Trending Topics:

Liberal Zionists turn on media darling Ari Shavit for promoting Netanyahu’s bluff

Israel/Palestine
Ari Shavit. (Photo: Spiegel & Grau/NPR)

Ari Shavit. (Photo: Spiegel & Grau/NPR)

The peace talks are all but dead in the water, even John Kerry seems to be inching away from the matter; and this time it appears that the Israelis may get blamed, because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

The publisher of Haaretz calls this demand “Netanyahu’s biggest bluff.” John Judis agrees: 

Netanyahu… appears to have introduced the new demand because he expected that the Palestinians would reject it and that he could then blame the failure of the talks on them.

Oddly, Netanyahu’s greatest ally in this effort is the most popular Israeli intellectual of the moment: Ari Shavit. The author of My Promised Land was hosted by leading media outlets in the U.S. all last fall and winter as a Zionist idealist and true believer who could speak earnestly about the Israeli “miracle.” He appeared in/on PBS, Charlie Rose, the New York Times, Fresh Air, the 92d Street Y, The New Yorker, and Meet the Press, where David Gregory said, “It’s an honor to be able to talk to you and to have you here.” Shavit later said that his weeks being toasted here were among the most satisfying days of his life.

But Shavit’s latest role is backing Netanyahu’s demand. Two weeks ago, National Public Radio, which often serves as a fount for the rightwing Israeli point of view, allowed Shavit to go on and on about the legitimacy of the Jewish-state-recognition demand:

[I]f 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…. We are tragic twins. We share a land and this is why this peace is so difficult to reach. And that’s why it needs a deep emotional, moral and ideological level.

Two days later, Secretary of State John Kerry told the House Foreign Relations Committee that it was a “mistake” to issue this demand and implicitly knocked Netanyahu.

Then Shavit attacked Kerry in Haaretz on March 20 in an angry manner:

In Washington, New York and even Tel Aviv… [a]n overall offensive is being waged in recent weeks on the Jewish people’s national state. American and Israeli peace seekers are furiously attacking the demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Suddenly not only the settlements are a war crime, but also the Jewish people’s demand to recognize its right to self-definition.

“The Jewish people’s demand” for “self-definition.” Shavit’s own publisher at Haaretz, Amos Schocken, denounced his view, pointing out that 20 percent of Israel’s citizenry are Palestinians, “who are just as nationalist as he is.”

Ari Shavit perpetuates the occupation and promotes Netanyahu’s biggest bluff. http://t.co/AtQAdtRUsY

— Amos Schocken (@AmosSchocken1) March 24, 2014

Schocken tweeted a column he wrote about Shavit as a supporter of occupation and promoter of Netanyahu’s bluff:

Shavit’s attack is groundless…. “The nation-state of the Jewish people.” What sort of definition is that? Is an Italian Jew whose family has been in Italy since the expulsion from Spain not part of the Italian nationality? We’d all be better off abandoning this sophistry.

When Israel recognized the fact that there are Palestinians deserving of self-determination, the Palestinians recognized Israel – that same Israel that was founded on the constitutive principles of Zionism. What’s missing is an agreement on substance – borders, security, refugees and Jerusalem…

But the additional demands that Shavit supports – that the Palestinians give up their history, including the history that took place within the Green Line before the state was founded; and that they ignore the one-fifth of Israeli citizens who are Palestinians — are aimed at thwarting the chance for peace. Will he accept a Palestinian recognition of a Jewish nation-state that is built on the ruins of 400 Palestinian villages and hundreds of thousands of refugees, who have since become millions, and where 20 percent of the citizenry are Palestinians, who are just as nationalist as he is?

Those who present themselves as supporters of the two-state solution, but who insist on demanding recognition of a nation-state, are acting to perpetuate the occupation and settlement.

Schocken’s piece was promptly endorsed by Lara Friedman of Peace Now:

Amos Schocken: The visible rejectionism of Ari Shavit (re: demand for recognition of Israel as Jewish state)

And Lisa Goldman of the New America Foundation:

The publisher of Haaretz attacks Ari Shavit, columnist for his paper, for rejectionism & for libeling the peace camp

And yesterday, Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street doubled down on his earlier statement in favor of the Kerry position, though he didn’t mention Shavit:

On Friday, I wrote (see below) that the demand for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state shouldn’t be allowed to derail Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

I’m pleased that our position resonated deeply with so many of our supporters…

[D]emanding such recognition at this point in the process runs the risk of derailing the whole effort.

Also yesterday Haaretz  published a piece by Oudeh Basharat, stating that Shavit is doing Netanyahu’s work on a shameless demand:

[M]y colleague in these pages Ari Shavit remains an ardent supporter of Netanyahu’s demand. Some people call themselves supporters of justice, but at the moment of truth, when you have to choose a side and take a clear stand, they fall in line with the strong. After all, nothing quiets the conscience while keeping your place in the loony-bin consensus more than to attack the weak for supposedly not playing their part.

But let’s assume for a moment, Ari Shavit, that this untenable demand – to recognize the state’s Jewishness – is legitimate. Even so, as a human being, as a member of an occupying nation, you should have called from every platform for an end to the accursed occupation, which is being perpetrated in your name, too. After the occupation it will be possible to raise this subject with the Palestinians, though even then it will look ridiculous….

Amid the to-do, it’s forgotten that what is going on is not a dialogue between free and equal sides, but between occupier and occupied, which is like a dialogue between rapist and victim. And on this shameful occasion, some voices are demanding that the victim consent to the shameful rape.

Once again, you learn a lot more about Israel’s tactics in the Israeli press than the U.S. press.

It’s time that Shavit’s American greeters revisited the author and this controversy, and did so in a less credulous manner than during Shavit’s book tour.

P.S. Jerry Slater had this to say about Shavit: by misrepresenting the Arab response to Israel, his book is “dangerous and unforgivable.” Or consider Norman Finkelstein, who has a book out on Shavit: “My Promised Land is riddled with omission, distortion, falsehood, and sheer nonsense.”

Correction: I said Kerry made his “mistake” comment to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. TNR says he made it to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

140 Responses

  1. Hostage
    Hostage
    March 26, 2014, 3:12 pm

    The peace talks are all but dead in the water, even John Kerry seems to be inching away from the matter; and this time it appears that the Israelis may get blamed

    Here is a snippet from the latest update to the 10th Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly and the Security Council:

    Palestinian children continue to be targeted by the Israeli occupying forces, which continue to act with excessive and brutal force and blatant disregard for human life. Yesterday, a 14-year-old Palestinian boy, Yousef Nayif Al Shawamreh, was shot and murdered near the village of Dura, south of Al-Khalil, where he and other youths had been foraging for local plants in an area near the wall. The occupying forces arrested the two youths who were with him and have yet to release the body of yet another innocent Palestinian victim of such senseless violence. . . . in only the period since the resumption of peace negotiations in late July 2013, the Israeli occupying forces have killed 57 Palestinians and injured 897 other civilians. There have also been more than 500 attacks by settlers on Palestinian civilians and their properties. Moreover, in the same period, the occupying forces have carried out over 3,767 military raids throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory and arrested more than 3,000 Palestinians, including children. In this regard, we must once again draw attention to the critical human rights situation of the more than 5,000 Palestinians who remain captive in Israeli prisons and detention centres. . . . The fact is that Israel has declared its intent to proceed with more than 11,000 units in just the period since negotiations began. The decisions to proceed with such illegal actions not only seriously undermine the peace process and Israel’s credibility in this regard, but are directly and physically harming the prospects for realization of the two-State solution. . . . This letter is in follow-up to our previous 489 letters regarding the ongoing crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, which constitutes the territory of the State of Palestine. These letters, dated from 29 September 2000 (A/55/432-S/2000/921) to 12 March 2014 (A/ES-10/620-S/2014/180), constitute a basic record of the crimes being committed by Israel, the occupying Power, against the Palestinian people since September 2000. For all of these war crimes, acts of State terrorism and systematic human rights violations being committed against the Palestinian people, Israel, the occupying Power, must be held accountable and the perpetrators must be brought to justice.

    — A/ES-10/621 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/ES-10/621

    • American
      American
      March 27, 2014, 10:24 am

      And when and if this conflict ends the same rights to reclaim property or accept restitution should be given to the Palestine refugees…and to any other entities that Israel looted.

      http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/93062.htm

      Property Restitution in Central and Eastern Europe
      Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
      Washington, DC
      October 3, 2007

      Introduction

      During World War II, the Nazis seized property, real and movable, from organizations and individuals which the Nazi regime was persecuting — Jews, members of some Christian organizations, Roma, homosexuals, and others.

      Much of that property in Western Europe was returned during the post-war period — under occupation law in areas occupied by the Allies, and under the laws of individual countries.

      This was not generally possible behind the Iron Curtain, where the newly-established communist governments simply took over property seized earlier by the Nazis. Those governments also frequently confiscated additional property from their own citizens.
      The collapse of communism in 1989-91 made it possible to restitute property in the former Iron Curtain countries. Many countries enacted legislation to provide for the restitution of both private and communal property. (Communal property is property previously owned by religious and other organizations. It includes churches, synagogues, community halls, parochial schools, medical facilities, etc.)
      The United States has strongly supported efforts to restitute to rightful owners property confiscated by the Nazis 1933-45 and by the subsequent communist governments of Central and Eastern Europe. Positive action on property issues was one of the criteria used to judge the progress of countries that aspired to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) membership. The European Union (EU) also recognizes the relevance of property issues in applicant countries.
      A successful property restitution program is an indicator of the effectiveness of the rule of law in a democratic country. Non-discriminatory, effective property laws are also of crucial importance to a healthy market economy.
      We recognize that in rem property restitution may not be possible in all cases. Payment of compensation is the obvious alternative.

      Restitution by country:

      continued…

  2. seafoid
    seafoid
    March 26, 2014, 3:14 pm

    Thanks for the heads up about Norman Finkelstein’s book. Shavit is a fraud. I wonder what his real family name was.

    • chuckcarlos
      chuckcarlos
      March 26, 2014, 3:26 pm

      “Barnum”

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      March 26, 2014, 3:32 pm

      Yeah, I also didn’t know Finkelstein’s book was out. I might read it.

      I saw a very powerful talk he did late last year. It’s long, but worth it(although I downloaded the .flv file, converted it to .mp3 and then listened to it as a podcast on my commute).

      He begins around 2:00

      I was familliar with Finkelstein’s thinking earlier, I’ve read some of his books and I’ve read his running commentary on the conflict. Nevertheless, he seems to have understood that some of the criticism of him was valid. I still disagree with some of his conclusions; I think he is missing the boat on how quickly the situation has changed in America.

      But he’s correct that the situation in Palestine has deterioated. Blumenthal, Finkelstein and now recently Abuminah have all admitted this. Only external pressure seems to be the option in the short run.

      But another thing that he misses is the generational shift within Palestinian society; Abbas’ own son is for a 1 state solution. He gives too much power to the elderly and the corrupt.

      Even if Abbas tried to sell out his own people, they would rise up against him. No way it would be accepted because everyone knows the deal they’d get is a total sellout.

      Finkelstein also seems to glaze over this. Nevertheless, I learned a lot of new things when listening to him. And I can’t say that happens a lot to me anymore, at least in generalist talks on the topic.

      • giladg
        giladg
        March 26, 2014, 5:17 pm

        Don’t you love the way Finkelstein shows those big white areas but refrains from mentioning that they were mainly desert in the south and swampland in the north, areas that were sparsely inhabited by anyone. Finkelstein mentions that the Arabs were allocated 46% of the land but refrains to mention that most of the fertile land in the region was in the 46% allocated to the Arabs. Finkelstein also conveniently skips over the Palestinian rejection of the the 1947 Partition Plan by saying he does not have enough time to go into detail. The same goes for the 1967 War.
        And this is at the core of his mistake in trying to understand the conflict. And so he continues to mislead and show no interest in holding the Palestinians responsible for anything.

      • a blah chick
        a blah chick
        March 26, 2014, 9:03 pm

        “Finkelstein also conveniently skips over the Palestinian rejection of the the 1947 Partition Plan…”

        And what, may I asked was so wrong with rejecting it? How would you like someone coming into your country and dividing up land the DID NOT BELONG to them? It’s easy to give away stuff that does not belong to you.

        Also Israel did not follow the Partition plan either. Had they done so they would have been saddled with an Arab population that was nearly half. That is why they declared their independence when they did, because they wanted to continue their ethnic cleansing without the UN butting in. Are you really trying to make me believe they would have accepted all those Arabs in their country?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 27, 2014, 8:48 pm

        “Finkelstein also conveniently skips over the Palestinian rejection of the the 1947 Partition Plan…”

        Just for the record, the Jewish Agency rejected the UNSCOP majority and minority proposals on constitutional and territorial grounds and demanded further concessions from the General Assembly sitting as an Ad Hoc Committee. So Gilead is pissing and moaning about the Palestinians using the same tactic employed by the Zionists. The bottom line is that Israel refused to abide by the terms of resolution 181(II) and declared it null and void after the Palestinians and Arabs accepted it as the basis of negotiations during the Lausanne Conference in 1949.

