands then the Palestinians should go to the ICC and the UN and demand that Israel give them equality and Israeli citizenship.

    Enough already with zionist stalling while they continue to gobble up Palestinian Land.

  14. Balfour on March 16, 2014, 2:08 pm

    Some 30 years ago the Palestinians formally recognized Israel’s right to exist, and look what that gained them- multitudes of new Jewish-only settlements in the OT, new demands that Israel be recognized as a Jewish State, and Israel still hasn’t acknowledged Palestine’s right to exist.

    • annie on March 16, 2014, 2:51 pm

      exactly, as soon as palestinians acquiesced to the “right to exist” mantra it “as a jewish state” was tagged on. what’s next? demanding palestinians “admit” they were only visitors keeping the garden watered for a few centuries while (most all) jews were out of town?

    • James Canning on March 16, 2014, 4:09 pm

      @Balfour – – Israel likes to take, and then take some more. And then still more. Etc etc etc.

    • Kathleen on March 17, 2014, 12:28 pm


  15. ckg on March 16, 2014, 3:15 pm

    I know Abbas gets derided by commenters here for being a quisling, but kudos to him for standing firm on this point.

  16. James Canning on March 16, 2014, 4:07 pm

    Obama and Kerry should have rejected immediately, Israel’s more recent demand that the Palestinians accept Israel as a “Jewish” state.

  17. just on March 16, 2014, 4:36 pm

    Thanks for this article. It seems that both Obama and Kerry stepped in it– willingly, with eyes wide open (or shut). jmo.

    I posted this earlier, and think it also might serve the discussion on this thread.

    just says:
    March 16, 2014 at 10:02 am

    I don’t always agree with Hussein Ibish, but he nails it here:

    “Many commentators, including this author, have carefully picked apart the myriad problems involved with Israel’s new demand that the Palestinians formally recognize it as a “Jewish state.” But at least one of its most problematic aspects has been significantly under-examined and underappreciated. The new demand negates, both in effect and intention, the greatest of Palestinian concessions, their 1993 recognition of the State of Israel.

    There is an international consensus in favor of a two-state solution, and even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman now say they, too, support this goal after long careers opposing it. And in the quarter-century campaign to achieve a conflict-ending two-state agreement through direct talks, there remains a dangerous anomaly. One side, the Palestine Liberation Organization, recognized Israel up front. All other details aside, they have long since performed the sine qua non of a two-state agreement by recognizing Israel. The other side, Israel, has never recognized a Palestinian state or, in any formal, written, or legal sense, even the Palestinian right to a state.


    What has yet to be fully recognized is that the single most significant impact of this “Jewish state” demand is that it effectively dismisses and reverses the 1993 Palestinian recognition of Israel. This concession made it ridiculous for anyone to argue that the core of the problem was Palestinians’ refusal to recognize Israel. But now, hey presto, it is once again possible to present Palestinian recognition of Israel as a major issue, because it wasn’t recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state.”

    It doesn’t matter that no one ever asked the Palestinians to do so until 2007, or that there are a great many complications, ambiguities, and grave difficulties associated with it. It has become a mantra of much of the pro-Israel constituency the world over that the 1993 recognition of Israel by the PLO is all but irrelevant, and that until Palestinians recognize Israel as a “Jewish state,” their intention to end the conflict and live in peace remains very much open to question.

    So, this new demand solves the problem that one side is lived up to its core commitment under a two-state solution – recognizing the statehood of the other party – while the other side has not. It pushes the diplomatic, psychological, and political clock back before 1993, to an era where Palestinians are once again being asked to demonstrate their willingness to live in peace with Israel by uttering some magic mantra.

