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

Analysis News

EU diplomats recommend sanctions against Israeli settlements

European diplomatic heads of mission in Jerusalem submit report to Brussels calling on the EU and its member states to take economic measures to stop Israel’s settlement enterprise, and to prevent European companies from supporting the settlements.

Maale Adumim settlement near east of Jerusalem (Activestills.org)

European diplomats in the Palestinian Authority called on Brussels and their respective European states to take concrete measures to stop Israel’s “systematic, deliberate and provocative” settlement enterprise, including preventing economic and financial support for settlements – actions that could described as sanctions.

The report, obtained by +972, describes Israeli settlements as “the biggest single threat to the two-state solution,” and recommends specific measures that Brussels could or should take in order to mitigate that threat.

Read the full report here

Two of the recommendations most likely to irk Israel, directly relate to the economic activities of European companies that profit from settlements.

In addition to the standard practice of excluding settlement products from the free trade agreement between the EU and Israel, the report recommends “guarantee[ing] the consumers’ right to an informed choice,” asking the European Commission to provide guidelines on labeling of settlement products.

More significantly is the recommendation that EU governments “[p]revent, discourage and raise awareness about problematic implications of financial transactions, including foreign direct investment, from within the EU in support of settlement activities, infrastructure and services”

It is followed by a recommendation that the EU inform businesses of the “financial and legal risks involved in purchasing property or providing services in settlements.”

The implication of this recommendation is that any EU-based company that invests in and provides services for settlements could be held legally (and financially) liable for supporting the illegal enterprise. While European companies like Veolia have long been targeted by activists for owning and operating land fills, waste-water treatment facilities and buses that serve Israeli settlements in the West Bank, implementing this recommendation would constitute a direct and official warning to similar companies by the EU itself.

In addition, the report recommends that individual EU member states explore the possibility of denying entry to known individual violent Israeli settlers.

It also places particular emphasis on East Jerusalem and Israel’s settlement activities there, ranging from construction that aims to completely isolate East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank, to the use of archeological activities for furthering Israel’s political and ideological goals.

The diplomats also recommend creating voluntary guidelines for European tour operators in order to ensure they do not intentionally or inadvertently support Israeli settlement activities in East Jerusalem, such as the City of David archeological park run by settler organization El-Ad.

The non-binding report is not the first of its kind; a similar report last year carried many of the same recommendations, although they were fewer and not as harsh.

Although the document reflects common thinking among European diplomats, lack of action by the politicians they work for is indicative of the political difficulties in applying serious pressure to further the EU’s foreign policy aims: ending Israeli settlement construction and achieving a two-state solution.

The likelihood of Europe applying serious pressure against Israel based on this report alone, without the support of elected politicians, is close to non-existent. However, the mere existence of such scathing documents coming out of capitals that are traditionally supportive of Israel is in itself significant.

Read an analysis of the report here.

Related:
Could UNHRC’s settlement report put the ‘S’ back in BDS?
Dim prospects for international pressure to end occupation

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. Oscar

      Screw them. The settlements ARE part of Israel for ever. You and they can continue to kick and scream about it till kingdom come but the more unreasonably you support unconditional withdrawals, the more settlements Israel will keep.

      Conversely, the more reasonably you and your clients (the Arabs) are willing to negotiate, the more reasonable deal they will get with regards to the settlements.

      My advice to you guys, and to your clients (the Arabs) is to revisit the 2001 deal that the Palestinians were offered in 2001. I must say that at this stage, you would be lucky to even get that deal for them (the Arabs). But one never knows …

      Reply to Comment
      • If “the settlements ARE part of Israel for ever,” then how can there be a “reasonable deal … with regards to the settlements”?

        Your lumping of Bank resident Palestinians with “Arabs” is as expected.

        Reply to Comment
        • Oscar

          “Your lumping of Bank resident Palestinians with “Arabs” is as expected.”

          I am lumping them? You are wrong Greg, they lump themselves as Arabs. The text below is from the PLO charter. Now go ahead and tell me that I am racist.

          http://www.iris.org.il/plochart.htm

          “Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.”

          “If “the settlements ARE part of Israel for ever,” then how can there be a “reasonable deal … with regards to the settlements”?”

          I already answered that one in my first post. They will never get a better deal than the one they were already offered in 2001. And given their violent response to that one they will be even lucky to get that.
          .
          Just a reminder, they were offered 97% of the West Bank with land swaps. But no, this did not involve the evacuation of the major settlement blocks. Nor should it involve that EVER!

          Reply to Comment
        • XYZ

          Greg-
          Are you one of those we see here a lot who says it is offensive to refer to Israeli Arabs as “Arabs” and who then turns around and claims that Jews who came to Israel from Middle East countries are “Arab Jews”…in other words, at one and the same time claiming that Arabs are NOT Arabs, but Jews are?

          Reply to Comment
        • Leen

          It’s a bit weird when people using the word ‘Arab’, without ‘Palestinian’, to describe the, well, Palestinians. Palestinians are linguistically and culturally Arab, however they are also distinct from other Arab nations as they have a distinct history, ethnicity and aspects of culture.
          IN this context using the word ‘Arabs’ to describe a population of 5 mil (not counting the diaspora), while the Arab population is actually 300 mil is a bit strange. It’s like saying maybe you ‘Jews’ should revist the plan. Which is potentially anti-semiticbecause you are painting the entire Jewish community with the same brush. here you have a similar situation where people are painting the entire arab population with one brush. (Palestinians represent 1.6% of the so called ‘Arabs’).

          Without attributing the right nationality and unknowingly painting 300 million people wiht the same brush is very problematic.

          Reply to Comment
          • Oscar

            “It’s like saying maybe you ‘Jews’ should revist the plan. Which is potentially anti-semiticbecause you are painting the entire Jewish community with the same brush. ”

            Why is it antisemitic to say that all Jews are Jews?

            I don’t think that ANY Jew would describe such a statement as antisemitic. We all agree with that statement..

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            Nope, I meant it will be like maye you Jews should revisit Saudi Arabia peace initiative or settlement freeze. Which is anti Semitic because you are suggesting that all Jews are Israelis, which is simply not true, ad suggesting that its the Jews fault for this and that or the other. It is like blaming the Jews (not israelis or israeli government) for the death of 1500 Palestinian during the gaza war. It is anti demotic.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            Whoops sorry auto correct. I meant anti Semitic last sentence.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Blaming Israelis for the deaths of 1500 Palestinians in Gaza without relating to daily missile attacks by their (Gazan) government, is truly anti-demotic.

            Reply to Comment
      • Elisabeth

        I love your use of the words “for ever”. As so many peoples throughout history have had to learn “for ever” can be very short-lived. One day you may end up with nothing and wish you had been reasonable when you still had the chance.

        Reply to Comment
        • Oscar

          “One day you may end up with nothing and wish you had been reasonable when you still had the chance.”

          You mean unreasonable like the Arabs were in 1948? Yes they certainly should have learnt a lesson out of unreasonableness from that. But even as late as 2008 they still have not learnt that lesson when Olmert offered them another very reasonable deal.

          As for Israel having been unreasonable? You got that wrong. In fact, YOU are the one who is unreasonable for suggesting that.

          Reply to Comment
          • Elisabeth

            Really? Let’s see where you are in 15 years.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            What would happen in 15 years?

            If economic sanctions are to be applied, some final solution is to be proposed as well, but it will not happen – Palestinian will demand RoR but it won’t be granted again, so at least 2-3 years of negotiations will take place until Israel might be subdued into anything.

            Within this timeframe it is possible to finalize the separation process, creating continuous Jewish state and interconnected by a network of highways state of Palestine.

            Reply to Comment
          • Oscar

            “Really? Let’s see where you are in 15 years.”

            Really? What is that supposed to mean? Another final solution?

            Please don’t try it again. No good will come of it because this time you won’t fool us to walking into the gas chambers voluntarily. This time the whole structure will come down with us, you included, if you try it.

            That wasn’t a threat. That was a promise.

            Reply to Comment
          • Elisabeth

            Oscar, nothing could have revealed your pathology clearer than your own words: I am a Nazi who has tried to gas you before and who now wants to march you into the gas chambers again.
            Yeah, right.

            To you anyone who is not Jewish is to be treated with hatred suspicion and scorn, and can be accused of genocide just like that.

            I pity the Palestinians: Instead of therapy and pills people like you get weapons and training, so you can play out your sick worldview on them. Who will protect them?

            Reply to Comment
          • Oscar

            ““Really? Let’s see where you are in 15 years.”

            That sounded like a distinct threat from you Elizabith. I asked you to explain what you meant but did you answer? No. Instead you continued YOUR hateful words to me.

            So, Elisabeth, if I am a hater then so are you. You are good at having a go but bad at taking retorts. Grow up.

            Reply to Comment
          • Elisabeth

            I asked you where you would be in 15 years if the expansion into territory that does not belong to Israel didn’t stop. Without waiting for an answer, in your next post, you accuse me not only of having been compicit in Nazi crimes in the past, but also of planning some more in the future. All of this when the OBVIOUS answer to anyone not obsessed with hatred and suspicion like you would have been: In a country increasingly isolated, crippled by economic sanctions, with less and less human rights and academic and press freedom, with religious fanatics instead of rational people determining the political agenda. People have been warning for years that this is the way Israel will be heading if this endless occupation doesn’t stop, and we are already seeing the results now.

