Trending Topics:

Israel’s political left also condemns the UN’s anti-settlement resolution

on 40 Comments
“This is a difficult night for Israel,” said opposition leader Isaac Herzog (Zionist Union) in wake of the recent UN Security Council resolution condemning all Israeli settlements, which he opined the United States should have vetoed. Herzog said the resolution “seriously harms our capital Jerusalem, the settlement blocs and Israel’s status and diplomatic achievements accumulated over the years.”
To be sure, the more vociferous cries of ‘shameful’ and ‘crazy’ by Netanyahu and the government caught more attention. But I believe Herzog’s words deserve extra attention precisely because of their more down-toned nature, yet outrageous hypocrisy.
As Gideon Levy notes, “opposition leader Isaac Herzog can babble that ‘we need to fight the decision with all means,’” but what is this babble really about, what does it mean about the mainstream Zionist ‘left’, and why is Herzog defending the settlements?
Since Israel has had right governments for close to two decades (and the most rightist government ever now), it may be easy to forget that Israel’s occupation and settlement policy is not a brainchild of the right, but rather of both left and right in concert. As I had pointed out before, it was the leftist Abba Eban who in 1969 invoked the term “Auschwitz” in regards to the 1949 ceasefire lines (often regarded erroneously as 1967 borders). Eban was speaking to the UN in his capacity as Foreign Minister, and his words from then deserve special attention:
“We have openly said that the map will never again be the same as on June 4, 1967. For us, this is a matter of security and of principles. The June map is for us equivalent to insecurity and danger. I do not exaggerate when I say that it has for us something of a memory of Auschwitz.”
This statement became the basis for the colloquial Israeli reference “Auschwitz borders”, and devout Zionist pundits use it as reference in our times to advocate against territorial retreat, as here, where it is also noted that “just one month before his assassination, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, a Labour leader, said, “The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six-Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
These settlements are part of this strategy. The retaining of the ‘settlement blocs’ plus the ‘temporary (yet indefinite) control’ of the Jordan valley were at the heart of Ehud Barak’s deceit when he made his supposedly ‘generous offer’ to Yasser Arafat in 2000.
Israel has always tried to claim facts on the ground, and it has always claimed ‘security’. First it was just the ‘Auschwitz borders’, that is, ‘we’re feeling too persecuted and about to be annihilated’, as it were – and ‘now that we’ve captured larger territory we’re not going back to Auschwitz’. Then came the settlements, and they’re a fact on the ground – so they need to be defended, walled etc. Then you have the Jordan Valley, the security claim for which even former Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami regards as being ‘mythical’. And before you know it – you have a set of Bantustans surrounded and controlled from all directions.
This is the Israeli concept of ‘peace’, as it applies to Palestine – from right to left. No wonder Rabin could assure the Knesset in 1995 that Oslo was about “less than a [Palestinian] state” and that “we will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines”.
But the recent UNSC resolution regards ALL settlements, including East Jerusalem, as a ‘flagrant violation’ of international law (this pertains to Fourth Geneva convention article 49), and the settlements are a means of Israel’s enforcement of ‘facts on the ground’, to assert its claim to territories acquired by war – which is directly opposed by the seminal UNSC 242 “emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.”
But why ‘settlement blocs’? Why doesn’t Herzog just say ‘settlements’? Because Israel plays a double game. The ‘pioneers’ who run up on hilltops to create an outpost, may be doing so in ‘violation’ of Israeli law, in the sense that they are not part of an official plan, or that they occupy private Palestinian land. Thus, they may be evacuated, maybe even a few times, and it may even be after a Supreme Court case. But in the bigger picture, they will often eventually be retroactively ‘recognised’, they will expand, and eventually you have a ‘bloc’ of these settlements. But, as Amira Hass notes, “unlike the Israeli High Court of Justice, international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute make no distinction between building settlements on private land and building them on public land: The first considers them a violation, the latter – a war crime.”
So Israel is playing a dual game, which for the left can be called ‘occupation lite’, ‘settlement lite’, ‘colonisation lite’, ‘Apartheid lite’ and so on. The dual game has intellectual players even claiming that ‘there is no occupation’, yet on the other hand being unwilling to realise the claim in civil terms, that is to offer full civil rights to all under this supposedly ‘non-existent occupation’. Israel relies upon the actual belligerent occupation status in order to enforce military rule upon Palestinians, denying them common civil rights, but it obscures the status of the occupied territories by regarding them as ‘disputed’. Occasionally Israel seeks to annex occupied territories, especially when it has already managed to ethnically cleanse them to a considerable degree. Thus, public security minister, Gilad Erdan, said on Saturday night that Israel should “announce a full annexation of settlement blocs” in response to the resolution.
This is the hypocrisy that Herzog presents to us, in toned-down language. When compared to the loud barks from further right, his words seem moderate. But whilst the right wingers are angry, he is sorry. He is sorry that Israel has enraged the world that is now against us, that Netanyahu made too much noise rather than worked more “discretely and circumspectly” as Herzl would have had it.
Jonathan Ofir

Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

40 Responses

  1. wondering jew on December 26, 2016, 1:01 pm

    The Abba eban history is relevant but there are other factors. The center left is convinced that a peace treaty between palestine and israel is impossible or at least far away and thus they too are committed to the status quo. If one terms this as: un declares jewish presence at wailing wall is war crime, then the center left sees this as a danger and an assault. The glee antizionists take in this defeat of bibi/israel is also cause for alarm among those who cherish israel, or shall we say, the Western wall.

    • John O on December 26, 2016, 1:16 pm

      “If one terms this as: un declares jewish presence at wailing wall is war crime …”

      That’s one UN resolution I haven’t heard of. Can you supply the resolution number?

      • echinococcus on December 26, 2016, 2:00 pm

        Not a UN resolution but better: the Geneva Conventions (here No. IV) prohibiting occcupiers the presence of their own civilians in occupied territories. Look it up.

        Even if said civilian is the rare bird who’s really and genuinely civilian, it still is a war crime. That wall is not within any definition of the Zionist entity, period.

    • Maghlawatan on December 26, 2016, 1:33 pm

      The wall is in occupied territory. I am sure it could be swapped for Haifa

    • Mooser on December 26, 2016, 1:50 pm

      “or shall we say, the Western wall.”

      “Yonah” the “Western wall” is going to be reinforced, repaired, and incorporated into the design for the Trump Temple and Casino.

    • amigo on December 26, 2016, 2:14 pm

      “If one terms this as: un declares jewish presence at wailing wall is war crime “YF

      Only if they decide to use the wall as a foundation to erect illegal squats on and then move in .Otherwise they are welcome to come and wail all they want and then leave .

      Btw , I believe that claim was made by a zionist apologist, ( possibly naftali or one of the cabal of liars in the goi ) and not the UN.

    • oldgeezer on December 26, 2016, 2:19 pm


      Of course the UN never said that Jewish (or Israeli for that matter) presence at the wailing wall was a war crime. And it isn’t. Deciding to claim it as Israeli territory certainly is.

      Why the distortion? It is like the claim that UNESCO denied the Jewish connection to certain sites. A completely perverse mistatement of what they said.

      Are zionists incapable of exercising a normal level of comprehension? I don’t believe that for a second.

      The very best spin I can put into a guess is that they know the actual facts do not support their arguments.

    • Talkback on December 26, 2016, 8:38 pm

      Yonah Fredman: “If one terms this as: un declares jewish presence at wailing wall is war crime, then the center left sees this as a danger and an assault.”

      I understand Israel’s “center left”. Because I don’t understand why countries with a Christian majority don’t even try to invade and occupy Jerusalem to make sure, that their citizens have free access to holy cites. It would be a danger and an assault if Israel would treat them as criminals.

      At least from a center left point of view. That is “center left” by Israeli standards. In my country it’s called fanatical religious right extremism .. like Jihadism.

      • RoHa on December 26, 2016, 9:45 pm

        “Because I don’t understand why countries with a Christian majority don’t even try to invade and occupy Jerusalem to make sure, that their citizens have free access to holy cites. ”

        They tried that some time ago.

      • echinococcus on December 27, 2016, 12:52 am


        I’m impressed. First time I see you unmoved by a German-style comma preceding the relative adverb.

      • RoHa on December 27, 2016, 8:21 pm

        Oh, I was moved. But I told myself that Talkback would not have committed such an error deliberately, and so, in an uncharacteristic moment of generosity, I decided to let it pass.

        I also allowed an unconnected “because” to go uncensured. Think of it as a touch of Christmas spirit.