    It elides the fact that, from a Palestinian and Arab point of view, the 1993 recognition of Israel was the mother of all concessions: a recognition that Palestinians were surrendering their political claim to around 78% of what had very recently been their country, in the sense that they were a large majority there until 1948. So now we are left negotiating over the territories conquered by Israel in 1967, without even touching the areas that became Israel in 1948. The enormity of this vast concession, this overwhelming – almost impossible – agreement by the Palestinians, was never fully recognized by Israel or the international community. And now, with the Jewish state demand, it’s dismissed altogether as almost totally irrelevant.”

    quite a bit more @

  18. ritzl on March 16, 2014, 4:41 pm

    With great respect to Ms. Cohen, in no way is this a “trap” for anyone other than the Israelis themselves.

    For Obama/Kerry and Abbas, its a simple shoulder shrug away from handing Israel its own worst nightmare outcome of an Apartheid one-state. I don’t pretend to begin to understand the Israeli thinking on this. Maybe their decades-long lack of accountability makes them think they can manipulate their way out of the end of any possibility of two states. But barring that, no one is going to try this again.

    On the US side, the acquiescence to this new demand of “a” (is there another one in the works?) Jewish State can only be for one of three reasons:

    A) Space-heater-in-the-shower stupidity;
    B) Pure obeisance; or,
    C) A [final] demonstrative and deterministic [internal?] test to gauge whether Israel would EVER act in good faith, no matter what latitude they were given.

    There may be a fourth, but I can’t think of anything meaningful at the moment. Likewise, there may be some marginal crosstalk between the three.

    On “A,” even dense me was writing (as were others) about this three years ago at dKos as “Jewish State” was starting to percolate into the discussion. A year ago, before this round started, none of this was a surprise or new as a strategy [with a known motivation and outcome] to even casual observers. “B” is totally possible and maybe even probable. “C” is the 11-dimension chess attribution. It is certainly plausible, but there is not much evidence that this admin has the foresight or strength to pull it off. Although Kerry’s testimony in the House does lend support to this possibility.

    However, none of these suggest “trap” for anyone but the Israelis. It is the Israelis that are adamant about [prolonging] a/the viable outcome, and it is they who would “suffer” the most (from their peculiar PoV) from everyone washing their hands of the possibility of a two-state outcome and moving onto an Apartheid precedent/process. The onus is and has been on them for some time now to make this work. I don’t even think they see what’s happening, enacted by their own arrogant subterfuge.

    Two caveats: 1) Israel is either completely divorced from reality or they do indeed have some way to enforce their reality on everyone else (I know that’s a “trope,” but it’s conjecture and the disconnect seems huge enough to warrant the conjecture); and, 2) the decades-long timeframe for achieving equal rights in combined Israel/Palestine renders long-term thinking [arguably] irrelevant, hence the short-to-medium term focus on “trap” tactics as opposed to compelling, contextual trends and/or dynamics (i.e. I may be thinking about this in too long a time frame, or minimizing the cost that Palestinians, given all they have suffered, are willing to bear in that time frame).

    Shorter version: The paradigm may be shifting in real time, and a lot of us may be caught up in discussing this conflict in what will soon be obsolete terms.

    Good article. Lots to think about.

    FWIW. Peace.

    • just on March 16, 2014, 4:53 pm

      Wow, ritzl– you’ve given me a lot to think about as well.

      I’m kinda hoping for “C” myself. (Please let it be “C”.)

      • tree on March 16, 2014, 5:07 pm

        Unfortunately the Obama Administration has proven itself completely incapable of 11th dimensional chess, or even 3 dimensional chess. It even has problems thinking along 2 dimensional chess lines. A combination of A and B is most likely.

      • ritzl on March 16, 2014, 5:13 pm

        Backatcha, just. And I hope it’s “C” as well. Something’s got to give.

    • Sibiriak on March 17, 2014, 4:43 am


      its a simple shoulder shrug away from handing Israel its own worst nightmare outcome of an Apartheid one-state.

      How do you get the “international community”, international public opinion, and international law to view Israel and Gaza and the West Bank as a single state (rather than as Israel + occupied Palestinian territory)? I don’t think it is so simple as you suppose. Is the world going to press Israel to annex Gaza and give Gazan Palestinians Israeli citizenship?