            And who is hateful and threatening here? Please read your own silly words and be ashamed: “This time the whole structure will come down with us, you included, if you try it. That wasn’t a threat. That was a promise.”

            You must have copied those last lines from some B movie “That wasn’t a threat. That was a promise.” How old are you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Oscar

            Really Elisabeth? In your very next post you promised that all Israelis will suffer, “including nice Israelis”. I don’t know about you but to most people, the promise of suffering is threatening.

            ” if this endless occupation doesn’t stop, and we are already seeing the results now.”

            And this statement above all reveals your hatred. The pretence that Israel has not tried to end the occupation. OK you don’t want to believe that this particular Israeli government led by the Likud is serious about ending the occupation. Maybe you are right, maybe you are not right. I won’t argue that.

            But to pretend that more left leaning Israeli governments before have not moved every stone to try and make peace and end the occupation is an act of willfull blindness bordering on hatred.

            Has it ever occurred to you that Palestinian leaders like Arafat and Abbas too, like you, believe that time is on their side and if they can’t sucker Israel into making even more concessions, dangerous (to Israel), they will succeed in isolating Israel with the help of people like you and their numerous allies in the world? And that is why they did not accept the peace offers of Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert?

            Oh and there is Hamas, I did not even talk about them. How does Israel make peace with Hamas who openly say they want nothing less than Israel’s destruction??

            Ignoring Hamas and blaming Israel alone for everything all the time is what makes you people haters and it explains my reaction to you Elisabeth. So stop trying to take the high moral ground. You haven’t got it and you don’t impress.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Actually Elizabet, I did not see him accuse you of that.

            But you on the other hand alluded to the suffering that all Israelis will face.

            He in turn said that Jews will not volunteer to be victims again.

            That is not the same as your accusation that he called you personally a Nazi.

            Reply to Comment
          • Oscar

            Really Elisabeth? In your very next post you promised that all Israelis will suffer, “including nice Israelis”. I don’t know about you but to most people, the promise of suffering is threatening.

            ” if this endless occupation doesn’t stop, and we are already seeing the results now.”

            And this statement above all reveals your hatred. The pretence that Israel has not tried to end the occupation. OK you don’t want to believe that this particular Israeli government led by the Likud is serious about ending the occupation. Maybe you are right, maybe you are not right. I won’t argue that.

            But to pretend that more left leaning Israeli governments before have not moved every stone to try and make peace and end the occupation is an act of willfull blindness bordering on hatred.

            Has it ever occurred to you that Palestinian leaders like Arafat and Abbas too, like you, believe that time is on their side and if they can’t sucker Israel into making even more concessions, dangerous (to Israel), they will succeed in isolating Israel with the help of people like you and their numerous allies in the world? And that is why they did not accept the peace offers of Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert?
            .
            Oh and there is Hamas, I did not even talk about them. How does Israel make peace with Hamas who openly say they want nothing less than Israel’s destruction?

            Ignoring Hamas and blaming Israel alone for everything all the time is what makes you people haters and it explains my reaction to you Elisabeth. So stop trying to take the high moral ground. You haven’t got it and you don’t impress.

            Reply to Comment
          • Elisabeth

            What bothers me is that all the nice, reasonable Israelis will suffer along with you and the other expansionists.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            And who are the “nice reasonable Israelis” Elisabeth? they are a sort of exotic pet who learnt to stop scratching the carpet and chewing the chair legs? The Israelis who do as they are told?

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            What is interesting, is how many of those nice Israelis are not citizens of other states.

            Reply to Comment
          • Is there any particular reason why you are recycling my 12th February comment to you word for word? Bizarre.

            Reply to Comment
    2. “the mere existence of such scathing documents coming out of capitals that are traditionally supportive of Israel is in itself significant.” : Diplomats, seeing first hand conditions at their station and knowing locals, are often sympathetic to cries of redress. What this report does do is further the cognitive dissonance over the settlement enterprise and Palestinian residents.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Shmuel

      The settlements have always been just a red herring. It is a fig leaf for the Palestinian Arabs to keep this conflict alive. They want much more than just the settlements. They want the totality of Israel. To them, Tel Aviv is a settlement too.
      .
      How do we know? Because before there were settlements, the Palestinian Arabs made war on Palestinian Jews. Why was that? And what changed since? Nothing as far as the Palestinian Arabs are concerned. They still don’t want a sovereign non Arab non Muslim state in the Middle East.

      Reply to Comment
      • andrew r

        “How do we know? Because before there were settlements, the Palestinian Arabs made war on Palestinian Jews.”

        And Germany must not have been the aggressor in 1940 due to the Napoleonic wars. However, most of us agree Hitler started that particular conflict with France.

        Even though I usually make posts that criticize Zionism from day one, and it should be, it’s still pretty likely that Israel could have imposed a peace on the West Bank and Gaza such that it wouldn’t have faced the deadly reprisal attacks from 1994 on. Had it allowed independent economic development and didn’t run a military dictatorship, but no, Israel is addicted to conflict in exchange for land.

        Reply to Comment
        • Shmuel

          “And Germany must not have been the aggressor in 1940 due to the Napoleonic wars.”

          Are you saying that the violence was not started by Palestinian Arabs and other Arabs in 1947-48? Or in fact even earlier? In the 1920s?

          Or are you saying that there ever was peace between Arabs and Jews since the 1920s? Like there was war, peace, war then peace again in Europe between the Napoleonic wars and WW2?

          “However, most of us agree Hitler started that particular conflict with France.”

          Most of us agree that Hitler started that particular conflict against Cheslovakia. We also agree that the great European powers were willing to sacrifice Cheslovakia, a bit like they are now prepared to sacrifice Israel for a sake of peace that they could not get from Hitler then and the type of peace that they now cannot get from the Arabs unless they were prepared to stare Hitler down and ditto now with the Arabs.

          “Even though I usually make posts that criticize Zionism from day one, and it should be,”

          Yes, we are aware of your bias.

          ” it’s still pretty likely that Israel could have imposed a peace on the West Bank and Gaza such that it wouldn’t have faced the deadly reprisal attacks from 1994 on. Had it allowed independent economic development and didn’t run a military dictatorship,”

          Pure unadultarated BS Andrew. Israel was able to win wars (battles to be more exact) with the Arabs. But Israel was never allowed by the big powers to impose a peace on the Arabs. Everyone had a finger in the pie, first the Brits, then the Russians then the Americans (in 1956) and now the Europeans and a few others. Everyone meddled and still meddles in this conflict trying to impose solutions on Israel instead of on the Arabs. Why? Because they see benefits for themselves by meddling in this conflict.

          “but no, Israel is addicted to conflict in exchange for land.”

          The only party that is addicted to land are the Arabs. Israel is a tiny portion of the Middle East. The major settlement blocks represent 3% of the West Bank. Yet you are trying to tell us that the Arabs are short of land? And that there is no peace because of the settlements?

          Hogwash, Andrew! The Arabs want ALL of Israel too. That’s what this conflict was all about since the 1920s. The Arabs want it ALL and they want NO Israel.

          Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            “Are you saying that the violence was not started by Palestinian Arabs and other Arabs in 1947-48?”

            Regardless of who started the violence in the 20′s, the means of ethnically cleansing Palestine during 1948-50 was in line with Zionist political goals formulated almost half a century earlier. Even villages that went to great lengths to avoid antagonizing the Yishuv, including Sheikh Muwannis and Deir Yassin, weren’t spared. The fact they came to Palestine with the intention of creating a demographic state means some form of violence on their part was inevitable, who started it be damned.

            “a bit like they are now prepared to sacrifice Israel for a sake of peace that they could not get from Hitler then and the type of peace that they now cannot get from the Arabs”

            Let’s see… J, K, La, Le, Lu… here we go. Lunatic rant.

            “Everyone meddled and still meddles in this conflict trying to impose solutions on Israel instead of on the Arabs.”

            No one’s meddling caused Israel to expropriate the 1967 land. As for imposing a solution on the Arabs, have you ever heard of some guys named Anwar Sadat, Amin Gemayel, King Hussein, Husni Mubarak, Abu Mazen, etc. They willingly signed up as tools to impose collaboration on their subjects.

            “The only party that is addicted to land are the Arabs. Israel is a tiny portion of the Middle East.”

            And to get that tiny portion it took colonial occupation, targeting of civilians with mortars and blowing up their houses with dynamite.

            “The major settlement blocks represent 3% of the West Bank. Yet you are trying to tell us that the Arabs are short of land? And that there is no peace because of the settlements?”

            I’m saying Israel made the conflict worse for its own civilians, despite the insistence that they only want peace, because a certain group of them had to settle that land. Otherwise the soldiers wouldn’t have gone on a killing and bone-breaking spree during 1988-92.

            And you know that Area C, including the whole Jordan Valley, is off-limits to Palestinians for residency. Israel has bent over backwards to demonstrate it would rather have West Bank land above all else.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            The only lunatic rant is yours Andrew.

