Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

Denying 'Israeli nationality' only perpetuates discrimination

One group of Israelis is working tirelessly to ensure that every citizen of Israel feels like they belong, regardless of religion or ethnicity.

By Uzzi Ornan (Translated by Jordan Michaeli)

New immigrants at Western Wall getting IDs (Jewish Agency/CC BY ND 2.0)

There is a discriminatory regime in Israel, a regime under which citizens are granted and denied rights on the basis of whether they are Jews or non-Jews. Separate laws were made to determine citizens’ personal status or issues such as the state’s official days of rest. Even if an Israeli citizen does not believe the government should be able to decide whether they “belong” (or if they “belong”) to any given religious group, everyone is still required to turn to “their” religion’s institutions in order to get married or divorced. And it doesn’t stop there. If you belong to the Jewish group, for instance, rabbis, who live off public funds, tell you what to eat, shut down your public transportation on Saturdays and forbid or allow you to get married.

In order to change the status quo, the “Ani Israeli” (I am Israeli) group was formed, and subsequently filed a lawsuit which said the following: we are Israeli citizens, and we do not want to be formally affiliated with any religious or ethno-religious group. Every country has a state nationality named after the state’s name. Even our passports explicitly state that our nationality is Israeli. We are suing the Interior Ministry so that it registers us as members of the Israeli nation — not only for the purpose of international travel, but for every official domestic interaction with the state.

Our lawsuit made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The court, however, ruled against the 21 petitioners, and refused to issue a declaratory judgment defining them as members of the Israeli nation. The court explained its decision by stating that a similar lawsuit was rejected 40 years ago. In the previous case, the court ruled that the Jewish people must not be split into two nations, a “Jewish” nation, as Jews are customary known, and another “Israeli” nation. According to the verdict, the founders of the State of Israel never intended for Israelis to be a nation in their own right. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner was only one individual who himself couldn’t prove the existence of an Israeli nation.

The new verdict did not surprise us at “Ani Israeli.” In defining “Jewish,” Israel’s legislators ignored the Declaration of Independence’s commitment to the principle of no discrimination based on differences of race, religion or sex. But the law defines who is “Jewish” according to biological origin or religion, thus creating racial and religious differentiations between Jews and all other Israeli citizens.

We intend to request another hearing with a broad panel of judges.

The petitioners behind our current lawsuit are not only citizens registered as Jews, which in and of itself undermines the court’s reasoning that this suit should be rejected along the same lines as its predecessor. Rejecting such a lawsuit filed by non-Jewish citizens blocks the path for those citizens to “belong” to the state nationality, something that can be achieved in every other country. It is as if the verdict tells them: you will forever be strangers here, only Jews “belong” to this country.

The Supreme Court mistakenly interpreted the word “nation” according to an old meaning that is no longer used by any Western, democratic state. The idea of a “nation” used to mean a society made up of one ethnic group. But many new states were created in modern times alongside the creation of countless new nations that were not solely composed of people one ethnic origin or religion. Following the establishment of the United Nations, the principle meaning of “nation” came to include all of a state’s citizens, regardless of ethnic origin or religion.

The existence of an Israeli nation does not require proof, since sovereignty is derived from the “people” and the “people” are clearly defined: only those who are allowed to participate in state elections. Therefore, only citizens who actually live in Israel can be its sovereigns, rather than all Jews across the world, who are all loyal citizens of their own countries.

Can a ‘Jewish national’ be an American national?

The court’s refusal to recognize the Israeli nation is derived from the correct assertion that a person cannot belong to two nations. Therefore, according to the court’s logic, a Jew in Israel cannot be a member of the Israeli nation because they already belong to another nation, the Jewish nation.

That, however, leads to a grave conclusion: if there exists a “Jewish nation,” to whom the State of Israel belongs, and that nation is made up of all Jews across the world, then all those Jews are in danger! Jews across the world are loyal citizens of their home countries, belonging to various nations. Therefore, according to the verdict, an American Jew, who is already part of the “Jewish nation,” cannot also be a loyal member of the American nation. Not only does the “Jewish nation” verdict disregard Israelis, it is also a dangerous verdict for the diaspora.

A failure to ensure equality for minorities

The State of Israel makes every possible effort to ensure that its citizens of Arab heritage never feel like they “belong.” It takes every opportunity to reemphasize that a non-Jewish citizen is not a part of the collective that lives in this country.

It’s very unfortunate that the Supreme Court gave its approval to this intolerable situation. In an ideal world, a democratic regime would solve the questions surrounding the status of ethnic-minority citizens in a reasonable and respectable way. A state nationality that includes all citizens can accommodate various ethnic or and religious communities existing freely and respectfully next to each other, while at the same time preserving the culture or even language unique and important to each one of them. The modern state nationality is like a super structure, similar to a blanket spread over all citizens and their communities. State nationality does not discriminate between citizens, whether they are members of different groups or are solely affiliated with the state nationality. In this way, for example, members of the Swiss nation are divided into separate groups with various languages. Or take the British nation, which includes the people of England, Scotland and Wales, each of them maintaining and respecting the tradition and culture unique to them. New British citizens are considered members of the British nation, no different from any citizen of English, Scottish or Welsh origin.

Israel is no different. In Israel there is only one state nationality, Israeli, which includes those communities that are not granted the status of nation. There are certain responsibilities carried by the state that cannot be carried on the shoulders of communities, such as: military service for all, legislation on a national level, and representation of the country abroad and in the UN. Even in Belgium, the different groups – Flemish, Walloons and Germans – are referred to as communities rather than nations. The Belgian state nationality is both transcends and is shared by these three communities.

The effort to sustain a state nationality that includes different communities requires tolerance, understanding of the other, and a willingness to make concessions. A community must not believe that it is the sole owner of the land. Our Declaration of Independence promised that we would not allow discrimination based on race, religion and sex. But among the majority Jewish community, certain groups have sprouted up which claim that Israel belongs solely to the Jews, with a similar mood existing to a certain extent among Islamic extremists. Within the Jewish community there is no equality between men and women, with the Jewish majority using its power to force through discriminatory policies into Israeli legislative system. Any community, and specifically this community, cannot lead a democratic state as if it were a nation. Only a state nationality that includes all communities can lead a democratic state that does not discriminate between its citizens – only this kind of country can attain and sustain real peace.

