Trending Topics:

Israel’s Nation State Law is consistent with the country’s founding principles

Israel/Palestine
on 108 Comments

On Thursday, 9 August 2018, the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute (VLJI)[1] held an emergency Session on the subject of the “Basic Law: Israel – the Nation State of the Jewish People” promulgated by the Israeli Parliament (the Knesset) on 19 July 2018 and published in the Official Gazette (Reshumot) on 26 July 2018.

The said session was led by expert Panelists – prominent among which is Attorney Talia Sasson, President of the New Israel Fund (NIF) and Chair of its board – who argued that the basic principles of the said Basic Law (enshrining Jewish supremacy) violate the principle of equality rights for all as formulated in what is regarded as the document – though not Constitutional – embodying the basic principles of the political regime of Israel as a “Jewish and Democratic” State.

The basic principles of the said Law read as follows:

Basic Principle

  1. The Land of Israel is the historic national home of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.

  2. The State of Israel is the national state of the Jewish people, in which it exercises its natural, cultural, and historic right to self-determination.

  3. Exercising the right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people. (Unofficial translation)

Uri Davis (L), an Israeli member of the Palestinian political party Fatah, talks to Zakaria Zubaidi (R), a senior member of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades who laid down his arms in 2005, during a Fatah conference in Betlehem, August 10, 2009. (Photo: Musa al-Shaer/Getty Images)

The Case at Hand

One of the key arguments put forward by spokespersons demanding the revocation of the said “Basic Law: Israel – the Nation State of the Jewish People” has it that the Basic Principles of the said Basic Law violate the principle of equality rights for all as formulated in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (promulgated on 14 May 1948), regarded as the document – though not Constitutional – embodying the basic principles of the political regime of Israel as a “Jewish and Democratic” State, notably the Section stipulating “equality of rights” (highlighted in red) hereunder:

“The state of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion [Jew/Muslim/Christian], race [White/non-White]or sex [Male/Female]; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

Read less than carefully, one gets the impression that the paragraph above paraphrases the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) [2]– except that it doesn’t. Whereas the CERD explicitly prohibits black-on-white “distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin – the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel does not!!!

In other words, the said “Basic Law: Israel – the Nation State of the Jewish People” is not inconsistent with the Declaration of Establishment of the State of Israel in that (in my opinion) the Drafting Committee of the said Declaration being aware that they were about to declare the establishment of an apartheid State at core (advisedly, in my opinion) refrained from establishing the principle of equality in respect of national or ethnic origin [Jewish/Palestinian-Arab] just as they had advisedly refrained from declaring the establishment of the State of Israel as a sovereign State.[3]

Conclusion

Israel was established as an apartheid State at core anchored in the crime-against-humanity of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. However, the founding leadership of the State were fully aware that projecting Israel in the world arena as “the only democracy in the Middle East” was not just a public relationship necessity but an existential necessity.

Towards that end considerable trouble was taken to cover the criminal apartheid core of settler-colonial Israel with a veil of false democratic procedure (as illustrated in the “equality” section of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, above). Remove the veil, and Israeli apartheid (not necessarily the “Jewish State” as defined in UN General Assembly Resolution 181(ii) of 1947) collapses not unlike the collapse of the now defunct South African apartheid.

This is why the current political and security leadership of apartheid Israel regard the non-violent, civil society based international BDS (Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions) movement as a “strategic danger”. Whereas BDS represents no military challenge to the one of the eight most powerful nations in the world– it does represent an effective challenge to the false claim of Israeli legitimacy as a “liberal-democratic State” in the west-European sense of the term.

Also in my opinion, the primary reason for the promulgation of the said Basic Law at this time represents an a pathetic by the apartheid State of Israel to curb the rising self-empowerment and self-confidence of its 2 million odd Palestinian Arab citizens, originating in the circa 150,000 indigenous Palestinian Arab population who survived the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine (the Palestinian Nakba) representing an some 20 percent of the total population of the State and represented inter alia by the 13 members of the Joint List in the Knesset[4]
and referred to by Minister of Education Naftali Bennet as a “shrapnel/thorn/pain in the ass.”.

Except that by so doing, the state removed the veil awkwardly covering the core of Israeli apartheid, thereby bringing into full daylight and embossing on official stamp confirming the reality it has historically denied in bad in bad faith, namely: that Israel was established as an apartheid State at core anchored in the crime-against-humanity of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

As of this point apartheid Israeli Parliament and its government have embarked upon the route that will (hopefully) lead to the UN General Assembly subjecting the rogue State of Israel to the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.

Endnotes

[1] The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute (VLJI) engages in innovative interdisciplinary research and has a deep commitment to the public. Since 1959 the Institute has been a leading center for advanced studies and for intellectual public discourse in crucially important and socially sensitive fields, touching on the main foci of tension in Israeli society. The Institute was founded by the Van Leer family to advance knowledge in the realms of philosophy, society, and culture, and it is supported today by the Van Leer Group Foundation in Holland. The Institute’s activity, made possible by its renowned researchers, helps shape the public agenda in the areas of culture, society, and science, aiming inter alia at “defin[ing] and shap[ing] “public discourse and … point out alternative ways of thinking about current topics” with the view to “promot[ing] humanistic, democratic, and liberal values in the social discourse in Israel.”

[2] Article 1 In this Convention, the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

[3] The late Secretary General of the then Eretz Israel (sic) Communist Party, Meir Vilner, was a member of the said Drafting Committee (and a signatory to the said Declaration). His intervention to the effect that the prospective State be declared “sovereign” as well as “independent” were ignored. The State of Israel was advisedly not established as a sovereign because conventionally sovereign states are generally defined within establish borders and represent only their citizens, whereas in political-Zionist thought and practice as well as in the framework of the settler-colonial-political-Zionist expansionist invasion of the country of Palestine, the borders of apartheid Israel where to remain fluid and the State was designated to represent not just its citizens – but the “Jewish people” the world over. (See Uri Davis, Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within, Zed Books, London, 2003, p 62.

[4] Consisting of the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality/JABAH/HADASH, the United Arab List/RA’AM, the National Democratic Assembly/BALAD/TAJAMMU’, and the Arab Movement for Renewal/TA’AL.

Uri Davis
About Uri Davis

Dr. Uri Davis is a member of the Palestine National Council (PNC) and a member of the Fateh Revolutionary Council (Majlis Thawri) where he is a rapporteur of the Council's Political Committee. He is also a member of the Fateh's International Relations Commission, a Deputy Commissioner-General for Political Affairs, and the head of FIRC Africa Committee. His writings are posted on his website.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

108 Responses

  1. jon s
    jon s
    August 21, 2018, 12:25 pm

    Remembering Uri Avnery

    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-uri-avnery-shaper-of-the-israeli-consciousness-1.6406434?=&ts=_1534859435057

    Haaretz editor Aluf Benn does a pretty good job here, so I’ll just add some personal notes .

    I must have been about 13 years old, around my Bar Mitzvah, when I discovered “The Other Side of the Medal” among my Dad’s books. I read it in bed ,over one night, from cover to cover, and it changed me forever. I became a “peacenik” and an avid supporter of Uri Avnery. I started reading Haolam Hazeh regularly, read his books (such as “Israel Without Zionists”), and as a teenager I volunteered to work for his election campaign and later met him briefly.
    In time I found that I didn’t agree with him on all issues: I became a socialist, which he never was , and I also didn’t share his utter contempt for all religion .
    Yet I never ceased admiring him:as editor of HH he revolutionized Israeli journalism. Avnery invented Hebrew words, developed a clear, concise writing style (which I’ve always tried to emulate when writing in Hebrew). As a new-style Member of Knesset he revolutionized Israeli parliamentarism , and above all, he revolutionized Israeli politics on the Left. When he advocated Israeli-Palestinian peace, a Palestinian State living in peace with Israel, recognizing the PLO , he was, indeed a visionary. The idea of a Palestinian State evolved from a concept deemed to be a nutty idea of the lunatic fringe of the Far Left to the center of an international consensus. Even politicians who are actually against it, find that they need to pay lip service and declare their support for the two state solution. Because of his biography, having fought and been severely wounded in battle, it was hard to accuse him of being unpatriotic.
    As a person , he was rather cold and always rational, not your typical bear-hugging and slap-on-the- back politician . He and his late wife Rachel decided from the start not to have kids and he himself admitted that he had a problem with human relations, but said that it didn’t bother him.
    There won’t be any kind of religious funeral, his remains will be cremated. Tomorrow his coffin will lie in Beit Sokolov, home of the Journalists Association in Tel Aviv, and whoever wishes to pay respect is invited to do so. I intend to be there.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      August 21, 2018, 12:46 pm

      “Jon s”, you aren’t worthy to copy and paste Uri Avnery’s name.