      • Talkback on December 28, 2016, 4:48 am

        The “because” was connected. ;)

    • nothingtolose on December 27, 2016, 4:19 am

      According to UN 1947 resolution, Jerusalem should have remained an international city. Absolutely reasonable, as the Old City is mainly arab-turkish, with many christian churches and buildings, a christian quarter, a Jewish quartier, the wailing wall, the armenian quartier, u.s.w. A city for all, not for Jews only. That’s why the annexation is seen as a ‘flagrant violation’ of internationl law, as well as an useless forcing (except for fanatics)

      • Misterioso on December 27, 2016, 11:09 am

        For the record:

        Population of and land ownership in West and East Jerusalem in 1947:

        The total population of West Jerusalem (the New City) and East Jerusalem (the Old City) and their environs was about 200,000 with a slight Arab majority. (Professor Walid Khalidi, Harvard, “Plan Dalet,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Autumn, 1988, p. 17)

        The total land area of West Jerusalem (the New City) in 1947 was 19,331 dunams (about 4,833 acres) of which 40 per cent was owned by Palestinian Muslims and Christians, 26.12 per cent by Jews and 13.86 per cent by others, including Christian communities. Government and municipal land made up 2.90 per cent and roads and railways 17.12 per cent.

        East Jerusalem (the Old City) consisted of 800 dunams (about 240 acres) of which five dunams (just over one acre) were Jewish owned and the remaining 795 dunams were owned by Palestinian Muslims and Christians. (“Assessing Palestinian Property in the City,” by Dalia Habash and Terry Rempel, Jerusalem 1948: The Arab Neighbourhoods and their Fate in the War, edited by Salim Tamari, The Institute of Jerusalem Studies, 1999, map, pp. 184-85)

  2. Maghlawatan on December 26, 2016, 1:35 pm

    All the Israeli schoolbooks show YESHA as part of Israel. Even the indoctrination is wrong.

  3. AddictionMyth on December 26, 2016, 1:37 pm

    The left and right work with each other to create plausible deniability. “They made us do it!” It’s a nationalized version of “The woman you put here with me.”

    The bottom is about to fall out from the ultra-orthodox cults. I can feel it.

  4. Maghlawatan on December 26, 2016, 2:45 pm

    Nobody in Israeli politics can face telling Yossi Israeli that YESHA cost $120bn and that it is all going to be lost.

    • Mooser on December 26, 2016, 4:15 pm

      “Nobody in Israeli politics can face telling Yossi Israeli that YESHA cost $120bn and that it is all going to be lost.”

      That will also be hard to tell Zionist Jews all over the world, and oh yes, those who (ROTFL) have “invested” in those ‘properties’.

    • echinococcus on December 27, 2016, 10:33 pm


      How about a small, explanatory parenthesis when using any initialisms that don’t belong to the daily international standard usage? Like your recurrent “Yesha”, etc.?

  5. Kay24 on December 26, 2016, 8:31 pm

    There is a lot of hot air blowing from zio land, but the bottom line is, any vindictive actions by Israel is predicted to backfire. This tiny nation is not self sufficient in any way, depends a lot on the support of other nations, and this meltdown by their loony leader is only going to make matters worse, not better. It is interesting to see right-wingers and the left support their leader, while Obama gets grief from those who are paid to win elections by the zionists.
    These tantrums are simply a bit of drama to make sure these resolutions do not get passed again. So no one should take it seriously. Bibi is a drama king, and we have seen it many times.

    From an article in the Haaretz

    “Even other export industries, such as agriculture, are based on “Israeli know-how.” If we punish the world and stop selling it Israeli know-how, the Israeli economy will collapse. No one is doing us a favor by buying our products, however good they are.
    This looks like a deal to cut off our nose to spite our export markets. In any case, we don’t see Check Point, Amdocs or Intel Israel consulting before they sell something to a customer overseas.
    Also, let’s remember where our export markets are located: the European Union 29%; Asia, 25%; the United States, 24%. These aren’t Senegal or Venezuela that sponsored the UN resolution.
    read more:

    • Misterioso on December 27, 2016, 11:30 am

      It seems Israel’s leaders thought they could get away forever with illegally occupying and populating with Jews Palestinian and other Arab lands seized during the war it launched on 5 June 1967. To state the obvious, there is no special provision in international humanitarian law that enables Israel to violate it (e.g., the Fourth Geneva Convention and the UN Charter) with impunity.

      Indeed, the truth of the matter was made abundantly clear to Israel long before passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2334, December 23, 2016.

      To wit:

      In the summer of 1967, “[t]he legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron, was asked [by then Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol] whether international law allowed settlement in the newly conquered land. In a memo marked ‘Top Secret,’ Meron wrote unequivocally: ‘My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.’” (New York Times, 10 March 2006)

      Security Council Resolution 446 (22 March 1979) “[Affirms] once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories OCCUPIED [my emphasis] by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
      “1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories OCCUPIED [my emphasis] since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;..”