            “Israel has bent over backwards to demonstrate it would rather have West Bank land above all else.”

            Really?

            In 1948, Israel accepted the land allocated to it by UN resolution 181. The Palestinian Arabs did not and they started a bloody civil war.

            Right after 1967, before there were any settlements, Israel offered the entire West Bank, except East Jerusalem, in exchange for a peace deal. The Arabs refused the offer.

            In 2000/2001 Ehud Barak offered 97% of the West Bank and sharing of East Jerusalem but Arafat insisted on the Right of return. Moreover even before the peace talks concluded, he launched a bloody Intifada involving waves of suicide bombers who maimed and murdered thousands of Israeli civilians.

            In 2008, Ehud Olmert offered the equivalent of 100% of the West Bank, involving land swaps for the major settlement blocks. Abbas procrastinated and suspended negotiations after Hamas provoked Israeli retaliation for escalating rocket fire onto the heads of 1 million civilians in Southern Israel.

            Any reason why you did not want to mention that context too Andrew? Or have you been hired and being paid to spread one sided polemics only?

            Enjoy your blood money. You certainly don’t promote peace, you promote only resentment and hatred.

            Reply to Comment
    4. ToivoS

      More power to the Europeans. These are the types of moves that can pressure Israel to abandon the WB settlements. The US can do very little, but the Israeli economy is more dependent on Europe than it is on the US. BDS is the political tool that the Palestinians can use to achieve justice and Europe is the target for that movement.

      Reply to Comment
      • Tzutzik

        .
        “More power to the Europeans. These are the types of moves that can pressure Israel to abandon the WB”

        Dream on. The Europeans don’t give a toss about Arabs, Jews, Americans or anyone else. All they care about is themselves. And right now, that means that they are willing to pander to Arab sentiments. Not at all costs though. There are costs the other way too.

        As always, Europe is playing a double game or maybe a triple one.

        Reply to Comment
    5. rsgengland

      The Europeans say that settlements are the biggest threat to a two state solution.
      The biggest threat, in fact the main stumbling block, to a two state solution is the refugee problem.
      Once that issue is addressed and solved, everything else will be able to be resolved.
      There are both sets of refugees to be recognized.
      The 700000+ Arab Muslim/Christian refugees.
      The 1000000+ Arab Jewish refugees.

      Reply to Comment
      • Leen

        The Arab Jewish refugees are the responsibility of Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, etc, not the responsibility of the Palestinians.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          From the very beginning Palestinian Arabs have had defined themselves as part of Arab Ummah and the whole 1948 turmoil was largely orchestrated by Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, etc.

          The current Palestinian point of view regarding their association with the rest of Arab world is not relevant to events which took place 3 generations ago.

          Facts are:

          1 – Judeophobia in Arab countries sky-rocketed after Naqba

          2 – Jewish refugees from Arab countries stripped of their wealth by states they left and upon their arrival to Israel were resettled in Palestinian Arab homes.

          3 – Palestinian Arabs were not resettled in host countries.

          Since mentioned Arab states took very active part in the whole process, it does not seem possible to separate Jewish and Palestinian Arab refugees issues.

          Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            Can you please provide some factual evidence that the Palestinians physically kicked out the Arab Jews from Iraq and Yemen? Not your bogus interpretation. Some cold hard facts that the Palestinian people (and not just random leadership) physically kicked out the Jews from Arab countries like Iraq and Syria. (I would like to point out that the paletinian leadership were also kicked out of Lebanon and Syria).

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Can you please provide some factual evidence that the Palestinians physically kicked out the Arab Jews from Iraq and Yemen?

            I did not write anything which would suggest such nonsense.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            That’s the point, it means they are not responsible. A lot of Arab leaders have piggybacked on the Palestinian cause as it was considered one of the tenants of Arabism (despite the fact there has never been a referendum for the Palestinian people to include that). Let’s not forget, Hitler has also piggybacked on the Catholic Church and the concept of ‘Aryan race’ to justify the genocide of Jews, Gypsies and the Poles. It doesn’t mean Caucasians, Catholics and white people are responsible for Hitler’s genocidal streak because he used their name to justify the murder of European Jews.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            The Arab states that function as the sponsors and patrons of the Palestinians are responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from their territories. The same states function as sponsors and patrons of the Palestinians in the peace talks and are parties to the peace that is being proposed (see API) which means that whether the Palestinians are responsible or not for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Arab countries the subject is pertinent.

            You are being very selective in your associations… again. The Arab states ethnically cleansed the Jews as part of their pan-Arabist war on Israel in concert with the Palestinian Arabs. See relevant Arab League documents for documentation. The conflict wasn’t defined as Israeli-Palestinian until late into the 1980s. Until then it was known as Israeli-Arab conflict which it still is in fact. You are in retrospect trying to sever the Palestinian Arabs from their Arab brethren who ethnically cleansed the Jews from the territories as part of the same war. The current Palestinian leadership (Abbas) is very much a product of the pan-Arab war against Jews so I don’t really understand why they are kept apart.

            But, that is fine. Let’s play dissociation. How many Israeli Jews alive today have any physical connection to the events of 1948? 100,000? 200,000? When they die is that the end of it? Will you too dissociate Israeli Jews from the actions of those other Jews in 1948 or do Jews carry blame and guilt forever?

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >That’s the point, it means they are not responsible.

            Claims that they are not are false and counter-productive, because being a “part of Arab people”, they certainly are.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            Being part of the ‘white/caucasian’ race does not make you responsible for the Holocaust. Nor does being a Catholic make you responsible for Mussolini’s stripping the JEws of their citizenship. Being part of the Jewish people does not make you responsible for Israel’s actions in Lebanon in 1982, nor in Gaza, even though Israel claims to be a state for all jews.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Being part of the ‘white/Caucasian’ race does not make you responsible for the Holocaust.

            But being white/Caucasian member or supporter of Nazi party – does.

            >Nor does being a Catholic make you responsible for Mussolini’s stripping the Jews of their citizenship.

            As a matter of fact, it does.
            Vatican Gives Formal Apology for Inaction During Holocaust
            http://tech.mit.edu/V118/N13/bvatican.13w.html

            >Being part of the Jewish people does not make you responsible for Israel’s actions in Lebanon in 1982, nor in Gaza, even though Israel claims to be a state for all jews.

            Even though THEORETICALLY you might be right, practically Jews in Arab countries were persecuted and murdered because some someplace else some other Jews and Arabs waged a war.

            The explanation that Palestinians are Arabs, but not as Arabs as other Arabs are Arabs isn’t particularly convincing.

            Also, you are keeping ignoring the fact that Jordanian, Syrian and other Arab leaders took large part in the incitement of the conflict, as militant activities of the Arab League ensured that Tukhnit Daled is planned and carried out.

            Wouldn’t you mind to continue this discussion in more suitable and less populated area?
            It is really bothersome to post same message over and over again and hunt yours down amongst other, oozing poison posts?

            the.trespasser@hmamail.com

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            So according to you, being a Mexican Catholic makes you totally responsible for it then?

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Yes. Mexican Catholics are responsible for being members of organization which condoned extermination of 6 000 000 Jews.

            Reply to Comment
        • Tzutzik

          “The Arab Jewish refugees are the responsibility of Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, etc, not the responsibility of the Palestinians.”

          Actually, the Jewish refugees from Arab countries are the responsibility of the country that they fled to where they were granted asylum and immunity from further persecutions.

          You don’t believe me? Then look up the UN convention on refugees.

          In fact, the UN is busily chastising Western countries that make it difficult to for refugees to seek shelter after they fled from places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Sri Lanka. Go and see what Navi Pillay has to say on this subject. Google it.

          The only problem of course is that she is not lecturing Arab countries for not looking after Palestinian refugees. It seems, that as usual, Arab countries are not expected to live up to the same standards as Western countries, according to the UN High Commissioner for refugees.

          Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            Refugees can generally return to their country SHOULD THEY WISH TO, AFTER the hostilities. Which is why Kosovo refugees can acquire full Kosovar citizenship, and I know many Kosovar refugees who have visited Kosovo after the Kosovo war. Some have opted to acquire dual citizenship with their other hosted countries, and some have opted to live there.

            Again, German refugees following 1948 can by law acquire full German citizenship, and can live in Germany as well as any other EU country, including Poland.

            Many Angolan refugees from the war of independence have returned to Angola despite the fact that they were refugees (I have a good friend whose mother was an Angolese refugee, she has now decided to go back to Angola and live there).
            Hell, I even know some people whose parents were Iranian asymlum seekers following the 1979 who have visited Iran and stayed there for a couple of years.

            I am bringing this up because it illustrates that refugees are NOT cut off from their country of origin if returning or visiting there does not mean they are in immediate physical danger. If returning to Angola/Kosovo/Iran means you are not in immediate physical danger, then you can do so, no country or UN convention is going to stop you.

            Palestinian refugees are not allowed to return, not even for a visit. Logically, they should be able to return if returning does not cause immediate physical danger. It was the case for Angolans, Kosovars, Germans, and even some Iranians.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Logically, they should be able to return if returning does not cause immediate physical danger. It was the case for Angolans, Kosovars, Germans, and even some Iranians.