Whether our petition for another hearing is rejected or not, we will not cease to present ourselves as members of the Israeli nation, which is known across the world. We will continue until the recognition of the Israeli nation will be officially accepted, not only on Israeli passports, but also within Israel itself, putting an end to the ruling establishment’s official ethno-religious division between citizens.

Uzzi Ornan is an Israeli linguist at the Hebrew University and Technion and a member of the Academy for the Hebrew Language. He is a social activist who in 1998 founded the ”Ani Israeli (I Am Israeli) group, which strives for equality among all Israelis by dropping the ethnic/religious nationality from the formal government citizen registries, replacing it by the “Israeli Nationality”, or revising it to include “Israeli” as an option.

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. Monty Pogoda

      We are Jews With the Jewish religion whether we call ourselves Israelis or anything else. I am a religious Jew or a religious Israeli. An Arab is an Israeli Arab. A Christian is an Israeli Christian etc.,Get your thinking straight.

      Reply to Comment
      • Haifawi

        And whether we are Israeli Jews, Israeli Muslims, Israeli Atheists, or Israeli Pastafarians, we are all members of the Israeli nation.
        Join the post-WWII political community. Your reliance on tropes and theories from the 19th century is unbecoming.

        Reply to Comment
    2. Samuel

      Haifawi
      Excuse me but I don’t understand how what yo said is different to what Monty Pogoda said.

      So why did you admonish him?

      Reply to Comment
      • Haifawi

        he called himself a ‘religious Israeli,’ categorized the non-Jewish Israelis as something different, and admonished the author to ‘get your thinking straight.’
        If you could understand him as agreeing with me, than your english comprehension is better than mine.

        Reply to Comment
        • Samuel

          It MAY be better.

          But I get you now. Since he is a ‘religious Israeli’ whatever he says is wrong. Even if he says much the same thing as you said.

          Yes he admonished the author but has it occurred to you that what he was saying is that the author is trying to make something out of nothing?

          I admit I could be wrong but that’s how I interpreted what he said. Monty, please correct me if I am wrong.

          Reply to Comment
    3. XYZ

      Moshe Feiglin wrote in Makor Rishon that he has spoken to the Israeli Arab Knesset members and he asked them and other Israeli Arabs why their Knesset members show such hostility to Israel. He came to understand that they strongly object to this attempt to impose “Israeliness” or Israeli national identity on them…they view themselves as members of the Arab-Muslim Umma. Feiglin says if the Jews would just say “we are Jews, you are Arabs (either Muslim or Christian) we have no desire to impose any Israeli values or national identity on you, just as you don’t do the same to us-we can then live as citizens in the same state”. It is the attempt by these organizations like that of the writer to separate Jewish identity from Israeli Jews that is causing all the problems with the Arab population. This of course does not negate the need to recognize their rights as citizens of Israel, the Jewish state.
      In any event, even “progressives” like these who reject Jewish identity do use it to mean “Jew” in fact. Alexander Jacobson wrote in Ha’aretz that he heard a “progressive” friend refer to the conflict between “Israelis and Beduins in the Negev”. Jacobson replied that the Beduin are also “Israelis” and his friend menat “Jews” when he said “Israelis”.

      Reply to Comment
      • Israel is a State recognized by an agreement with the UN embodied in the Declaration of Independence. That document enshrines equality in social and political rights, but also recognizes Jewish heritage (“justice as envisioned by the Prophets”) and what amounts to a basis for the Law of Return. This proto Law of Return gives Israel a perpetual Jewish character; but citizenship, by the same document, requires equality of rights. Cultural identity is distinct. What the State cannot do is suppress the cultural identity (or identities) of its non Jewish population; nor, for that matter, enforce a single cultural definition of Jew. Under the logic of the Declaration, Jewish identity is formed through immigration and what thereby results.

        “Israeli” and “Jewish” are conflated because of the Law of Return and its Declaration guarantee. More, the insistence of equating Israel with “Jewish and democratic” makes a neutral use of “Israeli” nearly anti-Semitic; there is then a counter action by those not wanting to be subordinated, in their perception, to this label (“do not call me Israeli”). One finally ends up with absurdities like “Israelis against Beduins in the Negev” which actually highlights the equality of rights failure of the Declaration.

        As far as I know, Israel was the first State created by the UN, with Ben Gurion et al. so assenting. “Citizen” refers to Israel and the rights promise of the Declaration. “Jewish” refers to the Return promise of that document. Crucially, Return does not apply to resident Israelis, Jewish or otherwise, as such. The Jewish character of Israel is in this sense externally defined as refuge to Jews; but its State character is simultaneously defined by its rights character, this last I believe the High Court stove towards, not consistently but that is usual in these matters, for decades, although perhaps not now. An “Israeli” nationality designation is quite compatible with citizenship guaranteed in the Declaration. “Arab” and “Jewish” are most useful as potential indicators of discrimination in equality jurisprudence. The High Court decision discussed in the post conflates Return and Equality, although the two are distinct within the Declaration. Using the Declaration as meta-constitutional text would remove much of this quandary. But I have the distinct impression overall that many Justices want to retain the confusion in a vain attempt to fuse “Jewish” and “Democratic” or, better, “Equality.” The unending conflict post 49 has expanding the role of “Jewish” in jurisprudence beyond its original role in the Declaration. This expansive use of “Jewish” is a present Nakba; one could retract the term’s use and still have Jewish Return.

        At present, “Jewish” is being used as a political weapon against citizens. “Jewish and Democratic” then ironically becomes an abridgment of rights, such as free speech under the Boycott Law: “true Jews would never boycott.” This is fascistic, resulting from a contraction of the definition of citizen. And unnecessary. Israel is strong enough to endure dissent.

        Reply to Comment
        • David T.

          “As far as I know, Israel was the first State created by the UN.”

          The UN can neither create nor partition states. It can only recognize such acts or deny their recognition.

          Reply to Comment
          • But it did in the Partition Plan. Read the enabling resolution. If Jews agree to the following items (including equality of rights irrespective of race) then this demarcated area becomes Israel; so too for the Arabs, who failed the conditions for agreement. Ben Gurion et al accepted a seat in the GA based on the Plan, The UK withdrew from its Palestine Mandate and asked the UN to plan for its division. this gave the UN the power to create States there. Thus the UN provided the route for the creation of Israel which, again, Ben Gurion et al. acceded to, knowing a war would soon come and wanting international support.

            Israel’s creation, in its own terms at the time, was not merely self defined but international; its founding act was a matter of international law of the nascent UN, accepted by controling Zionists of the day.