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 27, 2014, 8:56 pm

        Gigglad – Make me laugh. Uninvited, armed racist invaders coming with a plan to subvert and take possession of all the land and sovereignty and enslave the owners of the land… where is the obligation to accept any proposals?
        If there was any legality, the moment the partition proposal was refused the imported Zionist varmint should have left, or else been extirpated by international armed intervention.

      • The JillyBeans
        The JillyBeans
        March 26, 2014, 6:31 pm

        Finkelstein does not like BDS. And that’s putting it kindly.

      • Pixel
        Pixel
        March 26, 2014, 7:10 pm

        Many thanks for this.

      • giladg
        giladg
        March 27, 2014, 6:47 am

        This is what is needed and it has a lot to do about the truth ..

        http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/178963#.UzP96vmSyyU

        http://youtu.be/b0m3RghOcFo

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        March 27, 2014, 2:32 pm

        @giladg- Ho hum. Truth: Rocket attacks are almost exclusively a reaction to Israeli violence and killing. The Palestine Center/Yousef Munayyer has the charts. There hasn’t been a terrorist attack since 2008, and the one before that was in 2007. That’s despite thousands of WB Palestinians slipping through the Hafrada barrier into Israel every DAY to work.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks#2008_.282_bombings.29

        Any rational person would have to admit that Palestinians stopped using terrorism as a tactic, and have for some time now. Yet Israel hasn’t eased up one little bit.

        When is Israel going to start doing its part to resolve the problem?

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 27, 2014, 3:37 pm

        @ giladg “This is what is needed and it has a lot to do about the truth ..”

        link to israelnationalnews.com

        “truth” from the illegal settler’s propaganda mill? Cute stuff

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 27, 2014, 4:31 pm

        This is what is needed and it has a lot to do about the truth ..

        I agree that the Palestinian leadership refuses to accept peace treaty proposals that violate norms of international law in order to maintain the status quo created by Zionist ethnic cleansing campaigns and Israel’s wars of choice and apartheid policies. I disagree that constitutes a barbaric attitude toward “Jews”.

    • adele
      adele
      March 26, 2014, 4:04 pm

      seafoid,
      here’s some info from a forward article re: Shavit’s heritage. I included some of the sugary language for entertainment purposes and bolded his great-grandfather’s name:

      Shavit, who will turn 57 later this month, is an urbane man with the mellifluous English of an Abba Eban and the manners of a diplomat. He comes by these things honestly. The narrative of “My Promised Land” opens with the Right Honorable Herbert Bentwich, Shavit’s great-grandfather, leading a group of Zionist pilgrims to Palestine from London in 1897. Bentwich’s children, Shavit’s grandparents, settled in the wine-producing colony of Zichron Ya’acov a century ago, tethering Shavit’s family to the Land of, and eventually the State of, Israel.
      So Shavit is pure sabra, with an Anglo inflection. He has risen to the top of the intellectual elite in Israel….

      (source: http://forward.com/articles/187813/art-shavit-still-believes-in-a-promised-land/?p=all )

      PS: a wise reader left this comment about Shavit:

      “Secular liberals like Shavit have been buried by a right-wing tsunami. Now these fossils are disinterred occasionally for the purpose of prettifying Israel to young America Jews who are on the whole secular and liberal…”

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 26, 2014, 5:19 pm

        Thanks adele

        “He has risen to the top of the intellectual elite in Israel….”

        Not a particularly draining ascent, I’m guessing.
        More Scafell Pike than Kangchenjunga.

      • just
        just
        March 28, 2014, 5:33 am

        Thanks adele.

        Same old message, bundled up in prettified. loverly, mellifluous jargon and timbre.

        I feel sorry for his “two young sons” , and the older one that he speaks of here:

        He sounds pretty sane and concerned, eh? Yet, he celebrates every Zionist principle.

        yech.

        (What’s a “victorian Jew”???) blah, blah, blah.

        “Genius”/not.

      • adele
        adele
        March 28, 2014, 10:15 am

        It gives me the creeps whenever I hear anyone justifying the suffering of others. Absolute pathological rubbish.

    • jon s
      jon s
      March 26, 2014, 4:19 pm

      On his mother’s side, Shavit is a descendant of the Bentwich family:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bentwich

      and of Hillel Yaffe:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_Yaffe

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 26, 2014, 5:17 pm

        Jon

        Do you have a new Hebrew name and if so do you know what your real family name was ?

      • jon s
        jon s
        March 27, 2014, 4:45 pm

        Seafoid, no, I don’t have a “new” name.
        It looks like you mean to imply that modern Hebrew names are less “real” than European names.
        Yet Jewish family names are a relatively late development. It was the late 18th century Austrian Emperor Joseph II (best known as Mozart’s benefactor) who issued an edict compelling the Jews to adopt German surnames. I don’t see why those names are more “real” , less artificial than modern Herew names. We speak Hebrew, read and write Hebrew, the blossoming of Hebrew culture is a significant part of Zionism, so why not Hebrew names?

      • James North
        James North
        March 27, 2014, 5:01 pm

        jon s: I agree with you. One of the surnames in the Jewish wing of my family was taken from a town in Lithuania.
        At the same time, if I’m not mistaken Netanyahu has claimed that his newly-invented Hebrew surname proves he is a descendant of ancient people who supposedly lived in present-day Israel/Palestine and who had the same name. Netanyahu’s contention is, to put it charitably, unproven, but he uses it to claim he has the right to expel other people — Palestinians who don’t have to invent their local ancestors — from their homes and lands.

      • ziusudra
        ziusudra
        March 28, 2014, 6:57 am

        Greetings jonS,
        …so why not Hebrew names?…….
        True neither ancient ME nor Europe used surnames.
        Why would a semitic surname be more appropriate
        for Euro/Khazarian People?
        Historically, Hebrew was an afroasian semitic dialect
        of the Canaanite language. There is no such thing as a Hebrew, which is greek for all semite people: ‘One outside of the Hellenic Culture’.
        These people identified by tribal names, as subjects of Kingdoms.
        Hebronists 1029BC, Israelites 1009BC, Judeans 933BC, Hebrews after 323BC, Sephardi after 200BC (in Europe), Maccabean/Hasmonean after 140BC, Palestinians after 63AD, Palestinian Semites onward after 636AD/1200AD. No, there is no such Thing as a Ashkenaszi Person!
        Anyone confessing to Judaism was simply a semite, who spoke Aramaic from 200BC to the 1880s where migrants first appeared speaking Euro languages. Later Hebrew was forced upon these Euros in the 20s & 30s onward under penalty & insult. 50% of World Jewry in the US don’t read or write!
        ziusudra
        PS Hebrew dialect wasn’t spoken from 200BC/1945AD onward in Palestina nor in Europe, except in the liturgy. How then did said dialect amass a vocabulary to equal modern Euro languages from 1500AD???

  3. eljay
    eljay
    March 26, 2014, 3:20 pm

    >> In Washington, New York and even Tel Aviv… [a]n overall offensive is being waged in recent weeks on the Jewish people’s national state.

    The Jewish people don’t have a right to an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state.

    >> American and Israeli peace seekers are furiously attacking the demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

    Yeah, you gotta hate peace seekers who, unlike Zio-supremacists and other hate- and war-mongers, seek peace. Anyway, Israel has no right be a supremacist “Jewish State”, and no-one should be expected or required to recognize or accept Israel or any other state as a supremacist state.

    >> … the Jewish people’s demand to recognize its right to self-definition.

    The “Jewish people” are free to define themselves as gods or cupcakes or whatever else they like. But neither they nor anyone else are entitled to engage in terrorism, ethnic cleansing, oppression, land theft, colonization, destruction, torture, murder and supremacism.

    • Walid
      Walid
      March 26, 2014, 4:07 pm

      THe Zionists are being a-holes re-negotiating previously agreed conditions at every opportunity. They had made a deal with the Palestinians for the restart of the negotiations and now they are threatening to renege on one of the conditions if the Palestinians don’t agree to extend the time limit on the negotiations (and the postponement of any legal actions by the Palestinians, of course).

      From France-Presse via Nahar:

      “… But after the release of a total of 78 inmates so far, Israeli cabinet ministers have warned that the final remaining batch of prisoners will not be freed on March 29 unless the Palestinians agree to extend the talks beyond the April 29 deadline.”

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      March 26, 2014, 5:13 pm

      “>> … the Jewish people’s demand to recognize its right to self-definition.”

      When did “the Jewish people” make this demand?
      What is the basis for this supposed right?
      And what the hell is “self-definition” anyway?

      Do they have specialists to produce this utter tripe for them, or so they cobble it together themselves?

    • jon s
      jon s
      March 27, 2014, 5:10 pm

      James North, Yeah , I remember Netanyahu’s lame gimmick.

  4. Nevada Ned
    Nevada Ned
    March 26, 2014, 3:23 pm

    Instead of “recognizing Israel as a Jewish state”, perhaps the Palestinians ought to propose they will “recognize Israel as an ORTHODOX Jewish state,” provided that Israel proclaims that any non-orthodox Jews are not really Jewish, and hence are not covered by the Law of Return. (Of course, this is a joke, not a serious proposal).

    Suppose the United States proclaimed itself to be “the sovereign state of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants”, and WASPs are covered by a Law of Return. Anybody else is in danger of being ethnically cleansed.

  5. Talkback
    Talkback
    March 26, 2014, 3:48 pm

    Peace talks 2024:

    Israel demands from Nonjewish Israelis to be either Jewish or not Israelis.

  6. Walid
    Walid
    March 26, 2014, 3:49 pm

    FWIW, the Arab League concluded at this morning’s closing of its general meeting to reject the proposal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. From the speech Abbas made yesterday or the day before, he appeared to have asked for this collective rejection. He probably needed it to stand up the US and he can now blame the rejection on all the Arabs.

  7. giladg
    giladg
    March 26, 2014, 4:18 pm

    Philip, remind us what the reason for Arab hatred towards Jews was in 1967, when there were no settlements and East Jerusalem was controlled by Jordan?
    As the Arabs have time and time again demonstrated their real long intentions regarding how they see an independent country for the Jewish people, the absolute minimum if they say they want peace is to openly support and understand the need for Israel to be the nation state of the Jewish people. The rationale behind this is that some things will need to be shared and the only way the Palestinian leadership can justify this sharing to their own people is if they have taken the vital step and acknowledged Jewish history and heritage. Eventually the Palestinians will understand that there is no way around this, even if it takes another 1,000 years. Many of us understood the dangers of Oslo at the time precisely because this language was left out of the agreement. Those Israeli’s involved with Oslo should be prosecuted for their selling Jewish interests down the river and then indirectly causing the deaths of thousands of its citizens by Palestinian suicide bombers.
    The more one examines past action taken by the Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim brothers, the more one understands that tremendous evil has been directed towards the Jewish people as a result and that the Palestinians are in no way an innocent party in this conflict.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      March 26, 2014, 5:14 pm

      Philip, remind us what the reason for Arab hatred towards Jews was in 1967, when there were no settlements and East Jerusalem was controlled by Jordan?

      The same casus belli that existed since 1948. Israel plundered millions of dunams of Palestinian property and violated the territorial integrity of the neighboring states by driving hundreds of thousands of penniless refugees into exile and denied them repatriation. All the while, it persecuted the remaining Palestinian population for two decades under a martial law regime or the inhuman emergency regulations it still utilizes against non-Jews to this very day. See John Quigley, “Apartheid Outside Africa: The Case of Israel”, 2 Ind. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 221 (1991-1992)
      http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/iicl2&div=8&id=&page=

    • Justpassingby
      Justpassingby
      March 26, 2014, 5:28 pm

      giladg

      Ever heard of Nakba?
      Take your racism down a bit btw, its ugly.

    • Bumblebye
      Bumblebye
      March 26, 2014, 5:29 pm

      Oh! You hopeless mope!

      1967…The year Israel decided to attack its neighbors. The year Israel decided to steal the residue of Palestine.

      1967…After 19 years of hosting (and paying for) millions of refugees expelled BY Israel from their homeland, and constant refusals to allow them back, would you expect neighboring countries to harbor filial feelings towards the alien imposed zionist entity? When for almost all that time, their remaining brethren had been treated as the aliens in their homeland – checkpoints, restriction of movement, state of emergency, no representation, etc. Theft and destruction of their (and their expelled compatriots) property, and on and on and endlessly on…

      And gutless, guileless giladg expects us to think there was no possible reason for any ill-feeling towards the zionist entity? And to believe the nonsense that the war was started by the neighbors when it is documented as a war of choice, from the mouths of the zionist state’s own leaders? The “evil” of which you write is *all* a result of the behavior of your own stupid state and mostly its *own* actions that are evil!

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      March 26, 2014, 5:49 pm

      “remind us what the reason for Arab hatred towards Jews was in 1967”

      Hmmmn. Lessee now. A bunch of Jews use war and terrorism to take over a chunk of an Arab land, drive out most of the Arab inhabitants, and subjugate the rest. Nor do the terrorism and wars stop when they have done that.

      Do you think that might have something to do with it?

      “to openly support and understand the need for Israel to be the nation state of the Jewish people.”

      I don’t understated the alleged need. Can you explain it?