            For Kosovar? Didn’t your Albanian friends tell you about the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Christians – Montenegrins and Serbs?

            As of I/P – I haven’t seen any major signs that would suggest that allowance of any significant number of Palestinian Arab refugees would not cause a wave of terror.

            Basically, if 100 000 Palestinians are allowed – a minuscule number really – and only 10% of them would decide to carry out an attack… I’d rather refrain from such experiments.

            Besides that, there are pure economical reasons – there are no jobs in Israel or Palestine to employ even as little as 100 000. Creating new jobs? Process which would take at least 5-7 years and would cost A LOT.

            However until you – Palestinians – reach any kind of nationwide consensus of how and if at all, you want to coexist with Israeli Jews in the Jewish state, Israel have no-one to talk to and got no choice but to take unilateral steps.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Palestinian refugees are not allowed to return, not even for a visit. Logically, they should be able to return if returning does not cause immediate physical danger”

            You know Leen? This sentiment itself tells a story about the extent of atrocities that were committed by each side.

            Most Jewish refugees from Arab countries would not consider returning to places like Iraq, Egypt, Yemen and Syria because they would be fearful for their lives there.

            Compare this to the sentiments of Palestinian Arabs. They clamor to return and they don’t seem to be afraid that their life would be in danger in Israel. Does that sound like they fled because they were expelled by the Jews who threatened to kill them if they don’t leave? It sure doesn’t sound like it does it? It sounds much more like they fled from a war zone as many civilians tend to do in all wars. Otherwise the Palestinian Arabs too would still fear for their lives.

            Having said that, I am not claiming that SOME Palestinian Arabs were not expelled. A small number of Palestinian Arabs were probably expelled by rogue elements. And some others because their villages were located in strategic locations that had to be cleared for military reasons. But the vast majority left voluntarily for fear of being killed in the cross fire and some becase they heard exaggerated stories about atrocities committed by Jews.

            What do say Leen?

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            Actually, there would be no immediate physical danger from the Palestinian side, but I cannot speak from the Israeli side.

            As for the others, please see my post above. I have made it very clear that it is not the responsibility of the Palestinians, but the responsibility of Syria, Egypt and Iraq. Let’s not forget the Jews in Morocco, Tunisia and Bahrain were not expelled, which automatically means that the Arab Jews experience is not uniform.

            Actually, there are a number of reasons why many Palestinians fled is due to possible massacres like Deir Yassin (it is what set off the exodus, despite the fact many of the Arab leadership were calling on the palestinians to stay put).
            The Nakbeh occured prior to the 1948 war between Israel, Jordan, Syria and Egypt. Which means it was not a ‘war zone’. We all know what Plan Dalet has in store. Many have sought to return after a year or two, but could not because 400 villages were destroyed by Zionists and replaced by Jewish-only towns (let’s not whitewash the fact that the remaining Palestinians were placed under martial law until 1966).

            Now going back to what I have said, when hostilities ended (and by that I mean the Nakba, because let’s be frank there are problems in Angola for instance but that’s not stopping the Angolese refugees of the war of independence from returning), refugees can return to their country of origin (against he operative word here is SHOULD THEY WISH TO, NO ONE is going to force them to return if they don’t want to).

            But if Israel wants to perch itself on the same level of Iraq and Syria, then by all means let it. Israel is resembling Iraq in its attitude towards refugees (not going to let the Jews return come storm or calm and NO compensation, and if they do, there will be hell to pay).

            Can I be honest, I am really intriguied to know if there is any country in the world that is considered democratic and liberal that has banned its refugees from returning and did not offer compensation. Because I feel this is the trend of countries with terrible human rights records such as Iraq and Syria.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Actually, there would be no immediate physical danger from the Palestinian side

            I doubt that. Nothing that had happened during last 100 years suggests that.

            >but I cannot speak from the Israeli side.

            Only Palestinian Christian babies are in danger.

            >As for the others, please see my post above. I have made it very clear that it is not the responsibility of the Palestinians, but the responsibility of Syria, Egypt and Iraq.

            It might be very clear from YOUR point of view, however from MY point of view, it is absolutely clear that at the time all Arab nations acted as one and all should be held responsible for outcome of their hostility.

            >Let’s not forget the Jews in Morocco, Tunisia and Bahrain were not expelled, which automatically means that the Arab Jews experience is not uniform.

            Not exactly.

            “In the wake of the 1947-1948 Civil War in Palestine, a violent pogrom was led against the Jewish community of Manama, Bahrain on December 5, 1947. An Arab mob looted Jewish homes and shops, destroyed the synagogue, beat any Jews they could find, and murdered one elderly woman.”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Manama_pogrom

            “The Oujda and Jerada pogrom was a pogrom that occurred on June 7-8, 1948, in the towns of Oujda and Jerada, northeastern Morocco. In those events 42 Jews were killed and approximately 150 injured at the hands of local Muslims in reaction to the civil war in Palestine.”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oujda_and_Jerada_pogrom

            “The migration swelled by the early 1950s, until an official ban was issued by the Moroccan government. Nevertheless, an illegal immigration continued. On 10 January 1961 a small boat called “Egoz” carrying 44 Jewish emigrants sank on the northern coast of Morocco.[2] This created a major stress both in the Moroccan authorities and the Zionist institutions, responsible for the illegal immigration activities.

            Operation Yachin was an organized operation to secretly emigrate Moroccan Jews to Israel, conducted by Israel’s Mossad between November 1961 and spring 1964. About 80,000 left for Israel by plane and ship from Casablanca and Tangier via France and Italy. The operation also received important help from Francoist Spain.[3] However, some Jews settled in France, Canada and the United Statesinstead of in Israel. Morocco received “indemnities” for the loss of the Jews”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yakhin

            >Actually, there are a number of reasons why many Palestinians fled is due to possible massacres like Deir Yassin (it is what set off the exodus, despite the fact many of the Arab leadership were calling on the Palestinians to stay put).

            While many other Arab leaders were calling for Palestinians to leave temporarily, to return after victorious Arab forces get rid of Jews.

            >The Nakbeh occurred prior to the 1948 war between Israel, Jordan, Syria and Egypt. Which means it was not a ‘war zone’.

            The Nakbeh STARTED before the 1948 war, but it does not mean than there was no war zone.

            “According to Benny Morris, much of the fighting in the first months of the war took place in and on the edges of the main towns, and was initiated by the Arabs. It included Arab snipers firing at Jewish houses, pedestrians, and traffic, as well as planting bombs and mines along urban and rural paths and roads.[10] Morris also says that by the end of March 1948, the Yishuv had suffered about a thousand dead.[11] According to Ilan Pappe, by January 1948, 400 Jewish settlers had been killed while attempting to maintain contact with isolated Zionist settlements established “in the heart of Palestinian [Arab] areas”, while 1500 Arabs had been killed in the “random bombardments and shellings of their villages and neighbourhoods”.[12] According to Yoav Gelber, by the end of March, there was a total of 2,000 dead and 4,000 wounded.[1] These figures correspond to an average of more than 100 deaths and 200 casualties per week in a population of 2,000,000.”

            Quite a warzone, I’d say.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine#Rise_of_violence

            >We all know what Plan Dalet has in store.

            Plan Daled was only created AFTER Palestinian Arabs rejected all proposed peaceful solutions, including 1947 UN partition plan.

            “On November 29, 1947, the UN voted to approve the Partition Plan for Palestine for ending the British Mandate and creating an Arab state and a Jewish state. In the immediate aftermath of the United Nations’ approval of the Partition plan, the Jewish community expressed joy, while the Arab community expressed discontent.[6][7] On the day after the vote, a spate of Arab attacks left at least eight Jews dead, one in Tel Aviv by sniper fire, and seven in ambushes on civilian buses that were claimed to be retaliations for a Lehi raid ten days earlier.[8] Shooting, stoning, and rioting continued apace in the following days. Fighting began almost as soon as the plan was approved, beginning with the Arab Jerusalem Riots of 1947..”

            >Many have sought to return after a year or two, but could not because 400 villages were destroyed by Zionists and replaced by Jewish-only towns

            Many should’ve sought not to attack Jews in first place.

            >let’s not whitewash the fact that the remaining Palestinians were placed under martial law until 1966

            What’s wrong with that?

            >Now going back to what I have said, when hostilities ended

            Hostilities never ended. No peace treaty was signed. It was demanded that first Israel should admit the refugees back.

            >and by that I mean the Nakba, because let’s be frank there are problems in Angola for instance but that’s not stopping the Angolese refugees of the war of independence from returning

            And what exactly prevents Georgian refugees from Abkhazia and Ossetia from returning to their homes?

            >refugees can return to their country of origin
            1 – Not necessarily.
            2 – Certainly not before a peace agreement is reached.

            >against he operative word here is SHOULD THEY WISH TO, NO ONE is going to force them to return if they don’t want to.

            Not necessarily as well.

            >Can I be honest, I am really intriguied to know if there is any country in the world that is considered democratic and liberal that has banned its refugees from returning and did not offer compensation.