      “As a person , he was rather cold…”

      I hear he didn’t suffer bigoted fools gladly, either.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        August 21, 2018, 2:04 pm

        . “Because of his biography, having fought and been severely wounded in battle, it was hard to accuse him of being unpatriotic.”

        Hey, but you got your shitty little hit-piece into Mondo,

        I note the lack of a few traditional phrases in your little obitchuary.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        August 21, 2018, 2:48 pm

        Whiny Johnny is trying his best to deviate attention away from the article, and you’re helping him.

        This is one of the very few (even if lamentably unedited) really substantive articles here: there never was a Zionist entity “democracy” and it always was unmitigated theft, ethnic cleansing and Apartheid, covering a stepwise genocide. A lot of the liberals (in the peculiar Anglo-saxon terminology) have never been paying attention.

        So right on cue comes this totally irrelevant Avnery diversion, posted by a sworn enemy of old Helmut pretending to honor him. Anything to avoid reading.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        August 21, 2018, 3:57 pm

        “Whiny Johnny is trying his best to deviate attention away from the article, and you’re helping him.”

        Sorry, “Echin” I was a little shocked. I should have expected he would pull something like that to divert from this great article.

        Maybe “Jon s” can tell us how the information in this article intersects with the ‘chosen people above’ schtik in Deuteronomy?

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr
        August 22, 2018, 12:34 am

        As an ambiguous person of good, bad and questionable opinions may he rot peacefully into the dust and may those who honour him sing his praises.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        August 22, 2018, 1:40 pm

        “As an ambiguous person of good, bad and questionable opinions, may he rot peacefully…”

        I mean it’s not as if Uri Avnery had a commenting account at Mondoweiss, or something. He was a nobody compared to you, “DaBakr”

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      August 21, 2018, 2:20 pm

      “He and his late wife Rachel decided from the start not to have kids and he himself admitted that he had a problem with human relations, but said that it didn’t bother him”

      It didn’t get crowded? Where did you sleep, on the other side of Rachel, or in between the two?

    • jon s
      jon s
      August 22, 2018, 1:23 pm

      I’m on my way back from the memorial event for Uri Avnery. There was a good-size crowd, journalists and veteran peace activists, Israelis and Palestinians, all of us paying respect to a great man on a sweltering Tel Aviv afternoon.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        August 22, 2018, 11:22 pm

        Your intra-Zionist spats are none of our business, Johnny.
        Go join your fellow Zioprop drudge, fellow Johnny and you can have at it with the other Zionits. Not here. The other Johnny already tried to deviate this thread from the fact that the Zionist entity was a genocidal invasion by criminals against humanity (including your good self, if you are really squatting anywhere in Palestine) and that’s the discussion.
        You can have your Zio-fight in private.

  2. eljay
    eljay
    August 21, 2018, 2:54 pm

    Israel was established:
    – not as the secular and democratic state of and for all people living in and up to n-generations removed from its geographic region (as defined by Partition and accepted by the state); but,
    – as a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews and intended to comprise as much as possible of geographic Palestine.

    The new law simply reaffirms the supremacist ideals that led to the establishment (and expansion) of the “Jewish State”.

    • Maghlawatan
      Maghlawatan
      August 21, 2018, 11:19 pm

      The second founding principle of Israel is control of Congress

      We live in a corrupt system. When that system collapses Israel will be seriously weakened.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/paul-manafort-american-hustler/550925/

      From both the Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers, vast disclosures illuminating previously hidden offshore accounts of the rich and powerful worldwide, we can see the full extent to which corruption has become the master narrative of our times. We live in a world of smash-and-grab fortunes, amassed through political connections and outright theft. Paul Manafort, over the course of his career, was a great normalizer of corruption. The firm he created in the 1980s obliterated traditional concerns about conflicts of interest. It imported the ethos of the permanent campaign into lobbying and, therefore, into the construction of public policy.

  3. Maghlawatan
    Maghlawatan
    August 21, 2018, 3:59 pm

    “The state of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration”
    This is now dead. Nobody but the most fascist Jews want to move to Israel
    And US Jews are dropping out of the family in record numbers.
    Israel is pathetic. Does pretending that Gaza doesn’t count mean there isn’t a Jewish minority in greater Israel?
    I have said it again and again- the Zionists have no plan for the future. Zionism is groupthink

  4. jon s
    jon s
    August 21, 2018, 4:04 pm

    echi, I deliberately posted this here , hoping Uri Davis will not object, and honor Uri Avnery , for old times sake.

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus
      August 21, 2018, 7:06 pm

      “Honor” what? You Zionist bunch wouldn’t know honor if it was served with noodles and watercress. Once again, you are trying to distract attention from something essential to understanding the depth of abomination you guys have brought to uncountable people of this earth. Shameless like a true Azraelian.

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr
        August 22, 2018, 12:36 am

        @e

        Says the couch potato keyboard warrior

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      August 21, 2018, 7:51 pm

      “and honor Uri Avnery , for old times sake.”

      ROTFLMSJAO! “Honor”? You’ve got a strange concept of honoring a person.

      “echi, I deliberately posted this here , hoping Uri Davis will not object “

      “Echin”, you hit it right on the head.

  5. Maghlawatan
    Maghlawatan
    August 21, 2018, 4:46 pm

    Israel has always had to cover up its true nature. Why does it think it can expose the shit to sunlight now ? It doesn’t make sense.

    https://youtu.be/GT3_53yh_xg

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus
      August 21, 2018, 7:09 pm

      Well, its usual minions are already trying to at least interfere with this article on the Zionist entity’s obvious, true nature.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      August 21, 2018, 7:55 pm

      It makes Trump sense.

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus
      August 22, 2018, 2:49 am

      Why not? The Zionist don’t fear any opposition anywhere in the US Empire, and public opinion is totally powerless anymore. They own the US, its army and its vassals. If you think you’re living in some kind of democracy, you need a shrink.
      Want proof? Look at what they’ve been getting away in the last 10 years. They never could afford that kind of behavior in the 80s or earlier.

      • Maghlawatan
        Maghlawatan
        August 22, 2018, 12:59 pm

        I think the bots are too complacent, Echi. Neoliberalism will collapse soon and the Augean stables of DC politics will be cleaned. Zionism is an updated version of Tammany Hall . It has very little popular support.

  6. Marnie
    Marnie
    August 22, 2018, 12:07 am

    The zionist state’s intentions have always been genocide. Incremental and methodical, to get the world used to palestinians dying. It’s happened all over the world by colonizing invaders, but it’s bestie, the u.s., had the blueprint for how to steal a country and kill the inhabitants, by hook or by crook. israel’s failure has been not understanding the determination of the palestinian people and completely underestimating the strength and character of their hearts.

  7. Maghlawatan
    Maghlawatan
    August 22, 2018, 2:39 am

    3 “Exercising the right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people. “

    This is puerile
    And of course we need to know the borders of the State of Israel

  8. Maghlawatan
    Maghlawatan
    August 22, 2018, 3:03 am

    The country’s founding principles were based on the assumption that the Palestinians- an ignorant, backward, defeated people- would all have left by now.

    And they have not. And claiming self determination is an exclusively Jewish right is the kind of crap Israeli lawmakers have to resort to. Israel is still fighting 1948.