      “The rationale behind this is that some things will need to be shared ”

      Before 1948 the Palestinians were willing to share the country with the Jewish immigrants, but the latter did not want to share. They wanted a piece for themselves alone, as a prelude to getting the whole.

      And Jewish history and heritage do not justify anything.

      • giladg
        giladg
        March 27, 2014, 6:57 am

        Roha, please give references where Palestinians displayed a serious and community willingness to share prior to 1948. I believe you are inventing history.
        You may think that Jewish history and heritage is irrelevant and you only say this because the Palestinians do not have similar to match. So you attack Jews and Jewish history. Without this history there is no justification for Jews to be in Israel so unfortunately your argument and position stink and do not demonstrate a willingness for peace between the nations. Justice is not reserved only for the Palestinian Arabs you know.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 27, 2014, 10:57 am

        “Roha, please give references where Palestinians displayed a serious and community willingness to share prior to 1948. ”

        Since I am travelling, and working from an iPad, I’ll have to leave this to Hostage or one of the other posters who have memorised every document. I recall reading it in one of Atiyah’s books.

        “You may think that Jewish history and heritage is irrelevant …. Without this history there is no justification for Jews to be in Israel”

        Can you give a coherent argument to show that Jewish history and heritage justify the creation and conduct of the state of Israel? If not, it is irrelevant.

        As far as I am concerned, the presence of the current Jews in Israel is justified by the fact that they were born there. But that does not justify the conduct of the state.

      • giladg
        giladg
        March 27, 2014, 6:36 pm

        Well RoHa, what do say about current day Palestinians who migrated to the region during the past 80 years? We know that the population of Jerusalem 150 years ago was around 14,000 people with half being Jewish. Today there are over 300,000 Arabs in Jerusalem. How to you get from 7,000 Arabs 150 years ago to 300,000 today without migration. Well let me tell you that you cannot. And if you cannot then part of the Palestinian story is a lie, a big fat lie.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 28, 2014, 3:32 pm

        Well RoHa, what do say about current day Palestinians who migrated to the region during the past 80 years?

        For starers, it is illegal for an occupying power to alter the existing laws in any territory, except in cases of absolute military necessity. It is NOT up to Israel to decide whether or not an immigrant is a lawful inhabitant or a citizen.

        The inhabitants of the West Bank held a regional congress and opted to form a political union with the allied state of Transjordan. They participated in a national plebiscite conducted by the new joint political entity, Jordan, and their elected representatives ratified the steps taken by the Arab Palestinian Congress, the Transjordanian Parliament, and the King to establish the union. They adopted a Constitution which stipulates that:

        Article 9

        (i) No Jordanian may be deported from the territory of the Kingdom.

        (ii) No Jordanian may be prevented from residing at any place, or be compelled to reside in any specified place, except in the circumstances prescribed by law.

        http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/constitution_jo.html

        There is no exception regarding lawful immigrants in the Hague rules or the Geneva Convention. They are not allowed to engage or aid and abet pillaging or plunder, like the JNF and many of the Jewish immigrants of 1948. The prohibitions against forced population transfer or the requirement to repatriate prisoners and displaced civilians as soon as possible after an armed conflict apply to lawful immigrants.

      • Walid
        Walid
        March 28, 2014, 4:49 pm

        “… The inhabitants of the West Bank held a regional congress and opted to form a political union with the allied state of Transjordan. ”

        Didn’t whatever was agreed-to between the inhabitants of the West Bank (Jericho Conference) and Transjordan voided when Jordan signed the treaty with Israel and walked away from the WB 20 years ago ?

        About Article 9, are you agreeing with gilad that a massive migration or immigration into Jerusalem did happen although it was sanctioned by Article 9, or are you simply telling him that if in fact a massive migration did occur, it was OK anyway as it was permissible under 9 (ii)? I believe that historically, Jerusalem contrary to the rest of Palestine, has always been populated by more Jews than Arabs.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 28, 2014, 5:42 pm

        Didn’t whatever was agreed-to between the inhabitants of the West Bank (Jericho Conference) and Transjordan voided when Jordan signed the treaty with Israel and walked away from the WB 20 years ago ?

        Of course not. FYI, prior to 1988 there was no state of “Jordan” that didn’t include the West Bank. You are talking about a treaty signed by one of the successor states that was formed after the constitutional union was dissolved. That’s like comparing a member of the Russian Federation to the USSR.

        In any event, Article 9 of the Israeli peace treaty acknowledged the continuing role of the government of Jordan. http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/peace_6-15.html

        The recent treaty between Palestine and Jordan also noted the qualified nature of the 1988 Jordanian disengagement and states that Jordan still exercises territorial jurisdiction over over 144 dunums of mosques, buildings, walls, courtyards, attached areas over and beneath the ground and the Waqf properties tied-up to “Al Haram Al Sharif” – based upon continuity of custodianship that dates back to a declaration made by the people of Jerusalem and Palestine in 1924. It notes that the custodianship also encompasses the “Rum” (Greek) Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem that is governed by the Jordanian Law No. 27 of the year 1958. http://en.lpj.org/2013/04/04/full-text-of-the-jordanian-palestinian-agreement-on-holy-places-in-jerusalem/

      • Walid
        Walid
        March 28, 2014, 5:56 pm

        ” … In any event, Article 9 of the Israeli peace treaty acknowledged the continuing role of the government of Jordan. ”

        Is this that was cancelled by an act in the Knesset a couple of weeks back and for which the Jordanian Parliament wanted the Israeli ambassador expelled from Amman?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 28, 2014, 8:47 pm

        Is this that was cancelled by an act in the Knesset a couple of weeks back and for which the Jordanian Parliament wanted the Israeli ambassador expelled from Amman?

        I don’t believe anything was actually canceled. There was a debate launched in the Israeli Knesset aimed at passing legislation to impose Israeli sovereignty over Al-Haram Al-Sharif and the Jordanian Parliament launched a debate to cancel the peace treaty, which only resulted in a vote to expel the Israeli ambassador.

        My original point was that the constitution and laws that were in effect in 1967 prohibited the Government of Jordan (or an occupying power) from stripping citizenship and exiling Palestinians from the West Bank or Jerusalem. Israel still employs Jordanian law to expropriate land for the state in the occupied territory, but circumvents the ones I’m talking about to deny repatriation to refugees of the 1967 war and the occupation era.

        BTW, there were Israeli High Court cases on that particular point in which Meron and others who paid lip service to the Hague and Geneva Conventions in law journal articles sang a completely different tune once they were inside an actual court room where they supported the Israeli government’s positions. See the “Text of Affidavit Submitted to the Israeli Supreme Court by Advocate Aziz Shehadeh” (1980), page 69 (pdf page 71) http://www.alhaq.org/publications/publications-index?task=callelement&format=raw&item_id=11&element=304e4493-dc32-44fa-8c5b-57c4d7b529c1&method=download

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 27, 2014, 4:06 pm

        Roha, please give references where Palestinians displayed a serious and community willingness to share prior to 1948.

        On September 29, 1947, the representative of the Arab Higher Committee, Jamal Husseini, appeared before the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee hearing on Palestine. He said:

        “The future constitutional organization of Palestine should be based on the following principles: first, establishment on democratic lines of an Arab State comprising all Palestine; secondly, observance by the said Arab State of Palestine of human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law; thirdly, protection by the Arab State of the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities; fourthly, guarantee to all of freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places.”

        That proposal was rejected by the representatives of the Jewish people. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        During the 2nd Special Session of the General Assembly on the Question of Palestine, Mr. Malik (Lebanon) introduced a proposal that the form of government in Palestine be based upon the model of the US Constitution:

        “Principle number five: The Constituent Assembly, in defining the powers of the federal state of Palestine, as well as the powers of the judicial and legislative organs, in defining the functions of the cantonal governments, and in defining the relationships between the cantonal governments and the federal state, will be guided by the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as the constitutions of the individual states of the United States of America. — Yearbook of the United Nations for 1947-48

        The US representative confirmed the fact that similar proposals had previously been made in both the UNSCOP and Ad Hoc Committees and that they had not been deemed acceptable by the representatives of the Jewish Agency.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 27, 2014, 4:41 pm

        Thanks, Hostage. I knew you’d have the facts at your fingertips.

      • giladg
        giladg
        March 27, 2014, 6:56 pm

        The Devil is in the Details. No details were listed because there weren’t any. Instead we have the actual action taken by Palestinian Arabs towards Jews. For example, supporting the ban on Jews entering the Temple Mount, the holiest site for Jews. How does this fit in with Husseini’s comment mentioned above on freedom of access to all? It does not. Judge on action and not words, especially when Islam supports the act of lying when trying to defeat the enemy.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 28, 2014, 5:23 pm

        For example, supporting the ban on Jews entering the Temple Mount, the holiest site for Jews.

        Only the Rabbinate has imposed a ban on Jews entering the so-called Temple Mount. The Jordanians allowed non-Israeli Jews to visit. By mutual agreement, Israeli and Jordanian civilians were prohibited from crossing the armistice lines. I don’t know or care where the Temple Mount was actually located. It certainly wasn’t more holy than the half dozen other Jewish temples that have been excavated in Israel and Egypt and plays no essential role in the forms of present day Jewish worship prescribed by the Babylonian Talmud.

        FYI, the record preserved by the Dead Sea scrolls indicates that more than a few Jews considered it, and its cult, an aberrant abomination. Much like the situation in the present era, the majority of Jews in the ancient world didn’t choose to live anywhere near the place. Even in its heyday, most Jews lived in Alexandria, Babylonia, Rome, & etc.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 28, 2014, 6:53 pm

        Hostage- You wrote: “It certainly wasn’t more holy than the half dozen other Jewish temples that have been excavated in Israel and Egypt and plays no essential role in the forms of present day Jewish worship prescribed by the Babylonian Talmud.”

        Holy to whom? To you? I don’t know how you measure holiness, so maybe the place of the temple is not holy to you. But it certainly is holy to Orthodox Jews.
        Plays no essential role in the forms of present day Jewish worship. Depends on how much you depend on the term “essential” and your definition of Jewish worship. The place of the temple is not essential to the direction of prayer, but if one chooses a direction, one prays towards the Temple’s location (if you are in Jerusalem) If you are outside of Jerusalem, in Israel you face towards Jerusalem and if you are outside Israel, you face Israel.
        Maybe you are referring only to the place of the temple, but the service in the temple does determine the content of the prayers, particularly on Yom Kippur and on holidays when there is an added prayer because of the added sacrifice in the temple.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 28, 2014, 8:55 pm

        Holy to whom? To you? I don’t know how you measure holiness, so maybe the place of the temple is not holy to you. But it certainly is holy to Orthodox Jews.

        I said: It isn’t “more holy” than the half dozen other Jewish temples that have been excavated in Israel and Egypt and plays no essential role in the forms of present day Jewish worship prescribed by the Babylonian Talmud.” It’s impossible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who can’t read or who wields rank superstition like a fucking weapon in the name of all Jews.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 28, 2014, 10:04 pm

        Hostage- In the war of ideas, communication might break down by accident or might be sabotaged by a fucking and a superstition and a reading comprehension.

        The temple, bais hamikdosh, is certainly more holy to orthodox Jews than any other of the temples that have been discovered.

        Have a nice life.

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 28, 2014, 10:28 pm

        @ yonah fredman “The temple, bais hamikdosh, is certainly more holy to orthodox Jews than any other of the temples that have been discovered”

        Uh? When was it discovered? Just a reminder, speculation and theory are not ‘discovery’

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 28, 2014, 10:41 pm

        talknic- The beis hamikdosh was not discovered. The other temples mentioned by hostage, he of great knowledge and little patience, were discovered.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 29, 2014, 12:03 am

        The temple, bais hamikdosh, is certainly more holy to orthodox Jews than any other of the temples that have been discovered.

        Have a nice life.

        Then say that and stop talking about “the Jews”. BTW, you can stop looking for the temple, bais hamikdosh inside the Al Aqsa Mosque, it isn’t there.

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 29, 2014, 12:21 am

        yonah fredman “The beis hamikdosh was not discovered.”

        Uh huh. The notion of something being holy or holier when it doesn’t exist is simply insane, orthodox Jews or not

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 29, 2014, 1:05 am

        talknic- Are you implying that there was no temple in the time of Jesus? That there was no temple destroyed in the year of your lord 70? I asserted no such thing, I was merely attempting to fashion a sentence describing the difference between the temples that Hostage was referring to and the temple that history refers to as the Beis Hamikdosh. I didn’t even know that the mere existence of that temple was under dispute. Maybe Jesus did not exist. Maybe the Romans never occupied Jerusalem. Maybe there was no temple. I am not a historian and don’t know what it takes to establish the existence of the temple commonly referred to as Herod’s temple. But if you are communicating with me, please spare me your childishness. (or puerility). I did not assert that the temple did not exist and if that is your assertion, why not say it outright and avoid sarcasm. After all this is the war of ideas. Not.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 29, 2014, 1:37 am

        talknic- Are you implying that there was no temple in the time of Jesus? That there was no temple destroyed in the year of your lord 70?