            Compensation might only be offered as a part of peace deal. No peace = no money.

            >Because I feel this is the trend of countries with terrible human rights records such as Iraq and Syria.

            And quite a few more others, including Russia and China. A bad company? Ask Gaddafi and Ahmadinejad.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            “Actually, there are a number of reasons why many Palestinians fled is due to possible massacres like Deir Yassin (it is what set off the exodus, despite the fact many of the Arab leadership were calling on the palestinians to stay put).”
            .
            A startling admission by some more honest Palestinians, on the BBC shed some light about how Deir Yassin set off the exodus. It seems that some Arab leaders deliberately exaggerated what happened in Deir Yassin with the hope of encouraging neighbouring Arab states to join the war. Read this and watch the attached video too:

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

            “What Hazem Nusseibeh told the BBC
            about Deir Yassin

            The video focuses on an interview with Hazem Nusseibeh, a member of one of Jerusalem’s most prominent Arab families. In 1948 he was an editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service’s Arabic news.

            In this interview with the BBC he admits that in 1948 he was instructed by Hussein Khalidi, a prominent Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate claims of atrocities at Deir Yassin in order to encourage Arab regimes to invade the expected Jewish state. He made this damming admission in explaining why the Arabs failed in the 1948 war. He said “this was our biggest mistake”, because Palestinians fled in terror and left the country in huge numbers after hearing the atrocity claims.”

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Shmuel, I’m not sure if you even bothered to read the whole link you posted, since it contains this gem:

            “Part of the problem was that the mainstream socialist Zionist parties themselves magnified the supposed misbehavior of the two opposition militias in order to discredit them in the coming political contest for control of the emerging Jewish state. (…) Among other things, the ZOA study shows that the original claim of 254 dead was not based on any actual body count. The number was invented by Mordechai Ra’anan, leader of the Jewish soldiers who fought in Deir Yassin.”


            In any case, there’s plenty of evidence that killing took place after the battle.

            “The HIS operative on the spot, Mordechai Gichon, reported on 10 April:
            Their [i.e., the IZL?] commander says that the [initial] order was: To take prisoner the adult males and to send the women and children to Motza. In the afternoon [of 9 April], the order was changed and became to kill all the prisoners . . . The adult males were taken to town in trucks and paraded in the city streets, then taken back to the site and killed with rifle
            and machine-gun fire. Before they [i.e., other inhabitants] were put on the trucks, the IZL and LHI men . . . took from them all the jewelry and stole their money. The behaviour toward them was especially barbaric [and
            included] kicks, shoves with rifle butts, spitting and cursing (people from Givat Shaul took part in the torture).”

            (“Birth Revisited” p. 238)

            The actual figure killed at Deir Yassin was 100-120. Even though fewer were killed than originally reported, it still involved killing unarmed prisoners after the battle and families during the battle, which the Irgun unquestionably started against a village that repeatedly refused to enter the fighting.

            The meta-discussion about who exaggerated Deir Yassin shouldn’t take away from that.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            “Shmuel, I’m not sure if you even bothered to read the whole link you posted, since it contains this gem:

            “Part of the problem was that the mainstream socialist Zionist parties themselves magnified the supposed misbehavior of the two opposition militias in order to discredit them in the coming political contest for control of the emerging Jewish state.”

            Talking about disingenuousness, you are it, Andrew. Any reason why you omitted some bits from your your quote?

            “Part of the problem was that the mainstream socialist Zionist parties themselves magnified the supposed misbehavior of the two opposition militias in order to discredit them in the coming political contest for control of the emerging Jewish state. This trend has been echoed in recent years, and Deir Yassin has become the “massacre of choice” for anti-Semites trying to prove the Jews are bloodthirsty barbarians. In part these have based their claims on a document by a Hagana officer, one Meir Peil, who was not actually present at the battle but surveyed the village AFTER the fighting was finished. Peil claimed he thought there had been looting and intentional killing of some villagers.”

            It seems that “progressives” in those days too liked to team up with haters of Israel (people like you Andrew) to make us look like barbarians.

            But it still does not negate the exaggerations that the Palestinian Arabs made about what happened in Dir Yassin. They too did it for political purposes.

            By the way, the Palestinian Arabs were no innocent babes in the wood. They committed their own massacres. They executed the defenders of Gush Etzion who surrendered. Here read about it. I am sure you approve of what the Palestinians did, right Andrew?

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

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Hey Andrew, you are up to your old tricks again. You haven’t quoted the full text of what you claim that I haven’t read. Here is the full version …

            “Part of the problem was that the mainstream socialist Zionist parties themselves magnified the supposed misbehavior of the two opposition militias in order to discredit them in the coming political contest for control of the emerging Jewish state. This trend has been echoed in recent years, and Deir Yassin has become the “massacre of choice” for anti-Semites trying to prove the Jews are bloodthirsty barbarians.”

            Any reason why you omittet the last few sentences? Do you use such shoddy tactics with all your other verbose quotes that you bore us with here?

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            “Any reason why you omittet the last few sentences? Do you use such shoddy tactics with all your other verbose quotes that you bore us with here?”

            Because I was making the argument that Deir Yassin being exaggerated is secondary to the fact it happened and really was a massacre. You’d know that if you read my whole post to the end. And one of those who inflated the deathtoll mentioned in the quote was a member of Irgun. Score one for reading comprehension.

            As for the Morris quotes, I’ve been upfront with the fact that he credits Arab attacks with prompting the expulsion operations and included that in at least one quote today. To put not too fine a point, your attempt to indict me is pathetic.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            “Because I was making the argument that Deir Yassin being exaggerated is secondary to the fact it happened and really was a massacre”

            No Andrew, YOU are the one who is missing the point. Nobody in here argued that there were no Arabs killed in Deir Yassin. Or that there were no atrocities committed by BOTH sides.

            The only arguments that I have with you are:

            1. Your implication that ONLY Jews were committing atrocities. I say both sides did.

            2. That you consider the EXAGGERATION of reports of massacres by Jews of secondary importance. I disagree, as does Nusseibeh. He sums it up best in his interview with the BBC:

            ” He said “this was our biggest mistake”, because Palestinians fled in terror and left the country in huge numbers after hearing the atrocity claims.”

            That says it all …

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Tzutzik: “It sounds much more like they fled from a war zone as many civilians tend to do in all wars. Otherwise the Palestinian Arabs too would still fear for their lives.”

            It sounds like you need to closely read Benny Morris. While Deir Yassin was a major factor in the evacuation of several villages that were not immediately attacked, it wasn’t so simple as Deir Yassin, sit back and watch.

            “Like the exodus from the towns, the evacuation of the countryside
            in April–June closely followed, and was largely precipitated by, Jewish offensives. The exodus almost completely followed the sequence of Jewish attacks in each area, but it was Arab military pressure in key areas that forced the Haganah prematurely to launch these offensives, which, in retrospect, were to be seen as the beginning of the implementation
            of Plan D, and which involved for the first time the conquest and
            permanent occupation of swathes of territory and the eviction of clusters of Arab communities.
            (“Birth Revisited” p. 233)

            “On the night of 11\12 April Palmah units took al Kafrin,
            which was found empty, and Abu Zureiq, where some 15 adult males
            and some 200 women and children were taken captive, and occupied
            Abu Shusha. Some 30 of Kafrin’s houses were blown up that day and
            some of Abu Zureiq’s houses were blown up that night.600 The women
            and children of Abu Zureiq were expelled.601 The last houses in Abu
            Zureiq were demolished by 15 April.602 During the night of 12\13 April, Palmah units occupied Ghubayya al Fawqa and attacked al Mansi and al Naghnaghiya, southeast of Mishmar Ha‘emek.603 Mansi and Naghnaghiya were evacuated by the Arabs on 15 April.604 The villages were
            blown up during the following days. According to the Mishmar Ha‘emek logbook, by 15 April, ‘all the villages in the area [more or less] as far as the eye can see [had] been evacuated’.605 Most of the villagers reached the Jenin area and sheltered in makeshift tents.606″
            (p. 242)

            A little further down, he quotes JNF official Yosef Weitz (243): “Our army is steadily conquering Arab villages and their inhabitants are afraid and flee like mice. You have no idea what happened in the Arab villages.
            It is enough that during the night several shells whistle overhead and
            they flee for their lives.”

            So of course the expulsions were a little more deliberate than this passive “flee warzone” crock.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Yes, yes we know that you like to pretend that all Palestinians were just innocent bystanders who were being murdered by EVIL Jews in 1948..

            The reality was that the civil war was started by the Palestinians and subsequently atrocities were committed by both sides as listed in the following link.

            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_and_massacres_during_the_1948_Palestine_War#section_3

            Moreover, as has been pointed out to you by others before me. Benny Morris was very specific about saying that there was no POLICY of expulsions. He said exactly what I said above. But keep posting your long winded diatribes I am sure some people in here are very interested in reading it, YAAAAWWWNNN …

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            By the way, “Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited” can be found on scribd. Now, sticking to the substance of the argument and not the whiny rhetoric:

            “Benny Morris was very specific about saying that there was no POLICY of expulsions.”