      Security Council Resolution 465 (1 March 1980) “determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories OCCUPIED [my emphasis] since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity…”

      Israel’s 1980 annexation of East Jerusalem was unanimously rejected by the UN Security Council in Resolution 476 (June 30, 1980): “all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the OCCUPYING [my emphasis] Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

      On 17 December 1981, the UNSC unanimously passed Resolution 497, which declared Israel’s 14 December 1981 annexation of Syria’s Golan Height “null and void.”

      On 24 February 2004, the U.S. State Department reaffirmed its earlier position in a report entitled Israel and the OCCUPIED [my emphasis] Territories, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: “Israel OCCUPIED [my emphasis] the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights after the 1967 War…. The international community does not recognize Israel’s sovereignty over any part of the OCCUPIED [my emphasis] territories.”

      In its 2004 ruling, the International Court of Justice unanimously ruled that “No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.” The World Court denoted this principle a “corollary” of the U.N. Charter and as such “customary international law” and a “customary rule” binding on all member States of the United Nations.

      British Foreign Secretary William Hague regarding Jewish settlements in the West Bank (5 April 2011): “This is not disputed territory. It is OCCUPIED [my emphasis] Palestinian territory and ongoing settlement expansion is illegal under international law…”

      US Secretary of State, John Kerry: “The US views all of the settlements as illegitimate.” (13 August 2013, Reuters Video)

  6. Talkback on December 26, 2016, 8:43 pm

    Let’s keep one thing clear. There is a left amongst Israelis. But usually what is called “left” in Israel’s political arena is the left wing of right extremist nationalism. You know, the kind of right extremist nationalism that differentiates between nationals and citizens based on heritage and or faith.

    • oldgeezer on December 26, 2016, 11:44 pm


      Welk said and true. Jon s being the prime example of someone who likes to consider homself left wing yet supports hawkish policies and violations of agreed upon international law. Jon is only left due to extremist (and extremely violent) nature of the Israeli right wing. There is nothing left wing about his stance on the issues and they all boil down to supremacist beliefs.

      There is a left wing in Israel. They are so miniscule in numbers they aren’t worth counting as a group. There efforts are nevertheless heroic particularly as they often attract death threats from the rabid nationalists.

    • oldgeezer on December 26, 2016, 11:53 pm


      In practice jon s believes his rights grant his group a priority of rights over other groups which inhabited the region.

      There is no legitimate leftist view which hrants rights to some but not to others based on race religion ethnicity creed gender or sexual identity. Did i miss a few?

      Jon s leftist views are a figment of his imagimation.

      He reminds me of racist Camadians who speak of old stock or, in Quebec, pure laine (pure laine). Heck, as Orwell wpuld say, some are more equal than others.

    • Elizabeth Block on December 27, 2016, 10:44 am

      Yes. People ask me sometimes about the Israeli peace movement, and the Israeli left. I tell them it exists, but it’s very weak, tends to evaporate in times of “war” [like the assault on Gaza], and is Zionist-lite. Not much use, unfortunately.

      • Maghlawatan on December 29, 2016, 4:31 pm

        Israel doesn’t have many left wingers because of the intensity of school brainwashing. Israel is a cult.

  7. Kay24 on December 27, 2016, 12:17 am

    Even if the WH was “behind” the UN resolution, it does not make any difference. Israel is consistently and boldly building acres of illegal settlements, and the world has condemned and holding a culprit accountable for its crimes.

    Netanyahu, the man who connived to sabotage Obama’s Iran nuclear deal is “outraged” that the Obama WH MAY BE behind the UN resolution……he is such a clown. Hypocrisy zionist style.

    ““We have rather iron-clad information from sources in both the Arab world and internationally that this was a deliberate push by the United States and in fact they helped create the resolution in the first place,” Keyes said.

    Doubling down on the claim a few hours later the controversial Israeli ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer, went even further suggesting it had gathered evidence that it would present to the incoming Trump administration.

    “We will present this evidence to the new administration through the appropriate channels. If they want to share it with the American people, they are welcome to do it,” Dermer told CNN.

  8. Ossinev on December 27, 2016, 5:56 am

    An issue which has been somehow glossed over in all of this is the Yahoo summoning of the 14 Ambassadors on Christmas Day to give them a dressing down on behalf of his mighty nation:

    The ambassadors the majority of whom are from Christian nations as in celebrating Christmas Day being ambassadorial did not of course tell Herr Yahoo`s messengers to p… off.

    Had the shoe been on the other foot of course ie poor eternally victimised eternally singled out Israeli Ambassadors celebrating Hannukkah then we would all have been drowned out by howls of ” Blatant Anti Semitism”.

    • Kay24 on December 27, 2016, 9:38 am

      For sure, they would have overdramatized the entire thing, playing victim, and being outraged that on such a Holy day, they dared to call them. This was done deliberately of course, and without care about Christmas etc. The meanness is so obvious, and typical zionist actions.

      Netanyahu and his ilk are really nasty people.

  9. Kay24 on December 27, 2016, 7:34 am

    Now from the only “democracy” in the Middle East:

    “Israeli Education Minister Promotes Bill That Would Ban Anti-occupation Group From Schools
    Yair Lapid, head of centrist Yesh Atid, joins hard-right lawmakers backing the bill, claiming Breaking the Silence could undermine students’ motivation to serve in the army.”
    read more:

    It must have been an illusion that democracy exists in zio land. I guess the US congress will
    be okay with this too.

  10. oldgeezer on December 27, 2016, 11:23 am

    I am sure there is a wide gap in social policy between the Israeli left and right but both sides are still zionists and racist supremacists that support war crimes, violations of international law and humanitarian law. Oh and the GC of course. To Israels the right to self determination seems to mean they can do whatever they want, without restrictions or consequences, whether it is within their country or not.

    All of this whining and crying by the eternal victims is laughable.

    Israel has known for a half century that it’s actions were illegal. It just didn’t care. Not only didn’t care nut flaunted their lawlessness and bigotry as if it was some source of pride.

    It is fascinating to see how fast Israel resorted to punishing tiny Senegal. It seems they have no trouble with such tactics and that they just don’t want to pay a price for their criminal acts.

    Boycotts are good but it is long past time for the world to bring in sanctions against Israel. Time to being in the ICC and ICJ and let the rule of law do it’s job.

  11. Misterioso on December 27, 2016, 11:40 am

    Obama has played Netanyahu, the egomaniac, like a violin.

  12. Ossinev on December 27, 2016, 12:43 pm

    It appears that the Yahoo`s message to his officials and to “his people ” generally is to get their “revenge” on the 14 disobedient nations who voted in favour of the UNSC resolution by reducing contacts and visits which will play havoc (not) with the economies , political stability etc of these poor minion nations. So Israeli tourists don`t go to them is the message. Perhaps have staycations instead. Perhaps go to the non occupied territories and amuse yourself by hurling stones and insults at the Untermenschen – so much cheaper and much more fun.

    As for the recipient minnows the message must be don`t go to the Land of Creation which has just insulted our leaders and nations. Should work wonders for the Israel Tourism industry and it could be that the Yahoo will seize the opportunity on the back of all this to add the Minister of Tourism portfolio to his ever expanding role.

    Those brave souls who do venture to the Land of Creation despite the insults and discouragement hopefully will take on board the possibility that getting into the Land of Creation by foreigners will become even more of a farcical ordeal and should allow at least 24 hours spent at border controls before they are refused entry , banned from returning for 10 years and all because they asked silly aggressive questions like ” why are you doing this ? “.

    On the latter point I am fairly certain , particularly with regard to Western European nations including France and the UK , that Jewish Israeli passport holders have a relatively free ride when it comes to clearing Immigration and Customs controls largely because of the fear of officials that they will be accused of Anti – Semitism Israelis like other nationalities are potentially just as likely terrorists , criminals , drug smugglers , paedophiles etc etc. Perhaps the meassage should be going out to these Border Officials that they should treat Jewish Israeli passport holders just like any other visitors – no I don`t mean ask them the same question 40 times , automatically strip search them , search their laptop records , deny them access to a solicitor or consular officials and then refuse them entry. No I mean simply treat them in the way they are trained to with courtesy and professionalism but without fear or favour as officials of civilised nations unlike the nation of their visitors.

    • RoHa on December 27, 2016, 9:34 pm

      “which will play havoc (not) with the economies , political stability etc of these poor minion nations. ”

      A few of those countries haven’t got economies to play havoc with.

    • echinococcus on December 27, 2016, 10:50 pm


      Perhaps go to the non occupied territories…

      Would be so nice if there were any such territories now, wouldn’t it?