        You keep complaining as if the Palestinians have kept you from visiting the Temple, but I know for sure that this thing isn’t located in the Dome of the Rock or Al Aqsa mosque. The most holy spot in it was off-limits to ordinary Jews in any event, and it’s the Orthodox Rabbinate who claims that it should still be off limits.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 29, 2014, 1:51 am

        Hostage- fucking, reading, superstitious, speak for all Jews. have a nice life. War of ideas? Not. Go write your legal opinions for your choir, but please don’t talk to me.

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 29, 2014, 2:05 am

        @Friedman – We are talking about a war started by your friends and associates 67 years ago and never settled; all that holiness bullshit, Jesus’ and Jebus’ times, etc. are totally irrelevant and I just can’t understand Weiss’ policy that allows all this disruption and harassment.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 29, 2014, 2:13 am

        Hostage- fucking, reading, superstitious, speak for all Jews. have a nice life. War of ideas? Not. Go talk to your choir.

        LoL! You sure as hell aren’t speaking for the Orthodox Rabbinate or anyone else, except for a bunch of nutter ultra-nationalists.

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 29, 2014, 3:07 am

        @ yonah fredman “Are you implying that there was no temple in the time of Jesus?”

        This is what is written

        The notion of something being holy or holier when it doesn’t exist is simply insane, orthodox Jews or not

        I’m quite sure there were numerous temples in the time Jesus is alleged to have existed.

        “That there was no temple destroyed in the year of your lord 70?”

        My lord? Lords and gods who don’t show up during holocausts and/or the priestly abuse of children aren’t worthy of the name or belief. If the horse isn’t even in the race, WTF back it?

        ” Maybe Jesus did not exist”

        Maybe

        ” Maybe the Romans never occupied Jerusalem.”

        There are very tangible Roman government records

        “But if you are communicating with me, please spare me your childishness. (or puerility). I did not assert that the temple did not exist and if that is your assertion, why not say it outright and avoid sarcasm.”

        See above. Read what’s written.

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 27, 2014, 9:02 pm

        Gilgad – “a serious and community willingness to share prior to 1948”
        That’s it, baby. Go squat in your neighbor’s house and kick him out if he is not ready to “share”.
        You are seriously insane.

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        March 27, 2014, 10:52 pm

        The Palestinian claim isn’t similar to the jewish it’s vastly superior. The decedents of the Palestinians go back to roman times and earlier. So to pretend the Palestinians are new comers compared to the jews is a lie

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 28, 2014, 5:29 pm

        “Well RoHa, what do say about current day Palestinians who migrated to the region during the past 80 years? ”

        If they were legal migrants, they have exactly the same rights as other legal migrants to Palestine, and their descendants have exactly the same rights as the descendants of other legal migrants. I don’t think there were many such, mind you. Most Palestinians are descendants of families who have been living in Palestine for centuries.

        “We know that the population of Jerusalem 150 years ago was around 14,000 people with half being Jewish. Today there are over 300,000 Arabs in Jerusalem. How to you get from 7,000 Arabs 150 years ago to 300,000 today without migration.”

        First, 150 years ago probably most of those Jews would have been Arabs. We know that a lot of Arab Jews lived in Palestine.

        Second, so what if a lot of people moved into Jerusalem? A lot of people have moved from country to city in a lot of places. How does this justify Zionism and the actions of the Zionists?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 28, 2014, 11:33 am

        What? No argument yet? I would have thought you would have one at your fingertips, since you made such an issue of the “Jewish history and heritage” stuff.

        I must admit I haven’t had much success in formulating one for you. Since the conclusion is to be one ascribing rights to Jews, it has to be a moral argument. The most common forms of moral argument are those which argue from a basic moral principle and those which draw an analogy with a case which satisfies basic moral principles.

        As an attempt at the first kind, I produced this:

        BMP: People who are connected by decent, conversion, or decent from converts, to a religious group have the right to live in and set up a state in the territory in which that religious group originated.

        Minor premise: Jews are such people, and Palestine is the territory.

        Conclusion: Jews have have the right to live in and set up a state in Palestine.

        That seems sufficiently well formed for criticism.

        The BMP does not seem to be either basic or moral. It does not have the same intuitive appeal as (e.g.) Ross’s prima facie duties. Nor is it easily derived from such basic moral principles.
        One can argue in the same way that Welsh Christians and their atheist descendants have an equal right live in and set up a state in Palestine. And Japanese Buddhists have the right in respect of a bit of India, and Indonesian and South African Muslims will argue about sharing a state in the Hejaz.

        These may not be fatal objections, but they certainly make the argument look shaky.

        I’m sure you’ve got something better.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 28, 2014, 5:53 pm

        Whoops! “Decent” in my previous post should be “descent”.
        That’s what comes from hacking things out on an iPad while travelling.

        “Decent” is not a word that fits easily into discussions about Zionism.

      • Walid
        Walid
        March 28, 2014, 4:58 pm

        “Justice is not reserved only for the Palestinian Arabs you know.”

        For the Arabs, the problem was never with or about the Jews that were already living there but with those that started arriving after WW I and more so after WW II. Palestinian Jews were just as much at home in Palestine as were the Palestinian Arabs. The neighbourhood started going to the dogs when the Zionists zeroed-in on it.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 28, 2014, 10:53 pm

        Walid- The city of Tel Aviv was established before WWI. Are you telling me that the Arabs had no problem with that? Certainly after the Balfour Declaration and certainly certainly after the British mandate was based upon the language of the Balfour declaration, the Arabs had a problem with Jewish Zionists in Palestine. But Zionism was not born with Balfour. (I am not learned enough to tell you if there were acts of violence against settler Jews before WWI, but nonetheless WWI is not the demarcation line of Zionism and objections to Zionism by Arabs.)

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 28, 2014, 11:11 pm

        @Friedman – Simple enough. Until the Balfour abomination woke up the people, the Zionists were seen mainly as guests of the Ottomans, who had been given authorization to buy some land to start a new life in full observance of the local laws and customs; they were generally pitied because of the Ukrainian and Bessarabian pogroms (no matter reality). It’s only with the Balfour and the English caretaker mandate that the Zionists were revealed as brutal colonial monsters who had not emigrated to live as regular citizens but had a plan to establish their sovereignty on someone else’s country and cleanse the Palestinians out.
        The Balfour declaration is a declaration of war; of course it, and the change of sovereignty from the Ottoman to the British Empire, will be a milestone in the perception of Zionism.

      • Walid
        Walid
        March 29, 2014, 1:08 am

        Yonah. TA wasn’t the only Jewish town that was built or that was already inhabited at the time but that was when the serious immigration started.

        The 1878 Ottoman census showed for the Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre districts as 403,795 Muslims (85.50% of total), 43,659 Christians, 15,001 (9.20% of total), Jews and about 10,000 (3,20% of total), foreign-born Jews (2.10% of total).

        In 1922, a British census for all of Palestine showed 589,177 Muslims (78.34% of total), 83,790 Jews (11,14% of total), and 71, 464 Christians (9.50% of total).

        By 1942, the British census showed 995,292 Muslims (61.44% of total), 484,408 Jews (29.90% of total), 127,184 Christians (7.85% of total)

        Net immigration-wise, British census showed that between 1930 and 1939, Jews entering Palestine 216,131 (94,10%) Non-Jews entering Palestine 13,588 (5,90%).

        I left out numbers about non-Arabs and Jews to reach 100% as they represented about 1% only.

        When you look at these number, you can clearly see which group “invaded” and was in the process of overwhelming the other by way of immigration and what caused Palestinian Arabs to panic and make them apply pressure on the British to put a stop to it and what gave rise to to their 1936-1939 revolt.

        These numbers also tell you that there was no massive flooding of Arabs into Palestine from other states as the Zionists claim.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 29, 2014, 2:01 am

        Walid- I certainly qualify as a Zionist by the anti Zionist company here at MW. I have never claimed that there was a mass influx of population of Arabs in the 30’s. It is a claim by “some” Zionists rather than a claim by “the” Zionists. Zionists are not monolithic in their claims. When you use the term ‘the Zionists” rather than some Zionists, your sentence can be construed as regarding Zionists as monolithic. They/we are not.

        (I have heard other anti Zionists claim (“some” is inferred) that zero Arabs moved to Palestine as a result of the Zionist influx/development. At least you accept the statistics that there was some immigration of Arabs into Palestine. If there was immigration, how can you state that the neighborhood was going to the dogs. This question is rhetorical. I realize that you were not implying a lack of economic development caused by the influx of Zionists, rather something more political by the term “going to the dogs”.)

      • Walid
        Walid
        March 29, 2014, 8:52 am

        Yonah, it goes without saying that those Zionists that are not targeted by these darts know very well that they are not intended for them and they don’t usually object to them. Same goes for verbal attacks on Israelis among which there are people of good will that are aware that they are not meant for them.

        You’re right about the political message of “going to the dogs”. It’s a shame it happened that way because the neighbouring Arabs had high hopes of better economic times for the whole region with the help of educated Zionists that were coming mostly from more scientifically advanced Europe. Rather than contribute to the betterment of the region and to Palestine in particular that included both backwards Jews and Arabs, the Zionists set about on a program of systematically ethnically cleansing Palestine of its Arab inhabitants. Their lust for land spoiled what could have been a nice relationship.

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 28, 2014, 6:12 pm

        giladg please give references where Palestinians displayed a serious and community willingness to share prior to 1948″

        The continual presence of Palestinian Jews from at least the Roman era til let’s say 1948 should suffice

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 29, 2014, 7:38 am

        “If there was immigration, how can you state that the neighborhood was going to the dogs.”

        The Zionists had already started terrorizing the locals in the early 20s, Yonah. They were never going to integrate peacefully.

        Homa Umigdal is the essence of pre state Israel.
        They were always at war with the locals.

        http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/02012008/1439879/19_Salus_160_g.jpg

        And there wasn’t enough immigration to make it a relevant factor in the Palestinian population. Zionism has f#cked the whole region up.

      • Walid
        Walid
        March 29, 2014, 9:04 am

        “They were never going to integrate peacefully.”

        From very early on and about 30 years before there was an Israeli state, Zionists had been surveying the lay of the land and mentally laying pickets to where their future state would stretch. It was still in the 20s that Weizmann lobbied the British to annex south Lebanon to British Palestine because he claimed the Zionists would need the Litani to make a go of a future Jewish Palestine in the northern Galilee. Same was done with the Golan and the Jordan River. And the Zionists knew very well they’d have to play rough to get these areas. There were never plans to integrate or to even assimilate. It was about conquering from the very start. Nothing has changed in their mentality since about 100 years.

      • MRW
        MRW
        March 28, 2014, 3:14 am

        Smart post at March 26, 2014 at 5:49 pm, RoHa.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 29, 2014, 12:37 pm

        “Nothing has changed in their mentality since about 100 years.”

        That is their achilles heel now. The world is sick of their aggression and is waiting for the Palestinians to be acknowledged as human by the Jewish state. They can’t change their artificial culture because they have nothing to replace it with.

    • eljay
      eljay
      March 26, 2014, 6:44 pm

      >> … the need for Israel to be the nation state of the Jewish people.

      “The Jewish people” may want a nation state, but “the Jewish people” do not need a nation state.

      And the world does not need a supremacist “Jewish State”…or any other type of supremacist state, for that matter.

      • Naftush
        Naftush
        March 27, 2014, 3:08 am

        So you’ve administered two unique needs tests: Israel to defend its need for itself and the world to satisfy its need for Israel. What criteria did you devise for these tests? How did Israel and the world fail them? And when you administered the test to the other 190+ members of the UN, how did they fare? Are all supremacist states to de-exist, or just Israel?
        Awaiting your reasoned replies.

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 27, 2014, 9:08 am

        >> So you’ve administered two unique needs tests: Israel to defend its need for itself and the world to satisfy its need for Israel.

        Nice try, but my point was about a supremacist “Jewish State”, not Israel.

        >> Are all supremacist states to de-exist, or just Israel?

        In my view, no state has a right to exist as a supremacist state.

        What’s your view? Do you believe that:
        – no state has a right to exist as a supremacist state;
        – only Israel has a right to exist as a supremacist state; or
        – all states have a right to exist as supremacist states?

      • amigo
        amigo
        March 27, 2014, 11:07 am

        “So you’ve administered two unique needs tests: Israel to defend its need for itself and the world to satisfy its need for Israel. What criteria did you devise for these tests? How did Israel and the world fail them? And when you administered the test to the other 190+ members of the UN, how did they fare? Are all supremacist states to de-exist, or just Israel?
        Awaiting your reasoned replies.” naftush

        eljay “In my view, no state has a right to exist as a supremacist state.

        What’s your view? Do you believe that:
        – no state has a right to exist as a supremacist state;
        – only Israel has a right to exist as a supremacist state; or
        – all states have a right to exist as supremacist states?”

        So where did you fly off to naftush.

        Cat got your tongue.

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 27, 2014, 9:06 pm

        The world population, the religiously Jewish citizens of the many countries of the world, and those of biologic “Jewish” origin all need Azrael like a hole in the head. Or better, as much as what it is, a cancer eating away our decencies, liberties and international peace.
        So what “need tests”?

    • a blah chick
      a blah chick
      March 26, 2014, 9:12 pm

      “Philip, remind us what the reason for Arab hatred towards Jews was in 1967…?”