      • ritzl on March 17, 2014, 5:20 pm

        Sibiriak, it’s simple in the sense of calling a bluff and letting nature take its course. The “cards” have all been dealt. We, the “audience” know the outcome, should the bluff be called. But the bluff may not be called and we could well mush on through another generation always saying a “negotiated” resolution is just out of grasp, and discussing “what went wrong [this time].”

        So bluff called or not, the future on this is decidedly not simple in the mechanics sense, or what the course of events will be. I think I agree with you on that. I took a stab at the complexity you point out with the caveats, and I apologise if I implied otherwise.

        As others have pointed out in this thread, in their methodical and tireless efforts to squash any avenues for Palestinian statehood and/or national aspiration and/or identity and/or legitimate protest (the “damned if they do and damned/ignorable if they don’t” situation for Palestinians/Palestine), Israel has meticulously defined the direction of next stage. One-state, imho. Israel’s worst nightmare. That’s the pathology.

        WRT Gaza, I think I’m on record with the belief that Gaza will almost certainly be a separate entity. But hell, that’s only an/my opinion. Again, as you say, the complexity of, and difficulties inherent to, what transpires over the next few decades cannot be understated.

      • Sibiriak on March 21, 2014, 4:46 am


        WRT Gaza, I think I’m on record with the belief that Gaza will almost certainly be a separate entity.

        So, in fact, you are not really talking about a “single state”, but rather two states — Gaza + Israel/West Bank.

        Consider the implications. The Palestinian people would be effectively split in three–Gazans, Palestinian Israelis, and Palestinians in refugee camps/other states.

        The Palestinians given Israeli citizenship would still be a minority in Greater Israel–they would have achieved no collective self-determination; they would still be ruled by a Zionist Israeli majority, which is what Palestinian nationalists fought to avoid from the early years of Zionism. (The inter- national political strife and social conflict within this Greater Israel might be so great that a movement for Palestinian-majority areas to secede and link with Gaza would likely reemerge).

        The Gazans would still be encaged in their barely viable “entity”, and there would be no Palestinian state for even some of the refugees to return to.

        I’m not sure why this arrangement– which is actually advocated by some extreme right-wing Israelis–would be so desirable.

      • James Canning on March 18, 2014, 1:00 pm

        Chances of that are ZERO. But a city-state of Gaza might do well on its own (assuming normal conditions applied).

  19. John Douglas on March 16, 2014, 5:12 pm

    “…retreating to where they belong.”

    Sorry Annie, it was irony. I was hypothesizing a possible Israeli move in the event that Israel was recognized as a Jewish state with the hasbara that would accompany it, that is, “We Israelis now have our Jewish state and the Palestinians have their Palestinian state, so what are the non-Jewish Palestinians doing here.” It’s a possible consequence of Israel being recognized as being for one ethno/religious group and no other.

  20. Cliff on March 16, 2014, 5:25 pm

    Sidenote re: Scarjo

    Implies the occupation is legal (by saying it’s not really illegal or that there’s ‘a lot’ of debate about it).

    Says Oxfam funds BDS, etc.

    Who would have thought she’d be such a hasbarat?

    Some of the Zio-trolls here aren’t even debating the reality of the occupation/illegality of the settlements.

    • Hostage on March 17, 2014, 3:19 am

      Sidenote re: Scarjo Implies the occupation is legal (by saying it’s not really illegal or that there’s ‘a lot’ of debate about it).

      She ought to STFU, since her income from the Sodastream ads is subject to forfeiture as proceeds from a federal crime (pillaging) under US and international law. Israeli-style acquisition of land through “eviction by armed attack or occupation” is a war crime for which no statutory limitation applies in dozens of countries. See Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and CrimesAgainst Humanity

      • hophmi on March 17, 2014, 11:50 am

        “since her income from the Sodastream ads is subject to forfeiture as proceeds from a federal crime (pillaging) under US and international law.”

        Uh-huh. What are you waiting for? Go to the Justice Department and have them begin an civil forfeiture action against her. Go! Surely you can pick up the phone, just like you did that time you made those Title VI claims you never acted upon.