            Reply to Comment
          • David T.

            > GP: “But it did in the Partition Plan. Read the enabling resolution.”

            I read it. It is only a recommendation, nothing more. And because the UN in 1948 saw that there was no chance to implement this resolution without violence, members of the UN under the leadership of the US started to work out a plan to put Palestine under UN trusteeship. Therefore the Security Council in April 1948 even called the two conflicting parties to
            “(d) Refrain, pending further consideration of the future Government of Palestine by the General Assembly, from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community;”
            http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9612B691FC54F280852560BA006DA8C8

            And the Zionists violated this Security Council resolution by declaring statehood one month later.

            Reply to Comment
          • David T.

            > GP: “But it did in the Partition Plan. Read the enabling resolution.”

            I read it. It is only a recommendation, nothing more. And because the UN in 1948 saw that there was no chance to implement this resolution without violence, members of the UN under the leadership of the US started to work out a plan to put Palestine under UN trusteeship. Therefore the Security Council in April 1948 even called the two conflicting parties to
            “(d) Refrain, pending further consideration of the future Government of Palestine by the General Assembly, from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community;”
            http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9612B691FC54F280852560BA006DA8C8

            And the Zionists violated this Security Council resolution by declaring statehood one month later.

            Reply to Comment
    4. Yosef Ben Moshe

      Great article, but it is a pity that the photo of the immigrants showing their Israeli identity cards is not accompanied by explanation.

      The photo demonstrates how civil rights in Israel depend on religious affiliation: Jews and those converted to Judaism are automatically becoming citizens, without giving up previous citizenship, without knowing Hebrew and without pledging allegiance to a Constitution (which does not exist). Instead, they swear loyalty to the Torah at the Western Wall.

      Reply to Comment
      • Vadim

        “swear loyalty to the Torah at the Western Wall”

        WHAT?!

        Reply to Comment
    5. Y.

      A. There is absolutely no duty for a country to design an ‘identity’ which ‘includes’ all its citizens. Rather the opposite – the idea that the citizen should derive its identity from a state reeks of fascism (Indeed, the implication behind the theory that the state should do so is that any minority which rejects the state’s newfound ‘inclusive’ identity will be discriminated against – and it would be their fault).

      B. Any country has and will have a minority rejecting the dominant identity – which means the state has to find a way to treat them adequately. But if this can be done, what’s the need to change the country in the first place?

      C. The post-WWII ‘consensus’ has created more and more… garden variety nation-states. In fact, nearly every country created since the Soviet breakup would fail the author’s test (the one exception I can think of is South Sudan – hardly a model for emulation). Instead of talking about joining a nonexistent post-WWII consensus – maybe the author and some commentators should join reality first.

      Reply to Comment
    6. David T.

      That’s not a mistake, Israel plays a trick here which is not even new.

      Two concepts exist wich can be confused.
      1.) Nation/nationality in the sense of citizenship.
      2.) Nation/nationality WITHIN citizenship.

      Example: The Jewish and Arab citizens of Palestine before 1948 were of Palastinian citizenship. They belonged to the Palestinian nation (nationality in the sense of citizenship). But in their Palestinian ID-cards the nation entry read “Jew” or “Arab”, because this was their nationality WITHIN citizenship. Now Israel wants to suggest that there’s no Israeli nation (in the sense of nationality/citizenship) as such, but only Jews belong to Israel’s nation while they and Arabs are Israeli citizens.

      This is not new. A similar concept was introduced in Germany in 1935. The Reich Citizenship Law (Second Nuremberg Law) declared that those who were not of “German blood” were only citizens of the State (“Staatsbürger”), but “Aryans” were citizens of the Reich (“Reichsbürger”) and only they belonged to the German nation/people.

      Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        DavidT

        I don’t know whether you are deliberatly setting out to deceive or you are just ignorant, but Nazi Germany denied Jews citizenship. Period.

        Get your facts right before you attempt to make hateful obnoxious comparisons.

        Reply to Comment
      • No, David T. seems mostly right. Here is one link:

        http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/nurmlaw3.html

        The first (not second) Nuremberg Law limits citizenship to German descent, thereby removing Jews (in 1935). The second law forbade corruption of German blood, so marriage or sexual intercourse between “Germans” and Jews. All non-Germans so defined where subjects of the State, not citizens, this distinction being made by providing a primary Reich citizenship to Germans. While the terminology employed seems to grant a “State citizenship” to non-Germans resident, I think this is for verbal parallelism. I suspect that if you pressed the matter, non-Germans were subjects of the State. But, then, the Reich was an entity in itself, as the German people, so being a “Reich citizen” is not in any liberal democracy sense, but, again, as a subject, just a preferred subject, hopefully in adoration of the Reich.

        However, there is no such evolved duality in Israel, although some of the social pressures are evident, as in not forbidden but disapproved inter-ethnic sexual partnerships, although how intense this is I know not. While there is no explicit duality of citizenship, the Community Law effectively creates a duality as applied, and this seems the legal road presently being traveled. There are clearly moves to enhance ethnicity in law, but as well counter currents for citizen equality. I continue to think Jim Crow America (North and South, actually) a much better analogy; even here, a significant minority of the Knesset I suspect dislikes these legal trends, the same not true in the Jim Crow South nor early Nazi Germany.

        Reply to Comment
        • Samuel

          No Greg, David seems mostly wrong even by your link.

          Your link mentions specific LAWS which distinguished between German Jews, Gypsies and “pure blooded Germans”. Do you hear me? They had LAWS which stripped away the rights of Non pure bloods. It started badly and it finished worse. The Jews started out as sub citizens and very quickly ended up being stripped of ALL rights. Do I have to spell it out?

          In Israel however, there are Arab politicians there have been Arab high court judges, they are covered for medical treatment, labor laws same as Jews etc.

          Israel has no similar LAWS as the nurmberg laws. All Israeli citizens are equal before the LAW in Israel. The only exception in Israel is the immigration law and there is good reason for that one. We can debate it if you want to.

          Now you may be able to point to cases of discrimination (not by law) in Israel which also exist almost everywhere. That is not an excuse for it but it is an unfortunate fact. Even in Arab countries, even in Europe and yes even in America. Especially in places where there is a war going on.

          And Greg. His comparison is obnoxious. and nowhere near valid. He knows it and he made it because he wants to provoke anger. He succeeded and I will endeavour to treat him with the same disrespect as he chose to treat us. So don’t be surprised if I will dish out to him his own medicine. I hope you will see fit to not defending him. But if you want to, please continue. We will just have to see where it will take us …

          Reply to Comment
    7. David T.