  13. JLewisDickerson on December 27, 2016, 5:00 pm

    RE: “First it was just the ‘Auschwitz borders’, that is, ‘we’re feeling too persecuted and about to be annihilated’, as it were – and ‘now that we’ve captured larger territory we’re not going back to Auschwitz’. Then came the settlements . . .” ~ Ofir

    MY COMMENT: That’s not quite the way I remember it. As I remember it, first it was just the ‘Auschwitz borders’, then came the SECURITY settlements. Not just settlements, security settlements. I distinctly recall Abba Eban prattling on and on about how Israel had to establish security settlements in the West Bank.
    Why security settlements? It was part Israel’s lame effort at using “security” as a justification for their settlement enterprise. The rationale was apparently that since an occupier is responsible for maintaining security for the occupied population, by referring to Israel’s illegal settlements as “security settlements”, they would be magically transformed/kosherized into perfectly legal components of Israel’s novel scheme to fulfill its duty/obligation as an occupier to provide security for the population of the occupied territory.
    Since this lame effort at claiming that the settlements were legal didn’t even pass the laugh test (much less the smell test), Israel soon dropped the “security” and just called them settlements.

    • JLewisDickerson on December 28, 2016, 4:18 pm

      Published on Jul 6, 2013
      Subscribe to our channel

      A UN report says Israeli settlements violate human rights and could be prosecuted as war crimes, but many Israeli settlers consider themselves patriots. So what hope is there for peace in the Middle East?In a country where settlers are now one of the biggest and strongest political movements, Dani Dayan, a Netanyahu advisor and the outgoing chairman of the Yesha (Settlers) Council, says there is no two-state solution to the conflict and that he is happy with the status quo.Dayan has been a major in the Israeli army, a successful IT entrepreneur, and a University lecturer. In 1999 he became an executive committee member of the Yesha Council, which represents the settler movement, and in 2007, its chairman until February 2013. He completely revitalised the movement until his resignation to campaign openly for Binyamin Netanyahu.Mehdi Hasan goes head to head with Dayan at the Oxford Union, discussing whether Zionism is a colonialist project, whether the so-called apartheid roads are just an urban legend – and more importantly, what is the solution to this protracted conflict?Dayan claims settlements are irreversible but preaches in favour of dismantling the wall. With a lively audience and robust debate from the expert panel, Head to Head is tackling the hard issues surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Are the settlements a natural extension of the Israeli state or the single biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East? Will the Palestinians ever be able to build an independent and viable state?Joining our discussion are: Dr Ghada Karmi, an academic and the author of The Palestinian Exodus (1999), In Search for Fatima (2002), and Israel’s Dilemma in Palestine (2007); Sam Westrop, a former director of the British Israel Coalition, and a fellow of the New York-based Gatestone Institute; and Hannah Weisfeld, the director of Yachad, a pro-peace, pro-Israel NGO based in London.

      At Al Jazeera English, we focus on people and events that affect people’s lives. We bring topics to light that often go under-reported, listening to all sides of the story and giving a ‘voice to the voiceless.’
      Reaching more than 270 million households in over 140 countries across the globe, our viewers trust Al Jazeera English to keep them informed, inspired, and entertained.
      Our impartial, fact-based reporting wins worldwide praise and respect. It is our unique brand of journalism that the world has come to rely on.
      We are reshaping global media and constantly working to strengthen our reputation as one of the world’s most respected news and current affairs channels.

      Social Media links:

      Partner rating: No mature content
      Show: Head to Head
      Season 2012
      Episode 5
      Release date – 7/20/13
      Running time – 47:11
      Category – News
      License – Standard YouTube License

    • JLewisDickerson on December 30, 2016, 10:19 pm

      P.P.S. ALSO SEE: “The Reason for Israel’s Hysterical Response to the UN Security Council Resolution” | By Yousef Munayyer | | December 28, 2016

      [EXCERPT] . . . The language of the resolution as it relates to settlements was nothing really new. The UN—and the whole world, with the exception of the Israeli right wing—has understood that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territory Israel occupied in 1967, and thus that civilian settlements are illegal. In fact, even the Israeli legal counsel understood this in 1967. The Israelis thought that if they could colonize the West Bank under the guise of the military, they could argue that it didn’t put them in violation of the convention’s statute against transfer of civilian populations. This is why they initially called them “paramilitary settlements,” which were set up through a division of the military. Once it became clear that the world would not press them on this, they dropped the disguise and openly violated international law by building, financing, and subsidizing scores of settlements, which would grow to include hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers. . .


  14. Steve Macklevore on December 29, 2016, 2:13 pm

    It’s hard to think of Israel’s “Left” with anything better than contempt.

Leave a Reply