      We could start with Qibya and, what the hell, let’s throw Kafr Kasem in there too. You remember Kafr Kasem? Where Border Police shot dead nearly 50 Arab CITIZENS of Israel? They shot the old guy and a little kid and a pregnant lady. But I guess if that happened to your people you wouldn’t be pissed off.

      • giladg
        giladg
        March 28, 2014, 10:58 am

        Over 120,000 Syrians have been killed over the past 3 years. I don’t see the Arab armies launching an invasion of Syria.

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 30, 2014, 4:22 am

        @ giladg “Over 120,000 Syrians have been killed over the past 3 years. I don’t see the Arab armies launching an invasion of Syria.”

        It’s a civil war within Syrian territory. Other states have no right to intervene unless they’re asked either by the incumbent Govt or a majority opposition.

    • Kay24
      Kay24
      March 26, 2014, 9:38 pm

      You want to know evil present day, and what Palestinians are going through today?
      Then maybe you skipped the part where a young 14 year old boy, who was foraging for plants, was brutally killed by armed forces, who I am sure felt tough killing an unarmed young kid? If this is not hatred I don’t know what is. The UN has condemned such killings, and deplored this military occupation. Stop pretending the killing is only by the Palestinians. It has been years since the last suicide bomber, and yet this year Israeli terrorists killed 18 Palestinians, one a mentally ill woman.
      Despite Israeli lies, we know that ALL Palestinians are not terrorists, that excuse is old now. How about young Palestinian boys being dragged away in the middle of the night, and kept in prison along with 700 other children? Does the IDF treat the settler boys, who are vicious, as videos have shown, the same way? Apologists have a convenient lapse of memory, and an inability to see that the true victims here, are the unarmed civilians, and that the occupier who wields the power, steals the lands, controls the water, and oppress the people, cannot pretend it is the victim anymore. Right now, the evil comes from Israel. So how about addressing the crimes and violations of international law by Israel, and tell us, what do YOU think of the land grabs and illegal settlements that get built despite world condemnation, including the US? What do you really think of that? Do share, and address all questions. Thank you.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 27, 2014, 11:05 am

        Kay24, since some Palestinians have been terrorists, your claim “ALL Palestinians are not terrorists” is not true. However, it is certainly true that not all Palestinians are terrorists.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      March 27, 2014, 4:47 am

      So the Palestinian leadership should acknowledge Jewish History and heritage? Don’t they do that by remembering where all their villages once stood, and the names of those villages? By remembering all the homes that they once lived in? By remembering every home demolished by an armored Caterpiller bulldozer paid for by American taxpayers? Isn’t all that Jewish History and heritage?

      • giladg
        giladg
        March 28, 2014, 11:59 am

        Cheap shot Citizen.

    • American
      American
      March 27, 2014, 9:38 am

      giladg says:

      March 26, 2014 at 4:18 pm

      Philip, remind us what the reason for Arab hatred towards Jews was in 1967, when there were no settlements and East Jerusalem was controlled by Jordan?
      As the Arabs have time and time again demonstrated their real long intentions regarding how they see an independent country for the Jewish people, the absolute minimum if they say they want peace is to openly support and understand the need for Israel to be the nation state of the Jewish people”>>>>>

      ‘Arab hatred towards Jews’…..? Easy to understand.
      You are fortunate the Zionist chose Palestine to steal.
      What do you think would have happened to the Jews if they had decided Virginia or some portion of Scotland, even some portion of Saudi, was their promised land and moved in and confiscated the natives property?
      They would all be dead.
      People have the same feelings about the land they live on every where in the world.

      • Walid
        Walid
        March 28, 2014, 5:38 pm

        “You are fortunate the Zionist chose Palestine to steal.”

        American, Palestinians were a naturally easy hit as they were practically orphans and leaderless in the eyes of everyone and this appears to have been the prime reason it was picked over other locations; there was nothing Biblical hocus-pocus about the location.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 28, 2014, 6:34 pm

        Walid- Usually you are at least semi sensible. This is pure nonsense. Palestine was picked because Jerusalem is in Palestine.

      • Walid
        Walid
        March 29, 2014, 9:14 am

        Jerusalem was picked because it had the least hostile environment in climate and demographics. Arabs at the time were going around in circles still learning the ropes and there was already a Jewish base there that had been around for hundreds of years. Why were Uganda or Argentina in the running for a future state?

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 30, 2014, 3:30 am

        Walid- I will read your future comments with a fine toothed comb. This line of argument of yours really casts doubt on your intelligence, honesty, knowledge of history, all or one of the above.

        Uganda and Argentina were in the running because Palestine looked like a hostile place that was not in control of the powers with whom Herzl was in “friendly” discussions. Yes, there was a need for a refuge and other places on the globe were considered. No, Jerusalem was not in the running because of the weakness of the Ottoman empire or the listlessness of the indigenous. It was in the running because it is in the daily prayers, the seder and the direction of the prayers.

        I would continue the conversation, but I’m gagging. You’re either dumb or lying. Maybe another topic another time.

  8. Clif Brown
    Clif Brown
    March 26, 2014, 4:53 pm

    Of possible interest: I went to a scheduled appearance of Ari Shavit, but he did not show up. I was disappointed, but they handed out free copies of his book to all who came. I read it and wrote a review of it at Goodreads. The review (a lonely 3 star review amid many 5 star reviews) brought more responses than any other book of the over 100 I have reviewed. All of the responses were defending Shavit.

  9. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    March 26, 2014, 4:56 pm

    Zionism consists largely of a special mental sickness, which commits crimes and demands respect without making apology. A Zionist who really believes that Israel was created (at the time, you know) as a necessary safe haven for Jews and recognizes the dreadful cost to Palestinians — whether or not he still believes that the need for a safe haven for Jews still exists — could apologize, and such an apology could lead to compromise and peace. But this mental sickness demands almost that the Palestinians apologize for their needing a safe haven in their own land. The Zionist says, we did not crimes, we had the right, all others are in the wrong, and if they will not meet our (escalating) demands, then too bad for them.

    And it looks to be too bad for everyone.

  10. Interested Bystander
    Interested Bystander
    March 26, 2014, 6:42 pm

    This strikes me all a bit vague. My take is that this site’s position is that Israel should become a secular democracy with separation of church/state like in the U.S. Based on that conception, Netanyahu’s demand is, of course, illegitimate.

    It also seems to me that the position of a majority of the Jewish community is that Israel should be a “Jewish” state as enshrined in the Law of Return. I believe that is Beinart’s conception and Shavit’s conception. It certainly is Netanyahu’s. I believe it is AIPAC’s position; I blieve it is J-Street’s positoin. [If this is wrong, I would be much obliged if you could point this out and steer me to sutiable references] Based on that conception of the state, what Netanyahu is demanding seems at the core of what the peace process must be about. The fundamental disagreement cannot be resolved until that question is resolved.

    When Amos Shocken criticises Shavit for advocating that the issue of the “Jewish State” should be key in the negotiation, is he doing this because, strategically, he thinks it is better to sweep the issue under the rug, or has he given up on the idea of a “Jewish” state. If it’s the former, I think Shavit and Netanyahu are appropriate and right to be forthright about this; if it’s the latter, I think that would be big news.

    • philweiss
      philweiss
      March 26, 2014, 8:46 pm

      Good point; though Schocken has a write-around to address that contradiction. Also, maybe some of these lib Zios actually want the state to evolve to be a state of its citizens; they understand that a Jewish democracy is a contradiction….
      Though my chief response is: as a journalist I’m interested in the center ring. You may say they’re all frauds, but that process interests me. And put to the test, of an actually viable Palestinian state on 22 percent of the land of mandate Palestine, I dont know that the site would have a line, but actually a range of opinion. Not that it will be tested…

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        March 27, 2014, 1:21 am

        Phil,

        Assuming the impossible, that Israel would grant the Palestinians a state of their own on 22 percent of Mandate Palestine along the lines of the Geneva plan or the Arab initiative, would it be permissible for Israel to maintain its status as a Jewish supremacist state in which Israeli non-Jews are not afforded the full gamut of rights possessed by Israeli Jews? As I said to Interested Bystander (below), the implications of such an outcome could include some dire possibilities such as the compulsory transfer of non-Jewish Israeli citizens out of Israel.

    • irishmoses
      irishmoses
      March 27, 2014, 1:10 am

      IB said:

      “It also seems to me that the position of a majority of the Jewish community is that Israel should be a “Jewish” state as enshrined in the Law of Return. ”

      Good honest analysis IB, you’ve really illuminated a critical issue that is not being properly addressed.

      You didn’t really define what you mean by “Jewish” state other than all Jews in the world have a right to return to this state. However, I think I can deduce your definition from your exclusion of it being a “secular democracy with separation of church/state like in the US.” In other words, a “Jewish” state must somehow favor Jews above non-Jews Judaism over all other religions, and be democratic only for Jews, or, as some have called it, a “Jewish Supremacist state”.

      I don’t see someone can morally justify such a state unless he or she believes Jews are somehow superior to non-Jews and entitled to a state of their own that deprives inferior non-Jews of rights equal to superior Jews. If that is the definition that flows from your analysis, I’m not sure the groups and individuals you listed would all buy into that definition, or maybe they just won’t admit it.

      In any case, the reason Netanyahu is demanding recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is to etch in stone the Jewish supremacist state that Israel is. It is a clever argument because he makes “Jewish state” seem almost benign and without any real consequence while in fact it will make legal and permanent Israel’s Jewish superiority or supremacy over all its other citizens or residents. Those that advocate for a Jewish state really don’t want that dirty little secret revealed.

      The legal analysis being discussed this week by Israeli leaders which would permit “legal” and compulsory transfer of non-Jewish Israeli citizens out of Israel provides a perfect example of the nefarious policies and outcomes that could flow from recognition of Israel as a Jewish supremacist state. Is that really what Peter Beinart and J Street are willing to accept? Or maybe, as you imply, they just haven’t come to terms with the full implications of what is possible in the Jewish supremacist state.

      I apologize for putting words in your mouth if you really were just trying to clarify this critical issue.

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      March 27, 2014, 6:21 am

      @IB —

      My take is that this site’s position is that Israel should become a secular democracy with separation of church/state like in the U.S. Based on that conception, Netanyahu’s demand is, of course, illegitimate.

      I don’t think you will find that to be the case. There are plenty of Israelis who support secular democracy as well. If secular democracy were the goal people like Lapid would be treated favorably. The moves towards drafting the Haredim would have been cheered. The conversation would focus on areas where Israeli law is highly non secular like in marriage. There would be focus on Israeli Arabs but little concern about the occupation or Israel’s foreign relations. As was noticed by Thucydides 2400 years ago, Democracies are if anything more likely to be tyrannies outside their borders than dictatorships. Those things didn’t happen. The behavior you see is completely inconsistent with MW being primarily focused on a desire to see a secular democracy in Israel.

      What you do see is a an obsessive focus on the legitimacy of pre-1948 Israel and the Nabka. That one group of residents are legitimate residents and the others are not. That’s not the makings of secular democracy. People who are trying to establish secular democracies avoid those sorts of claims because obviously if one group of people is illegitimate then there is no need for equality. The calls here are not for the reform of Israel or even regime change in Israel but for the destruction of Israel. The end of Zionism. I consider a secular democracy a perfectly acceptable solution. If secular democracy were the goal I’d be spending my time on MW talking about reforms regarding Israeli Arabs which I fully support.

      If the conversation were about how to make Israel a secular democracy it would look like Meretz USA: http://blog.partners4israel.org

      What I would suggest is to not assume. Ask BDSers what post BDS Israel will look like. Then ask for an imaginary timeline of how it got there. See if you can get any consistent answers.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        March 27, 2014, 9:38 am

        “The calls here are not for the reform of Israel or even regime change in Israel but for the destruction of Israel. The end of Zionism. I consider a secular democracy a perfectly acceptable solution.”

        Come on, JeffB, nobody here is calling for “the destruction of Israel”. Or, did you mean by that just “The end of Zionism”? I suspect most Zionists (even the liberal ones who haven’t quite figured out the implications of a fully legalized “Jewish” state) would consider secular democracy the death knell of Zionism and its Jewish supremacist state.

        I find it very encouraging that you “…consider secular democracy a perfectly acceptable solution”. But wouldn’t you agree that such a solution would also be the death knell of supremacist Zionism and Israel as it is currently constituted?

        As to asking BDSers what post BDS Israel would look like, I think most would respond like me: It would (should) look either like a single state of Greater Israel in which all citizens have equal rights and equal opportunities guaranteed by most secular democracies, or it would look like pre-1967 Israel but would also be a secular democracy. Moreover, most BDSers would expect the Palestinian state to also be a secular democracy.

        I don’t see how either of my secular democratic solutions, Greater Israel, or per-1967 Israel, are inconsistent with your view that “secular democracy” is “a perfectly acceptable solution”.

        Do you agree? If not, show us your idea of a secular-democratic Israel.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 27, 2014, 10:33 am

        @irishmoses

        Come on, JeffB, nobody here is calling for “the destruction of Israel”.