      “Israel has no similar LAWS as the nurmberg laws.”

      The concept of making a distinction between nationals (who belongs to the nation) and citizens is similar. Only Jews are considered to belong to Israel’s nation and are Israeli “nationals”.

      > “All Israeli citizens are equal before the LAW in Israel”

      But all Israeli “nationals” are more equal than equal.

      Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        Israeli Arabs form a minority group in Israel. As I said, they are equal before the law just as much as French Arabs in France (the ones who are citizens).

        The rest of your comment is BS and void of content motivated by malice.

        And your analogy of Israel to Nazi Germany is offensive and loathsome. It was motivated by your hatred of Israel and probably Jews too. You have an axe to grind that is why you are trying to spread malicious propaganda. Go get a life you little hater.

        Reply to Comment
        • David T.

          “As I said, they are equal before the law just as much as French Arabs in France (the ones who are citizens).”

          They might be equal before the law. But the laws are not equal and even less in practice.

          And if you don’t like my “anology” show me another country which differentiates between nationals and citizens.

          Btw. Your personal attacks demonstrate very well the bulliyng mindset of an occupier. Please continue. :)

          Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            “They might be equal before the law. But the laws are not equal and even less in practice.”

            Show me a single law in Israel which is not equal. You will only find one. The immigration law and there are bloody good reasons for that one. You have not even visited my country yet you are very opinionated about it because of your selective reading which is also known as propaganda.

            Ah and David, spare me your complaints about personal attacks. You have come here and made vile unsubstantiated accusations against my country and you expect me to be nice to you? You make the accusation that the only Jewish country in the world, the country which shelters many holocaust survivors or descendants of holocaust survivors is a Nazi state. Or Nazi like state.

            Do you know how untrue that is? Do you know how hurtful that is? I have relatives who were exterminated in the holocaust. Which was an organised mass mass extermination of a people (my people) in an industrial scale. It killed 6 million of our people. Are you saying that Israel is guilty of such a crime? Of course you implied that with a number of your posts. And you are surprised that I attack you personally?

            Reply to Comment
          • David T.

            “Show me a single law in Israel which is not equal.”

            Sure: “There are more than 50 Israeli laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel in all areas of life, including their rights to political participation, access to land, education, state budget resources, and criminal procedures.”
            http://adalah.org/eng/Israeli-Discriminatory-Law-Database

            “You mean a country at war?”

            No, show me another country which differentiates between nationals and citizens based on faith or heritage to grant priviliges to the ‘nationals’ and or discriminate those who aren’t.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            LOL, Do you know the difference between the status of Arabs who are Israeli citizens who live in Israel proper and Arabs who live in the Occupied territories?

            No I guess you don’t nor do you care, do you David? In the West Bank, the law is a combination of Jordanian Law and Military law and your Adalah link refers to those laws so they don’t mean anything . Unless you are the type of person who would have insisted that German and Japanese citizens should have been treated according to American laws while they were under occupation after WW2. Like I said, you are a clown David.

            “No, show me another country which differentiates between nationals and citizens”

            I did already did. Here it is again:
            During WW2, America, Britain, Canada and Australia rounded up their naturalised citizens who were from Germany, Italy and Japan and put them in detention camps.

            Are you going to ask me again? If you do, I will respond the same way again
            :)

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            By the way David, that Adalah site of yours is as biased as you are. It deliberately pretends to mix up laws applying to the occupied territories to laws which apply to Israeli citizens, BOTH Arabs and Jews.

            Here, read some real information about Israeli laws:

            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel

            “Racism in Israel has been experienced by both Israeli Arabs[1] and Israeli Jews. Israel has broad anti-discrimination laws that prohibit discrimination by both government and nongovernment entities on the basis of race, religion, and political beliefs, and prohibits incitement to racism.[2] The Israeli government and many groups within Israel have undertaken efforts to combat racism.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            “And if you don’t like my “anology” show me another country which differentiates between nationals and citizens.”

            You mean a country at war? Ah ok.

            During WW2, America, Britain, Canada and Australia rounded up their naturalised citizens who were from Germany, Italy and Japan and put them in detention camps.

            Would you say that was differentiating between nationals and citizens? DavidT? No waffling now please ….

            Reply to Comment
    8. David T.

      “I did already did.”

      No you didn’t. You were dishonest enough not to even quote my whole request:

      Show me another country which differentiates between nationals and citizens and based on faith or heritage to grant priviliges to the ‘nationals’ and or discriminate those who aren’t.

      You know that this is not about countries who imprison part of their citizens in war times accusing them of aiding the enemy. Israel differentiates even between Jews and Druzes who serve in the IDF.

      > “… that Adalah site of yours is … biased …”

      So Adalah lists Israel’s discriminatory laws against Arab Israelis and those Palestinians it keeps living under military law in the same territory Jews enjoy living under civil law and all you can do is to accuse Adalah of being “biased”. LOL.

      > “It deliberately pretends to mix up laws applying to the occupied territories to laws which apply to Israeli citizens, BOTH Arabs and Jews.”

      Adalah explicitly explains:
      “Some of the laws also violate the rights of Palestinians living in the 1967 OPT and Palestinian refugees.”

      Btw. Wasn’t it you who even argued that Bohemia and Moravia – sorry – Judea and Samaria were part of Israel and not occupied? LOL.

      Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        “Show me another country which differentiates between nationals and citizens and based on faith or heritage to grant priviliges to the ‘nationals’ and or discriminate those who aren’t.”

        You are the dishonest one. We were talking about equality before the law. You claimed that Israel has different laws for Arab Israelis and Jewish Israelis. I asked you to show me a single law other than immigration laws (there are bloody good reasons for that one) and you presented that stupid Adalah site which listed laws pertinent to the occupied territories in the West Bank which is considered to be occupied territories (yes, even by Israel) although parts of it are disputed territories. The parts where Jewish settlements are built.

        Now back to your question. During WW2, America, Britain, Canada and Australia differentiated between their citizens who were born in Germany, Italy, Japan and their other citizens. They put the former ones in detention camps. That is not enough of a differentiation for you?

        “You know that this is not about countries who imprison part of their citizens in war times accusing them of aiding the enemy.”

        Yes it is. The Jews of Palestine/Israel have been involved in 100 years of war with the Arabs. A war which the Jews didn’t want and still don’t want but if there is to be war, we Jews have as much right to do whatever is necessary to defend ourselves as anyone else. Even if racist bigots like you don’t think so.