  9. gamal
    gamal
    August 22, 2018, 3:31 am

    The Jewish National Fund by Walter Lehn with Dr. Uri Davis, required reading.

    https://books.google.ie/books/about/The_Jewish_National_Fund.html?id=2MgOAAAAQAAJ

  10. annie
    annie
    August 22, 2018, 9:33 am

    calling all brainiacs. could someone explain this to me:

    In other words, the said “Basic Law: Israel – the Nation State of the Jewish People” is not inconsistent with the Declaration of Establishment of the State of Israel in that (in my opinion) the Drafting Committee of the said Declaration being aware that they were about to declare the establishment of an apartheid State at core (advisedly, in my opinion) refrained from establishing the principle of equality in respect of national or ethnic origin [Jewish/Palestinian-Arab] just as they had advisedly refrained from declaring the establishment of the State of Israel as a sovereign State.[3]

    and following “[3]”:

    [3] The late Secretary General of the then Eretz Israel (sic) Communist Party, Meir Vilner, was a member of the said Drafting Committee (and a signatory to the said Declaration). His intervention to the effect that the prospective State be declared “sovereign” as well as “independent” were ignored. The State of Israel was advisedly not established as a sovereign because conventionally sovereign states are generally defined within establish borders and represent only their citizens, whereas in political-Zionist thought and practice as well as in the framework of the settler-colonial-political-Zionist expansionist invasion of the country of Palestine, the borders of apartheid Israel where to remain fluid and the State was designated to represent not just its citizens – but the “Jewish people” the world over. (See Uri Davis, Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within, Zed Books, London, 2003, p 62.

    does this mean israel is not recognized internationally as a sovereign state? could someone elaborate on this? is Uri Davis reading this? if so i would appreciate more information. this is the first i have ever heard of this. thanks!

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      August 22, 2018, 10:59 am

      Annie: does this mean israel is not recognized internationally as a sovereign state? could someone elaborate on this? is Uri Davis reading this? if so i would appreciate more information. this is the first i have ever heard of this. thanks!

      Under the terms of the Charter, membership in the UN is based upon the principle of sovereign equality. The LON mandate couldn’t be terminated and Israel allowed to join the UN until the government had made a minority rights declaration regarding non-discrimination, equality under the law, and fundamental human rights in accordance with exact stipulations contained in UNGA resolution 181. The declassified minutes of the drafting committee indicate that Ben Gurion and the People’s Council put in some words they thought would satisfy the UN, but they never intended to fulfill the legal obligation.

      You’ve probably heard the story that Ben Gurion vetoed the suggestion that the declaration say that Israel had been established within the boundaries contained in UNGA resolution 181, opting instead for the wording that it had been established within the framework of the resolution. He explained that he wanted to leave the issue of borders open to military developments. The only tangible manifestation of “sovereignty” is the exercise of jurisdiction, and Israel immediately spelled out the territorial jurisdiction of its civilian and military authorities over the Jewish and Arab inhabitants in one of its laws.

      If you want the full 5 Part Brainiac version, go here: https://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/congress-legislatures-against/ and find in page: Hostage May 26, 2015, 12:13 am
      Part 1

      • annie
        annie
        August 22, 2018, 11:47 am

        oh thank you hostage. yes i had heard about Ben Gurion leaving the issue of borders open but i didn’t know about it not making israel sovereign.

        and Israel immediately spelled out the territorial jurisdiction of its civilian and military authorities over the Jewish and Arab inhabitants in one of its laws.

        and did that establish its sovereignty as far as the UN was concerned? will check your link.. thanks again.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 22, 2018, 12:12 pm

        and did that establish its sovereignty as far as the UN was concerned? will check your link.. thanks again.

        No, Abba Eban was questioned about Israel’s UN application and stated that Israel had accepted the legal undertaking and had made the required declaration. He testified it had been promulgated as law in the national Gazette. Eban’s testimony and affirmations were cited in the text of UNGA resolution 273(III) and its footnote 5, which admitted Israel as a UN member state (on the aforementioned charter principle of the “sovereign equality” of its member states).

        The Israeli Supreme Court later ruled that the Declaration of the Establishment of Israel was not a legally binding instrument. UNGA resolution 181(II) had said: “The stipulations contained in the declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.”

        In 1950, the representative of Israel simply lied and stated that Israel had offered to make a declaration, but had been admitted to the UN without ever providing one.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        August 22, 2018, 1:20 pm

        Hello, “Hostage”. Always good to see you here again.

      • just
        just
        August 22, 2018, 1:21 pm

        Thank you Annie and Hostage!

        It’s so wonderful to have you back, Hostage. I, and many others, obviously missed you very much. I wish you all the best in every way.

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus
      August 22, 2018, 11:04 am

      Yes, it’s almost impossible to follow. Guess there wouldn’t be any problem, had someone or Mondoweiss provided editing –or rather competent rewriting for the layman.

      • annie
        annie
        August 22, 2018, 11:41 am

        i can easily follow it echinococcus, i just find the implication almost unfathomable, that israel is not recognized as a sovereign state. i don’t recall hearing this before, ever. it always seemed to me that unlike other states, israel just kept getting away with not defining their borders.. like indefinitely-forever.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        August 22, 2018, 12:46 pm

        Hard to follow for me, because his pen is too slow and skips a lot of intermediary thoughts in the chain. For your example, of course for the lawyerly part of it Azrael is recognized by different entities as a sovereign state –but he didn’t write “recognized as”; he says:
        “because conventionally sovereign states are generally defined within establish borders”

        And of course the rejected request had no relationship, here, to exercising de facto, invader’s, sovereignty.

    • Nathan
      Nathan
      August 22, 2018, 12:22 pm

      Annie – I would be happy to elaborate. Israel is, in fact, recognized internationally as a sovereign state. You might want to check the website of the United Nations where you could find a list of about 200 sovereign states. Israel is on the list (right between Ireland and Italy).

      You shouldn’t take Uri Davis too seriously. In the Declaration of Independence of the United States (1776), the borders of the newly founded political entity are not defined. There really is no doubt that the American Declaration of Independence is a very, very well-known document – so it is rather absurd that Dr Davis writes that “sovereign states are generally defined within establish borders”. However, when he tells us that Meir Vilner was on the drafting committee of Israel’s Declaration of Independence, then you can safely conclude that Dr Davis doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

      • Misterioso
        Misterioso
        August 22, 2018, 12:39 pm

        @Nathan

        Wow!! I must have missed the bulletin. Other than those of the 1947 Partition Plan, what are Israel’s internationally agreed to borders? They are a requirement for being recognized as a “state.”

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 22, 2018, 12:42 pm

        You shouldn’t take Uri Davis too seriously. In the Declaration of Independence of the United States (1776), the borders of the newly founded political entity are not defined.

        The United States wasn’t subject to a LON mandate. So, our Declaration wasn’t part of an international minority rights treaty instrument, like the one contained in UNGA resolution 181(II). It actually did prescribe the limits of Israel’s recognized legal jurisdiction. The Soviet Union cited the map attached to the UN resolution during Israel’s UN membership hearings and the representative of Israel did not object. In fact, he promised to help implement the resolution.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 22, 2018, 1:18 pm

        However, when he tells us that Meir Vilner was on the drafting committee of Israel’s Declaration of Independence, then you can safely conclude that Dr Davis doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

        Meir Vilner is listed in the Minutes of the of the 2nd meeting of the People’s Council as “M. Wilner (Communists) [sic]. The Council suggested several revisions to the draft Declaration, and had the authority to approve them. But a majority of the Council voted to approve the prelimenary draft without any amendments on their first vote. See printed page 53 in Major Knesset Debates, Lorch, Vol 1. http://jcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/KnessetDebatesVol1.pdf

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        August 22, 2018, 1:25 pm

        “In the Declaration of Independence of the United States (1776), the borders of the newly founded political entity are not defined.”

        That’s what I keep on telling you, “Nathan”. All the Zionists had to do was open a vast, nearly illimitable chunk of continent filled to bursting with every natural resource for almost anyone to exploit, and done it over three hundred years ago, and you could have run roughshod over the Palestinians, no problem. Why didn’t they do that?
        Oh, make sure you’ve got lots of diseases which are fatal to the natives to spread around in the early stages.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        August 22, 2018, 2:45 pm

        @Misterioso Wow!! I must have missed the bulletin

        You did indeed. The recurring mondo-meme that Israel has no borders is moronic. Israel’s borders with Egypt and Jordan are defined and agreed to by treaty. There is zero disagreement on those lengthy borders.

        Its de jure border with Lebanon is declared (despite several disagreements) verified by the UN and understood by both parties. The border with Syria, based on the 1974 Separation of Forces Agreement between Israel and Syria, is also understood. More formal border agreements require treaties between parties, and as both Lebanon and Syria refuse to recognize the obvious existence of Israel, you can put that on them.

        Its only with the nascent state of Palestine that its borders are clearly undefined, which requires an agreement with a (seemingly impossible) unified Palestine.

      • Nathan
        Nathan
        August 22, 2018, 3:13 pm

        Misterioso – Actually, a state is an entity that comes into being when there is a government that has effective control over territory (and there has to be a permanent population). The Palestinians recognized Israel in the Oslo Agreement, agreeing to negotiate the final borders in the end-of-conflict deal. The signing of the Oslo Agreement was witnessed by the entire international community, so apparently it seems quite possible to recognize a state the borders of which have not been defined. However, if this seems illogical to you that Israel has been recognized as a state without an internationally agreed-upon border, I am willing to go along with you and agree that Israel must be an unrecognized political entity.

      • Maghlawatan
        Maghlawatan
        August 22, 2018, 3:43 pm

        Actually Nathan Israel’s borders are recognised by the international community. East Jerusalem is not in Israel.

      • Maghlawatan
        Maghlawatan
        August 22, 2018, 4:07 pm

        What sort of permanent population did Israel have in 1948, Nathan? What proportion of “Israelis” would have been born in the country?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 22, 2018, 7:44 pm

        The recurring mondo-meme that Israel has no borders is moronic. Israel’s borders with Egypt and Jordan are defined and agreed to by treaty. There is zero disagreement on those lengthy borders.

        That’s false. Israel and Egypt immediately disputed the location of the mandate era border after they signed the Camp David Accords. The subject was submitted to an international court of arbitration. The Treaty between Israel and Jordan actually contains a caveat regarding the legal status of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Jordan was one of the interested State parties that filed a statement with the ICJ in the 2004 case. It hotly disputed the legality of Israel’s continued occupation and the legality of the construction of its Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

        FYI, the UN Credentials Committee has never accepted the Israeli representation of the populations or territories beyond the 1947 Armistice lines, aka “the 1967 borders”. The UN insists they cannot be altered by the use of military force in accordance with the chapter 7 Security Council resolution that imposed them in the first place as “permanent international armistice lines of demarcation”.

        The section on International Boundaries in the Treaty with Jordan says:
        “1. The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.

        2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.
        http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/peace_1-5.html

        Note: There was no boundary definition under the Mandate for either of the entities called “Israel” or “Jordan”. The latter was created after the Jericho Conference as a political union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan. The union was officially recognized by many countries, including the USA and its credentials and jurisdiction were always accepted by the UN, until the union was dissolved via the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Palestine.

      • Nathan
        Nathan
        August 22, 2018, 8:14 pm

        Maghlawatan – A permanent population can be made up of people who were born elsewhere.

        Are you hinting that the State of Israel didn’t come into existence because its immigrant population could not have been considered a permanent population? Others seem to be hinting that Israel can’t be a state because it doesn’t have defined borders. I’ve heard that the weather is always wonderful in la-la-land.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        August 22, 2018, 8:33 pm

        @Hostage,That’s false.

        No, it is not false.

        As I clearly stated, there is zero disagreement between Israel and Egypt over their shared borders as per the The Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty signed on March 26, 1979. What in the world does Camp David have to do with that?

        Nor is their disagreement between Israel and Jordan over their shared borders, as per the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty was signed on October 26, 1994.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        August 23, 2018, 4:52 am

        Nathan: “The Palestinians recognized Israel in the Oslo Agreement, agreeing to negotiate the final borders in the end-of-conflict deal.”

        Exactly, the “final” borders. So what are its actual borders besides the borders in which it declared statehood sought recognition?

        How do you interpret the the provisional GoI’s answer to the Security Council 22 May 1948?
        “REPLIES OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL TO SECURITY COUNCIL QUESTIONNAIRE
        Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947. In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside [sic!] the territory of the State of Israel…”
        https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 24, 2018, 5:43 am

        Mondonut, it is not false.

        As I clearly stated, there is zero disagreement between Israel and Egypt over their shared borders as per the The Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty signed on March 26, 1979. What in the world does Camp David have to do with that?

        The Camp David Accords established the legal framework for the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty. After the Arab Spring, the agreement on observers and demilitarized zones collapsed and Israel has had to accept a permanent Egyptian presence right on its borders ever since. FYI, the negotiating history has long since been published and the scheme between the USA, Israel, and Egypt to prevent the establishment of an independent Palestinian state using treaties and UN Security Council resolutions has long-since been common knowledge.

        The problem for Zionuts is that the ICJ advised in the Kosovo case that third parties can’t employ treaties, like the Dayton Accords, peace plans and the related UN Security Council resolutions to prevent the establishment of a new independent state. When the General Assembly subsequently admitted the State of Palestine as an observer state and recognized it “within the 4 June 1967 borders”, the Security Council had no choice, but to follow suit. Obama abstained on a Security Council vote that recognized them and declared the settlements illegal. Since your Egyptian-Israeli Treaty contains a UN Charter Article 103 supremacy/deconfliction clause, that means the parties have to accept those UN recognized borders. You may not have noticed, but the Israeli Philadelphia Corridor didn’t exist on 4 June 1967. As I previously noted there was a simmering dispute between Egypt and Israel over the location of the mandate era border and sovereignty over a $20 million dollar resort and hotel in Taba that lasted nearly a decade after the treaty was signed. It required separate international arbitration. https://ecf.org.il/issues/issue/910

        Nor is their disagreement between Israel and Jordan over their shared borders, as per the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty was signed on October 26, 1994.

        Once again, the Jordanian Treaty doesn’t apply to any territory that came under Israeli military control in 1967. It also contains a UN Charter Article 103 supremacy/deconfliction clause. When the ICC Prosecutor questioned Palestine’s ability to transfer jurisdiction to the Court, Jordan (a charter ICC member state) intervened. Jordan concluded a Treaty with the State of Palestine that recognizes Jordan’s legal jurisdiction over territory in East Jerusalem, including the Haram Al Sharif. https://www.memri.org/reports/agreement-between-jordan-palestinian-authority-officially-recognizes-jordans-custodianship

        Since the King and Netanyahu can’t even agree on little things, like the installation of cameras, I just assume they don’t agree on the subject of jurisdiction in Jerusalem and the 4 June 1967 borders.

      • Nathan
        Nathan
        August 25, 2018, 4:08 pm

        Talkback – It’s really a mystery to me why you feel that it’s important to discuss the provincial government’s statement of May 22, 1948. There is an agreement between the PLO and Israel from the 1990’s, and there is nothing more valuable in a conflict situation than that rare moment when the two sides finally agree on anything. So, in brief, the State of Israel is in control of Area C and the territory defined by the Green Line. Again, this is an agreed arrangement, and the agreement was witnessed by the international community.

        Moreover, it is agreed that the final borders will be negotiated. Now, when it is agreed that the final borders will be determined through negotiations, this means that right now no one can possibly know what those borders will be. So, it is absurd to claim that Israel must withdraw to the Partition Plan borders or to the borders of the statement that you quoted. It’s all irrelevant, simply because the bilateral agreement with an international seal of approval from 1995 replaces that which precedes it. In other words, Israel rules the Green Line and Area C, the Palestinians rule Area A – and this status quo remains legal and in effect until the end-of-conflict final agreement.

        Anti-Israel people can’t imagine negotiating an end-of-conflict final agreement. Such an agreement would mean peace with Israel, and it’s forever. So, we read here at Mondoweiss articles about a one-state solution, or we read comments of people who believe that the BDS movement will change the reality on the ground unilaterally, or that the Balfour Declaration was illegitimate, etc. It’s interesting (and it’s fun to debate), but it’s all bla-bla-bla. There is an agreement between the two sides, and whatever happens in the future will be based on that agreement.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        August 25, 2018, 5:03 pm

        “Anti-Israel people can’t imagine negotiating an end-of-conflict final agreement.”

        Maybe that’s because Israel never negotiated a beginning-of-conflict initial agreement!

        I’m sure the end of Israel will involve just as many agreements as the founding of it.

      • eljay
        eljay
        August 25, 2018, 6:28 pm

        || Nathan: … Anti-Israel people can’t imagine negotiating an end-of-conflict final agreement. Such an agreement would mean peace with Israel, and it’s forever. … ||

        Speaking of repeating yourself, there you go again. Anti-Zionists certainly can image an end-of-conflict final agreement. The problem is that Jewish supremacists (Zionists) like you can’t imagine one that doesn’t:
        – allow Israel to remain a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”;
        – allow Israel to keep as much as possible of what it has stolen;
        – absolves Israel of its obligations under international law (incl. RoR); and
        – absolves Israel of accountability for its past and on-going (war) crimes.

        And that’s why when it comes to I-P you Zionists:
        – always talk about “peace”; and
        – never, ever talk about justice, accountability and equality.

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        August 25, 2018, 11:47 pm

        are you seriously comparing the 13 colonies which mind you already had established borders rebelling to what was essentially a terror orginization waging a war of conquest?

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        August 26, 2018, 4:34 am

        Nathan: “It’s really a mystery to me why you feel that it’s important to discuss the provincial government’s statement of May 22, 1948.”

        It shows that Israel declared statehood within partition borders, excluding Jerusalem. And it is within this borders Israel sought recognition.

        Nathan: “Moreover, it is agreed that the final borders will be negotiated.”

        Yep. Until then you know what Israel’s actual borders are. See above.

        Nathan: “So, it is absurd to claim that Israel must withdraw to the Partition Plan borders or to the borders of the statement that you quoted”

        Nobody did. And it would be indeed absurd to ask from an aggressor whose existence is based on conquest, colonialization and expulsion to withdraw to its borders.

        Nathan: “In other words, Israel rules the Green Line and Area C, …”

        Yep, the fist rule of an occupier who coerced the occupied into accepting an agreement that promised them the end of the occupation.

        Nathan: “Anti-Israel people can’t imagine negotiating an end-of-conflict final agreement.”

        Anti-Palestinians people can’t imagine ending Apartheid and abiding to international law.

        Zionist have never been interested in the existence of a souvereign Palestinian state. Neither in the whole of historic Palestine nor in 20% of it.

        Nathan: “Such an agreement would mean peace with Israel, and it’s forever. ”

        That’s the Anti-Palestinian idea peace: Palestinians abandoning their rights and acknowledging that Israel had the right to violate them. It’s Jewish Apartheid forever.

      • Nathan
        Nathan
        August 26, 2018, 6:15 am

        pjdude – Do you think that it was legitimate to have founded the 13 colonies in the first place? Surely, the phenomenon of European settlers coming to live in someone else’s country without the permission of the locals should be condemned and declared illegitimate. You claim that the 13 colonies had defined borders, but their declaration of independence did not state that the borders of the colonies will be the borders of their new political entity. Indeed, the USA came into existence well beyond the borders of the 13 colonies (all the way to the Mississippi River), and it continued to expand to the Pacific Ocean and then beyond. The native population of the occupied continent was expelled, decimated and otherwise terrorized. It’s certainly interesting that you identify with such a project.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        August 26, 2018, 9:50 am

        Nathan: “Surely, the phenomenon of European settlers coming to live in someone else’s country without the permission of the locals should be condemned and declared illegitimate. ”

        Indeed. The whole Zionist project should be condemned and declared illegitimate.

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        August 28, 2018, 9:52 am

        true but that recognizition is in fact a flagrent violation of international law and in some states like the US actually illegal and unconstitutional. International law disallows the recognizition of territorial gains via conquest and force. since all of Israel was gained that way none of it can be legally recognized

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        August 28, 2018, 10:00 am

        @ nathan its rather telling you think another groups misdeeds justifies yours. and while i am an american i don’t believe the colonies should have been created. yet they were so we have to deal with reality when coming to terms with a legal and moral solution. like i believe the native tribes and nations should be given as much sovreignty as possible. also despite your prattling the colonies did have concrete borders and while yes they didn’t say they wouldn’t expand via force that was legal than. not saying it was ok. i wish things would have gone differently. Also i find it telling that zionists like your self firmly believe jews are better than others demands jews in Israel be held to the lowest possible standards. deny it all you want it is part and parcel to the zionist culture though it mostly presents in relatively benign way. the fact you whine that you can’t be held to standards of conduct over a century out of date is evidence enough Israel should have never been created.

        and don’t try and call me out nathan. I hate my countries crimes and try to mitigate them. you propagate your countries terrorist and criminal activities.

    • Uri Davis
      Uri Davis
      August 27, 2018, 9:24 pm

      Regrettably, Israel’s fraudulent sovereignty is (still) recognized internationally.

      HOWEVER, the fact that (by its own Declaration of Establishment) Israel has not been established as a sovereign State + the fact that it has applied its bogus sovereignty in order to ethnically cleanse the indigenous people of Palestine (the Palestinian Arab people) beginning with the 1948 Palestinian Nakba to date – could be taken as point of departure for a carefully formulated Resolution in the UN demanding (first) that the status of Israel in the UN be downgraded from full member State to that of a non-member observer State, and (second) that the UNGA resolve to classify Israel as an apartheid State and apply the binding “International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid” of 1973 on the rogue State of Israel until such time as Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:
      1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the apartheid Wall;
      2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
      3. Respecting, protecting and implementing the rights of 1948 Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

      • Nathan
        Nathan
        August 27, 2018, 10:31 pm

        Uri Davis – If you are making any demands for the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, then you are recognizing the sovereignty of the State of Israel. Citizenship is born when there is a sovereign state that defines that citizenship. If, in your eyes, the State of Israel shouldn’t have come into existence and its sovereignty is “fraudulent”, then your battle-cry should be that the state shouldn’t exist. But there has to be a sovereign state in order to relate to your demands for its citizens. The same is true for demoting Israel from a member state of the UN to a non-member observer state. A non-member observer state is a state nevertheless. Your call for Israel’s becoming a non-member observer state is also a recognition of her statehood.

        You regret that Israel is recognized internationally, but the truth is that you have now recognized her yourself.

  11. amigo
    amigo
    August 22, 2018, 4:54 pm

    “The border with Syria, based on the 1974 Separation of Forces Agreement between Israel and Syria, is also understood. More formal border agreements require treaties between parties, and as both Lebanon and Syria refuse to recognize the obvious existence of Israel, you can put that on them. “mondonut

    You jest , right??.

    Israel illegally annexed The Syrian Heights so no , we do not put the blame on the victim.We blame the thief.

    See UNSCR 497 in which the international community of civilised nations refers to the Illegal annexation (Theft) of the SYRIAN HEIGHTS as “Null and Void”.

    mondonut , do your homework and stop wasting our time having to continually point out your lies and hasbara.

    • annie
      annie
      August 22, 2018, 6:09 pm

      amigo, did you hear the latest, israel is now pressuring trump&co to recognize the golan as part of israel. now that they have jerusalem under their belt. no rest for the wicked!

      https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-not-discussing-recognition-of-israeli-sovereignty-on-golan-bolton/

      In July, the US House of Representatives’ Oversight Committee heard arguments for and against recognizing Israel’s annexation of the Golan, a step pushed by Republican Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis.

      While the hearing was not attached to any piece of legislation, it represented an aggressive push by some pro-Israel groups, friendly Republicans and the Israeli government to consolidate gains under Trump, whose White House has shown an willingness to closely align with the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

      The Netanyahu government reportedly has pressed the White House in recent months to recognize the annexation with the argument that the breakdown of order in Syria subsequent to the outbreak of civil war in 2011 undergirded Israeli claims that the plateau is critical to maintaining security.

      In June, US Ambassador David Friedman reportedly told Israeli lawmakers they were “ungrateful” for demanding that Washington follow up on its recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel with an official US acknowledgement of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

      US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, left, and US national security adviser John Bolton, visit the US Embassy in Jerusalem, on August 21, 2018. (Matty Stern/US Embassy Jerusalem)
      Trump broke with decades of US policy in December and recognized Israel’s claim to Jerusalem as its capital. However on Tuesday, the president told a crowd in West Virginia that Israel would pay a “higher price” to the Palestinians because of the concession, signaling another possible friction point between the governments.

      Among those who recently called for American recognition of Israel’s annexation of the Golan were Transportation and Intelligence Minister Israel Katz, Likud party MK Yoav Kisch, and Yair Lapid, who leads the opposition Yesh Atid party.

      According to a Hebrew-language report from the Kan public broadcaster on Sunday, Friedman said Israelis do not understand that the US has global interests unrelated to the Jewish state, while Israeli politicians have only a domestic agenda.

      Israelis do not understand that the US has global interests unrelated to the Jewish state? gee, wonder why they would get that idea.

      • amigo
        amigo
        August 22, 2018, 6:33 pm

        Annie , Hi , how are things in the Bay Area.

        I had noticed that report a few days ago and meant to read it later .It slipped my mind so thanks for posting it.

        I expect the zios are on to a good thing here.If Trump wants to distract attention from his latest Legal /Political problems then Israel will have the Golan in their pocket with a Deed of trust sent out on Twitter. What more proof do zionists need.Screw normal laws and legal niceties.

    • mondonut
      mondonut
      August 22, 2018, 6:12 pm

      @amigo You jest , right??.

      So the 1974 Separation of Forces Agreement does not exist? Israel does not consider it to be their border?

      Considering the original statement was that Israel does not have borders at all, I think that Israel actually declaring its border proves otherwise. Try to stay on topic.

      • annie
        annie
        August 22, 2018, 6:26 pm

        what “original statement” are you referencing? do you mean this:

        The State of Israel was advisedly not established as a sovereign because conventionally sovereign states are generally defined within establish borders

        one can’t be “within” borders by declaring you’ve got a few here and there. and my original statement wasn’t about borders, it was about sovereignty.

        and in response to nathan upthread: Actually, a state is an entity that comes into being when there is a government that has effective control over territory

        again, this issue of sovereignty, a sovereign state. here’s wiki on that topic:

        A sovereign state is, in international law, a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[

        until the borders are settled, there is no “defined territory”. unilateral annexation, such as the occupied territories, including the golan, makes for a lot of sketchy border areas (not to be confused with borders).

      • amigo
        amigo
        August 22, 2018, 6:51 pm

        “So the 1974 Separation of Forces Agreement does not exist? Israel does not consider it to be their border?” mondonut.

        Who gives a rat,s posterior whether Israel considers it to be their border.

        The rest of the planet thinks otherwise , except maybe Donald (power corrupts) Trump whose sexual activities are most likely on file in Shin Bet central.

        Lay off the ziocaine .It can create fantasies in your head and cause you to believe they are facts.

      • annie
        annie
        August 23, 2018, 4:27 pm

        hi amigo! the bay area is holding up ok as far as i know. as for california, not sure if you heard of one of our extremely corrupt congressmen, duncan hunter, was recently indicted. https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/22/politics/duncan-hunter-indicted/index.html he’s from a super right wing republican area, but the rather astounding news is the person he is up against, the swarthy gorgeous ‎Ammar Campa-Najjar, a justice dem running for single payer and no corporate funds, might have a chance of winning the election, https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1032294028153434112 . his father is from gaza, and then some https://theintercept.com/2018/08/22/ammar-campa-najjar-a-working-class-progressive-gets-a-boost-from-indictment-of-duncan-hunter/?menu=1 so that’s kind of exciting!

  12. zaid
    zaid
    August 26, 2018, 3:36 am

    The PLO recognised israel and not the Palestinian people.
    The PLO represent themselfs only

  13. Emet
    Emet
    August 27, 2018, 1:08 am

    Said author of this article, Uri Davis, is another one who is unable to explain why the Arabs had to declare war in 1967 when there were ZERO settlements. Not only this, said author is also not able to give a convincing argument why the Palestinians rejected the 1947 Partition Plan, when it should be clear to the MW mob that what was offered in 1947 was way more than what Abbas is publicly indicating he would accept today. If the Arabs and the likes of Davis lie to you once and you fail to understand that a lie is in play, shame on them. If they lie to you like this twice and you still fail to understand what is in play, shame on you.
    In other words Uri Davis, the Palestinians want no less than the destruction of the Jewish State, in any form, and will use lies and surrogates like you in order to achieve this goal.

    • annie
      annie
      August 27, 2018, 1:52 am

      speaking of liars, Arabs didn’t declare war in 1967.

      • Emet
        Emet
        August 27, 2018, 5:20 pm

        Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran on May 22, 1967 which was an act of war. Israel retaliated on June 5. Annie, I know math is not your strong thing but try doing the math, please.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        August 28, 2018, 6:22 am

        Emet: “Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran on May 22, 1967 which was an act of war.”

        ROFL. Says who? The Egyptian navy had only searched a couple of ships and Israeli-flagged ship had not passed through the straits in two years.

        “Emet”, I know emet is not your strong thing but try to be honest for once, please.

      • Emet
        Emet
        August 28, 2018, 10:19 am

        Enough with the BS Talkback! Did Egypt block the Straits or not? I think you have spent too much time smoking Egyptian hashish all the while reading articles from the Cairo museum. Diversify man, you are like a robot with your answers and comments.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        August 29, 2018, 4:35 am

        Emet: “Enough with the BS Talkback!”

        I agree, but I doubt that you will stop.

        “Did Egypt block the Straits or not?”

        Not really. An no, that’s neither an act of aggresion nor a reason to go to war. Especially not if it happened in Egypt’s coastal waters and right in the moment when Egypt tried to deescalate the situation and settle this issue at the UN.

        Colonialization on the other hand is always a reason to go to war since 1948, isn’t it?

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      August 27, 2018, 4:44 am

      Emet: “Said author of this article, Uri Davis, is another one who is unable to explain why the Arabs had to declare war in 1967 when there were ZERO settlements.”

      Who could? Israel attacked in 1967 to conquer land to establish its illegal settlements in Gaza, the Westbank, Syria’s Golan Heights and in the Egypt’s Sinai.

      Emet: “Not only this, said author is also not able to give a convincing argument why the Palestinians rejected the 1947 Partition Plan, …”

      Because the usual outcome of the end of a mandate was to release the mandated territory into independence. Why should the majority of the population give up 55% of their country to foreign settlers and illegal immigrants? Including the fertile coastal area and important industries? Only because Jews have an “old aged dream”?

      Emet: ” If they lie to you like this twice and you still fail to understand what is in play, shame on you.”

      Thankfully we see through every lie of yours which is nearly one in every sentence, Sheqer.

      Emet: “In other words Uri Davis, the Palestinians want no less than the destruction of the Jewish State, …”

      You didn’t have a problem with Jewish settlers and illegal immigrants destroying the Palestinian state, did you? So what’s your point if that really was the case? Don’t the people of a country have the right to defend their country against partition, conquest and expulsion and also the right to restore its unity?

      • Emet
        Emet
        August 27, 2018, 6:04 pm

        When you refer to Jews as foreign you take yourself out of the discussion.

      • amigo
        amigo
        August 27, 2018, 7:40 pm

        “When you refer to Jews as foreign you take yourself out of the discussion.”emet

        When you equate all Jews with so called Israel and so called Israel with all Jews ,you are guilty of gross Antisemitism.

        Have you not yet learned that simple fact.If not , you have taken yourself out of the discussion.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        August 28, 2018, 12:19 am

        “When you refer to Jews as foreign you take yourself out of the discussion.”

        Zionism was an idea of European Jews. These were people who were not born in Palestine, and who did not initially have any sort of Palestinian citizenship. They were foreigners. And these people made up the majority of the Jews who pushed for a Jewish State.

        Zionists, interestingly, are inclined to claim that all Jews are part of a “nation” distinct from the inhabitants of the countries Jews are born in, and thus to be foreigners in those countries.

        I am pretty sure, though, that if we were to invoke the rule that MPs can only have Australian nationality, and no other, and thus forbid Jews from running for Federal Parliament, those same Zionists would howl loud and long about anti-Semitism.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        August 28, 2018, 12:33 am

        The Zio called “Emet” is slow of learning.

        He should write 500 times on the board (that’s less than the number of times he’s heard it and had an opportunity to research it):

        “Only 4-5% of Palestinians were of Jewish ancestry at the time the Zionist invaders declared clear and loud their intent to invade Palestine and subvert its sovereignty. These 4-5% and their descendants in direct line are the only Jews, ie Jewish Palestinians, who are not to be considered foreign invaders.”

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        August 28, 2018, 3:08 am

        Emet: “When you refer to Jews as foreign you take yourself out of the discussion.”

        I refer generally refer to people who immigrated into Palestine under British gun and without consent of the people of Palestine as foreigners. Actually they should be called illegal immigrants. Or infiltrators.

        If you think, there should be a different term for those who were Jews it just shows your usual despicable supremacism.

        And btw. I don’t consider you to be someone who is capable of having a discussion. You just vomit and hide.

      • Emet
        Emet
        August 28, 2018, 10:05 am

        Most of the Arabs in Israel are foreign as they moved to the area from Syria, Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt when Jews came home in large numbers and stimulated the economy when little else was happening in the general region.
        And some news for those who like to dismiss the Jewish connection to their homeland. Mark Twain who visited Jerusalem in 1867 and met with leaders of the city, confirmed that Jews were a majority even then. Jews have always been a majority in Jerusalem and always will be. Get used to this fact.

      • amigo
        amigo
        August 28, 2018, 10:37 am

        “And some news for those who like to dismiss the Jewish connection to their homeland. Mark Twain who visited Jerusalem in 1867 and met with leaders of the city, confirmed that Jews were a majority even [email protected] emet

        Classic Hasbara (ziosplain) 101.

        BTW , please provide evidence backing up Mark Twain,s claim.

        I will wait.

      • eljay
        eljay
        August 28, 2018, 11:17 am

        || Emet: … And some news for those who like to dismiss the Jewish connection to their homeland. Mark Twain who visited Jerusalem in 1867 and met with leaders of the city, confirmed that Jews were a majority even then. … ||

        So what? AFAIK, no-one has ever suggested the Jewish inhabitants of geographic Palestine did not have a real connection to their homeland of geographic Palestine.

        But if we accept your assertion that a majority proves a connection, the fact that the majority of the world’s Jews did not (and still do not) live in geographic Palestine proves that Jews had (and still have) a “Jewish connection” to places other than geographic Palestine.

        I agree. But ZioHQ is very disappointed with you.  :-(

        || … Get used to this fact. ||

        You should. But you won’t. Because you’re a Zionist.

      • Maghlawatan
        Maghlawatan
        August 28, 2018, 11:59 am

        @Emet

        “Most of the Arabs in Israel are foreign as they moved to the area from Syria, Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt when Jews came home in large numbers and stimulated the economy when little else was happening in the general region.”

        This is bilge from Mary Peters which was demolished by Finkelstein.

        Israel expelled 80% of the local population against international law. Why is only 49% of greater Israel Jewish? Because of the occupation.

      • Emet
        Emet
        August 28, 2018, 11:59 am

        Amigo, read Mark Twain’s “Innocents Abroad”, chapter CHAPTER LIII. where he talks about 14,000 residents of Jerusalem. Now do some research and you will find that during the time of his visit there were about 8,000 Jews living in Jerusalem. Mark Twain talks about Moslems, Jews, Greeks, Latins, Armenians, Syrians, Copts, Abyssinians, Greek Catholics, and a handful of Protestants living in Jerusalem. So take 14,000 less 8,000 and divide 6,000 amongst Moslems, Greeks, Latins, Armenians, Syrians, Copts, Abyssinians, Greek Catholics, and a handful of Protestants, and you will start to understand, if you put your bias aside for a second, what I am talking about. You see, you did not have to wait that long.

      • amigo
        amigo
        August 28, 2018, 1:17 pm

        “Amigo, read Mark Twain’s “Innocents Abroad”, chapter CHAPTER LIII. where he talks about 14,000 residents of Jerusalem. ” emet.

        I asked you for evidence not what Mark Twain ” talked about”.

      • amigo
        amigo
        August 28, 2018, 1:58 pm

        “Jews have always been a majority in Jerusalem and always will be. Get used to this fact.” emet

        Is that a fact??.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem

        “Year Jews Muslims Christians Total Original Source As quoted in
        1838 3,000 4,500 3,500 11,500 Edward Robinson Edward Robinson, 1841[32]
        1844 7,120 5,000 3,390 15,510 Dr. Ernst-Gustav Schultz, Prussian consul[33]
        1846 7,515 6,100 3,558 17,173 Titus Tobler, Swiss explorer[34] Kark and Oren-Nordheim, 2001[22]
        1849 2,084 families ? ? ? Moses Montefiore census[35]
        1850 13,860 ? ? ? Dr. Ascher, Anglo-Jewish Association
        1850 630* 1,025* 738* 2,393* ? Alexander Scholch, 1985[36]
        1851 5,580 12,286′ 7,488 25,354 Official census (only Ottoman citizens)[37] Kark and Oren-Nordheim, 2001[22]
        1853 8,000 4,000 3,490 15,490 César Famin, French diplomat Famin[38]
        1856 5,700 10,300 3,000 18,000 Ludwig August von Frankl, Austrian writer Kark and Oren-Nordheim, 2001[22]
        1857 7,000 ? ? 10–15,000 HaMaggid periodical Kark and Oren-Nordheim, 2001[22]
        1862 8,000 6,000 3,800 17,800 HaCarmel periodical Kark and Oren-Nordheim, 2001[22]
        1864 8,000 4,000 2,500 15,000 British Embassy Dore Gold, 2009[39]
        1866 8,000 4,000 4,000 16,000 John Murray travel guidebook Kark and Oren-Nordheim, 2001[22]
        1867 ? ? ? 14,000 Mark Twain, Innocents Abroad, Chapter 52 [40]”.

        Seems to me Mark Twain didn,t have a clue what he was talking about.According to the list above , Jerusalem was Empty in 1867.

        Oh , please also note that “The Jews were not always in the majority in Jerusalem ” as claimed by you.

        Oh dear, hasbara central is sending 3rd rate ziosplainers these days.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        August 28, 2018, 2:03 pm

        And I hear that Mark Twain will become Secretary General of the UN next week, so what Mark Twain might have thought makes a big difference!

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        August 28, 2018, 4:10 pm

        “Oh dear, hasbara central is sending 3rd rate ziosplainers these day”

        I think we are supposed to be impressed with their fanaticism and implacability. And their power!

      • Nathan
        Nathan
        August 28, 2018, 8:07 pm

        Yes, Talkback, “the people of a country have the right to defend their country against partition, conquest and expulsion and also the right to restore its unity”. However, having the right does not mean that they shall succeed in doing so. When you go to war, there are no insurance policies – so, one has to take into account the possibility of failure. Generally speaking, it really is advisable to be prepared for war when you decide that you must go to war (and, conversely, if you are incapable of preparing for war, then it is advisable to seek a political compromise).

        You didn’t get back to me with the exact quote from the UN Charter that differentiates between “natives” and “immigrants” regarding the right of self-determination. I still find it unbelievable that the UN would have proposed founding a Jewish state in 1947 if such a possibility negated the UN Charter.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        August 28, 2018, 9:00 pm

        Mark Twain who visited Jerusalem in 1867 and met with leaders of the city, confirmed that Jews were a majority even then. Jews have always been a majority in Jerusalem…”

        The figures seem to show that Christians were a majority for quite a while.

        (The city is full of Christian holy places.
        https://tourstotheholyland.com/christian-travel-guide/christian-sites/christian-sites-in-jerusalem.aspx
        Christians once had a church on the Temple Mount, replacing the Temple of Jupiter. Welsh Methodists have as much right to Jerusalem as American Jews do.)

        But who were the Jews who lived there in 1867? Were they mostly Palestinian Jews, descended from people who had lived in Palestine for generations? Or were they Poles and Ukranians, fresh off the boat?

        Most likely the former.

        And their presence in their native land gives no rights whatsoever to foreign Jews from Europe.

        “Most of the Arabs in Israel are foreign as they moved to the area from Syria, Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt”

        It sounds like you have been reading Joan Peters. But let us suppose it is true.

        1. If foreign Jewish immigrants had any political rights in Palestine, then the foreign Arab immigrants had the same rights. If the foreign Arab immigrants had no political rights in Palestine, then neither did the foreign Jewish immigrants.

        2. Those foreign Arab immigrants (there were a few) assimilated and made themselves part of Palestinian society. The foreign Jewish immigrants refused to assimilate, and set up a parallel society with the ultimate aim of displacing the Palestinian society. This, to my way of thinking, gives the foreign Arab immigrants a share in the political rights of the Palestinians.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        August 28, 2018, 9:06 pm

        “then it is advisable to seek a political compromise”

        And that is exactly what the Palestinians did. They argued for a single democratic state in Palestine, in which Arabs and Jews, even the immigrant invader Jews, were equal citizens. They proposed that Hebrew be an official language of the state, as well as Arabic.

        But the invader Jews were not interested in compromise. They forced war upon the Palestinians.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        August 28, 2018, 10:23 pm

        Roha- What year was this proposal?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        August 28, 2018, 11:27 pm

        1946/7

        From

        Atiyah, Edward. The Arabs. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1958, (revised edition)

        “Another Anglo-American attempt (this time one between Foreign Office and State Department experts) to provide a solution on the basis of mainly autonomous but federated Arab and Jewish provinces, proved equally abortive. The Jews declared that they would only accept a ‘viable state’- which, according to their own definition, was to consist of the best land in Palestine, amounting to 65 per cent of the total, leaving to the Arabs, ‘as a supreme sacrifice’, the central and mainly arid plateau.

        Following this failure, the Arab states accepted an invitation from the British Government to send delegations for yet one more conference in London in the winter of 1946-7. But no result was achieved. The Arab delegates reiterated the now unshakable Arab demand for an independent, democratic state in Palestine, offering equal rights to all citizens, freedom of education to Jews, and the use of Hebrew as an official language. But they insisted on the immediate stoppage of all immigration and the enforcement of the existing regulations against the sale of land to the Jews in certain parts of Palestine.”

        Pages 176, 177.

        So the offer was on the table right up to the last minute. The Zionists rejected it, and started war.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        August 29, 2018, 12:02 am

        Two comments to add.

        1. Atiyah was secretary to the Arab Office in London from 1945 to 1949, so he was in a good position to know the truth about the offer. You can decide for yourselves whether he is telling it.

        2. Zionist commenters will wail about the immigration and land sale aspects of the offer, and totally ignore the rest of it.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        August 29, 2018, 5:00 am

        Emet: “Most of the Arabs in Israel are foreign as they moved to the area from Syria, Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt when Jews came home in large numbers and stimulated the economy when little else was happening in the general region.”

        Says who? Joan Debunked Peters? LOL. The UN says otherwise:
        “The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths.”
        https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3

        Emet? “Mark Twain who visited Jerusalem in 1867 and met with leaders of the city, confirmed that Jews were a majority even then.”

        0Mark Twain? Seriously? That’s the best you can do? From the the same UN source:
        “City of Jerusalem
        100,000 Jews
        105,000 Arabs and others

        Are you even interested in emet, Emet?

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        August 29, 2018, 5:29 am

        Nathan: “Yes, Talkback, “the people of a country have the right to defend their country against partition, conquest and expulsion and also the right to restore its unity”. However, having the right does not mean that they shall succeed in doing so.”

        Indeed. Their right of the people of Palestine to an independent state in all of Palestine has been violated.

        Nathan: “When you go to war, …”

        Who went to war? Who needed to go to war?

        “…, U.S. officials there faced the Jewish Agency’s rejection of a truce as well as a trusteeship arrangement to replace what the State Department and the White House conceded to be the failure of the partition plan. In evaluating the situation, Robert McClintock, a special assistant to Dean Rusk, then director of the Office of UN Affairs, deliberated over the implications of these developments. It may well be, he speculated, that Washington would soon be confronted with a situation created by Jewish military forces, including the Haganah, the Stern Gang and Irgun, in which it would have to determine whether a “Jewish armed attack on Arab communities

        in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council.”15 Washington would face what McClintock called an “anomalous situation,” in which “the Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership.””
        http://mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/us-policy-israel/palestine-1948?print

        Nathan: “You didn’t get back to me with the exact quote from the UN Charter that differentiates between “natives” and “immigrants” regarding the right of self-determination.”

        Why do you bring this up here? Maybe, because you want to twist the issue and distract from the fact that you didn’t get back to my request to “formulate a universal principle under which a group of people, most of them foreigners who immigrate under a de facto occupation have the right to create a state within a state. And try to do that, without refering to Jews, Jewishness or Judaism. Good luck, you know it was a crime.”?

      • amigo
        amigo
        August 29, 2018, 7:22 am

        “Roha- What year was this proposal?” YF aka WJ

        What does it matter which century/decade/year it was proposed.Israel has rejected every peace proposal offered by the Palestinians.

        Read the Likud Charter,

        “Although Netanyahu plays the part, the details of his party platform need to be taken into account as a “peace partner” to show the reality behind the circus. Likud Party Charter states:

        a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”

        b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”

        c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”

        d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.”

        So while Netanyahu wants no pre-conditions from the Palestinians going into “negotiations” his party charter and ideology says otherwise.

        Likud Party Charter”

        https://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/netanyahu%E2%80%99s-party-platform-flatly-rejects-establishment-of-palestinian-state/

        Apologies if my response is too puerile for your taste.

        Suck it up Yonah, it,s the truth in spite of your efforts to demonstrate otherwise.

      • Nathan
        Nathan
        August 29, 2018, 3:16 pm

        RoHa – I would like to read that Palestinian proposal in which the Palestinians supposedly offered citizenship to immigrant Jews in a single state back in 1947. I have been reading about the conflict for a very long time, and I have never heard of such a proposal. I also checked the internet for an article about it, and there were no results. Please tell me where I could read about it (preferably in the original Arabic, but English obviously would also be fine).

        There are a lot of false quotes in the propaganda of this conflict. For example, I read recently a quote that appeared in a comment of Annie’s that Ben-Gurion supposedly said that “the old will die and the young will forget…” Here, too, I searched the internet to see if I could find the source, and “ma feesh” as they say in Palestinian Arabic (il n’y a pas – there just isn’t anything).

        Anyway, I’d like to read that very surprising proposal. It doesn’t make any sense that the Arab Higher Committee (اللجنة العربية العليا) would offer anything to immigrants (“invaders”).

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        August 29, 2018, 8:38 pm

        Nathan, I quoted my source. Now, either Atiyah is telling the truth, or he is mistaken, or he is lying. We might suspect one of the latter two possibilities, but I have no evidence for them. So, until I get contrary evidence, I have reason to believe such an offer was made.

        If you have no contrary evidence, you, too, have reason to believe such an offer was made.

        “It doesn’t make any sense that the Arab Higher Committee (اللجنة العربية العليا) would offer anything to immigrants (“invaders”).”

        Why not? They knew their position, though right, was politically weak. It makes perfect sense that they would try to offer a compromise.

      • Nathan
        Nathan
        August 31, 2018, 7:53 am

        RoHa – The Arab side never proposed that the immigrants would be allowed to stay in the single state. In the quote that you bring to our attention, the Arabs demand that the immigration of Jews to Palestine be stopped, but your quote doesn’t deal with their position vis-a-vis the immigrants already in the country.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        August 31, 2018, 8:27 am

        “The Arab side never proposed that the immigrants would be allowed to stay in the single state.”

        And how do you know that? Certainly not from my quote, since it “doesn’t deal with their position vis-a-vis the immigrants already in the country.”

        Given the reference to Jewish education and the use of Hebrew, I think we can fairly assume that the intention was to allow the immigrants to remain and be full citizens. The native Palestinian Jews spoke Arabic and had already made arrangements for education.

      • Maghlawatan
        Maghlawatan
        August 31, 2018, 10:49 am

        Why would anyone welcome Zionists to their country? They take over. They kill, they pauperise and they call you terrorists. They are traumatized. They think God loves them. They are amoral. And they never pay for anything.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        September 1, 2018, 3:42 pm

        Nathan: “The Arab side never proposed that the immigrants would be allowed to stay in the single state.”

        Seriously, what’s your problem? Their explicit demand was that the immigration simply should stop. They didn’t demand that the Jews that had allready immigrated to should leave.

    • eljay
      eljay
      August 27, 2018, 8:35 am

      || Emet: … said author is also not able to give a convincing argument why the Palestinians rejected the 1947 Partition Plan … ||

      Just as no argument will ever convince the rapist that he was not (and still is not) entitled to kidnap women, chain them in his basement and “self-determine” himself in them, no argument will ever convince Zionists that they were not (and are still not) entitled to Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of (geographic) Palestine.

      || … the Palestinians want no less than the destruction of the Jewish State, in any form … ||

      “Jewish State” is a colonialist and religion-supremacist construct. It has no right to exist, in any form.

      • amigo
        amigo
        August 29, 2018, 4:27 pm

        “RoHa – I would like to read that Palestinian proposal in which the Palestinians supposedly offered citizenship to immigrant Jews in a single state back in 1947. “nathan

        Check RoHa responses (2) upthread @ 9-28, 11,27pm.

        ” I have been reading about the conflict for a very long time, and I have never heard of such a proposal. I also checked the internet for an article about it, and there were no results. Please tell me where I could read about it (preferably in the original Arabic, but English obviously would also be fine).”nathan

        Youv,e been looking in all the wrong places.

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus
      August 28, 2018, 12:37 am

      In other words Uri Davis, the Palestinians want no less than the destruction of the Jewish State

      Duh.
      The surprise!

Leave a Reply