        Of course they are. Woody I think a few days ago called for the extermination & or expulsion of the entire Jewish population when talking about it with Hop. Amigo called for a Algeria type solution. Talknic I think tends to go in for massive reparations which essentially amount to reimposition of slavery of a population as a punishment for previous crimes, though he did back off and make the whole thing into meaningless lip service when I pushed. Most of the posters here want total regime change. What BDS wants to do Israel is more damage than what America did to Iraq and certainly way more than what America set out to do to Iraq. Yes people are calling for that.

        I suspect most Zionists (even the liberal ones who haven’t quite figured out the implications of a fully legalized “Jewish” state) would consider secular democracy the death knell of Zionism and its Jewish supremacist state.

        I don’t see why. A Palestinian population: loyal to the Israeli state going to schools in Hebrew, joining the IDF, dating and marrying Jews until they become one indistinguishable people is not the death knell of Zionism it is the triumph of Zionism. It is only because you create a negative stereotype of Zionism, that you can’t believe a positive outcome is fully consistent with it. You demand to look at Zionism in this funhouse mirror rather than how it really is. If you deal with Zionism as it is, rather than as the hateful propaganda pretends it is, then it is absolutely fully compatible with a secular democracy in which the Palestinians join, participate and then cease to be a distinguished people at all. The goal of Zionism is that Israel become a country like any other. For that to happen long term, the Palestinians either have to leave, die or join. Zionists are ethical people and thus of the threee would prefer join. That’s what was happening with the Israeli Arabs prior to the 1980s. Israel cannot have even 10% of the population much less 40% of the population hating the state they live in and be a long term success.

        Now in terms of religion specifically. Secular democracies have merged their religious functions into their secular structures. The social structures that are traditionally (in say the middle ages) played by the church are taken over by the state. There still exist “religions” but they are of little material consequence just an activity people do like joining a golf club.

        In a fully developed Israel Zionism would be de-judaized in a religious sense. The Judaism and the Islam that existed (assuming the Palestinians choose to remain muslim in some vague sense) would both be fully compatible with the secular democracy. To give an example American forms of Judaism are essentially Protestant in their structures so that Jews easily assimilate into American culture. American Islam and Hinduism have undergone similar shifts. American Catholics are the most interesting because of course their whole identify is premised on rejecting Protestant core claims like sola scriptura and sola fide yet even there if you look at the theology of on the ground American Catholics they frequently take the Protestant positions. Religiously a secular democracy would look like that. There would be no need to discriminate against the Islam of Israel because the Islam of Israel would be an asset not an adversary of the state. In a core way all the religions would be Zionist / Judaism though there would still be a religion called “Judaism” of no consequence living off to the side.

        The Jews would worry about telephone wires while carrying house keys and the Muslims would worry about prayer mats but there wouldn’t be any reason to fight about those distinctions same as there are not reasons to fight about those things in America.
        ___

        Implementing this vision does not require the death of Zionism it requires a change in the attitude of the Palestinians. It is they who reject it. There are actually 3 problems:

        1) The Palestinians reject it.
        2) The UN and Europe is making it harder to implement by focusing on agreements from the time of the League of Nations.
        3) The Israelis are starting to truly negative feelings about the Palestinians not counter balanced by positive ones.

        I’ll hit the 1st since if the 1st were overcome the Palestinians could easily overcome (3) and I think Israelis and Palestinians together could overcome (2)

        Before and after the civil war many Americans assumed that American blacks would want to return to Africa that there should be a reverse migration and Liberia was established as the first of potentially several places that would happen. But American blacks insisted they were Americans. Similarly in South Africa the South African blacks insisted there was one South African people and that Afrikaners were part of that one people. That was a key point of dispute.

        The Palestinians have never ever considered themselves Israeli. For a while the Israelis Jews were making progress with the Israeli Arabs in breaking down this barrier and unifying. They even were making some progress on the West Bank prior to the 1st intifada. But that’s started to falter. And they are now in a rejectionist cycle. That problem of the core rejection, that Palestinians hate the state they were born into to and want to replace with a different one is on their side.

        The primary reason I object to BDS is not because it has any chance of harming Israel much (though it certainly has proved adapt at hurting Jewish feelings) but because it is encouraging a fantasy of this replacement. The Israeli Jews cannot make the Palestinians choose merge over leave or die. The Palestinians have all the power to reject a secular democracy. And if they believe there is a high realistic change of them getting all of Palestine as a Muslim Arab state fully merged into the region they can (and they should) roll the dice. But I do believe that if Syria, Saudi Arabia …, and UN were not telling Palestinians that they were obligated to fight on until the last Palestinian that they would choose merge.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 27, 2014, 11:05 pm

        Irishmoses: Come on, JeffB, nobody here is calling for “the destruction of Israel”. JeffB: Of course they are. Most of the posters here want total regime change.

        The adoption of equal rights and the end of the apartheid and pro-slavery regimes didn’t result in “the destruction” of either South Africa or the United States. They were simply reconstituted on more ethical and legal bases. I’ve commented in the past that no one has any legal or moral obligation to maintain a Jewish state in Palestine, a white settler state in Southern Rhodesia, or Jim Crow here in the USA on the lame-assed bases of “self-determination” or the right of a state, no matter how illegal and immoral, to “exist”.

        Many of us here insist that Israel and the Zionist movement have to fulfill their legal obligations to secure any national home in accordance with public law, including the customary guarantees of non-discrimination and equal rights for minority, religious groups, and women that were included in resolution 181(II) and accepted by the government of Israel. Full stop.

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 27, 2014, 9:42 am

        >> The calls here are not for the reform of Israel or even regime change in Israel but for the destruction of Israel. The end of Zionism.

        1. Why do you conflate the end of Zionism with the destruction of Israel? The two are not the same.
        2. I don’t call for the destruction of Israel.

        >> I consider a secular democracy a perfectly acceptable solution.

        No you don’t. You’ve made it very clear that you support the existence of Israel as a “Jewish State”, not a secular and democratic Israeli state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, equally.

      • Donald
        Donald
        March 27, 2014, 9:49 am

        Experience suggests, JeffB, that you aren’t capable of understanding points of view if they don’t fit a particular line you’re trying to push. But with respect to this website, if you paid close attention you’d see fissures among the pro-Palestinian side in the comments section. The majority favor what irishmoses just outlined. A few sometimes sound like they want a military victory over Israel–in the real world any war on that scale would be a human rights catastrophe no matter who won.

        The front page posters seem to me to lean towards a 1SS with equal rights for all, but I think some might settle for a 2SS if the Palestinians got enough out of it. The “destruction of Israel”, meaning death and chaos and mass exodus of the Jewish population, isn’t on their agenda. But you’ll believe it is if that makes it easier to dismiss their criticisms.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 27, 2014, 12:39 pm

        @Donald

        But with respect to this website, if you paid close attention you’d see fissures among the pro-Palestinian side in the comments section. The majority favor what irishmoses just outlined.

        I explained quite clearly that you see common behavior inconsistent with that belief. You may favor secular democracy but no that is not the majority opinion on the website. That’s the majority opinion on say Meretz-USA’s website.

        A few sometimes sound like they want a military victory over Israel–in the real world any war on that scale would be a human rights catastrophe no matter who won.

        They don’t sound like they want military victory. The explicitly openly call for military victory. Some of them think that Israel went down hard to the might of Hezbollah and thus without USA aide would tip over easily. Others believe that Israel’s economy isn’t really on the order of almost $300b because of the heavy subsidies and thus economically they couldn’t make it. Delusional yes. Totally unrealistic about war, yes.

        I agree with you about what a war means. Israel is more powerful than North Korea. We’ve done pretty good assessments of what North Korea’s collapse would mean and it ain’t pretty even given that both China and the USA would be there to pick up the pieces. We’ve just seen a good example where the collapse of Libya is spreading horrors all over North Africa. Even if you assume the war involves 0 causalities, having armies fleeing Israel with nuclear and advanced biological weapons scattering in all directions would be a catastrophe for world peace.

        The last thing anyone interested in human rights who understood the implications would ever want would be the death of the “Zio supremacist state”. Rather what they would want is its slow careful cautious reform. But that doesn’t mean that the people here aren’t calling for it, it just means logically they shouldn’t be.

        The “destruction of Israel”, meaning death and chaos and mass exodus of the Jewish population, isn’t on their agenda.

        .

        I agree somewhat. Some of the time they believe the Jewish population will give up their country, their sovereignty huge chunks of their land… because the UN says so and they face some mild sanctions. The level of contempt this shows for Jews is probably more offensive than if they were calling for death and mass exodus.

        I think BDS is an irreconcilable mess of contradictions. The rhetoric however is inconsistent with your theory as to what the intent is. I don’t know you well enough to know if your theory is consistent even with itself.

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        March 27, 2014, 11:09 pm

        If your going to call me delusional you could have at least had the moral courage to name me. And it’s not unrealistic.

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 27, 2014, 10:43 am

        @ JeffB “The calls here are not for the reform of Israel or even regime change in Israel but for the destruction of Israel”

        Can you quote please…thx Otherwise stop blowing it out of your rrrrrs

        “Ask BDSers what post BDS Israel will look like.”

        Being an avid advocate of peaceful means by which to have rogue states change their illegal policies in other folks territory they occupy, I hope that Israel will look and behave like a law abiding, peace loving nation, living prosperously in its own territory, exploiting its own resources instead of needlessly occupying another people and illegally exploiting their resources.

        ” Then ask for an imaginary timeline of how it got there.”

        Well, Israel could immediately end the occupation, begin to withdraw its military and all of its citizens now illegally settled in non-Israeli territory and start adhering to the law and the UN Charter. Unfortunately there’d probably be a civil war between the State of Israel and a lot of ripped off, disillusioned Israeli Jews and; unfortunately it would be predominantly fought in non-Israeli territory, whereby the other Regional Powers would have the legal right to intervene as they did in May 1948.

        Alternatively, Israel could take the opportunity the US UNSC veto affords and plea bargain with the Palestinians for a negotiated solution, thereby circumventing the possible incredibly expensive and explosive consequences of trying to undo 65 years of illegal facts on the ground while duping its own citizens into believing they had a right to settle in territories “outside the state of Israel” ..”in Palestine” http://pages.citebite.com/x1r0b4d1y6mkv

        Although the Palestinians are under no obligation to forgo any of their legal rights even in negotiations, they have been incredibly generous in the concessions they have already offered Israel in return for peace. Willing to accept only 22% of their rightful territories http://pages.citebite.com/e9p5s8u2yhcd

        Israel has offered NO THING towards peace. It has only demanded more and more non-Israeli territory.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 27, 2014, 1:12 pm

        @talknic

        Well, Israel could immediately end the occupation, begin to withdraw its military and all of its citizens now illegally settled in non-Israeli territory and start adhering to the law and the UN Charter.

        OK lets stop there. So let’s assume that Israel did have this change of heart. Under international law they don’t have the right to carry out a massive ethnic cleansing operation on Palestinians land. They can withdraw their military and ask their citizens to withdraw but that’s it. They can’t force them to. Those that wish to remain in Palestine can.

        So let’s assume a realistic world. Israel immediately withdraws their military. Their citizens who have property in the West Bank stay to protect their property, mostly though some leave. Palestine becomes a state with 600k Jews in it many of whom have served in the IDF and have military training. Those Jews have no intention of living under Palestinian law. They have strong ties to Jews in Israel and the USA so they can get weapons easily. Now what? Keep playing it out.

        You tell me how this turns out good for the Palestinians.

        Unfortunately there’d probably be a civil war between the State of Israel and a lot of ripped off, disillusioned Israeli Jews and; unfortunately it would be predominantly fought in non-Israeli territory, whereby the other Regional Powers would have the legal right to intervene as they did in May 1948.

        You sure you want to give other regional powers the right to intervene in the West Bank civil war? Are you really sure? Because the most obvious regional power to intervene there is going to make things really bad the Palestinian government.

        Although the Palestinians are under no obligation to forgo any of their legal rights even in negotiations, they have been incredibly generous in the concessions they have already offered Israel in return for peace. Willing to accept only 22% of their rightful territories

        You can’t have it both ways. If we are going by the law then mandate Palestine is not all their rightful territory. The UN ruled it was joint territory to be partitioned a variety of ways and mostly has supported the ’67 lines. You can support the law or not. You can’t support it one sided.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 27, 2014, 11:15 pm

        OK lets stop there. So let’s assume that Israel did have this change of heart. Under international law they don’t have the right to carry out a massive ethnic cleansing operation on Palestinians land. They can withdraw their military and ask their citizens to withdraw but that’s it. They can’t force them to. Those that wish to remain in Palestine can.

        That’s incorrect. The state of Israel agreed to retain personam jurisdiction over all of its citizens in the occupied territories under the terms of the Oslo Accords and insisted that its military commander would exercise that jurisdiction “in accordance with international law”. In the Gaza Coast Council v Knesset case, a ten judge panel of the Supreme Court noted that Israeli civilian settlers were not entitled to remain in the occupied territory, and that the government had a legal obligation to remove them.

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 28, 2014, 12:19 am

        @ JeffB “Under international law they don’t have the right to carry out a massive ethnic cleansing operation on Palestinians land”

        What ethnic cleansing are you babbling about? Israeli citizens BELONG in Israel. It’s the Jewish state. There for the protection of all the world’s Jews. You’re saying Sharon ethnically cleansed Israeli Jews from Gaza? AMAZING!!!!