        “Israel differentiates even between Jews and Druzes who serve in the IDF.”

        Show me an Israeli law which discriminates against the Druze, you liar.

        “So Adalah lists Israel’s discriminatory laws against Arab Israelis”

        No it does not. Show me any Israeli law which discriminates against Arab Israelis.

        Yes, and just keep on ignoring the wikipedia link, which I gave above, that shows that Israel has anti-discrimination laws.

        “and those Palestinians it keeps living under military law in the same territory Jews enjoy living under civil law”

        Yes, get over it. The Arabs of the West Bank are under occupation. The Jews on the West Bank are Israeli citizens living on disputed lands.

        Have you ever heard of such nonsense? After WW2, when Germany and Japan were under occupation, did you expect Germans or Japanese to be able to vote in American elections? And be subject to American laws? Or to subject Americans living in Germany or Japan to military laws? You are a fool David (actually calling you a fool is an act of kindness).

        “and all you can do is to accuse Adalah of being “biased”. LOL.”

        Yep, go figure.

        “Adalah explicitly explains:
        “Some of the laws also violate the right of Palestinians living in the 1967 OPT and Palestinian refugees.”

        Which ones? And how? Facts, provide facts. Stop beating around the bush with your generalised accusations.

        “Btw. Wasn’t it you who even argued that Bohemia and Moravia – sorry – Judea and Samaria were part of Israel and not occupied? LOL.”

        Ahhh you are a funny man David. But you are a liar too. I never said that Israel should keep all of the West Bank. I said that Israel has the right to negotiate to keep places like East Jerusalem, Gush Etzion and other major “settlement” blocs.

        Then again you might just be a brain dead racist fool who only hears what he wants to hear. Yes, racist because you deliberately make inappropriate comparisons between us the victims of and the Nazis. You cannot possibly be persisting to do that unless you want to be deliberately hurtful. And racist.

        Which one are you David?

        Reply to Comment
    9. David T.

      “We were talking about equality before the law. You claimed that Israel has different laws for Arab Israelis and Jewish Israelis.”

      No, I claimed that Israel has laws which discriminate between Jews and Nonjews.

      “Now back to your question.”

      You are still not answering it.

      I want you to name other countries than Israel and a former German regime that differentiates by its laws between those who belong to its nation and those who it considers only to be citizens in order to grant the former privileges.

      I don’t want you to name countries who because of war times decide to imprison citizens in detention camps, judging them to be possible collaborators, because of their faith or heritage.

      “Even if racist bigots like you don’t think so.”

      The one of us being a racist bigot is the one supporting a state which explicitly expresses NOT to be a state for all of its citizens, but only for its nationals. (I don’t want to suggest, that you support Nazi Germamy.)

      “Show me an Israeli law which discriminates against the Druze, …”

      You mean laws which led state funding for their villages to fall short of allocations for the communities for Israel’s “nationals” (Jews) and which made Druze’s leader protest? Why should I waste my time? It’s obvious.

      “Show me any Israeli law which discriminates against Arab Israelis.”

      You just have to look into the Adalah list.

      “Yes, and just keep on ignoring the wikipedia link, …”

      I didn’t, I scrolled down to “Racism against Arabs” and was even more disgusted.

      “Yes, get over it.”

      That seems to be your standard answer when Jews commit crimes against Arabs. Would you like others to get over the Shoa, too?

      “The Jews on the West Bank are Israeli citizens living on disputed lands.”

      No, they are civilians colonializing land held under “belligerent occupation” according to every other UN member than the occupying state, the International Court of Justice and even Israel’s supreme court. And therefore they also should be be held responsible under military, not under civil law, dispite their fact that their settlements are illegal under international law and according to every other UN member and the International Court of Justice and therefore have to be dismantled according to the Security Council. The fact that they live under civil law is disguised Apartheid, especially if one argues, that “Judea and Samari” are part of Israel.

      “Have you ever heard of such nonsense? After WW2, when Germany and Japan were under occupation, did you expect Germans or Japanese to be able to vote in American elections? And be subject to American laws?”

      It’s your straw man nonsense. I never asked for occupied people to vote in the state which keeps them occupied.

      “Or to subject Americans living in Germany or Japan to military laws?

      American civilians were not illegaly present in Germany or Japan colonializing it under the protection of an occupation. The Allies didn’t make any effort to annex Germany, Japan or parts of it.

      “You are a fool David (actually calling you a fool is an act of kindness).”

      May I ask how old you are? You sound pretty childish.

      “Yep, go figure.”

      No, your accusations are just the usual bashing of organisations which prove Israel’s racism simply by compiling its discriminatory laws.

      “Which ones?”

      You just have to look into the list, it’s not rocket science.

      “I never said that Israel should keep all of the West Bank.”

      Ah, not all of it. You’re too generous when it comes to returning stolen property.

      “I said that Israel has the right to negotiate to keep places like East Jerusalem, Gush Etzion and other major “settlement” blocs.”

      Every country has the right to negotiate what it likes. But no country has a legal claim to territories it occupies or acquired by force.

      “You cannot possibly be persisting to do that unless you want to be deliberately hurtful. And racist.”

      Me? Hurtfull and Racist? I don’t support keeping humans expelled and denationalized because of their heritage and faith. I don’t support any occupation which purpose is to steal land and colonialize it. This list could go on and on and on. This is what I have learned being a descendant of victims of Nazis. You are heading into the opposite direction and all you care about is if YOU get hurt or not.

      Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        SAMUEL:“I said that Israel has the right to negotiate to keep places like East Jerusalem, Gush Etzion and other major “settlement” blocs.”

        DAVIDT:”Every country has the right to negotiate what it likes. But no country has a legal claim to territories it occupies or acquired by force.”

        But as I said above, the Geneva conventions don’t fit the situation in Palestine because there never was a sovereign Arab Palestinian country with defined borders. Even Israel has never had defined border. Just armistice lines.

        Ho hum … You are going over the same thing endlessly. We discussed this already elsewhere. But hey if you like repetion then I am game.

        By the way, David, you don’t mind if I ask you this? Are you autistic? Autistic people usually like repetition.

        SAMUEL:“You cannot possibly be persisting to do that unless you want to be deliberately hurtful. And racist.”

        DAVIDT:”Me? Hurtfull and Racist?”

        Nah … not you … butter would not melt in your mouth. What was I thinking (sarcasm)?