      • Hostage on March 17, 2014, 4:18 pm

        Uh-huh. What are you waiting for?

        FYI, the victims, i.e the State of Palestine or the private Palestinian land owners or the Attorney General are the only parties with the necessary legal standing to bring claims under the applicable US and international laws against corrupt organizations, like Sodastream and the banks, construction companies, WZO, and those who aid and abet them in the criminal settlement enterprise and in transferring titles and laundering the proceeds:

        Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages . . .

  21. jsinton on March 16, 2014, 5:49 pm

    Really deep piece, Phil. I come here to get edicated so I can go out to social media with a clue.

    • piotr on March 16, 2014, 10:13 pm

      As you point out, the issue is weird.

      For starters, “recognition” is “declaratory”, and the meaning of it is symbolic.

      However, I do not recall an example of a state demanding to be recognized “as”. Imagine that The Republic of Venice would negotiate with the Duchy of Parma and suddenly demanded to be recognized as The Most Serene Republic of Venice. Trying to check for this post, I was little surprised that by native country also called itself a Most Serene Republic, because in Latin it is Serenissima, but the word use in my language means “most bright” or “most liminous”. Imagine The Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania trying to sort out with Venice which state is more serene.

      The demand is of course crazy, and is basically a litmus test if the other parties present at negotiations may follow Israeli demands, however whimsical. Sadly, Americans may. I think that sad outcome of the negotiations is a foregone conclusion, and Kerry has to work hard not to be recognized as a total idiot.

      A comment on “Kerry/USA being duped”. It is a bit hard to imagine.

      • Hostage on March 17, 2014, 4:17 am

        For starters, “recognition” is “declaratory”, and the meaning of it is symbolic.

        Recognition of a state’s existence under either the declaratory or constitutive theories always has legal consequences, i.e. the state so recognized is entitled to exercise all of the rights and duties pertaining to other states as determined by international law. See Article 6 of the Montevideo Convention and the discussion on page 30 of D. Raic, Statehood and the Law of Self-Determination

        The declaratory theory used to prevail. But the international community of states changed all of that when the diplomatic conferences meeting in Vienna to codify the rules of customary international law on treaties, diplomatic relations, and consular relations included the “Vienna formula” into a series of key UN conventions. They made membership in any of the UN specialized agencies, including UNESCO, a form of collective or “constitutive” recognition that is legally binding on all of the contracting state parties. They are also binding on all UN member states, since the Secretary General is obliged to accept the rights of those particular states to file accessions to every UN convention and must invite their plenipotentiaries to attend all UN diplomatic conferences as “observer states”.

        The Vienna Conventions stipulate that member states of the UN specialized agencies belong to a special category of existing states that have an open invitation to become contracting state parties.

      • RoHa on March 17, 2014, 5:49 am

        I always found that title a bit puzzling. Was there some serenity competition among Italian States? Were there states which called themselves “The Second Most Serene Republic”, “The Fairly Serene Republic”, “The, Well, Sort Of Serenish, We Suppose, Republic”?

      • Shmuel on March 17, 2014, 6:53 am

        I always found that title a bit puzzling. Was there some serenity competition among Italian States?

        Superlative, not comparative. In other words, other republics may out-serene us, but we’re so extremely serene that we really couldn’t care less.

  22. anthonybellchambers on March 16, 2014, 8:20 pm


    “a blatant pretense or deception, especially something so full of pretense as to be a travesty”

    When will Kerry finally realise that he had been duped by Netanyahu? There has never been the slightest intention on the part of Israel to agree to a Palestinian state -ever! Has he never read the Likud charter? a blatant pretense or deception, especially something so full of pretense as to be a travesty”

    • Hostage on March 17, 2014, 3:23 am

      There has never been the slightest intention on the part of Israel to agree to a Palestinian state -ever! Has he never read the Likud charter?

      The powers that be in the Likud party, including Danny Danon, have publicly ridiculed Netanyahu’s comments about the two state solution and recently remarked that anyone in Likud who opposes the annexation of the Jordan Valley is in the wrong political party, because it’s in the platform. See:
      *Danon: ‘Jordan Valley Annexation Part of Likud Party Platform’
      At Likud party meeting, Dep. Defense Minister says Jordan Valley belongs to Israel, calls on gov’t to oppose US pressure.

  23. Real Jew on March 16, 2014, 9:02 pm

    This new and ridiculous demand further reinforces the painfully obvious intentions of the Israeli government. They will never make the necessary concessions for peace. Never. Now you can debate the relevance of this demand til you’re blue in the face. But thats exactly what they want. The Israeli govt could care less about being recognized as a jewish state. Their sole intention is to waste time with these sill y nonstarter demands and deflect pressure. And the more time the international community allows them to drag out the peace process the more time they have to further entrench the occupation making a deal even less likely.

    The way I see it Abbas should publicly recognize israel as a jewish state just to prove to the international community that this demand is a smokescreen. And with Israel’s primary excuse nueutralized the true obstacle to peace will be exposed

    • Hostage on March 17, 2014, 3:30 am

      The way I see it Abbas should publicly recognize israel as a jewish state just to prove to the international community that this demand is a smokescreen. And with Israel’s primary excuse nueutralized the true obstacle to peace will be exposed

      He should only agree to recognize the Jewish state described in resolution 181(II) on condition that it adopts the constitutional protections of equal rights for the refugees displaced in 1948. The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP), have always cited Israel’s acceptance of the minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II) as the source of Israel’s continuing legal obligations regarding the refugees:

      19. In this respect, it was pointed out that Israel was under binding obligation to permit the return of all the Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the hostilities of 1948 and 1967. This obligation flowed from the unreserved agreement by Israel to honour its commitments under the Charter of the United Nations, and from its specific undertaking, when applying for membership of the United Nations, to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, safeguarding the rights of the Palestinian Arabs inside Israel, and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, concerning the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or to choose compensation for their property. This undertaking was also clearly reflected in General Assembly resolution 273 (III).

      link to

      • Kathleen on March 17, 2014, 12:32 pm

        thanks Hostage

    • James Canning on March 19, 2014, 7:41 pm

      Yes, it is all about “deflection”, as continuing programme of deception.

  24. hophmi on March 16, 2014, 10:16 pm

    The Jewish state demand is nonsense; Israel is the Jewish state, whether the Palestinians say it or not. Equally nonsensical is the idea that by recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, the Palestinians are accepting the Israeli narrative.

    • puppies on March 17, 2014, 12:10 pm

      @hophmi – Not thinking, are we?
      If “Israel is the Jewish state” then Jews may be charged with that state’s crimes.

  25. Qualtrough on March 17, 2014, 12:20 am

    Negotiations or discussions with people who believe they were gifted something by God have been, and will be, a waste of time. Rational discussions with people holding irrational beliefs have no way of succeeding. This situation will only change when a Jewish-only Israel is no longer a viable proposition due to the combined pressures of the withdrawal of knee-jerk American support, BDS, demographics, and other inexorable factors. Whether it will end somewhat peacefully or in a horrifying Samson Option event will be left to the fanatics, so I suspect the latter will be how this plays out.

  26. David Doppler on March 17, 2014, 12:22 am

    They are playing litigation when they need to play deal-making. It’s a psychosomatic state in the brain: I must one-up my opponent, lest my manhood be suspect, vs. let’s identify your interests and my interests, and see if they overlap enough to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. What do their crowds want to see? Their champion returning with a scalp? or news of a new era of cooperation? As the much stronger contender, Netanyahu sets the tone, and he clearly does not want peace. He wants to crush his opponent, and then blame him for victimizing his side.

  27. Hostage on March 17, 2014, 4:38 am

    “‘Jewish state’ was resolved in 1947 in Resolution 181 where there are more than 40– 30 mentions of ‘Jewish state,’” Kerry continued. “In addition, chairman Arafat in 1988 and again in 2004 confirmed that he agreed it would be a Jewish state. And there are any other number of mentions.”

    It’s hard to see how “Jewish state” was “resolved” in 1947, since: 1) Israel subsequently declared resolution 181(II) null and void; 2) Israel has never complied with the minimum constitutional requirements of resolution 181(II) to protect the rights of the former and current non-Jewish inhabitants; 3) Arafat asked Israel to explain the process used to apply its own municipal laws to territory located beyond the frontiers of the “Jewish state” described in resolution 181(II); and 4) Israel has always refused to supply Palestine with a map of the proposed borders of the “Jewish state” that it demands the Palestinians to recognize.

    • Sibiriak on March 17, 2014, 5:06 am


      It’s hard to see how “Jewish state” was “resolved” in 1947…

      It seems to me that Kerry is arguing that the issue of the Jewishness of Israel was resolved by res. 181 because a specifically Jewish state was proposed. Acceptance of res.181 would then necessarily entail the acceptance of the Jewishness of that state. Of course, what the term “Jewish state” actually means is unclear.

      • Hostage on March 17, 2014, 1:02 pm

        Of course, what the term “Jewish state” actually means is unclear.

        What it does NOT mean was made perfectly clear. Termination of the mandate regime was conditioned upon acceptance and implementation of a minority protection plan and putting an end to aggression against any other State, including the Arab state. That was, and still is, anathema to the Zionists and is the source of the conflict between Israel, the UN, and the rest of the international community:

        The Constituent Assembly of each State [i.e. the Knesset] 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 and include, inter alia, provisions for:

        Establishing in each State a legislative body elected by universal suffrage and by secret ballot on the basis of proportional representation, and an executive body responsible to the legislature;

        Settling all international disputes in which the State may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

        Accepting the obligation of the State to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations;

        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;

        Preserving freedom of transit and visit for all residents and citizens of the other State in Palestine and the City of Jerusalem, subject to considerations of national security, provided that each State shall control residence within its borders.

        The provisions of chapters 1 and 2 of the declaration shall be under the guarantee of the United Nations, and no modifications shall be made in them without the assent of the General Assembly of the United Nations. . . . Any dispute relating to the application or interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.

      • James Canning on March 18, 2014, 1:09 pm

        Great post.

  28. Stephen Shenfield on March 17, 2014, 7:29 am

    If Israel unilaterally changed its official name from “the State of Israel” to “the Jewish State of Israel” then recognition of Israel would automatically entail recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

  29. eljay on March 17, 2014, 7:52 am

    >> If Israel unilaterally changed its official name from “the State of Israel” to “the Jewish State of Israel” then recognition of Israel would automatically entail recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

    And IMO that would be just fine as long as Jewish became the bureaucratic nationality of “Jewish State”, applicable to all citizens of, immigrants to, and ex-pats and refugees from “Jewish State”.

    But that would imply equality, and equality is not part of the Zio-supremacist game plan.

  30. Sibiriak on March 17, 2014, 8:03 am

    Stephen Shenfield:

    If Israel unilaterally changed its official name from “the State of Israel” to “the Jewish State of Israel” then recognition of Israel would automatically entail recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

    I don’t think recognizing a name is the same as recognizing a reality. If that were true the following declaration would make no sense– but it makes perfect sense:

    “We recognize The Jewish State of Israel as state, but not a Jewish state”

  31. Woody Tanaka on March 17, 2014, 10:06 am

    ““‘Jewish state’ was resolved in 1947 in Resolution 181 ”

    Great. So were the borders. Abbas should said that he would recognize the “Jewish state” nonsense when israel adopts the 1947 borders.

  32. Kathleen on March 17, 2014, 11:08 am

    Check out what the Diane Rehm show chose to cover (today) on the day President Obama is meeting with Abbas and also on St Patrick’s day. Selling Israel and the Jews hold on the Holy Land

    Simon Schama: “The Story Of The Jews”

    Historian Simon Schama’s latest book, “The Story of the Jews,” is also a five-part documentary series airing on PBS. Schama talks with guest host Frank Sesno about his chronicles of the 3,000-year-old history and what being Jewish means to him.

    Simon Schama professor of art history and history, Columbia University. He is the author of 16 books and the writer-presenter of more than 40 documentaries on art, history and literature. His most recent book and documentary is “The Story of the Jews,” which airs on PBS in late March and early April.

    • Kathleen on March 17, 2014, 11:49 am

      Simon Schama “passionately committed to Israel” What an odd program the Diane Rehm team decided to do on this day.

  33. Kathleen on March 17, 2014, 11:13 am

    Diane Rehm Show host “what do you (Jews) have in common”
    Simon Schama “story of a common memory” because of “micro graphing writing”

    • Kathleen on March 17, 2014, 11:59 am

      Phil, Max, Alex you folks have to listen to this show. Question why this show today? Close to the end with a caller stating “loving Israel God’s chosen people”

    • puppies on March 17, 2014, 12:05 pm

      @Kathleen – There’s no end to invention. So ‘micrographing writing’ is the justification for fake nationalism and Zionist crimes? Sure beats Powell’s four-filled vial to start war in Iraq.

  34. Kathleen on March 17, 2014, 11:30 am

    my comment over at the Diane Rehm show fb page “So instead of doing a serious show on the meeting between Abbas and President Obama the Diane Rehm show decides to do a show on the “History of the Jews” as another sales show pushing the feel good branding about the Jews claim to the so called Holy Land based on a false claim on that land. This is very very sad that you chose to do this as a one hour program. Selling Israel and the history of the Jews on St Patricks day and on the day that Obama is meeting with Abbas. Pathetic and telling who owns Diane , her team and NPR.”

    Schama is going on about the “persecution of the Jews” host too. Why this topic today? Schama and the Diane Rehm show’s Frank Cesno really selling the “prejudices” against Jews “robbed of everything” and “persecution of Jews” on the day Obama is meeting with Abbas.

    • James Canning on March 17, 2014, 12:39 pm

      @Kathleen – – Is “History of the Jews” a topic for Monday mornings on NPR?

  35. LeaNder on March 17, 2014, 12:49 pm


    another sales show pushing the feel good branding about the Jews claim to the so called Holy Land

    If you want to convince them, such an emotional diatribe does not seem the best way to reach your goal, quite the opposite.

    No harm meant.

    • Kathleen on March 18, 2014, 10:05 am

      No harm taken. I have literally gotten through hundreds of times with comments and questions about the I/P issue over a 15 year period on the Rehm show and others. I know for a fact I have had a huge effect. Friends who live around the world have had friends bring up my comments questions of hundreds of hot shot experts, Generals former Presidents on this issue. Have even been successful at getting guest on national shows. Try try try again. Sometimes it works

  36. Kathleen on March 17, 2014, 1:05 pm

    Silence about this issue this morning on CSpan’s Washington Journal. No focus what so ever.

  37. Pippilin on March 18, 2014, 12:09 pm

    Since Israel is forever changing its borders– via the apartheid wall, outposts, settlements, Areas B&C, etc.– how could the Palestinians ever acknowledge the existence of Israel as a Jewish state? If they made that concession, does anyone really believe that Israel would honorably follow new borders? No, no, no. Israel wants the whole bag.
    How about dropping the pathetic US as a ‘peace’ broker and having the UN appoint a panel of serious negotiators from countries that are not bound to please Israel? How about Russia? I think it’s handled things very well in Ukraine, considering the unbelievable mess the US and EU have made there.
    Maybe that wouldn’t work. Israel would most likely insist Russia swear to Israel’s being a Jewish state before they would even talk with it. In addition, Israel wouldn’t like to discover that Russia would be negotiating a real peace .

  38. James Canning on March 19, 2014, 12:44 pm

    Israel is trying to change its borders, by growing illegal colonies in West Bank. And Israel purports to have changed its borders (“annexing” Golan Heights, etc).

Leave a Reply