            Morris engages in double-talk when he says that in interviews. These are his own words from “Birth Revisited”:

            “Clear traces of an expulsion policy on both national and local levels with respect to certain key districts and localities and a general ‘atmosophere of transfer’ are detectable in statements made by Zionist officials and officers. They are discernable, too, in the actions of Haganah units around the country. (…) But in any event, a policy of clearing out Arab communities sitting astride or near vital routes and along some borders was instituted.
            Orders went out from HGS to the relevant units to drive out and,
            if necessary, expel the remaining communities along the Tel Aviv–Haifa axis, the Jenin–Haifa road (around Mishmar Ha‘emek) and along the Jerusalem–Tel Aviv road.”
            (p. 166-7)

            Now on the same page, he does argue that there was no “blanket, national policy of ‘expelling the Arabs’”. (And if it makes you feel better, he notes that the stepping up of Plan D resulted from the ALA attack on Mishmar Haemek). However, that in itself is a bit redundant since the Haganah didn’t control the whole country. What it did control by 15 May was almost completely Arabenrein.

            On another level, no one disputes that Israel enacted a policy of keeping the refugees out. In fact, most of its defenders here loudly proclaim it. And we’re both in agreement that the refugees must stay out so Israel can remain a Jewish state. So basically we are to believe the Zionists immigrated to Palestine with the intention of creating a Jewish state, and now that they have it, they are right in doing what’s necessary to keep it, but as far as obtaining it in the first place, well, that was something they were forced to do in self-defense.

            Whatever.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Morris engages in double-talk when he says that in interviews.”

            Yes, yes, Andrew, we understand what you are saying.

            Benny Morris is a respected historical authority when he says what you want him to say.

            But when he says things that you don’t want him to say “he engages in double-talk”

            There, there, Andrew. We understand and sympathise with your bias.

            FOR GOODNESS SAKE MAN … !!! You are the one who quoted Benny Morris. So make up your mind, should we believe him? Or shouldn’t we believe what he says?

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            “”But when he says things that you don’t want him to say “he engages in double-talk””

            When he contradicts his earlier work, which I just amply demonstrated with quotes from said work, and says things which clearly cover up or downplay what he said before, then yes, he engages in double-talk. Trying reading the whole post before reacting.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Andrew, we had this discussion before and you were not able to give me a satisfactory answer to my following question:
            .
            If Israel had a deliberate policy of expulsion in 1947/48 then how come Israel did not expel all the Arabs?

            We know that Israel did not, because Israel has about 1.2 million Arabs as Israeli citizens today.

            That too should tell you that when Benny Morris said that there was no formal policy of expulsion, he meant it literally.

            All you keep on bringing up to deny that, are examples of actual expulsions. But nobody half reasonable denies the fact that there were SOME expulsions. What IS being denied by anyone with a semblance of knowledge and reason is the idea that there was a policy of TOTAL expulsion.

            When are you going to assimilate these non contradictory facts into your thick skull? And when are you going to twig to the fact that the only thing that is self evidently contradictory is your own narrative?

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            For those who missed it, here’s my first discussion with Shmuel
            http://972mag.com/it-seems-israel-just-picked-another-fight-beyond-its-borders/65154/

            “If Israel had a deliberate policy of expulsion in 1947/48 then how come Israel did not expel all the Arabs?”

            There were cases where the commanders preferred to move Arab villagers inland away from the border rather than sending them out of the country, such as Iqrit. So while they were forced out of their village and their houses subsequently destroyed, they remained in Israel. Now, during the war, immediately after and during the early 50′s, Israel had to deal with many Palestinians attempting to return across the armistice line. The commanders who decided to spare the Iqrit villagers, among others, may have anticipated that difficulty and decided these particular Arabs were better off staying where they could be monitored. That’s only my inference; what exactly was going through their heads is a mystery. It’s still the case that their village by the border with Lebanon was marked a security zone and they could not remain in situ.

            It’s also still the case that expulsions across the line took place after the armistice agreements, several of which directly contravened them. I pointed that out last time, too.

            There were certain exceptions made for Druze and Christian villages; in the case of Nazareth, Ben-Gurion rescinded the order to depopulate the city (see p. 419 of that book I keep mentioning). Not the case with Lydda and Ramle and in Lydda he gave the order directly to Rabin (p. 429 of that book). And as I also pointed out last time, Christians who fled out of Palestine from the major cities were not allowed to return; the Archbishop of Haifa appealed on behalf of the Christians from that city and was refused. There can be no doubt that the Israeli govt. and the military wanted as many Arabs gone as possible and those who weren’t chased out were special exceptions.

            “We know that Israel did not, because Israel has about 1.2 million Arabs as Israeli citizens today.”

            That’s a whole ‘nother discussion in itself; many Jewish Israelis certainly think the job of 1948 is unfinished.

            “That too should tell you that when Benny Morris said that there was no formal policy of expulsion, he meant it literally.”

            No, that tells me you didn’t even bother reading the quote I supplied where Morris keeps using the word “policy” in relation to Plan Dalet. You can find it with ctrl+f and I’m not posting it again.

            “What IS being denied by anyone with a semblance of knowledge and reason is the idea that there was a policy of TOTAL expulsion.”

            There was no formal policy of expulsion or no policy of TOTAL expulsion which certainly implies a policy of partial expulsion. Which is it?

            “When are you going to assimilate these non contradictory facts into your thick skull?”

            You haven’t earned a license to call my skull thick by showing inability to read the quotes I post. I’ve been upfront from day one that Morris concludes there was no policy of total expulsion and pointed that out before you did here.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            SHMUEL:“We know that Israel did not, because Israel has about 1.2 million Arabs as Israeli citizens today.”

            ANDREW:That’s a whole ‘nother discussion in itself; many Jewish Israelis certainly think the job of 1948 is unfinished.”

            Ah, ok I get you now Andrew. There was an official policy of expulsion back in 1948. But not all Arabs were expelled. In fact, since 1948, the Arab population grew to 1.2 million souls. But since SOME Israelis today think that the job of 1948 was unfinished, ipso facto there was a central policy of expulsion in 1948.

            Did I sum up your claims correctly, Andrew? If I did, then all I can say ….

            Seeeeesh, what convoluted “logic” you have Andrew.

            SHMUEL:“That too should tell you that when Benny Morris said that there was no formal policy of expulsion, he meant it literally.”

            ANDREW:”No, that tells me you didn’t even bother reading the quote I supplied where Morris keeps using the word “policy” in relation to Plan Dalet. You can find it with ctrl+f and I’m not posting it again.”

            No please don’t. Your posts are long and convoluted. I’ll tell you what though. This is how Wikipedia quotes Morris:

            “He argues that there was no centralized expulsion policy as such, but expulsions were ordered by the Israeli high command as needed”

            Isn’t that what I said that he said too?

            SHMUEL:“What IS being denied by anyone with a semblance of knowledge and reason is the idea that there was a policy of TOTAL expulsion.”

            ANDREW:”There was no formal policy of expulsion or no policy of TOTAL expulsion which certainly implies a policy of partial expulsion. Which is it?”

            It implies what I agreed that Morris said:

            There were some expulsions for military reasons wherever villages were located in strategic locations. There were also tit for tat expulsions by rogue elements.

            All of the above expulsions were initiated in the heat of the battle not as a preconceived and organised policy of expulsions initiated by the Israeli government.

            As I said, Morris was quite specific about the fact that he never found any documents that suggested an organised and preconceived government plan to carry out expulsions.

            Thats what Morris says. No matter how many copy and pastes you will present about what happened in this village or that. Morris saaid that it was not done due to a preconceived organised government policy. I’ll say it again, for emphasis, so you don’t complain. That does not mean that there were NO expulsions. Understand now?

            PS
            Jews too were expelled by Arabs as well. For example from East Jerusalem and from Gush Etzion.

            And had the Arabs won the war, their openly declared aim was to murder Jews and to drive all the survivors out of Palestine. But of course that wouldn’t scandalise or worry you would it Andrew?

            Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            “So basically we are to believe the Zionists immigrated to Palestine with the intention of creating a Jewish state, and now that they have it, they are right in doing what’s necessary to keep it, but as far as obtaining it in the first place, well, that was something they were forced to do in self-defence”

            You believe what you want to believe but this is what I believe.

            The Zionists immigrated to Palestine with the intention of creating a Jewish state. Ideally, they were prepared to achieve that aim through negotiations and involving legitimate commercial transactions through land purchases. However, after such a policy was met by incitement to violence by Arab nationalists who were against the idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East, the Jews were prepared to defend themselves and the lands that they paid for, by force of arms. Moreover, since the Arabs were not willing to compromise at all. The Jews saw no reason to be generous and they kept lands that they captured after they were attacked. That according to you people is their major crime. The Jews are not prepared to go back to how things were before they were attacked.

            Well, whoopsie dooooo, Andrew, the Jews are not alone in exhibiting such attitudes. In most recent wars, in WW2 as well, the aggressors who lost their war against the allies, lost lands too. And all of them got over it. They rebuilt and they live very successful lives.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            “Ideally, they were prepared to achieve that aim through negotiations and involving legitimate commercial transactions through land purchases.”