        “I don’t support keeping humans expelled and denationalized”

        You don’t? Then tell me this: when did you post on a blog your protest to an Arab government. Any Arab government for refusing to integrate Arab refugees into their societies and keeping them in squalid refugee camps as cannon fodder? And discriminating against them?

        What a great humanitarian you are David.

        “because of their heritage and faith”

        More like they are a hostile enemy. For the last 100 years. But hey, don’t let the facts stand in the way of your good fairy story.

        “This is what I have learned being a descendant of victims of Nazis.”

        You? Nah. But let’s say that you are telling the truth. Then what you learnt was to become a good court Jew. And your parents probably only survived because they were Kapos who stomped on other Jews to save their own skins. I bet you have never even visited Israel, have you David ? You certainly seem to display a lot of ignorance about my country. Oh and malice too. Do us a favor, please stay away from us. People like you we don’t need.

        Reply to Comment
        • David T.

          So you admit that Israel differentiates between it’s Jewish and Arab citizens by justyfing it with ‘survival of the state’s character’ or ‘security’ simply based on faith and heritage, which is nothing else but racist and, again, well known in the history of the persecution of Jews. And you fail over and over and over gain to name other countries than Israel that differentiates between “nationals” and “citizens” and grants priviliges for the former.

          You are accusing me of not allowing you (and you don’t only mean only the Jews in Palestine) to have a state of your own, allthough I don’t allow anyone to cecede against the will of the majority and deny all of its residents the new nationality, because of faith and heritage. And surely don’t allow anyone to maintain being a majority by keeping others expelled and denationalized because of their faith and heritage.

          You claim that Israel’s belligerent occupation AGAINST the will of the occupied (which is different to Jordan’s occupation) is not illegal, allthough an occupation has to be interim, because it basically violates the right to self determination and is illegal anyway when used for colonializing the occupied territory. You keep on repeating your Hasbara fairy tale of “disputed territories” allthough not only the International Court of Justice but even the Supreme Court of Israel holds the view that the occupied territories are held under “belligerent occupation”. Not to mention any other state than Israel. You can’t provide any internationally relevant legal document to prove your this. You bash UN as such based on racist conspiracy theories about “Arab Influnce” and accusing me of bashing the UN to allthough I never critize when it reaffirmes international law, but when it decides not to request an advisory opionion from the International Court of Justice regarding its recommendation to partition the country against the majority will of its citizens which contradicts the very basic principles of the UN to protect the right to self determination.

          You keep repeating that resolution 242 suggest that Israel has any right changing its borders, but because of your racism would never argue that 242 suggest that Israel’s neighbouring countries would have the same right. And you keep ignoring that 242 says nothing what you claim it says, but that but that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissable and Israel has to withdraw its forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.
          And you ignore multiple other Security Council resolutions which declare Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as illegal as the settlements in occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem. Instead you are seriously trying to suggest that humanitarian law does not protect people under occupation in general, but that it “only covers disputes between two sovereign countries with mutually recognised borders”. Dispite Martens clause, dispite customary law in post colonial times, despite the opinion of the International Court of Justice and dispite multiple Security Council resolutions – not one of them vetoed by the US – which prove otherwise. You keep ignoriing that Israel declared independence within partition broders alltough proven to you by Israel’s own words. You keep ignoring that Palestine has declared its borders in 1988 within 1967 lines. Both borders were recognized when the UN recognized their statehood.

          You claim that Israel has every right to allow Jews and very probably their descendants to “return” to the occupied territory, but because of your racism you would never argue that Palestine has every right to allow Palestinians to return to Israel or that descendants of Palestinian refugees are even entitled to be Palestinian refugees. You accuse me of not condemning Arab goverments for not incorporating Palestinian refugees, allthough they are not obliged. But because of your racism, you don’t condem Israel’s goverment to do the same, allthough it is obliged by international and human rights law. Racist as you are you accuse Palestinian refugees and their descendants AS SUCH to be a “hostile enemy”, allthough the racist state you support would not even allow them to return, if they were Angels sent to celebrate your racist golden calf. Your disgusting incitement is not very original. Jews AS SUCH were once accused to be a hostile enemy, too.

          You fail to answer the question, if others have to “get over” the Holocaust, like you suggest that others should get over the Nakba. To distract from this you don’t even have a problem of spreading the lie that I “obviously” did get over the Holocaust. I don’t expect anything else from Hasbara trolls than limitless pathetic lies about those who do not share your racist views. And racist as you are, you don’t even consider that not only Jews were victims of the Nazis. What did you learn from these times except, supporting expulsion, denationalization, dispossesion, annexing territories acquired by war, colonializing them under occupation and denying that the occupied are protected by humanitarian law?

          And what makes you think that you have to please me to stay away from a racist state which organizes its terrorists to execute even 90 miles away in international waters an innocent civilian just holding a camera by shooting 4 bullets into his head? And I don’t even want to know what people you need when I think about Israeli’s Russian fascists – not only the skinheads in the street, but also the hairy ones in your parlament who don’t have the slightest problem to openly talk about Nonjews AS SUCH being a demographic “threat” and fantasizing about their segretation or “transfer”. That’s what people like you call a “Jewish democracy”.

          Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            As for UN Security Council Resolution 242, read what Eugene Rostow said about it. He was one of the resolution’s authors. So he certainly knows what it means, better than you do:

            http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id45.html

            “For twenty-four years Arab states have pretended that the two resolutions are “ambiguous” and can be interpreted to suit their desires. And some European, Soviet and even American officials have cynically allowed Arab spokesman to delude themselves and their people–to say nothing of Western public opinion–about what the resolutions mean. It is common even for American journalists to write that Resolution 242 is “deliberately ambiguous,” as though the parties are equally free to rely on their own reading of its key provisions.

            Nothing could be further from the truth. Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East” is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces “from territories” it occupied during the Six-Day War–not from “the” territories nor from “all” the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.”

            Reply to Comment
          • David T.

            “As for UN Security Council Resolution 242, read what Eugene Rostow said about it. He was one of the resolution’s authors.”

            And concidentally a Jewish hardcore Zionist. (Only links to Zionist propagandasites are allowed, right?)

            But Rostow, too, doesn’t claim that Israel has the right to annex territories or unilaterally change its borders as it wishes and ultimately has to withdraw from all territories.