        “Those that wish to remain in Palestine can”

        If they apply through the proper channels to immigrate and become Palestinian citizens, if the Palestinians allow or want them. Otherwise Palestine would have the right to freeze their assets and boot them out as illegal aliens.

        ” Palestine becomes a state with 600k Jews in it many of whom have served in the IDF and have military training. Those Jews have no intention of living under Palestinian law”

        A) Palestine is already a state with Israeli Jews illegally living in it

        B) All countries have the right to expel illegal aliens and Israel has a duty to all Israeli citizens to make sure they leave non-Israeli territory if they’re not welcome.

        “They have strong ties to Jews in Israel and the USA so they can get weapons easily.”

        They’re likely to get legally shot as illegally armed illegal aliens

        “You tell me how this turns out good for the Palestinians”

        Tell me how it turns out for illegally armed illegal aliens in any country pal

        “You sure you want to give other regional powers the right to intervene in the West Bank civil war?”

        An Israeli civil war between Israeli citizens and the State of Israel belongs in Israel. The West Bank isn’t in Israel http://wp.me/pDB7k-W8

        “Because the most obvious regional power to intervene there is going to make things really bad the Palestinian government”

        Read what was written pal. The Israeli Government would already be involved in its own civil war in non-Israeli territory fighting its own citizens as it tried to get them to leave.

        “You can’t have it both ways. If we are going by the law then mandate Palestine is not all their rightful territory.”

        Wake up pal. Mandate Palestine terminated Midnight May 15th 1948 according to the Israeli Government http://pages.citebite.com/d2w2m2n6a3mad Abbas is talking about Palestine post May 15th 1948

        As of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time), what lay outside of Israel’s self proclaimed frontiers http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk was not Israeli territory and any territory Israel has acquired by war since and never legally annexed, is not Israeli territory

        “The UN ruled it was joint territory to be partitioned a variety of ways… “

        Your cup of bullsh*t runneth over. The UN ruled that Palestine, one territory, was to be partitioned one way and one way only. Into an Arab state and a Jewish state http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7F0AF2BD897689B785256C330061D253 . The Jewish Agency officially accepted that decision “as binding “ http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5072DB486ADF13D0802564AD00394160 and after declaring itself independent “on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly” http://pages.citebite.com/w1r5t6q2q5qhs the Provisional Israel Government informed the international comity of nations the State of Israel had ” been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf and that’s how Israel was recognized and is still recognized, as it ASKED to be recognized

        “… and mostly has supported the ’67 lines”

        Sure pal, sure. Get your shrink to read you UNSC Resolution 476. One of at least EIGHT reminders of UNSC Res 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968
        267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 June 30 1980 and 478 August 20 1980, they all say you are full of ziopoop

      • ziusudra
        ziusudra
        March 28, 2014, 7:31 am

        Greetings JeffB,
        …a jewish state…..
        I wouldn’t mind a jewish state somehow meaning that they also have a state religion. Like Iran & Turkey, they have a majority.
        Iran has done well with religion since 79.
        The Euro/Khazarians are the majority of Israel. Let them have their state religion, Judaism.
        We, in the US, excluded religion from government, but look what happened to us.
        We’ve been hijacked not by a Religion but by bribery & corruption of
        our very own politicians.
        If Israel is able to go the Iranain or Turkish way, why not.
        If Israel goes the way of Saudi Arabia then look out even for the secular
        Israelis to say nothing of the Arab Israelis!
        ziusudra
        PS Goebbels threw christians, catholics & politicians in the slammers.

      • American
        American
        March 29, 2014, 1:24 pm

        ”The calls here are not for the reform of Israel or even regime change in Israel but for the destruction of Israel. The end of Zionism. ”….jeffb

        People and governments have been calling for Israel to reform itself for 40 years.
        It hasn’t reformed, its gotten worse.
        The world’s patience is not going to last forever.
        You’ve had long enough.

  11. irishmoses
    irishmoses
    March 26, 2014, 7:31 pm

    Shavit’s New Yorker article, Lydda 1948 followed by his very successful book and tour, should be praised as well as condemned. Praised for his very honest rendering of the horrors of the Nakba caused by the actions of the Israeli Army, specifically his vivid description of the massacres, ethnic cleansing, and sacking of the Palestinian city of Lydda in June 1948. He pulls no punches which is a positive step as he refuses to buy into the old hasbara narrative of voluntary departure, and thereby undermines one of the pillars of the Zionist narrative about the Nakba.

    On the other hand, he refuses to condemn the atrocities, and says these were critical to and necessary for the creation of the Jewish State. He offers no evidence in support of this conclusion and for that he is justifiably criticized. He also is a major player in offering justifications for present day Israel and its actions.

    I am no apologist for Shavit. I’ve read his book and seen his talk. I’ve also analyzed and condemned his book on my own blog:

    https://savingisrael.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/banality-in-the-promised-land-admitting-and-rationalizing-zionisms-evil-deeds/.

    Nonetheless, Shavit should be given credit for his honesty in describing the horrors of the Nakba and the role of the Israeli Army and Israeli government in perpetrating those horrors. A major player in Hasbara-Central’s attempt to whitewash modern Israel has also undermined one of its most critical pillars. That’s important.

    • a blah chick
      a blah chick
      March 26, 2014, 9:18 pm

      I don’t blame Shavit either. He realizes that if not for the Nakba he would not be able to enjoy his cushy life as a member of the Ashkenazi elite.

  12. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    March 27, 2014, 3:47 am

    It seems to me that the logic of “Jewish state” is solely relevant in terms of immigration policy. That is the assertion that Israel is a Jewish state is a recognition that Israel’s immigration policy will continue to be guided by “the Jewish state”, which means that immigration of Jews will be a priority and a raison d’etre. If a formula for how many Palestinian refugees will be allowed to return to Israel were calculated and agreed upon by the Palestinians and the Israelis then the assertion of Israel’s Jewish state-ness would be extraneous. But given that this is a framework rather than a negotiated agreement and a formula for the resolution of the refugee situation has not been negotiated nor agreed upon, therefore there is the desire to assert the policy of Jewish state-ness, so that even though the specifics of the resolution to the refugee issue is not agreed upon, the framework- that the resolution of the refugees will recognize that Israel’s priority is set against a wide return of refugees, because it will upset the Jewish state-ness, therefore this Jewish state-ness needs to be stated.

    Those who favor the widespread return of the refugees are obviously and understandably opposed to this.

    The formulation also opens the door to the Lieberman transfer plan- exchange of territories will be devised in such a way as to “improve” the demographic balance and it also opens the door to maintaining laws that favor Jewish purchases of land (JNF) and other such laws. Thus even if one is willing to concede that there will not be a widespread return of refugees (something that most people here are not willing to concede), there are still reasons to oppose the formulation for its interpretations can be antithetical to the interests of nonJewish citizens of Israel.

    It seems to me that the two sides are not near each other in their conception of the resolution of the refugee issue and thus it is natural that a formulation that would infer that the refugee issue would not be solved in a wide open fashion that would be favored by Palestinians is something that the Palestinians would oppose. Just as the negotiations have not reached sufficient proximity to an agreement on the specifics of the resolution of the refugee issue, so the formulation of Jewish state-ness with its inference of attitude towards the refugee issue, is also something that cannot be stated at this point of what seems to be an issue that should be left for the final push rather than the framework.

    • talknic
      talknic
      March 27, 2014, 6:00 am

      @ yonah fredman

      A state’s sovereign right to determine its own immigration policy is irrelevant to recognition by other states, it’s none of their business.

      A) Recognition of a state is not mandatory. Nor is it relevant to gaining independence. Israel didn’t recognize any state until after it gained independence and;
      There are numerous UN Member states who do not recognize each other, they are never the less independent sovereign states.

      States are only required to have “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State … and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;” http://wp.me/PDB7k-6r#unscresolution242 Something Israel has failed to do time and time again!

      B) Recognition of Israel is not a legal requirement nor is it necessary to end the Israeli occupation of non-Israeli territories, however;

      C) Ending occupation is absolutely required for the independence of any occupied territory. Why do you think the LoN Mandate for Palestine terminated at midnight 14th May 1948 and Israel’s independence was proclaimed effective as of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)?

      D) Why should the Arab states and Palestine be required to recognize Israel as the Jewish state when no other state has ever recognized it as such?

      IOW it’s a bullsh*t demand. It’s stupid zionist colonizer’s thick as another brick in the wall nonsense.

      ” If a formula for how many Palestinian refugees will be allowed to return to Israel …. “

      A) Refugees with right of return to Israel are not Palestinian refugees, they’re Israeli refugees

      B) Refugees who have right of return to Palestinian territories including those illegally acquired by war by Israel since 00:01 May 1948 (ME time) http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk#googlemap , are Palestinian refugees

      C) RoR has nothing what so ever to do with immigration, it’s a legal right governed by International Law, over and above state laws. If they fled from Israeli territory, they had a right to Israeli citizenship. That was the deal the Jewish Agency accepted as binding http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yx

      “even though the specifics of the resolution to the refugee issue is not agreed upon”

      Correction: even though the specifics of the agreed resolution to the refugee issue were broken by Israel …

      ” the framework- that the resolution of the refugees will recognize that Israel’s priority is set against a wide return of refugees, because it will upset the Jewish state-ness, therefore this Jewish state-ness needs to be stated.”

      Absolute nonsense. Only the refugees who fled the territory internationally recognized as Israel have a right of return to Israel. Their life expectancy was about 47 yrs. The vast majority are dead.

      The only demographic threat is to the territories Israel has illegally acquired by war and has never legally annexed, ( IOW it isn’t Israeli territory )

      “The formulation also opens the door to the Lieberman transfer plan- exchange of territories will be devised in such a way as to “improve” the demographic balance “

      A) He’s talking about an exchange of territories, NONE of which is actually Israeli

      B) @ 20% the Jewish demographic balance is in need of ‘improvement’ ? How absolutely Naziesque

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        March 27, 2014, 9:01 am

        “Only the refugees who fled the territory internationally recognized as Israel have a right of return to Israel. Their life expectancy was about 47 yrs. The vast majority are dead.”

        While the number of surviving refugees from the Nakba is quite low (30,000 or so, and steadily diminishing), what happens to or what is the legal status of the millions who are offspring of the refugees, who continue to live in refugee camps, some in countries where they have no legal status? Are their claims against Israel to be ignored? Aren’t they entitled to relocation and compensation?

        Once the ink has dried on a permanent agreement that carves in stone Israel’s legal status as a supremicist Jewish state and ends forever any prior legal claims against Israel, are two million or so refugees from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Gaza expected to cram into whatever remains of the West Bank, or do they just continue to rot in refugee camps as stateless people?

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 27, 2014, 3:25 pm

        irishmoses “While the number of surviving refugees from the Nakba is quite low (30,000 or so, and steadily diminishing), what happens to or what is the legal status of the millions who are offspring of the refugees”

        A) 30,000 is rather high, given that some 65 years has passed and the life expectancy in 1950 was only 47 yrs. Never the less;

        B) Of course, all refugees have legal rights, so;

        C) Let’s take these numbers from the Jewish virtual library for example: There were roughly 600,000 Jews and 350,000 Arabs residing in the Jewish state created by partition http://pages.citebite.com/c3m0v3f8j5wef

        Roughly 156,000 remained http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel#1948_Arab-Israeli_War

        From those figures 350,000 – 156,000 = 194,000 fled territory actually sovereign to Israel

        However, there were approximately 711,000 refugees created by the war http://pages.citebite.com/q1d2i2f0f4upy
        711,000 – 194,000 = 517,000 or so, by far the majority, who have RoR to territory illegally acquired by war by Israel by 1949/50. None of which has ever been legally annexed to or recognized as Israeli. http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk#googlemap

        Had the 194,000 who had RoR to Israel been allowed to return, their original 350,000 number would have been far outweighed by the immediate influx of Arab Jews from the Arab states 500,000, (600,000 + 500,000 = 1,100,000) plus Holocaust survivors 140,000 (1,100,000 + 140,000 = 1,240,000)

        Not counting the other numerous Jewish immigrants who flooded into Israel during and immediately following the war, there is already a ratio of 1,240,000 : 350,000 I.e., a non Jewish population of 28%. With the other Jewish immigrants that percentage is even lower. How was that a demographic threat to Israel? Fact is it wasn’t.

        Nor is it today. The Jewish population of Israel since 1948 through procreation, Holocaust survivors, refugees from Arab States and new Jewish immigrants, has increased far beyond what the 194,000 and the 156,000 who remained have been able to procreate. They have no new immigrants to add to their numbers and;

        Of the 194,000 original refugees, let’s say only your 30,000 remain, so we can knock some 164,000 off the top of the potential Arab figure were they and all lineal descendants allowed to return to territory actually sovereign to the State of Israel.

        The real threat is to Israeli demographics is only in the territories it has illegally acquired by war and is determined to keep, where the 517,000 non-Jews and their lineal descendants have a legal RoR.

        “Once the ink has dried on a permanent agreement that carves in stone Israel’s legal status as a supremicist Jewish state and ends forever any prior legal claims against Israel etc etc”

        That is obviously what Israel strives for.

        BTW when folk talk of there being only a 20% Arab population in Israel, they’re spouting nonsense http://wp.me/pDB7k-19Y

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 27, 2014, 3:31 pm

        @talknic – slight fundamental problem: the partition proposal was rejected by the Palestinians; its implementation is considered illegal. As a result, the right of return belongs to the persons, heirs and assigns of all Palestinian subjects as of 11/1947, not just to those who were on land under Zionist entity control.

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 28, 2014, 12:44 am

        @ puppies ” slight fundamental problem: the partition proposal was rejected by the Palestinians; its implementation is considered illegal. As a result, the right of return belongs to the persons, heirs and assigns of all Palestinian subjects as of 11/1947, not just to those who were on land under Zionist entity control”

        In your opinion. However, the official Palestinian claim for RoR is under UNGA res 194.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        March 28, 2014, 9:27 am

        Thanks Hostage.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        March 28, 2014, 9:29 am

        Nice analysis. Thanks.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 27, 2014, 8:35 pm

        While the number of surviving refugees from the Nakba is quite low (30,000 or so, and steadily diminishing), what happens to or what is the legal status of the millions who are offspring of the refugees, who continue to live in refugee camps, some in countries where they have no legal status?

        To answer your question, yes they do have a definite legal status. The ICJ has the necessary general jurisdiction to resolve any dispute regarding a material fact under the applicable international laws. The laws of war have required belligerents to respect the people and their family honor, rights and customs ever since the 19th century. An occupying power is prohibited from changing any laws in effect regarding the application of the principles of jus soli and/or jus sanguinis as the relate to family rights. Many countries, including the United States and Mandate Palestine, had laws that were based upon both principles. For example, persons born in Palestine and those born to a Palestinian father traveling or living abroad were automatically considered citizens of Palestine by operation of law. The laws that were in effect during the Mandate were specifically retained by both the governments of Israel and Jordan. That means the Palestinian citizenship of Jewish or Arab refugees was only revoked “retroactively”. Neither of the new states occupied all of the territory of the former mandated state of Palestine, so in theory, neither could make a determination that rendered a person “stateless”, pending a final territorial settlement.

        In 1832, the US Supreme Court cited the law of nations and addressed the question of whether or not a change in sovereignty alters 1) the legal relationships between the people (e.g. a guardian, an heir, or an assignee; or 2) the ownership of their private property:

        The modern usage of nations, which has become law, would be violated; that sense of justice and of right which is acknowledged and felt by the whole civilized world would be outraged if private property should be generally confiscated and private rights annulled on a change in the sovereignty of the country. The people change their allegiance, their relation to their ancient sovereign is dissolved, but their relations to each other and their rights of property remain undisturbed.

        – United States v. Percheman – 32 U.S. 51 (1832) link to supreme.justia.com

        The 1914 US Army commentary on the Rules of Land Warfare cited Article 46 of the Hague Convention and a British legal expert who had hailed it as the Magna Carta of international law when it was first adopted (para 314 on pdf page 111). http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/rules_warfare-1914.pdf

        That expert said it would eventually put an end to ethnic cleansing, while maintaining the personal property and residency rights of individuals and the legal relationship of their family members to one another and to their property in the event of a change of sovereignty or belligerent occupation:

        The Article XLVI secures for the citizen of an occupied territory immunity from material or moral damage at the hands of the
        enemy. It is the bond which war law gives him for the security of his person, property, and religious belief. Perhaps some day in the dim future it will be quoted by those who uninterested in the constitutional law of nations as lovingly and proudly as we quote Magna Charta, with its ringing promise “We will not go against any man, we will not send against any man, save by legal judgment of his peers and the law of the land.” To-day, indeed, the Article is “dead from the waist down.” So was Magna Charta at first; it was many a weary year before princes and their councillors could be forced to perform what they had promised therein. So, to-day, the provisions of Article XLVI are rather an ideal, a theoretical standard of conduct, than an actual living rule to which the practice of war conforms. Reading the Article, and remembering what does actually happen in war, one is inclined to doubt the utility of a provision which seems to have such little practical effect. Yet, most assuredly, it is a valuable provision. It is valuable to-day and it will be more valuable still in the hands of those who “have got to keep the ferment of the future astir,” to use Ibsen’s striking phrase. There is yeast in it, as there was in Magna Charta. One is disheartened when one thinks of requisitions, of contributions, of fines, of reprisals, of houses levelled as a measure of tactics, of a whole town emptied as a military precaution (as Sherman emptied Atlanta and Burrows’ brigade emptied Kandahar in 1880), of wide provinces cleared of their habitations and crops, of a thousand instances in which the provisions of Article XLVI have conspicuously not been adhered to, in later-day wars.

        — See J.M. Spaight, “War Rights on Land”, MacMillan, 1911, page 374
        https://archive.org/details/warrightsonland00spaiuoft

        Of course, the Nuremberg tribunal held that the Hague rules were a deliberate codification of customary laws that were binding on non-signatories – and that all civilized nations had accepted them as such by no later than 1939.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 27, 2014, 11:26 pm

        @talknic – slight fundamental problem: the partition proposal was rejected by the Palestinians; its implementation is considered illegal.

        I’ve noted on several occasions that the legal experts at the UN hold that Israel has a continuing legal obligation to repatriate all of the refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars that flows from its unconditional acceptance of the minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II). The representatives of the PLO, and the duly elected Palestinian Authority, accepted the validity of resolution 181(II) on several occasions during the period from 1988 to 2004. For example, after the Presidential and Legislative elections in 1996, the representative of Palestine to the United Nations notified both the Security Council (S/1999/334) and General Assembly (A/53/879) that:

        since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine.

        link to un.org

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 27, 2014, 11:37 pm

        @Hostage – You certainly have noted this very clearly. One little quibble before we continue: “continuing legal obligation to repatriate all of the refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars that flows from unconditional acceptance of the minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II). ” would have sounded much better as “the unextinguishable obligation to repatriate all refugees of wars of aggression flows from basic principles of human law” or some such.
        As for the representativity of the PLO and the “duly elected” Palestinian Authority of Vichy, not buying. Different frame of reference.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        March 28, 2014, 9:22 am

        Thanks Hostage.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 29, 2014, 4:36 pm

        “continuing legal obligation to repatriate all of the refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars that flows from unconditional acceptance of the minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II). ” would have sounded much better as “the unextinguishable obligation to repatriate all refugees of wars of aggression flows from basic principles of human law” or some such.

        I’m quoting the subsidiary organ the UN established to monitor and facilitate the exercise of “the inalienable rights” of the Palestinian people and they didn’t choose to phrase it that way:

        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 un.org

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 28, 2014, 1:20 am

        @Talknic – “Official Palestinian claim”? When was there an independent representation of their own? Who “officialized” what? Under what conditions?

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      March 27, 2014, 6:42 am

      “It seems to me that the logic of “Jewish state” is solely relevant in terms of immigration policy.”

      I don’t see how you can say that, given that in it’s history, Israel has used “Jewishness” to determine who would not be subject to martial law, what resources schools and communities received, what housing and land was available for residence, whether historical sectors of Jerusalem was preserved or destroyed, what right and benefits one gets from the state, whether one is likely to have his political party and political representatives banned, all the way down to the present day where it is proposed to be used to determine whether the government will strip someone’s citizenship to give the part of the country away, so as to promote said Jewishness.

      So, no, this thing means a lot more and is a harbinger of more violations of the rights of Palestinians, which all people of good faith see and which is why it is being opposed.

    • eljay
      eljay
      March 27, 2014, 7:36 am

      >> It seems to me that the logic of “Jewish state” is solely relevant in terms of immigration policy.

      That’s great! I urge all Palestinians to immediately recognize Israel as a “Jewish State” for the sole purpose of immigration policy. This will transform Israel into:
      – a secular and democratic state of and for all of its citizens, equally, in every respect other than immigration;
      – a state that recognizes, embraces and promotes its Jewish and non-Jewish cultures and histories, equally;
      – a state that places no limit on the size of its non-Jewish demographic;
      – a state – once the non-Jewish demographic has surpassed 50% of the voting population – that can democratically choose to replace the “Jewish State” immigration clause with a new clause that reflects the secular and democratic nature of the secular and democratic state of Israel.

      I can’t imagine Zio-supremacists objecting to any of this, seeing as how the logic of “Jewish State” is solely relevant in terms of immigration policy.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      March 27, 2014, 1:24 pm

      It seems to me that the logic of “Jewish state” is solely relevant in terms of immigration policy.

      Have you been living in a cave? There are dozens of laws dealing with everything from separate and unequal funding for education and housing to national planning for separate villages for Jewish and minority communities. There is even a proposed basic law that denies non-Jews the right of self-determination and equality under the law. Your comment about maintaining laws that favor Jewish purchases of land has nothing at all to do with immigration policy.
      * Adalah list of discriminatory laws http://adalah.org/eng/Articles/1771/Discriminatory-Laws
      * Basic Law: The National Home
      http://index.justice.gov.il/StateIdentity/InformationInEnglish/Documents/Basic%20Law%20110911%20%281%29.pdf

      Those who favor the widespread return of the refugees are obviously and understandably opposed to this.

      Because the refugees have a legal right to be repatriated and are NOT immigrants.

    • puppies
      puppies
      March 27, 2014, 3:35 pm

      @Friedman – All that nonsense talk. The partition was rejected by the Palestinians and all immigration since then is totally illegal. The Zionist entity does not have a right to determine immigration policy before all the persons and heirs of the local population are given full citizenship rights and have their say.

  13. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    March 27, 2014, 2:02 pm

    Well, I’ll go along with Yonah to a certain extent. What degree of secondary status for non-Xs is necessary if ‘this is a democratic state for Xs’? At a minimum, secondariness resulting from the fact that non-X votes in elections cannot be too many, therefore discriminatory immigration laws at very least must always exist or be ready to be invoked.
    We might have the impression that it is not necessary, at least in strict logic, to impose any further discrimination on a permanent basis: not that immigration rights are trivial. But this is a misleading impression. It will be necessary to impose further discrimination at least some of the time and at least informally. Non-Xs cannot be allowed to become so influential that they can undermine the desired permanent X majority, so there must be a few glass ceilings; Xs themselves must be reminded by whatever means are to hand, such as zoning laws, that they are the special group and their majority status must always be defended.
    There must always be something painful and humiliating in many of the lives of non-Xs in an X state.

  14. MRW
    MRW
    March 28, 2014, 3:12 am

    To all: this is an excellent post and discussion to forward to MSNBC/NBC as ample reason why David Gregory is the wrong host for Meet The Press. He’s a sycophant and gutless.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      March 29, 2014, 4:56 pm

      You are sorta conflating two things for the USA the end of slavery in the 1850s and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s.

      No I’m not. The coalition of organizations that founded the civil rights movement acknowledge the fact that the Supreme Court applied the original 1870 Civil Rights Act in all of the landmark Supreme Court decisions on the enforcement of racial covenants, and segregation in housing, education, and public employment that belatedly implemented the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. It continued to do so even after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was adopted, e.g. 1870 Civil Rights Statute Applies To Arabs And Jews http://www.civilrights.org/monitor/junejuly1987/art5p1.html

      So the legal watershed was the reconstituted polity under the 13th and 14th Amendments.

  15. JeffB
    JeffB
    March 28, 2014, 9:54 am

    @Hostage

    The adoption of equal rights and the end of the apartheid and pro-slavery regimes didn’t result in “the destruction” of either South Africa or the United States. They were simply reconstituted on more ethical and legal bases. I’ve commented in the past that no one has any legal or moral obligation to maintain a Jewish state in Palestine, a white settler state in Southern Rhodesia, or Jim Crow here in the USA on the lame-assed bases of “self-determination” or the right of a state, no matter how illegal and immoral, to “exist”.

    You are sorta conflating two things for the USA the end of slavery in the 1850s and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. The end of slavery was unquestionably devastating to the southern whites (which would be the analogy here). Between the soldiers who died and the civilian deaths the south lost 450-700k people out of a population of 5.5m. Those are proportionately similar to the USSR’s losses in WW2 (10m military, 2om total out of a population of 168m). The south lost huge chunks of its infrastructure. Then it ended up occupied and exploited. It had to fight a terrorist war to get its freedom back but the after effects are still being felt. To this day, 150 years later: the health, income, education, environmental conditions are far worse in the South than in any other region of the United States.

    And all that was under far more generous terms of surrender than the Israelis are likely to ever have. That was under a society that was desperate not to despoil and ruin the south. That wanted and still wants to rehabilitate the region economically. The North wanted to maintain the southerns, they wanted the same government the same culture the same society just with slavery removed. In the case of Israel the call is for far more deep change. And a community likely to be far more ferocious than the north was to the south.
    ____

    Now the 1950s-1960s civil rights movement was a net benefit to the South. But that was a reform movement not a colonial movement. That movement worked with the Southerns to change opinion. Southerners today really do believe poll taxes are bad policy they aren’t being violent forced not to have poll taxes. That’s a reform movement which is nothing like BDS.

    I think the contrast you choose is a good one, but it points to the opposite of what you wanted to prove.

Leave a Reply