            And the desired end result of that was to create a Jewish majority in Palestine. So let’s say they tried to accomplish that through negotiations. When the Arabs refused to vacate, they would have given up on the idea, right?

            Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            “And the desired end result of that was to create a Jewish majority in Palestine. So let’s say they tried to accomplish that through negotiations. When the Arabs refused to vacate, they would have given up on the idea, right?”

            Not right. They were willing to buy land at exorbitant prices and they did exactly that. Everything being equal, at those prices that the Jews were prepared to pay for land, there were always some Palestinian Arabs who were willing to sell. Much as you find it difficult to believe.

            Then there were crown lands too that nobody had a title deed to. For instance the Negev desert. Jews too were entitled to get SOME of those crown lands.

            Based on that, the UN ended up partitioning Palestine in 1947. It is a matter of public record that the Jews accepted UN resolution 181. The Arabs did NOT.

            OK, some Jews were not happy either with what they got either. But they were overruled by the elected Jewish leadership which represented the majority of Jews.

            Nevertheless, the myth makers and story tellers have been doing their darnest to spin a different story ever since. And it seems, Andrew, that people like you are either full of enough hate or are gullible enough to fall for their spin.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            “The Jews saw no reason to be generous and they kept lands that they captured after they were attacked. That according to you people is their major crime.”

            Actually, no. The major crime was formulating a political aim which would require removing the native population in the first place. Zionism was rotten as a concept before it had the chance to do anything, and very early on, it outed itself as a movement of racial segregation. The violent opposition starting in the 20′s doesn’t earn it sympathy in my book.

            All the peasants who would have been removed through negotiations would’ve had no say, and most likely those who did the negotiating would’ve been removed afterwards, since they’d no longer be useful.

            You admit below that you’re a New Zealander and that the Maoris “did not invite” you in. Among some Israel-proponents, there’s a thesis that opposition to Israel on anti-colonial grounds is a projection of guilt for Europe’s colonial past. That seems to work for people who support Israel on the same grounds. Sometimes it’s more comforting to share in the guilt than to face up to the original crime.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            “All the peasants who would have been removed through negotiations would’ve had no say, and most likely those who did the negotiating would’ve been removed afterwards, since they’d no longer be useful.”

            Ok Andrew the next time you buy a house with tenants in it, I expect you to leave the tenants in the house even if you bought the house for the purpose of living in the house. Why? Because the tenants had no say in the negotiations leading to the purchase.

            “Among some Israel-proponents, there’s a thesis that opposition to Israel on anti-colonial grounds is a projection of guilt for Europe’s colonial past. That seems to work for people who support Israel on the same grounds. Sometimes it’s more comforting to share in the guilt than to face up to the original crime.”

            And how do you atone for the crime of your ancestors who committed mass murder of the natives when they established the homeland in which you now live Andrew?

            You put your hand on hour heart and claim that since you were not there at the time it isn’t your fault. Then you visit anti Israel sites and rile night and day against Jews who were prepared to purchase back lands that their ancestors owned. And which also happened at least 6 generations ago. But according to you young Israelis today are guilty? That is hos you atone for YOUR guilt. But you would be more honest if you would stop preaching to others.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            “Ok Andrew the next time you buy a house with tenants in it, I expect you to leave the tenants in the house even if you bought the house for the purpose of living in the house.”

            That’s pretty cute. Aside from the fact I’m not likely to buy a house and evict someone from it, you’re not very persuasive in equating the legal framework of land ownership in a modern capitalist state with that of the Ottoman empire circa late 19th century. Under Islamic law, it’s not so easy to get rid of a tenant and their heirs who cultivate the land, even if title passes to another party. Because you just hate it when I quote something, here’s a quote:

            “muftis looked unfavorably upon the displacement of a maska holder with no legal justification. For example, in a case involving a new mutawalli, who took over a waqf and attempted to remove the cultivator, (Zayd) with a mashadd maska, Hamid al-Imadi rules that such an action is forbidden; he asserts that “Zayd’s right to hold the land has been established, [thus] the land stays in his possession…”"

            http://books.google.com/books?id=bH-vRgRfSGkC&pg=PA114


            The secular tanzimat reforms swept most of this away. Land ownership became more formalized and the urban notables (tax collectors, merchants, etc.) registered land in their name for the peasants who saw it as identifying them for conscription. They had no reason to believe their traditional rights would be encroached on. The rules changed from under their feet like something out of Kafka. The Zionists took unfair advantage of the chaotic Ottoman system when they stepped up the evictions. Of course the effendis weren’t blameless, Palestinian and Lebanese both. Their short-sightedness got them in the end and took most of their countrymen along.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            “you’re not very persuasive in equating the legal framework of land ownership in a modern capitalist state with that of the Ottoman empire circa late 19th century. Under Islamic law, it’s not so easy to get rid of a tenant and their heirs who cultivate the land, even if title passes to another party”

            You mention two laws in here so you better settle on which one you want to argue your case with.

            1. If you argue Ottoman law, then you have no leg to stand on because if Ottoman law would have prevented the removal of tenants from lands that one owned, I can assure you that the Jews would not have been able to remove the tenants.

            2. If on the other hand you go by Islamic law, then firstly I have to ask you why? Why not Jewish law? But even if I drop that. Even then, let me ask you, if you go by Islamic law then where would you stop? For instance, would you advocate Islamic laws of conquest too? According to Islamic law, the believers, Muslims are allowed to conquer the lands of non believers (infidels) and coerce them into becoming Muslims. And once a land is conquered by Muslims, according to Muslim law that land becomes holy Muslim land forever. And it must be defended to the last drop of blood. It cannot ever revert to non Muslim ownership. I take it you support that Muslim law too, Andrew?

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            “And how do you atone for the crime of your ancestors who committed mass murder of the natives when they established the homeland in which you now live Andrew?”

            I will say that technically my ancestors were still in Europe when that took place, but we are responsible in the collective sense for decolonizing the United States and restoring what is possible. The past can’t be undone but the present can be stopped from becoming worse. Same for Israel/Palestine.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            “I will say that technically my ancestors were still in Europe when that took place”

            Uh, uh, that does not let you off the hook, actually, according to me it DOES, but using the logic that you seem to apply to Israel, it does NOT.

            “but we are responsible in the collective sense for decolonizing the United States and restoring what is possible. The past can’t be undone but the present can be stopped from becoming worse. Same for Israel/Palestine.”

            OK, you better explain what you mean by that both with regards to the USA and separately with regards to Israel.

            What you said above, sounds noble. But how do you propose to translate it into practical reality?

            Also, how should other conquerors, like Arabs, atone for wrongs that they committed in THEIR days of glory?

            Reply to Comment
      • sh

        The biggest stumbling block to THE two-state solution is Israel’s unwillingness to ever envisage relinquishing anything it already holds.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          That is because there is not enough idiots who believe that 2SS will bring peace.

          Reply to Comment
          • Elisabeth

            The fact that increasingly more people are losing faith in a two-state solution should worry YOU, in fact. As for me, I think a binational state would be just fine.
            Really, the comments section here is infested with over the top Jewish nationalists who have no idea what is in their own best interest. It’s almost funny to see people like you destroy your own future.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            In case you haven’t noticed, Israel IS bi-national state.

            The 2SS was/is not acceptable by Palestinian en masse.

            Now, when more and more people realise that, why should it bother me?

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            “In case you haven’t noticed, Israel IS bi-national state”

            I think for Elisabeth, a binstional state means a make-believe kumbaya state where Muslim Arabs, Jews and others live side by side in peace, harmony, respect and democracy forever and ever.

            I would be all for it if I would believe it to be possible. But I don’t believe it. So the next best thing is what we have. A Jewish majority state with an Arab minority.

            People like Elisabeth consider this to be against the laws of nature. For Arabs to be a minority that is. But they forget that Jews used to be minorities EVERYWHERE historically, until Israel was created. So now, it seems to hurt their senibilies that there is ONE place on this earth where Jews form a majority.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            “As for me, I think a binational state would be just fine.”

            Yes, step one: A binational state.

            Step two: Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Lebanon all over again. Everybody killing everyone else in a bloody civil war.

            “Really, the comments section here is infested with over the top Jewish nationalists who have no idea what is in their own best interest.”

            No, its only “benevolent well wishing” outsiders who know what is in our own best interest. Spare us the benefit of your “wisdom”. I will be blunt, we don’t trust you. Ok?

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            What makes the comparison with those other states somewhat disingenuous is that their former occupiers did not facilitate the gradual encroachment of a colonizing population whose leadership had the long-term goal of replacing the natives with themselves. If the problem of Lebanon had been solved Zionist-style, Israel-proponents would only cite it as one more example of Arab barbarism. And I’m not sure if your argument takes into account that it was the Maronite leadership who wanted the Muslim territories incorporated into “Greater Lebanon”.

            There’s also a certain entity noticeably absent from that laundry list: South Africa. No comment there?

            Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            Enough already Andrew. I have been watching your posts now for quite a while on + 972. Have you no shame?

            You dare to preach to a people, the Jews, who returned to lands from which they were exiled by white Europeans (the Romans) 2000 years ago. Nevertheless, these Jews never lost contact with their land. They did not even demand all the lands that they once owned. It was the Arabs, who are descendants of another conquering race who were not willing to share ANY of the land. Time and time they committed agression against the Jewish people and promised that most of the Jews will be driven out.

            Yet you, as an American take it upon yourself to preach to the Jews that they are land thiefs? Really? Now tell me, how did you come to live in America? Did the native Indians invite you in? And I say this to myself too, because I too am a descendant of white Europeans (not Jewish) the Maoris did not invite us in either. Nor did the Australian Aborigines. But at least I realise my history and I don’t try to be holier than though, like you Andrew.

            Enough already. Examine your own conscience before you preach to others. I just had to get this off my chest because people like you and Elisabeth really get under my skin.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            .

            “What makes the comparison with those other states somewhat disingenuous….”

            I’ll tell you what makes YOUR post disingenuous. The fact that you try to depict the return of the decendants of the native population to their ancestral homelands as colonialists.

            What next? Are you going to claim that native American Indians are colinising your country?

            “There’s also a certain entity noticeably absent from that laundry list: South Africa. No comment there?”

            Oh yea, I wonder why I omitted South Africa? Oh I know. Because the South African analogy does not apply. It is a convenient canard of so called progressives like yourself but who are not really progressives. Who are just mindless enemies of self determination for the Jewish people.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Kiwi:

            Go find the map Weizmann presented at the Paris Peace Conference: It included the Litani river and Transjordan up to the Hejaz railway. Ben-Gurion even proposed a scheme to the French PM in 1956 for Israel to annex Lebanon up to the Litani. It’s not that they were willing to share the land; they were willing to take what was available and when the opportunity came to take more by force, it was seized.

            “The Arabs” are not all descended from the Arabians. David Ben-Gurion even believed the Palestinian fellahin were descended from Jews who converted to Islam, and that their conversion made them unworthy of the land.

            Actually, excusing atrocities by others because your ancestors did the same thing is hypocritical. It means you are pretending to a high moral standard when in fact you are excusing not only what’s being done now, also what’s been done before. Just because the past can’t be changed doesn’t mean mindlessly repeating it is a good idea. Besides, you are welcomed to start a BDS movement against the United States if you think its existence as a colonial entity is that bad.

            Israel relies on US military aid to oppress the Palestinians, and there have even been members of congress who advocated expelling the Palestinians from the 1967 land, but Israel gets to exist in its own little vacuum when there’s opposition from the home of its main support.

            Shmuel:

            “Are you going to claim that native American Indians are colinising your country?”

            Ha ha, no; Jackson committed the Cherokee Trail of Tears and the Yiftah brigade committed the forced march from Lydda. Between colonization and return, guess which one that looks like.

            “Because the South African analogy does not apply.”

            It’s a counterexample of a colonialist entity attempting to divide the subject population into multiple states (DeKlerk had the gall to describe the bantustan system as akin to the European Union) and later reincorporated into one state.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            As a supplement to the above, here’s a collection of quotes from various Zionist figures describing what they’re doing as colonization or referring to the Palestinian Arabs as native.

            An address by Arthur Ruppin to the (*snicker*) Jewish Colonization Society of Vienna
            http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/Ruppin1907.html

            Aharon Eisenberg headed two companies which staffed first aliyah plantations and was behind the earliest migration of Yemeni Jews to the moshava. He made this smoking gun remark: “”colonizing work is difficult all over the world, especially in [deserted] places where new colonizaton has to be instituted from [scratch]. Such work is generally directed by large colonization-societies which obtain material and moral support from the governments by which they are authorized. Even then the full development of a new [colony] requires much labor, money and energy. If that is the rule in all the countries it is much more true in Palestine, where the laws of the country and esp. the land laws have not yet attained the stage of full development.” (Quoted in Shafir, ‘Land, Labor’, 97)

            Ze’ev Jabotinsky from “The Iron Wall”: “The logic employed by this editor is so simple and clear that it should be learned by heart and be an essential part of our notion of the Arab question. It is of no importance whether we quote Herzl or Herbert Samuel to justify our activities. Colonization itself has its own explanation, integral and inescapable, and understood by every Arab and every Jew with his wits about him. Colonization can have only one goal. For the Palestinian Arabs this goal is inadmissible. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible.”

            Yitzhak Ben-Zvi: “As long as nature and society have allied themselves against us, as long as we are a weak minority… as long as employeres from among our people contracted, explicitly or implicitly, with the fellaheen and the natives to reject and restrict the Jewish worker, as long as we are employment seekers even within the Jewish economy, we cannot enact the international solidarity upon which we set our heart.” (Quoted in ‘Land, Labor’, 86)

            Bonus, Herzl nails both in one paragraph: “Should the Powers declare themselves willing to admit our sovereignty over a neutral piece of land, then the Society will enter into negotiations for the possession of this land. Here two territories come under consideration, Palestine and Argentine. In both countries important experiments in colonization have been made, though on the mistaken principle of a gradual infiltration of Jews. An infiltration is bound to end badly. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened, and forces the Government to stop a further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless we have the sovereign right to continue such immigration.” (From Der Judenstaadt)

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            A rant for a rant Andrew. Here is a medley of quotes from Arab leaders. It proves as much (or as little) as your cherished quotes that you bandy about from some well known as well as obscure Jewish leaders. Here goes ….

            “There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not”. – Philip K. Hitti, an Arab, a professor at Princeton University, and author of the authoritative “The Arabs”, testifying at the 1946 Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry.

            “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria”. – said to the UN Security Council in 1956 by Ahmed Shukeiry, who later founded the PLO – the Palestine Liberation Organization.

            “There is no such country (as Palestine)! Palestine is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.” – told to the peel Commission in 1937 by Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader.

            “Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for all-out war, a war which will last for generations.” – Yasser Arafat, former leader of the PLO.

            “We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem.” – Yasser Arafat, former leader of the PLO.

            “If the Jews all gather is Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide” – Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary General of Hezbollah.

            ” There is no Palestinian nation! There is an Arab nation, but no Palestinian nation. This was invented by the colonial powers. When are the Palestinians mentioned in history? Never.” – Azmi Bishara, former Arab Knesset member, on Israel television.

            “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism…
            For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.” – PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.
            “Who can challenge the rights of the Jews to Palestine? Good Lord, historically, it is really your country.” – Yusuf Diya al-Khalidi, Mayor of Jerusalem, in 1899.

            “We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement…. We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home… our two movements compliment one another.” – Emir Faisal, a leader of the Arab world, in 1919.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            The only bit that is worthy of comment to that rant of yours above is this:

            “Actually, excusing atrocities by others because your ancestors did the same thing is hypocritical.”

            Nobody was excusing atrocities which WERE committed by both sides.

            The discussion was whether Israel has the right to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people or not. And the answer to that is that so long as it can defend itself from outside invaders it has as much right to exist as any other Arab or Western country who cannot boast of a greater past about their human rights record than what Israel is accused of by “progressives” like you Andrew.

            Saying that Israel alone has no right to exist because of exaggerations about it’s past is HYPOCRISY. Because next to the history of most countries, including Arab and western countries, Israel has nothing to be ashamed of.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            Or like Switzerland, or Uk or Belgium or Spain, or even the United States of America.

            Reply to Comment
    6. The Trespasser

      The diplomat’s report is rather futile.

      They are addressing quite a many of rather irrelevant points, while many important questions are omitted.

      For instance, these EU clowns are not addressing the RoR issue at all. Apparently in their minds 2SS+RoR is possible and will bring peace. Right.

      Was it really written by diplomats?
      “Executive summary” at the beginning of the document is pertinent in a business plan, not diplomatic document.

      1 – E. Jerusalem is not necessary for viable Palestinian state, as W. Jerusalem was/is not necessary for a viable Jewish state.

      2 – Universal character of the Jewish city. Right.

      3 – 3000 settlement units sounds like 3000 NEW SETTLEMENTS, while it refers to 3000 new households.

      5 – On what legal or precedence basis should Jerusalem become the capital of two states?

      63 – If the Temple Mount is under Israeli control, than why Jews are not allowed onto it?

      Reply to Comment
    7. Shmuel

      “What makes the comparison with those other states somewhat disingenuous….”

      I’ll tell you what makes YOUR post disingenuous, Andrew. The fact that you try to depict the return of the decendants of the native population to their ancestral homelands as colonialists.

      What next? Are you going to claim that native American Indians are colinising your country?

      “There’s also a certain entity noticeably absent from that laundry list: South Africa. No comment there?”

      Oh yea, I wonder why I omitted South Africa? Oh I know. Because the South African analogy does not apply. It is a convenient canard of so called progressives like yourself but who are not really progressives. Who are just mindless enemies of self determination for the Jewish people.

      Reply to Comment
    8. Laurent Szyster

      European diplomats pandering to the Palestinian discourse.

      What’s new?

      Nothing.

      And, yes, there is zero chances that this EU report and all the next ones will ever translate into political actions.

      Because, as you may know now, what bugs more and more European citizens is not Jews settling in the land of Israel but Muslims and Arabs settled in Europe.

      Reply to Comment
    9. 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