            “As to the rest of your stupid repetitious post, we covered that discussion ALL before. Or has your Alzheimer’s prevents you from remembering? Here, looky here David, you fool:”

            Do you like attacking civilians, Samuel? Or hast it become normal for you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            SAMUEL:”Resolution 242 says that Israel should withdraw FROM territories recently occupied (in 1967), not ALL the territories.”

            DAVIDT:”And concidentally a Jewish hardcore Zionist. (Only links to Zionist propagandasites are allowed, right?)”

            Thank you David for once again demonstrating your “thought” process. You reject Eugene Rostow because his position on Palestine/Israel does not agree with yours. Here is who he was:

            “Eugene V. (Victor Debs) Rostow (August 25, 1913 – November 25, 2002), influential legal scholar and public servant, was Dean of Yale Law School, and served as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs under President Lyndon B. Johnson.”

            Who are you David?

            DAVIDT:”But Rostow, too, doesn’t claim that Israel has the right to annex territories or unilaterally change its borders as it wishes and ultimately has to withdraw from all territories.”

            He most definitely did not say that Israel has to withdraw from ALL territories. You are lying again David.

            For those who are interested, click on the link that I gave two posts ago. This is what Rostow says:

            “When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces “from territories” it occupied during the Six-Day War–not from “the” territories nor from “all” the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.”

            SAMUEL:“As to the rest of your stupid repetitious post, we covered that discussion ALL before. Or has your Alzheimer’s prevents you from remembering? Here, looky here David, you fool:”

            DAVIDT: “Do you like attacking civilians, Samuel? Or hast it become normal for you?”

            Ohhhh, my heart is breaking for you David. Now you are a civilian?
            :)

            Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        SAMUEL:“We were talking about equality before the law. You claimed that Israel has different laws for Arab Israelis and Jewish Israelis.”

        DAVIDT:”No, I claimed that Israel has laws which discriminate between Jews and Nonjews.”

        LOL. You are a troll aren’t you? What is the difference between the two statements above?

        “I want you to name other countries than Israel and a former German regime that differentiates by its laws between those who belong to its nation and those who it considers only to be citizens in order to grant the former privileges.”

        Again: Israeli laws do not differentiate between It’s Jewish and Arab and Jewish citizens except in immigration laws and matters of security. For security reasons, citizens are identified by ethnicity too. As Jews or as Arabs. Which is not as draconian as what happened during WW2 in America, Britain, Canada and Australia wherd citizens who were born in Germany, Japan and Italy were put into detention camps. Israel has been in war with it’s Arab neighbours too so it has a right to keep track of potential internal enemies.

        Now ask me again. You will get the same answer again, TROLL!

        SHMUEL:“Show me an Israeli law which discriminates against the Druze, …”

        DAVIDT:”You mean laws which led state funding for their villages to fall short of allocations for the communities for Israel’s “nationals” (Jews) and which made Druze’s leader protest? Why should I waste my time? It’s obvious.”

        Do you understand what the word “LAW” means? No I guess not. That’s why you confuse discrimination with law. For the record, yes there is discrimination in Israel as there is discrimination ALL over the world. Unfortunately Israel is NOT unique in that regard. Personally, I am against discrimination. But not just discrimination against Arabs. I don’t want discrimination against Jews either. For instance, your type of discrimination in which you single us out and try to tell us that unlike everyone else, we are not allowed to have our own state.

        SAMUEL:“Show me any Israeli law which discriminates against Arab Israelis.”

        DAVIDT:”You just have to look into the Adalah list.”

        No I don’t. YOU pick one, just one and let’s discuss it.

        SHMUEL:“Yes, and just keep on ignoring the wikipedia link, …”

        “I didn’t, I scrolled down to “Racism against Arabs” and was even more disgusted.”

        It talks about discrimination against Jews too but you don’t seem to be disgusted by that. Very telling.

        It also talks about anti discrimination laws in Israel and you don’t want to acknowledge that. Again, very telling.

        “That seems to be your standard answer when Jews commit crimes against Arabs.”

        And what is your standard response? You ignore, ignore and ignore any answer which disproves your assertions. Then just repeat you inane allegations. Water off a duck’s back. Very trollish behaviour.

        “Would you like others to get over the Shoa, too?”

        You mean others like you? You obviously already DID. But hey this interchange is also a repetition by you. Oh well, I am as patient as you seem to be.

        SAMUEL:“The Jews on the West Bank are Israeli citizens living on disputed lands.”

        DAVIDT:”No, they are civilians colonializing land held under “belligerent occupation”

        Ho hum … more repetition. Places like East Jerusalem and Gush Etzion had a Jewish population before 1948. Before Arabs kicked out the Jews illegally. So Israel had every right to allow Jews to return. Other places are near the 1949 armistice lines and under resolution 242 Israel has the right to bid for more secure borders than the 1949 armistice lines.

        “according to every other UN member …”

        … whose arms can be twisted by Arab petro dollars and petro blackmail. Not to mention the Islamic political bloc.

        SAMUEL:“Have you ever heard of such nonsense? After WW2, when Germany and Japan were under occupation, did you expect Germans or Japanese to be able to vote in American elections? And be subject to American laws?”

        DAVIDT:”It’s your straw man nonsense. I never asked for occupied people to vote in the state which keeps them occupied.”

        Then what did you ask for? You asked that they should be subject to the same laws as Israeli citizens.

        SHMUEL:“Or to subject Americans living in Germany or Japan to military laws?

        DAVIDT:”American civilians were not illegaly present in Germany or Japan colonializing it under the protection of an occupation. The Allies didn’t make any effort to annex Germany, Japan or parts of it.”

        Israel occupation is not illegal either. It came about because it got attacked by Jordan in 1967.

        As for the Geneva conventions about population transfer, although Israel agreed to abide by it in terms of how to apply military laws, they don’t fully apply. Why? Because the Geneva conventions were created to cover disputes between two sovereign countries with mutually recognised borders. The situation in Palestine does not fit that because neither Israel nor Palestine ever had proper borders. The 1967 boundaries are really the 1949 armistice lines. In fact, at the insistence of Jordan, it had a specific clause in it which clearly stated that the armistice lines are not the final borders which would only be decided at the end of the conflict.

        “May I ask how old you are?”

        You may ….

        “No, your accusations are just the usual bashing of organisations”

        Hey, you made similar accusations against the UN with regards to it’s resolution 181..

        The difference between you and me though is that I agreed with you about that too. That’s because I don’t pick and choose. I happen to believe that the UN is a hopelessly corrupt, biased and flawed organisation.

        You on the other hand pick and choose. When they are pro Arab, you accept what they say. When the Arabs don’t like what the UN does, you condemn the UN. That is bias. Plain and simple bias, David.

        SAMUEL:“I never said that Israel should keep all of the West Bank.”

        DAVIDT:”Ah, not all of it. You’re too generous when it comes to returning stolen property.”

        And you are full of it David. You are not as witty as you think you are.

        To be continued …

        Reply to Comment
    10. Samuel

      “So you admit that Israel differentiates between it’s Jewish and Arab citizens by justyfing it with ‘survival of the state’s character’ or ‘security’ simply based on faith and heritage,”

      I admitted nothing of the sort you racist liar.

      “You are accusing me of not allowing you (and you don’t only mean only the Jews in Palestine) to have a state of your own, allthough I don’t allow anyone to cecede against the will of the majority”

      Go tell the Pakistanis that their state is illegal and that they should submit to India.

      “and deny all of its residents the new nationality, because of faith and heritage.”

      You are lying again I never said that it is because of faith and heritage. One fifth of Israel’s citizens are Arabs and Muslims.

      And you are still an apologist for Nazis and you are a racist because you hate Jews.

      Reply to Comment
    11. Samuel

      I admit that in the same way as Italians, Greeks, Brits, French and others, the Jewish nation wants to maintain it’s own culture and identity. Nevertheless, like those other nations, Israel too has a sizable minority who are Arabs and Muslims. In fact one fifth of Israel’s citizens are Arabs.

      If you think that’s wrong David then there is something wrong with YOUR thinking.

      Reply to Comment
    12. David T.

      “You reject Eugene Rostow because his position on Palestine/Israel does not agree with yours.”

      No, you chose him, because his positions on Palestine/Israel agree with yours. You do not only have the chutzpe to quote from someone who doesn’t hide his hyperzionist interpretation of international law, demonstrated in his pro colonial articles, which ignore multiple international legal documents. You also have the chutzpe to critize me for linking to an Counterpunch article (containing a Ben Gurion quote) which you accuse of being “pro Arab” and me being a bit like a Nazi quoting from the Stuermer (you don’t even know how to write it) or a communist propagandist from the Prawda, but thinks that he has a right to link to a site which is run by the “founder member of the international Coalition of Hasbara Volunteers”. One double standard after another comming from you. You really think, that ‘you’ have more rights than others, don’t you, little supremacist.

      “Here is who he was:”

      What? He didn’t even serve as a Judge at the International Court of Justice? Who care’s what he says? But wait, David Korn, former State Department office director for Israel and Arab-Israeli affairs said that Rostow may thin that he helped producing 242, but that he had little if anything to do with it and was only an onlooker. LOL.

      “Who are you David?”

      I’m not an impostor like Rostow and I do not quote impostors like you do. LOL.

      I actually rely on Lord Caradon, the REAL drafter of 242 who basically said that everybody assumed that not only the colonialization of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights are in clear violation of resolution 242, but that territories that were occupied in 1967 plainly fall under the terms of 242 regarding the requirement for Israel withdrawal and that everybody assumed that the occupied territories (Westbank, East Jerusalem) were restored to Jordan’s administration. And he wrote that “secure” borders are mutually agreed borders. It has nothing to do with the boundary fantasies of Israel firsters.
      `
      “He most definitely did not say that Israel has to withdraw from ALL territories.”

      “Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the “fragile” and “vulnerable” Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called “secure and recognized” boundaries, agreed to by the parties.

      What he actually did was even more hypocrit. Resolution 242 writes “For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;”. It doesn’t say “ALL international waterways” or “THE international waterways”. But Rostow has no problem to insert the word “the”, when it is ‘good for the Jews’ and writes “access to THE international waterways of the region”. LOL, what a shyster.

      “Ohhhh, my heart is breaking for you David. Now you are a civilian?”

      No, I’m just a 13 year old Palestinian girl and you are allowed to empty your rifle and 17 bullets into my head and the rest of my body, argue in court that you would have done the same, if I had been 3 years old and receive your promotion and compensation from your most benevolent terrorist state whose supporters even have a hard time accepting someone writing on a blog to be a civilian. Maybe because nearly everybody in Israel has learned to terrorize civilians by a billigerent occupation violating basic human rights.

      Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        British Foreign Secretary George Brown said:

        “I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied’, and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.[76]”

        And Lord Carandon too agreed with that interpretation of Resolution 242. Although he did not agree with any unilateral action by either party.

        Reply to Comment
        • Samuel

          • Journal of Palestine Studies, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring – Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:

          “A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

          Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.”

          Reply to Comment
    13. David T.

      I hope that 972mag will publish my answer. Or do I have to repost this one, too?

      Reply to Comment
    14. David T.

      “Thank you David for once again demonstrating your “thought” process. You reject Eugene Rostow because his position on Palestine/Israel does not agree with yours.”

      Samuel would never reject someone, because he doesn’t agree with his positions, including everything from sources he defames as “rabid pro-Arab”, right? Hypocrit!

      Rostow didn’t help producing 242, hw was only was one of its overlookers.

      Here is what the real drafter of 242 wrote, Lord Caradon:
      “At the same time scores of Israeli settlements have already been established on the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan. The process of colonisation of Arab lands goes rapidly ahead in disregard of objections from nearly every Government in the world, including’ even the American Government. These actions of the Israeli Government are in clear defiance of the Resolution 242. … But it is very necessary to remember that when we drew up Resolution 242 we all took it for granted that the occupied territory would be restored to Jordan. I give my testimony that everyone, including the Arabs, so assumed … But, as I have said, when we passed the unanimous Resolution in 1967 we all assumed that East Jerusalem would revert to Jordan. East Jerusalem, as a matter of fact, had been occupied in the 1967 conflict and it therefore plainly under the terms of the Resolution came under the requirement for Israeli withdrawal.”
      http://www.solvingthemiddle-east.com/index.php/the-west-bank-a-illegal-settlements

      So, settlements violate 242 and withdrawal is required from territories which were occupied in 1967.

      Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        And here is what else Lord Carandon wrote:

        • Journal of Palestine Studies, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring – Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:

        “A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

        Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.”

        Reply to Comment
        • David T.

          Exactly what I said, Israel has no legal claim to the occupied territories. And the negotiations are not NOT about making borders more “defenseable” only for Israel.

          By the way, how do you keep track, if my postings are approved after 5 days?

          Reply to Comment
    15. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel