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

Analysis News

Jordan Valley fence would finalize the West Bank's complete enclosure

In what might be a shot to the heart of current peace negotiations, Netanyahu is reviving plans to build a ‘security fence’ in the Jordan Valley. If the fence follows the original route it will enclose any future Palestinian state, cement impossible Bantustan borders and give birth to a new map of Israel’s borders.

Demolished houses in Khirbet Makhoul, Jordan Valley (Activestills)

Demolished houses in Khirbet Makhoul, Jordan Valley (Activestills)

Ten years after international pressure led Israel to scrap construction plans for the Jordan Valley section of the security/separation fence, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is on track to revive them. Two Ma’arivMakor Rishon correspondents on Sunday reported that several government ministries are already making preparations for the project and that Netanyahu himself will order the commencement of construction once the Egyptian border fence is completed. According to Ma’ariv, the official excuse for constructing the new segment is the fear that Syrian refugees now staying in Jordan might infiltrate — although there are no known reports of Syrians trying to make it to the West Bank from the Hashemite Kingdom — and “closing the Israeli border.”

However, the correspondents also mention the un-coincidental timing in which Netanyahu made his plans known: just as negotiations with Palestinians seem to be hitting a dead end, with the question of sovereignty in the Jordan Valley reportedly being one of the central obstacles. Just last week Netanyahu made clear at a Likud conference that he considers Israeli control of the Jordan Valley a key strategic issue and a red line for all future agreements.

It is still unclear where exactly Netanyahu plans to build his fence. When West Bank separation barrier maps were originally drawn about 11 years ago, however, they included plans for a fence that would separate most of mountain area, where the vast majority of Palestinians live, from the vast expenses of the Jordan Valley. American objections to that route led to its cancelation as early as 2003, as well as to the halt of construction of whole segments of the fence/wall east of Jerusalem and in the south Bethlehem/Gush Etzion areas, leaving large gaps in the planned route of the barrier to this day.

Considering the implications of political annexation in the existing fence and Netanyahu’s desire to ensure Israeli control over the Jordanian border, it wouldn’t be outlandish to presume Netanyahu wishes to build his fence along the original route. The result would be completely surrounding the Palestinian territories in the West Bank with Israeli fences, removing any and all land borders it might share with another state (aside from Israel) and finalizing the process of Bantustan-ization of any future Palestinian state/autonomy.

Demolished houses in Khirbet Makhoul, Jordan Valley (Activestills)

Demolished houses in Khirbet Makhoul, Jordan Valley (Activestills)

The Jordan Valley has long been one of the most central but least-considered and rarely discussed problems of the occupation. Ehud Barak’s plan for maintaining Israeli control in the Jordan Valley was one of the reasons Yasser Arafat rejected his “generous offer” in 2000.

In the decade since, Palestinian freedom of movement has been increasingly and extremely limited in the Jordan Valley, all while Israeli settlements and agricultural land grabs continued growing. At the same time — and increasingly so in recent years — Israel has been demolishing large numbers of Palestinian villages in the Valley, claiming they are located in the middle of military training grounds. In addition, the state has been trying to push Jordan Valley Bedouin communities into other areas of the West Bank. Haaretz‘s Amira Hass keeps track of these demolitions and describes them as a process of ethnic cleansing. Building the fence might be the final step in turning the area into a Jewish-only strip of frontier land, which large parts of the political leadership consider essential for Israel’s security.

The Ma’ariv story also mentions that Netanyahu is pushing to finalize border fortifications in the Golan Heights. Putting all these pieces together – the new anti-African asylum seeker fence on the Egyptian border, the Syrian border fence and now the Jordan Valley barrier – it looks like Netanyahu is making a final push at guaranteeing his place in Israeli history as the prime minister who surrounded the entire country with fences and walls, not only for security and demographic reasons but also to demarcate what territory the Jewish state will hold on to in the long run, regardless of peace talks or international criticism.

Activists and locals in a joint action in Jordan Valley village of Samra, 2.11.13 (Activestills)

Activists and locals in a joint action in Jordan Valley village of Samra, 2.11.13 (Activestills)

Read also:
Between south Hebron, the Jordan Valley and Israeli democracy
PHOTOS: Jordan Valley demolitions leave Palestinian families homeless in winter
Jordan valley settlements double in size

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. One State is inevitable; the government security definitions of Israel lead exactly there. But One State doesn’t entail equal, universal citizenship.

      I looked at the Haaretz editorial of Feb 4 13 you provide. Facially, removing water supplies from a desert is a draconian form of population removal, targeting people and their livestock means of livelihood. Anyone who has lived in a desert knows you don’t play with water. I can have no respect for the policy or those who plan or implement such “civilized” removal.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        Walls partition, they do not unite…

        Reply to Comment
        • By “One State” I do not mean a single democracy, but single jurisdiction as applied. Bantu PA enclaves can hold local decisional autonomy under restricting conditions, thus enjoying their stand by Israeli forebearance (it isn’t worth direct control…). One State has nothing to do with citizenship for all, at least not at first.

          Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            Walls that divide jurisdiction lead to partition, not unification. One State has nothing to do with anything.

            Reply to Comment
          • No, jurisdiction can be delegated. If villages in the Jordan Valley were cordoned off, which seems the ultimate outcome of your isolationist policy, they might radicalize. If one did, it is quite likely the IDF would come rolling in to remove that new order. Jurisdiction of another allowed sufferance is then made direct by the controlling power. Colonial powers often do this.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            Every Palestinian in the West Bank is about as ‘radicalized’ as he/she can be. You can thank the Palestinian education system and the cultural influence of Arab satellite television for that.

            In any case, do you know what you do with ‘radicalized’ people? You hermetically isolate them to cut off their capacity to hurt you. Do you know what you don’t do? Send people to collect their garbage or regulate traffic or enforce contracts. So, yeah, I am still not seeing this magical force that will force integration and unified jurisdiction.

            “They might radicalize”. Wow. Just wow. The ignorance is just breathtaking.

            Reply to Comment
          • Wow. Oh Wow. The generalization is just breathtaking.

            Being angry at Israel is not identical to picking up a gun or bombing. Nor is it the case that post limited education all students want nothing more than to risk their lives against Israel. For some strange reason, I bet many just want to see their family survive, their parents grow old with some dignity, find a life partner and start a family, feel their child has some future beyond what they themselves see. In any case, it is hard to see anything beyond all that piled up garbage.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            It makes no difference to me if there are 20,000 Palestinians ready to sacrifice themselves to blow me up or 200,000. If I am in a place and out of 100 people only one shoots me dead how much did it matter that the other 99 are more interested in living a normal life? The result is the same. I am dead. This is where the ‘radicalization’/'motivation’ line of argument falls flat. After a certain point it makes no difference.

            I had this argument during the second intifada with one of those econometricians that somehow end up doing international relations. According to his numbers only x percent of Palestinians would themselves carry out attacks. His argument was that Israeli military measures will increase the Palestinian motivation to carry out attacks and so x would go up, so military measures can’t stop them and would only increase their frequency. This was while bombs were blowing up in the same city we were having the discussion. I remember this was a popular line of reasoning among the delusional left. It was nonsense then and it is nonsense now. I don’t care how ‘radicalized’ the Palestinians get because I don’t think there is feasible way to ‘deradicalize’ them to a point where it would matter for purposes of policy.

            Reply to Comment
          • You relate a version of the 1% doctrine, although beefing up numbers (instead of 20,000 try 200 or less) to keep the enhanced jeopardy up front. Attributed to Dick Cheney, the argument runs that if something may occur with probability .01 (1%), we must prepare as if it will occur with certainty (probability 1, 100%). The flaw in this argument is that it focuses on a small number of .01 events. There are, rather, an enormous number of such events, in many cases mutually exclusive of one another. So A and B may both happen individually at .01, but if A does happen, B cannot, or its contingent probability is much reduced. Preparing for both can be problematic. Indeed, it may be the case that one cannot prepare for both as if they were 100% likely. Preparing for one opens a window for the some other. The argument works presentationally because, as you do, only a small event set is highlighted, all focus on it. With a small focus one excludes other events which, as in the A and B example above, might alter contingent probabilities–making B more likely depresses the likelihood of A; we dislike A, so work toward B.

            My own view is that some suicide bombing is inevitable, no matter the policy. Perhaps just a few, even one; all hinges on the maintenance of cells and networks, and this is where the econometrician you speak of may have been going. Retaliation if gunshot can actually enhance such networks, or so I think. However, there can come a point where the network formation is so advanced that the kind of response Israel showed become the only option. In my view, of no import, much hinges on response to early network terror attempts.

            I will say in passing that I have consistently held the view that Palestinians opposed to more bombing (and I actually think most involved in “national action” are to some degree) must not only say so but forcefully put that action behind them, declaiming no more. Just as I think Israel should stop forcibly relocating people through an understanding that the Nakba is over. But this will go nowhere with you.

            I read this comment, with several others, as advocacy for complete cordoning off of all WB resident Palestinians. One may call the resulting impoverished areas, completely surrounded by Israeli force of some kind or another, a “State,” but few others will join you; just as most refused to consider the bantus of South Africa “States.” Your unrelenting hostility to all Palestinian political action makes sense, for, at some corporate level, bombing or other “radical” activity is foreordained, making all conflict not against people faced but rather against instances of some abstract body. This is exactly how the German National Socialists saw the world. With no hostility intended, I think Hitler would agree with you; he would nod yes, saying all conflict is corporate, usually racial, and you must not give an inch for, no matter how innocuous the face before you is, it but an advancing cell of something which must try and snuff your people out. In this logic, no child nor woman nor older (not infirm) man may be given victory when they protest–which I do think is what your position over several years on 972 amount to.

            So: we agree there will be some violence. I do not think this can be attributed to an abstract attribute like race or ethnicity, but is a function of evolved networks, and I think that the formation and fostering of alternative networks–among one’s enemies, mind you–can depress the chances of violence in these other networks, possibly to the point of removing them. I do not believe there is a sure solution to this end. But nor do I believe that forcing a brutal life on people will ultimately make them docile, either.

            While you present for sale certainty I can only offer possibility, but not arbitrary possibility, which must include hope for the enemy. To remove an enemy they must become people in some sense like ourselves. And in this pivot much of the angry debate lies.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            Look, if we both agree that violence against Israel is basically inevitable then how can you criticize me for pointing this fact out?

            The Palestinians continue to sustain a narrative according to which Israel is the enemy, the goal is its defeat and all tactics to hurt the enemy are legitimate. Suicide bombers are treated as heroes, as are other terrorists that are welcomed as idols when they return from imprisonment in Israel. I fail to see where in such a cultural context there is too much room for any countervailing forces that would allow for the ‘deradicalization’ of Palestinian society given that the underlying conflict between us and them is not presently resolvable. For the foreseeable future we (as Israelis) are going to have to accept that on the other side of our security measures is a population that fundamentally wishes to see us dead or gone. This may change in the future when the other side starts adopting a narrative in which Jewish history and presence in this area is embraced (and thus legitimized) rather than considered a temporary event to be suffered through until it is eliminated. Note that one can have such a position even while being hostile to Israel, but at least it forces a society into accepting that murdering Jewish civilians is actually WRONG rather than a heroic act worthy of emulation. Thus it is the Palestinians that have embraced an ideology that treats us as less than human, to be massacred by heroes for the greater good. The best we can do at this point in time is to try to stop them from succeeding, but until they abandon such an ideology there is no peace or security to be had in pieces of paper.

            My hostility to Palestinian political action is based on the understanding that the ideological background for the vast majority of Palestinian organizations is one that embraces the ideology I describe above that sees me (an Israeli civilian) as an enemy whose death is to be celebrated. I have yet to see ‘enlightened’ Palestinian organizations actually condemn the phenomenon of suicide bombings and I vividly recall the articles such ‘enlightened’ organizations wrote in defense of suicide bombings. So, pardon me if I consider those that would cheer my death to not be benign.

            Indeed, I think that Israel should entirely cordon off the Palestinian areas of the West Bank and refuse all responsibility for those areas. Those areas that Israel intends to keep it should annex and grant citizenship to those Arabs resident in those areas. Whether the Palestinians or anyone else calls this entity a state or not is irrelevant, but us cutting all ties with those areas means that like in Gaza our ‘sovereignty’ or ‘control’ or ‘responsibility’ over those areas becomes rather questionable. The land they will be on has never been annexed by Israel and the people on it have never been Israeli citizens. Whatever entity results will have a fixed population, fixed (even if not agreed) borders and international relations with quite a large number of states. Given that the state of Palestine is already a recognized entity with what will become exclusive claims to sovereignty over this area the argument against this entity actually being an internationally recognized state will be rather boring.

            Reply to Comment
        • David T.

          “Walls partition, they do not unite…”

          Walls don’t partition, they segregate. In this case in united Apartheid Eretz Israel.

          Reply to Comment
    2. Provides some much needed perspective. Excellent article.

      Reply to Comment
    3. tod

      I agree, super-article.
      Greg, “One State is inevitable” is a dangerous illusion that plays in the hands of Benjamin Netanyahu, kolumn, Trespasser and people like them.

      Many Palestinians and their advocates support the “one state solution,” anticipating a civil rights, anti-Apartheid struggle that will lead to secular democracy. Other analysts also consistently pose the options in similar terms.
      The analysis is almost universal, but crucially flawed. There is a third option, namely, the option that Israel is pursuing with constant US support. And this third option is the only realistic alternative to the two-state settlement that is backed by an overwhelming international consensus.
      http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20131024.htm

      Uri Avnery
      November 2, 2013

      On the occasion of my 90th birthday, a panel discussion of eminent historians took place in Tel Aviv’s Tsavta hall on the question: “Will Israel Exist in Another 90 Years?” There follows a slightly shortened version of my own remarks. A full video of the discussion with English translation will be published as soon as possible.

      90 Years from Now

      WILL ISRAEL exist in another 90 years? The very question is typical of Israel. No one would take it seriously in England or Germany, or even in other states born from immigration, like Australia or the USA.

      Yet here, people speak of “existential dangers” all the time. A Palestinian state is an existential danger. The Iranian bomb is an existential danger. Why? They will have their bomb, we have our bomb, there will be a “balance of terror”. So what?

      There is something in our national character that fosters self-doubt, uncertainty. The Holocaust? Perhaps an unconscious sense of guilt? A result of eternal war, or even the reason for it?

      LET ME state right from the beginning: Yes, I believe Israel will exist in 90 years. The question is: what kind of Israel? Will it be a country your great-great-great-grandsons and daughters will be proud of? A state they will want to live in?

      On the day the state was founded, I was 24 years old. My comrades and I, soldiers in our new army, didn’t think the event was very important. We were preparing ourselves for the battle that was to take place that night, and the speeches of politicians in Tel-Aviv did not really interest us. We knew that if we won the war there would be a state, and if not, there would be neither a state nor us.

      I am not a nostalgic person. I have no nostalgia for Israel before (the war of) 1967, as some of my colleagues here have expressed. A lot was wrong then, too. Huge amounts of Arab property were expropriated. But let’s not look back. Let’s look at Israel as it is now, and ask ourselves: where do we go from here?

      IF ISRAEL continues on its present course, there will be disaster.

      The first stage will be apartheid. It already exists in the occupied territories, and it will spread to Israel proper. The descent into the abyss will not be dramatic or precipitous, It will be gradual, almost imperceptible.

      Slowly pressure on Israel will grow. Demographics will do their work. Sometime before the 90 years are up, Israel will be compelled to grant civil rights to the Palestinians. There will be an Arab majority. Israel will be an Arab-majority state.

      Some people may welcome that. But it will be the end of the Zionist dream. Zionism will become a historic episode. This state will be just another country where Jews live as a minority – those who remain here.

      There are those who say: “There just is no solution”. If so, we should all obtain foreign passports.

      Some dream of the so-called “one-state solution”. Well, during the last half-century, many states in which diverse nations lived together have broken apart. A partial list: the Soviet Union, Cyprus, Yugoslavia, then Serbia, Czechoslovakia, Sudan. There has not been a single instance of two nations freely uniting in one state. Not one.

      I AM not afraid of any military threat. There is no real danger. In our time, no country possessing nuclear arms can be destroyed by force. We are quite able to defend ourselves.

      Rather, I am afraid of internal dangers: the implosion of our intellectual standards, the proliferation of a parasitical orthodox establishment, and especially emigration. All over the world, people are becoming more and more mobile. Families disperse. Zionism is a two-way street. If you can be a good Jew in Los Angeles as well as in Tel Aviv, why stay here?

      The connection between Israel and the world’s Jews will become weaker. That is natural. We are a new nation, rooted in this country. That is the real aim. Our relations with the Diaspora will be like, say, between Australia and England.

      I WANT to raise a basic question: will nationalism itself survive?

      Will it be supplanted by new collective modes of organization and ideologies?

      I think nationalism will continue to exist. In the last century, no power has succeeded in overcoming it. The internationalist Soviet Union has collapsed and left nothing behind but a rampant, racist nationalism. Communism succeeded only when it took a ride on nationalism, like in Vietnam and China. Religion succeeded when it took a hike on nationalism, like in Iran.

      Wherein lies the power of nationalism? It seems that the human being needs a sense of belonging, belonging to a certain culture, tradition, historic memories (real or invented), homeland, language.

      I SHALL pose the question in a different way: will the nation-state survive?

      In factual terms, the nation-state is an anachronism. It came into being during the last three centuries because the economic need for a large local market, the military need for an adequate army and so forth required a state the size of, say, France. But now almost all these functions have been taken over by regional blocs like the EU.

      This is the reason for a curious phenomenon: while nation-states join larger unions, they themselves break up into smaller units. Scots, Corsicans, the Flemish, Catalonians, Basques, Chechnians, French Canadians and many many more are seeking independence.

      Why? A Scotsman thinks that an independent Scotland can join the EU and reap all the benefits, without having to suffer English snobbery. Local nationalism trumps larger nationalism.

      SO WHERE shall we be in 90 years, at the beginning of the 22th century?

      In the year of my birth, 1923, an Austrian nobleman named Count Nikolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi called for a pan-European movement in order to create the United States of Europe. At the time, a few years after World War I and a few years before World War II, it sounded like a crazy utopia. Now we have the European Union.

      At this moment, the United States of the World sounds like a crazy utopia, too. But there is no escape from some kind of world governance. The global economy needs it to function. Global communications make it possible. Global spying is already with us. Only an effective global authority can save our suffering planet, put an end to wars and civil wars, world-wide epidemics and hunger.

      Can world governance be democratic? I certainly hope so. World communications make it possible. Your descendents will vote for a world parliament.

      Will the nation-state continue to exist in this brave new world? Yes, it will. Much as nation-states do exist in today’s Europe: each with its flag, its anthem, its soccer team, its local administration.

      THIS, THEN, is my optimistic vision: Israel, the nation-state of the Israeli people, closely aligned with the nation-state of the Palestinian people, will be a member of a regional Union that will include the Arab states and hopefully Turkey and Iran, as a proud member of the United States of the World.

      A democratic, liberal and secular state where your descendents will be proud to proclaim: “I am an Israeli!”

      Reply to Comment
      • Again, One State is not a solution but outcome and has nothing to do with negotiated agreement. I think Chomsky right that any development as a pan-citizenry could be greatly delayed; by One State I mean a single power with overarching jurisdiction, which is actually about what you have now. The enclave scenario which Chomsky envisions (which, as he notes, rightests yearn) is likely without external intervention to negotiate a different integrative path, although the evolution of natural economic behavior in much of the WB should not be discounted. Bloggers aren’t going to change things; people living that life will.

        Reply to Comment
        • Kolumn9

          There is no natural integrated economic development in the WB. Israeli policy determines the scope and scale of economic cooperation with the Palestinians (number of workers permits as one of many possible examples). In the absence of a unifying legal and political framework ‘natural’ integrated economic development can not really happen short of an Israeli decision to economically integrate the Palestinians of the West Bank. Fortunately however, all rational Israeli policy makers understand that in the absence of a separate political framework for the Palestinians such a decision would lead to demands for political representation and a gradual elimination of Israel. This is part of the consensus position shared by the entire Zionist left and the rational Zionist right (including Netanyahu and Liberman).

          Chomsky sees the most likely outcome as the one that Israeli rightists pursue. It is the currently the path of least resistance. External intervention is more likely to sanctify it than fight against it. So works power.

          Reply to Comment
          • Then why approve more settlement construction? People will interact across your racial barriers.

            The only difference I see between you and Bennett is that you seem much closer to publicly advocating the purging of Palestinian prior residents from Greater Israel. If using the anonymous “Kolumn9″ can be said to be going public.

            The difference between you and Chomsky seems to be that you think a general purge can be pulled off slowly; he does not.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            The reason to approve more settlement construction is to display the ability to cement control over land regardless of what happens in negotiations. This is the same reason for the construction of this fence. And, no people don’t really interact across security fences because they are first built because people on one side are afraid and then they become real cemented psychological barriers to communication. There is no integrated economy in the West Bank. Only your complete ignorance of the reality on the ground keeps your delusions alive.

            The difference between me and Bennett is that I do actually believe that a two state solution is possible and even necessary, albeit with a smaller Palestinian state than the Palestinians insist on and one which does not undermine Israeli security considerations. In fact I think we are well on our way to getting to such an outcome through interim accords and unilateral action by both sides. He believes any Palestinian state is suicidal and he does not present any possibility for an eventual resolution of the conflict. He, like you, pushes such platitudes as promoting the idea of integrated economic development that will benefit everybody, as if the political issues can be sidelined through magical wishful thinking. Sound familiar?

            Reply to Comment
          • “The reason to approve more settlement construction is to display the ability to cement control over land regardless of what happens in negotiations. This is the same reason for the construction of this fence.”

            No, settlement construction is not to display the ability to cement, but to cement. Everyone knows you have the ability to construct. Such construction is not like the Wall, for the Wall at worst establishes a new territorial boundary which stops expansion, but many settlements are beyond the Wall and expanding these amounts to a promise, for these settlers, of incorporating them and their surround into Israel. So what Bibi is saying is that Israel will continue expanding irregardless of negotiation. Which says negotiation isn’t really negotiation.

            I think you and Bennett differ only on livelihood. Being exposed directly to settler life, Bennett thinks long term; economic connections will be necessary for his people to thrive. I think you have no problem with this if the Palestinians are hearded away, objecting only to using their labor or common business contract. I now think you are quite fine with isolated islands of Palestinians. I don’t know what Bennett might think of this. Perhaps he wants the cheap labor. Perhaps he thinks people placed in another round of camps (which is what they would become) will, like Jews elsewhere, rebel. Perhaps he thinks that a final solution is impossible given Israel’s ties to the West and Jordan’s refusal to become a forced final refuge, leaving only evolved economic contact as an option, with Israeli citizens on top.

            I am fairly certain, though, that your view can be sustained only if one assumes some sort of inherent inferiority in Palestinians in an aggregate sense. They will not, a priori, be as innovative and robust as the Jews have been. Otherwise, your approach seems to create a time bomb.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            How does one prove the ability to cement without actually cementing? No, everyone actually doesn’t know that we have the ability to construct. Some think that European pressure or Palestinian opposition or UN resolutions might remove our ability to construct settlements. When we build it demonstrates that that is not true. Building in settlements also demonstrates that we have no intention of accepting the terms of reference the Palestinians demand according to which they own the entirety of the West Bank. As long as the Palestinians insist on such terms of reference we will continue to build, integrate settlements into Israel and make them irreversible facts that make a mockery of the Palestinian assertions that they have some kind of mandate to the entirety of the territory. Likewise if the Palestinians think that at every round of negotiations they will get more concessions, here too they are proven wrong by additional settlement construction. If the Palestinians thought that Ariel, Givat Zeev or Efrat were negotiable in 2008, let’s wait 20 years until those settlements double in size and acquire suburbs and have that discussion again. The Palestinians wish to freeze the situation and then take their sweet time building up pressure on Israel and waiting for global conditions to change. Here too, settlements prove such tactics foolish. The longer they wait the less will be on offer.

            Bennett couldn’t care less about the Palestinians. He wants to annex area C and leave Palestinian islands. Bennett, like every rational person out there, knows that there is minimal economic value in integration with the West Bank Arabs. However, for purposes of external consumption, he is willing to embrace a model which grants the Arabs there some place in the Israeli economy. This is stupid and short-sighted because such a scenario does nothing to resolve the political conflict, and inevitably leads to political conflict and violence, while exposing the Israeli economy to damage and exposing Israeli civilians to death and suffering.

            My view is that a situation must be created in which were the Palestinians ever to be as innovative and robust as the Jews have been so far that they would still be forced by circumstance into an outcome that leaves Israel secure with a Palestinian state next door with exact conditions to be determined via pragmatic negotiations while taking into account the conditions on the ground. In an aggregate sense the Palestinians are not inherently inferior, but their current starting position is so so weak that they would need to find/create extraordinary leadership, massive resources and tens of years to even have a chance of catching up. Yet the leadership available is not great, the resources do not exist and time isn’t standing still with Israel growing stronger every year and entirely capable of undermining any process that would lead the Palestinians into being more capable opponents.

            As for time bombs… Oslo was a time bomb and it blew up leaving thousands of Israeli Jews dead. One should be very careful indeed to avoid the kind of conceptual and ideological blinkers that due to wishful thinking lead to such time bombs.

            Reply to Comment
    4. tod

      Many Palestinians and their advocates support the “one state solution,” anticipating a civil rights, anti-Apartheid struggle that will lead to secular democracy. Other analysts also consistently pose the options in similar terms.
      The analysis is almost universal, but crucially flawed. There is a third option, namely, the option that Israel is pursuing with constant US support. And this third option is the only realistic alternative to the two-state settlement that is backed by an overwhelming international consensus.
      http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20131024.htm

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >Many Palestinians and their advocates support the “one state solution,” anticipating a civil rights, anti-Apartheid struggle that will lead to secular democracy.

        That’s bullshit. You can count these starry-eyed Palestinians with toes on one foot.

        Chomsky conveniently forgets that all these “direct violations of explicit Security Council orders” came as a response to violations of said orders by Arabs.

        That’s a wicked bit of racism here – Arabs (or Muslims if you please) can violate resolutions and develop WMD’s, while Jews are not allowed to do the same.

        Reply to Comment
        • tod

          You are ignorant, are you aware of it? I would bet my house that a person that writes sentences like yours is a lonely and sad human being (deservedly so).
          ‘Ein im mi ledaber sham’ is a hasbara claim that is mentioned also in the stickers song.
          btw, 1980 UNSC – res. 476: “acquisition of terriotry by force is inadmissible….reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”. This was a simple call for withdrawal, without reference to any conditions.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >You are ignorant, are you aware of it?

            I wish.

            >I would bet my house that a person that writes sentences like yours is a lonely and sad human being (deservedly so).

            My alleged personal, social and psychological condition has nothing to do with the issue in question, deservedly or not. And you would not forfeit your house should you find out that you are wrong.

            Thinking of that, one has to live in a hole in the ground to be not sad. Regretfully, we are not in the Shire. Ecology screwed up; all that GMO shit and mendeling with seed; climate is changing; Western expansion into East; 80% of world population lives on 20% of current world wealth – and they want more; Islamist expansion into Europe; Global economy stagnated; oil is running out but still not a sign of an energy source with comparable characteristics; et cetera et cetera.

            >‘Ein im mi ledaber sham’ is a hasbara claim that is mentioned also in the stickers song.

            Ii is the cold fact on the ground, wherever you like it or not.
            Signing permanent agreement with Israel = treason by wide Palestinian Arab opinion. Signing it is pretty much like signing own death sentence. No-one would ever do that. Some ignorant – or naive – people might thing that peace is possible but they are wrong, regretfully.

            >btw, 1980 UNSC – res. 476: “acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible….reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”. This was a simple call for withdrawal, without reference to any conditions.

            Yeah, yeah, whatever. Arabs are not feeling obliged by the international conventions regarding Israel, so there is no reason to treat Arabs otherwise. Or maybe you are suggesting that Jews have no right to have a homeland in Palestine?

            Reply to Comment
          • David T.

            “Or maybe you are suggesting that Jews have no right to have a homeland in Palestine?”

            Are you suggesting that Palestinians have no right to have back their homeland in historic Palestine?

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Are you suggesting that Palestinians have no right to have back their homeland in historic Palestine?

            They can surely have their homeland in whatever territories granted or take by force.

            Reply to Comment
          • David T.

            Sorry Trespasser. Nobody can grant a territory he doesn’t posess. And unfortunately for you it’s past 1945 and the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissable. I’m not sure if you really understand why.

            But I conclude that you think that Jews have a claim to territories in which people are denied to exercise their souvereignity either through mandate or through occupation? And Nonjews and their descendents don’t have a right to territories in which they were citizens and were habitually residents? And that Jews have the right to keep these Nonjews expelled and denationalized?

            Is this what you are trying to tell us, Trespasser?

            Reply to Comment
        • Jan

          ” (or Muslims if you please) can violate resolutions and develop WMD’s, while Jews are not allowed to do the same.”

          Pardon me but you must have a memory lapse. Israel has at least 200 nuclear weapons and likely a large stockpile of chemical weapons.

          Israel has not only refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or to allow inspections of her nuclear facilities or to ratify the convention against chemical weapons. Israel has not been punished for any of those transgressions while Iran has been heavily sanctioned for her nuclear activity. Seems to me that it is the Jews who the world is allowing to get away with accumulating WMDs. Want to retract your words Trespasser?

          Reply to Comment
    5. Would the world allow this to continue with her enabler standing resolutely at he side.But then the same was done to the native americans.

      Reply to Comment
    6. The Trespasser

      >regardless of peace talks or international criticism.

      There is no-one on Arab side to make peace with, so why bother talking to people who from the very inception weren’t trustworthy peace partners?

      Reply to Comment
    7. Average American

      Wait, let’s look again at the natural resources angle. Is it true all the water sources are in the West Bank? Except for the Israeli canals from the Sea of Galilee? (www. jewishvirtuallibrary.org) And if WB is fenced off by Israel, it’s a good bet no one but Israelis will get water? Water as a weapon?

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        No,not true.

        “Desalination systems account for a fifth of the freshwater used in Israel and, according to existing plans, by the end of the decade that amount will be doubled.”
        http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/is-desalination-the-solution-for-israel-s-water-problems-depends-who-you-ask-1.420278

        There were few projects which were rejectd by Israeli authorities due to whatever reasons, but these projects files are nowhere to be found online. Would it not help resistance to provide all drawings and calculations so worldwide community would rise and push on Israel to approve it?

        But no. Not a word.

        By the way, PA is hardly paying anything to Israel for water and electricity.
        מדובר ביותר מ-615 מיליון שקל, שמתוכם 232 מיליון שקל הם חובות ישירים של הרשות הפלסטינית ו-382 מיליון שקל הם חובות של חברת החשמל המזרח ירושלמית (חמ”י)
        615 megaNIS total, 232 mNIS are direct debts of PA for water, electricity and such and 382 mNIS are of E. Jerusalem electric company.

        However these… Jews managed to get part of the money, 460 mNIS. Better than nothing.

        Water as a strategic resource in a desert, to be exact.

        Reply to Comment
        • Average American

          Do you know where does Israel get the water that it sells to PA? Then is it delivered by truck?

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Do you know where does Israel get the water that it sells to PA?

            Israel supplying water to PA through 6 pipes scattered over the green line.
            http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/MSPS94.pdf page 18
            Where does is get the water? PA pipes connected directly to Israeli public pipeline, so water is coming from miscellenaous sources, depending on region: water from Kineret, conserved rain water and water from artesian wells. Agricultural water, obviously, is treated sewage water.

            >Then is it delivered by truck?

            To distant locations by truck, to all cities and most villages by pipe system.

            Reply to Comment
    8. Average American

      I was just looking at the Mekorot site. Says their first source of water is Sea of Galilee, second is “coastal and mountain aquifers”.

      The only “mountains” of course are in the West Bank Occupied Palestinian Territory.

      How does an Israeli company have rights to natural resources in Occupied Palestinian Territory?

      Was an example the recent EU sanctions-that-we-didn’t-really-mean-to-be-actual-sanctions against Israeli companies doing business in Occupied Palestinian Territory?

      “Sanctions” is such a narrow definition of “sanctions”? “Territory” can mean something else if it has to?

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >How does an Israeli company have rights to natural resources in Occupied Palestinian Territory?

        Because no “Palestinians” existed when Israel did occupied said territories.

        Reply to Comment
        • Average American

          I just want to be sure you are talking about current events (last 80 years or so) that we can all see and witness and measure and legislate, not ancient self-written tribal stories.

          Reply to Comment
        • David T.

          “Because no “Palestinians” existed when Israel did occupied said territories.”

          You probably don’t know that Palestinians legally exist since 1925, because you or your ancestors never acquired citizenship in Palestine prior to 1948. And the territories which Israel occupied were allways considered to be what was left of the former mandated state of Palestine, before your Zionist Junta took over most of it through war and expulsion.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >You probably don’t know that Palestinians legally exist since 1925

            (facepalm)

            1) “Palestinians legally exist” does not have any legal meaning.

            2) Who, by whom and on what basis is defined as a “Palestinian”?

            3) “Legally” by what jurisdiction? International law? Passports issued by an authority?

            4) And where they before 1925? existed illegally?

            5) In 1937, Peel proposed creation of small Jewish state inside mandate territory of Palestine.

            6) In 1939 the idea of partitioning the Mandate for Palestine, as recommended in the Peel Commission Report of 1937, was abandoned in favour of creating an independent Palestine governed by Palestinian Arabs and Jews in proportion to their numbers in the population by 1939 (section I).

            >And the territories which Israel occupied were always considered to be what was left of the former mandated state of Palestine

            There never was a “state of Palestine” until 2012.

            >because you or your ancestors never acquired citizenship in Palestine prior to 1948.

            1948? Why not 648?

            >before your Zionist Junta took over most of it through war and expulsion.

            Yeah. Such a shame that Palestinian Arabs would not agree that Palestinian Jews should have their religious, civilian and political rights equal to those of said Arabs.

            Reply to Comment
          • David T.

            1) I was refering to the national term “Palestinian”, but I will try to use even simpler words, just for you.
            2) Turkish subject habitually resident in the territory of Palestine on the date when the treaty of Lausanne came into effect.
            3) Id-cards by the by the Goverment of Palestine. Here’s a Jew who owned one: https://lh3.ggpht.com/_gS9VO1S_3f8/TGLBjR7C3oI/AAAAAAAABpM/8Gi8wxs46ug/s1600/untitled.bmp
            4) They were Ottoman citizens living in Palestine.
            5 + 6) What’s your argument?

            > There never was a “state of Palestine” until 2012.

            8. Don’t be so ignorant, all class A mandates were dependent states under mandate. The Permanent Court of International Justice (predecessor to today’s International Court of Justice) in the case of the Mavrommatis consessions ruled that Palestine, after it was detached from the Ottoman Empire had to respect its former concessions, BECAUSE Palestine was a successor state. Not only the position of the Mandatory but more important that of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nation was for example in 1937 (paraphrase): “For the Mandates Commission, Palestine … was one of those territories which, under the terms of the Covenant [of the League of Nations, Article 22], might be regarded as “provisionally independent”. The country was administered under an A mandate by the United Kingdom, subject to certain conditions and particularly to the condition appearing in Article 5: “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be . . . in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power”. [...] Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; …”
            http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/FD05535118AEF0DE052565ED0065DDF7
            And the Mandatory Power did conclude many bi and multi lateral state contracts with other states on behalf of Palestine.

            7.) There was no Palestinian citizenship in Palestine in 648, but before 1948. Btw, there has never been a Jewish citizenship/nationality until today.

            > “Yeah. Such a shame that Palestinian Arabs would not agree that Palestinian Jews should have their religious, civilian and political rights equal to those of said Arabs.”

            9. They did agree and contrary to the foreigners in the Zionist World Organisation proposed a unitary, democratic state inluding minority rights what the Zionist rejected who wanted to split up the country against the will of its majority and until today deny them equal rights.

            Reply to Comment
    9. Jan

      Jews got out of ghettos in Europe and now Jews in Israel will be living in a ghetto of their own making.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Better living in a ghetto of own making than with paedophile neighbors.

        Reply to Comment
        • andrew r

          See, you make remarks like this because you have a particular axe to grind against the Muslims, not because you’re on a righteous crusade against child marriage. If the Zionist state ended up in Uganda, you’d be saying the same thing about Ugandans (Islam is a minority religion, but nearly half of Ugandan girls are married before 18).

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >See, you make remarks like this because you have a particular axe to grind against the Muslims, not because you’re on a righteous crusade against child marriage. If the Zionist state ended up in Uganda, you’d be saying the same thing about Ugandans (Islam is a minority religion, but nearly half of Ugandan girls are married before 18).

            You are contradicting yourself. If I’d be saying same thing about Ugandans who are largely not Muslims, than, obviously, my axe is grinded not only against Muslims.

            What I really like, however, is that you guys are comparing Arabs to stone-age African tribes.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Except when you spew invective against anyone for child marriage, it’s Muslims as a group, coincidentally enough.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Except when you spew invective against anyone for child marriage, it’s Muslims as a group, coincidentally enough.

            Since there is no other group who have paedophilia enshrined in their religious texts…

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            …which doesn’t stop other groups from practicing child marriage. So clearly you don’t give a damn about young girls forced into marriage unless they are Muslim. Hence, you are just grinding an axe. QED.

            Reply to Comment
    10. THOMASWADAMS

      Greetings, Israel continues to commit unlawful punishment and crimes against Humanity upon the Palestinian Peoples.

      It matters not, to me, what religion law breakers profess to follow; oppression, apartheid, occupation, theft of land, destruction of property, denial of Human Rights, murder, all of these are criminal acts deserving International sanction and punishment.

      The United States of America is obviously not using its power to resolve this decade’s long criminal occupation, instead, choosing to support Israel and this criminal enterprise. Thus the U.S.A. is also criminally culpable.

      Religion is irrelevant; these criminal acts originate in the decisions and actions of the Israeli and American Governments.

      World opinion is near unanimous on this point; Israel and the U.S.A. is criminally culpable in the occupation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian Peoples from the land which is their birthright. The Palestinian Peoples are an integral part of the great Diaspora of “Semites”; they have a claim to the land that none of the incoming immigrants can match.

      I call upon members of the United Nations Security Council together with The General Assembly, to re-affirm the many past resolutions condemning Israel, and to institute lawful effective procedures, by force if necessary, to remove all settlers from land internationally recognised as the State of Palestine.

      Such action would help restore the U.N.’s ethical and moral reason to exist, and remind all members to read again their responsibilities to the Founding Charter. The Palestinian question is deserving of resolution, not just lip-service.

      Further, that the United Nations creates a peace keeping force to stay with Palestine until Palestine is peacefully established,
      regards. THOMAS W. ADAMS.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        Greetings, If it mattered not to you who was doing the oppressing you would be more concerned with what goes on in places with vastly more egregious violations of the most basic human rights. But it does, and so you are here and entirely out of your depth. I call on you to crawl back into whatever ignorant hole you crawled out of. regards. humanity.

        Reply to Comment
        • Average American

          Your logic seems to go like this: Other people are doing it worse than we are, and you’re only focusing on us (on, of course, a site that focuses on you), so you must be (here it is!) anti-semite. Which of course completely sidesteps the things we’re writing about here.

          Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            Basically, yes. If you pretend to be a disinterested third party but care more about a burned tree in the West Bank than a thousand dead babies elsewhere, then it is probably because you don’t like Jews. How else does one justify such a disproportionate level of concern except on the basis of the identity of those carrying out the comparatively minor perceived violations of human rights?

            In this case, the original poster has decided to use Israel as the punching bag for his otherwise failing faith in the United Nations. Why Israel? By all objective standards the Israeli/Palestinian conflict probably ranks somewhere in the high teens in terms of urgency or severity compared to other conflicts/problems in the world. Yet for people like this man it is first and foremost. Again, how does one explain such a disproportionate amount of vitriol and attention?

            Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            I understand the position you are taking. But I think it’s an irrelevant position. Because the issue isn’t who is doing it, it’s what is being done.

            How can An Occupation be allowed, under international law, to appropriate the natural resources and land in An Occupied Territory? That is not the definition or purpose of An Occupation. How can An Occupation be allowed to go on indefinitely? How can An Occupier be allowed to fence off The Occupied Land from the surrounding land? If An Occupation by the other countries you refer to did that, there would be alot of attention given to them too.

            But we are told things are so unique and different when it’s This Country (Israel) doing it, and that’s just not a believable rationale in light of the known rationale of The Other Countries you mention who do it, and so it comes across as a trick by This Country, a cover, a play, which is what in action everyone can see that it is.

            Reply to Comment
          • “how does one explain such a disproportionate amount of vitriol and attention?”

            In the US, many American Jews cared deeply about Southern segregation, some young Jewish men in fact killed for joining the Freedom Buses to the South. Some Southerners said the same thing. Go take care of your own. Why are you butting in what you don’t understand?

            To answer your query, some people just care. That’s how they turned out. They don’t have to be anti-Semites to care. They don’t have to have a racial come and play card to care. It’s just that some people will care. All that matters is there reasoning and action, not their causal origin.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            But those “caring people” don’t seem to care when Israeli children are being deliberately targeted by murderous Arab terrorists.

            And what is their excuse for not caring? “The occupation”, they claim.

            So here is a question to those “caring people”. How should Israel end the occupation? Tick the options below if you agree:

            1. Go back to the 1967 boundaries?

            2. Evict 500,000 Israelis from the “settlements”?

            3. Allow up to 5 million “refugees” to “return” to Israel?

            4. Give up East Jerusalem and divide Jerusalem again?

            Because those are the surrender terms that the Palestinian Arabs are trying to dictate to Israel before they would agree to piece … Er … Oops … I meant peace.

            Would any other country other than Israel be expected to agree such terms of surrender? So Greg, do you understand now why we complain about people whom you call “caring”? Why we say that they are in fact closet antisemites who disguise their hatred of Jews by pretending that they are anti Zionists?

            Reply to Comment
          • “So Greg, do you understand now why we complain about people whom you call “caring”? Why we say that they are in fact closet antisemites who disguise their hatred of Jews by pretending that they are anti Zionists?”

            No, I don’t. Are Rabbis for Human Rights “closet antisemites?” What about Jewish Voice for Peace? If one American Jew donates to Rabbis for HR, is that American Jew a “closet antisemite?” Stick to argument, not labels. Is Yesh Din a coven of “closet antisemites” for speaking on the destruction of olive trees?

            Is Jimmy Carter a “closet antisemite” for writing Peace, not Apartheid or going to East Jerusalem to affirm his objection to house evictions? He may be wrong–but a “closet antisemite?”

            Stick to reason and inferred causation; leave labels aside. People can care yet think differently than you. They are not socially criminal because they have different opinions or a different causal model. Hone your logic; that will work best long term. I called no commentor herein “caring.” I said that it is quite possible to be afar are care. Living distant is not a sign of sickness.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            You are right Greg. Not all of them are antisemites. Some are fools. Some mean well but are misguided. Some are self interested. Career Israel bashing can bring lucrative rewards, financial, social or both. It takes all kinds.

            Now Greg, I notice you didn’t bother answering a single one of my four questions. Stop avoiding my questions. I expect better from you. You must have an opinion and I am itching to debate each and every point with you. You may be surprised that even people like me want an end to the occupation but not at all cost. It seems the Palestinians are intent to cut off their noses to spite their faces. I say that because they seem not to want an end to the occupation unless Israel surrenders unconditionally.

            Reply to Comment
          • I didn’t address your four points for two reasons. The first is that after debating or whatever it is I do here with Kolumn9 over several threads, sometimes two subthreads in a post, I am tired. You are clearly young. I am old. You have the better deal. I also don’t really attend 972 for comment debates, but to present some thoughts as much for the post authors as any commentor.

            The second reason I didn’t respond is that the self articulated security needs of Israel alone probably nix all but a confederation of some kind, and settlements are now so extensive (and growing, as we have just heard, by 5000 legal units, forgetting the illegal which will continue to expand) that even a confederation would be highly restricted for the PA. As I have said for some time here, Greater Israel seems inevitable in some form now. That I think addresses your 1 and 2.

            The right of return is unworkable in any literal form; Jimmy Carter, by the way, says so too. Large influxes into either old Israel proper or remnant PA land (let’s forget about near settlements) would be most economically depressive, ignoring the social conflict resulting. The right of return is a mirror image of your own right of return in that both frame a refuge for those oppressed elsewhere (yours at foundation and, say, in the Soviet influx). The Palestinian right has this mirror image function, plus redress of expulsion now mostly a generation gone, plus a pan-nationalism link (with Gaza, the WB, and exterior Palestinians in say Lebanon and Jordan). This latter pan-nationalism link is another powerful reason why a negotiated settlement (not to be confused with settlements) is likely hopeless; failure of return can be used to veto a deal locally. I hope that addresses your point 3.

            I begin point 4, Jerusalem, with a final note about return. Nabka was very real to those living it, as real as the losses Israelis experienced in the Independence War. Those losses aren’t washed away by claims about what manipulative Arab elites were doing. The losses were lived as you too live, by people who were just trying to get by. All the anti-Nabka battering is as belittling as would be refusal to realize the steadfastness with which immigrating Jews (as well as locally born Jews) wanted their own protective State. I’ve never been fond of American football, and quite often scrolling through the mutual attack comments on this site remind me of fans cheering their team. And, yes, I know real death and truncated life are the stakes, current, on both sides.

            Jerusalem has the same irrevocability as Nabka or your Independence War. Both sides have religious claims to the Old City. As an outsider, I find these claims part of human insanity, but it is an insanity which will always be with us. The same territorial insanity can be seen in how the Christian Church in the area is subdivided internally into bits of control by sect. You can say you have the older claim, but their claim is of long lived standing as well. And if Mohammad really did spiritually travel to Jerusalem and rise to heaven at the Dome of the Rock–well, one can’t beat that, especially as the Qur’an self supersedes Torah. Olmert apparently was ready to devolve control of at least the religious areas to an international venue. I don’t think the present coalition would ever accede to this; maybe many of the Palestinian elite would, but that might be enough even therein. But Jerusalem in some form seems necessary for a Palestinian State. So, once again, as with Greater Israel and Return, there seem a complete block on a settlement.

            From my outside, you are all crazy. Your nationalisms are so advanced, your ability to harm is so advanced (bombers, rockets, jet bombers, IDF), that you refuse to see anything else, always claiming the other side is the core obstacle. The greatest ground power, holding a monopoly in coercion, even refuses to protect olive trees part of the livelihood not of suicide bombers, but aging people with no real future wanting to get by, because some members of the settler vanguard (not Ariel) think that Yahweh, not YHWH or G-d, have given them a Torah warrant to that end. This stand is as nuts as a pure right of return. But, unlike a right of return, it is being actualized under the umbrella of the Israeli State.

            Now, I am expected to argue with someone who refuses to say that tree destruction should stop. I’m expected to argue with someone who will go through contortions to get me to condemn the Hamas textbooks, but then goes silent on harm to Palestinian children. I condemn, his job is over (not you).

            So this long answer to your question is that every damn point you list leads to Greater Israel. I have been thinking about where Greater Israel goes.

            You’re young. Commenting is meaningful and fun for you. I am old and failed. If I had been successful, there is no way I would be typing here at local 1 am. If that gets you off, fine, but you are unlikely to find someone more honest in this comment world. I can be honest because I have nothing to lose. I will stay herein. I will delude myself that I am marginally useful to the 972 journalists, not those commenting.

            Try performing an anthropological thought experiment and place yourself in the world of your enemy. You don’t have to convert into your enemy. Just really try and see the world they see, experience. If you can, you may someday do true service to the people you do identify with.

            With no rancor,

            Greg

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            Greg

            I will give you a short answer for now.

            First: Yes, at least we agree on ONE thing. Both sides are crazy. But when one has been involved in a 100 year war with an enemy who for much of the 100 years refused to even negotiate with Israel and it’s starting point was to say that Israel has no right to exist, then finally after it pretended to negotiate in the last 20 years and was offered a deal it responded to the offer with 4 years of suicide bombing campaign, that would make anyone crazy.

            Ah you might say “it is the settlements, stupid”. And my response to that is that the Palestinians behaved in the same way before there was occupation and before there were settlements, before even there were refugees. So what was their excuse say in 1948?

            Yes, I know you can invoke the words colonisation and whatever else. But that is a separate argument. Even if one would accept such simplistic assertions even then, I say, so what? You Americans were colonisers and with much less historical claims on the land but there you are. When it came to defending yourselves, you had no problems in dropping THE bomb on two large Japanese cities. And after 9/11 you invaded Afghanistan all in the name of self defence. Hey, I ain’t judging you, I am just saying. And look at Europe, look even at the history of the Arab people. Nobody makes too much of a fuss about the rest of the world. Why do the Jews and Israel cause such angst to you guys when we defend ourselves and our interests? No we may not be 100% right 100% of the time but neither are we 100% wrong 100% of the time. Yet if you look at the UN resolutions, over a quarter of all resolutions relate to Israel. Why is that? Let’s look at the body count, could it be that? Nah, I don’t think so. No more than about 60,000 people were killed in the Arab Israeli conflict on ALL sides in the last 100 years. Don’t get me wrong, that is 60,000 deaths too many. But compared to all the mess in the rest of the world …

            So what is going on in here Greg? Do you blame us if we display a hint of paranoia? If you do, I think you are being unreasonable.

            Reply to Comment
          • David T.

            @ Samuel

            These are not the “surrender terms” that Palestinian Arabs are trying to dictate Israel, but what’s international and human rights law, and expressed in General Assembly and Security Council resolutions by the international community (or lets say nearly any other country, excedpt well known rogue states):
            A state has no legal claim to territories it acquired through war and no right to settle in occupied territories. These settlements have to be dismantled.

            And by the way, only 10% of Palestinian refugees would want to use right of return. http://www.haaretz.com/news/10-of-palestinian-refugees-would-want-to-use-right-of-return-1.93998

            But I can understand , if people like you see it as “surrender”, if states abide to international law, give up territories they acquired through war and allow people to return they keeps expelled and denationalized because of their faith. Reminds me of the view of some whose goverment surrendered in the last century.

            And it’s quite ironic that you claim that Palestinians want “piece” if you consider who acquired more than 6% of Palestine through war.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            Greg I will answer your long post later. First I will tell this self righteous DavidT a couple of home truths.

            International law you say? Ok let us pretend for a moment that your understanding of it is as moral as you seem to think it is and then we will examine what really drives it and where it really comes from. I know you are already dismissing what I have to say as you are reading it but humor me.

            Let’s just take the issue of Palestinian refugees. Your international laws are special laws which have been specifically concocted to apply ONLY to Palestinian refugees. And it says that all Palestinians for ALL generations, no matter what their circumstances are, can be deemed to be refugees for eternity if need be. Even a tenth generation descendant of Palestinian refugees who wasn’t born in Palestine, can be deemed to be a refugee from Palestine.

            Now show me a single non Palestinian refugee who is extended the same treatment. There are over 25 million refugees world wide and unless they are Palestinians, the children of refugees, the ones who are not born in the countries from which their families fled, are deemed to be stateless rather than refugees from that country. Palestinians are the only exception to this rule. Can you explain why?

            I can. It is called Arab influence in the UN. There are over 50 Muslim countries in the UN. They form a very powerful voting bloc. Add to this the mix of petro dollars, petro blackmail and you find that the Arabs can pass pretty well any resolution in the UN, at least with regards to when it relates to Israel. There is your internationl law for you David. Yes, the majority says what you slavishly repeat here. But consider this. Should laws be formulated by populism and economic self interest? Or power blocs? If you say ‘YES’ to that, then you would have called slavery legal too back in the days when the majority practiced slavery.

            Think about it before you shoot your mouth off next time and preach to us about “international Laws” as they are practiced in this world of ours. And then tell me why a country like Israel which accepted at least as many Jewish refugees from Arab countries gets demonised while Arab countries who chose deliberately to fester Palestinian refugees sometimes in apalling conditions for political purposes instead of offering them asylum, get away with doing it instead of being condemned and pressured into making them comply with humanitarian laws. Western countries are obliged to give asylum to genuine refugees. Why weren’t Arab countries pressured to do the same?

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            Now David, let’s talk about the Geneva Conventions which you so love to quote.

            Does it apply 100% to the situation between Palestine/Israel? You would say reflexively, of course it does. But if you would be REALLY honest, instead of playing biased politics, you would at least think a bit before you would respond.

            Anyone who looks at history and the full wording of the Geneva conventions, should realise that the Geneva Conventions were designed to cover wars between two sovereign nations each of which has Internationally RECOGNISED BORDERS. In those circumstances, you are right. The conquering nation has no right to allow it’s own population to settle on and take over any part of a conquered territory.

            Now look at the Israel/Palestine conflict. Was there a sovereign independent Arab Palestine before the conflict? What were it’s borders? In fact what was the border of Israel before 1967? If you respond that the border was the 1967 boundary, you would be wrong. The 1967 boundaries were armistice lines formed as a result of a war of aggression which the Palestinian Arabs and their Arab allies initiated against the Palestinian Jews in 1948 because they refused to recognise Israel within ANY borders.
            Given that, and given the wording of UN Security Council Resolution 242, Israel has and had every right to negotiate more defensive borders after it was again attacked by Jordan in 1967. And that means that Israel does not necessarily have to evict 500,000 Israeli settlements which are mostly built closely to the old 1967 boundaries (the 1949 armistice lines). Nor will it. No matter how much people like you will sound off and jump up and down. Especially since at least some of the “settlements” that you are talking about used to be populated by Jews before they were ethnically cleansed from there by Arabs in 1948. Places like East Jerusalem and Gush Etzion in particular.

            Yes, I know you will retort that Arabs too were ethnically cleansed by Jews. And you would be partially right. But thats what happens in many if not most wars. Civilians flee and some get actively expelled. But since Israel won the defensive war which it was forced to fight in 1967, it had the opportunity to redress past wrongs and return it’s civilian population to places where they lived before. What do you think the Arabs would have done to Israeli Jews had they won the 1967 war? Please don’t answer that if you don’t intend to give a realistic answer

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            Now let’s take Jerusalem. As I said in my previous post, Jerusalem had a Jewish population continuously for thousands of years. There were only very brief periods in history when Jerusalem had temporarily no Jews. Briefly after the Jewish rebellion against the Romans in 70AD, Jerusalem had no Jews. But gradually Jews returned and lived in Jerusalem for 2000 years before Jews were again briefly evicted from the old city, by the Arabs, in 1948.

            What am I trying to say? I am saying that Jerusalem was always a Jewish city too. In fact, since about the mid to late 19th century, Jerusalem had a majority Jewish population. Yes, I am talking about East Jerusalem because the new city is as the name implies, is relatively new.

            But the Palestinian Arabs want to now make East Jerusalem Jew free? They insist on this as part of the surrender terms? And you guys back them up on it? Do you now understand why we are paranoid? No other people who won wars were ever required to agree to such terms in the history of mankind. This demand is only being made on Jews.

            Thinking about it, I am beginning to understand how this came about. Two of our prime ministers, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert offered compromise solutions for the sake of peace. They offered a power sharing of East Jerusalem. The Arabs refused even that. So those compromise offers for the sake of peace became a starting point. And now the world thinks that given enough pressure on it, Israel can be made to give up East Jerusalem entirely. But they are wrong. It won’t happen. We learnt our lesson. We will not give up East Jerusalem and now the Arabs will be lucky to get even the compromise deal that the two Ehuds offered them earlier.

            See David? That’s what unreasonable people with your political views manage to achieve. You harden our position because we realise that there is no one to talk to. And if you think that you will bring Israel to it’s knees with initiatives such as BDS, you better think again. I could say a bit more about it, but I won’t, at least for now.

            Reply to Comment
          • David T.

            “Now show me a single non Palestinian refugee who is extended the same treatment.”

            The speaker of UNWRA Chris Gunness himself has allready explained General Assembly policy:
            “All refugee communities, whether those under the care of UNRWA or UNHCR, have their refugee status passed through the generations while their plight remains unresolved. Refugees in Kenya administered by UNHCR are a good example. In this regard, the accusation that UNRWA uniquely perpetuates the Palestine refugee problem is ignorant of international refugee law and practice.”
            http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4082176,00.html

            “… and you find that the Arabs can pass pretty well any resolution in the UN, at least with regards to when it relates to Israel.”

            Not at all. 50 Muslim majority countries” are nearly only a quarter of all UN states. Why don’t you concentrate on the decisions of the three quarter majority of Nonmuslim countries? Oh wait, they rest ist antisemitic, right?

            And unfortunately for you all relevant Security Council resolutions were not even vetoed by the US regarading the illegality of Israel’s annexations and settlements policy. I guess the US is either under “Arab influence”, or its antisemitic or both.

            “… get away with doing it instead of being condemned and pressured into making them comply with humanitarian laws. Western countries are obliged to give asylum to genuine refugees. Why weren’t Arab countries pressured to do the same?”

            The Arab countries did give them asylum and didn’t deport them. And regarding to humanitarian laws:

            13: “(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”
            15: “(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.”

            And a successor state (like Israel) is obliged to transfer it’s new nationality to all citizens habitually residing within the territory. This was also reflected in partition resolution 181 in chapter 3, “1 Citizenship”:
            “Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.”
            http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

            So why don’t you call from Israel to comply with humanitarian laws and ask why it isn’t pressured? Any influence?

            “Now David, let’s talk about the Geneva Conventions which you so love to quote.”

            Well, I love humanitarian law and humanity in general and I’m free from a collective narcissm loving only one of its subgroups.

            “Was there a sovereign independent Arab Palestine before the conflict?”

            No, there was a dependent state called Palestine under mandate which goverment dissolved in 1948. But even a failed state or a state under occupation doesn’t loose its statehood. In this case it was redeclared in 1988 within 1967 lines.

            “In fact what was the border of Israel before 1967?”

            The borders in which it internationally binding declared independence – the borders of the partition plan.

            “Given that, …”
            … yes, and that many rulings of the Supreme Court of Israel base on the framework of “belligerent occupation” regarding Israel’s position in the West Bank.

            “… and given the wording of UN Security Council Resolution 242, …”
            … yes, referring to the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and to “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;” …

            “… Israel has and had every right to negotiate more defensive borders after it was again attacked by Jordan in 1967.”

            I guess that every country has a right to NEGOTIATE whatever it likes wether it was attacked by Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1982 or later, or not.

            “And that means that Israel …”
            … yes, according to Security Council resolution 465 from 1980 has “to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;”
            http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5AA254A1C8F8B1CB852560E50075D7D5

            “But since Israel won the defensive war which it was forced to fight in 1967, …”

            It was ‘like in 1956 another war of choice’ according to Prime Minister Menachem Begin and the acqusition of territoy by war is still inadmissable. There’s actually nothing to discuss.

            “Especially since at least some of the “settlements” that you are talking about used to be populated by Jews before they were ethnically cleansed from there by Arabs in 1948. Places like East Jerusalem and Gush Etzion in particular.”

            I’m sure you – like me – support the right to return for everyone (and their descendants) who was ethnically cleansed during this conflict. We are not of those who especially since 1945 can support keeping humans expelled and denationalized because of their faith, aren’t we?

            “What do you think the Arabs would have done to Israeli Jews had they won the 1967 war? Please don’t answer that if you don’t intend to give a realistic answer”

            What would have been their victory in 1967? To prevent Israel from even mor land grab, occupying the rest of Palestine and even occupy Egpypt and Syrian territory? And are you suggesting that they would have done the same what Zionists did to Palestinans since 1948 and in 1967 where Israel expelled another 300.000 and revoked another 250.000 residency rights later?

            “Now let’s take Jerusalem.”
            You allready illegaly took it. See the relevant Security Council resolutions which you so love to quote. Again there’s nothing to discuss.

            “What am I trying to say?”
            I hope you are not trying to say that states after 1945 still have a self declared right to annex areas in which their ethnicity is predominant and settling in land they beligerently hold occupied, are you?

            “But the Palestinian Arabs want to now make East Jerusalem Jew free?”
            No, they want to make it free from illegal immigrants and citizens of the occuyping state which is actually making East Jerusalem as much Arab free as it can.

            “Do you now understand why we are paranoid?”
            Of course I do. Paranoia is frequently accompanied by false accusations.

            “No other people who won wars were ever required to agree to such terms in the history of mankind.”
            Nobody was allowed to pull off after 1945 what Israel did.

            “You harden our position because we realise that there is no one to talk to.”
            No, ‘your’ position was always hard, because ‘you’ never gave up the goal of taking over Palestine as a whole and NOTHING what ‘you’ have done since 1948 complies with international and human rights law, no matter how much ‘we’ talk and appeal to ‘you’. And while ‘we’ are talking to ‘you’, ‘you’ don’t even care to continue violating these rights and announcing even more violations. ‘You’ know deep inside of ‘you’ the fundamental and self-rightous injustice ‘you’ are doing to Palestinians and that being hard is the only way to suppress ‘your’ guilt and the shame you brought upon Jewry. That’s the reason why you not only fear, but also expect that one day Arabs or Muslims will do to ‘you’ what ‘you’ are doing to them since then or even worse.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            “the accusation that UNRWA uniquely perpetuates the Palestine refugee problem is ignorant”

            That wasn’t my accusation. Have you got comprehension problems David?

            My accusation was that thanks to Arab influence in the UN, children of Palestinians who were not born in Palestine have been accorded a special status. A status that has been denied to the children of all other refugees (25 million others) who were not born in the countries from which their parents fled.

            In the case of the others, the children are classified as stateless refugees which means that they haven’t got automatic rights to return to the countries of their parents.

            In the case of the Palestinian refugees, all descendants for all generations are classified as Palestinian refugees which in theory gives them the right to return.

            Now David, stop obfuscating. Please explain to anyone who is interested (me for one) why the Palestinian refugees are MORE special than other refugees?

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            “Not at all. 50 Muslim majority countries” are nearly only a quarter of all UN states….”

            You can shut your eyes to it David but when it comes to Israel, the Arabs have hijacked the agenda in the UN. Here, feast your eyes on the following stats:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel,_Palestine,_and_the_United_Nations

            “In recent years, the Middle East was the subject of 76% of country-specific General Assembly resolutions, 100% of the Human Rights Council resolutions, 100% of the Commission on the Status of Women resolutions, 50% of reports from the World Food Programme, 6% of United Nations Security Council resolutions and 6 of the 10 Emergency sessions.
            These decisions, adopted with the support of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) countries, invariably criticize Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. A number of observers have qualified this degree of criticism as excessive. For example, according to the UN Association of the UK, General Assembly resolutions in the period 1990–2003 show clear bias against Israel, with a great deal of explicit condemnation of violence against Palestinians but only occasional and vague discussion of violence against Israelis, including the use of suicide bombers.[4] In addition, the UNHRC was criticized in 2007 for failing to condemn other human rights abusers besides Israel.”

            Pretending and using cliches about my paranoia about antisemitism will not make the problem go away David. The problem is there for everyone to see if they want to look. But I guess you are one of the ones who don’t want to look. They have made Israel the Jew amongst the nations. Israel/Zionism is being treated in the same way as your grand parents and great grand parents used to treat Jews. And you are complicit in this David because you pretend that the problem does not exist.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            “The Arab countries did give them asylum and didn’t deport them.”

            Some humanitarian you are David.

            The Arab countries deliberately kept Palestinian refugees in apalling conditions in squalid refugee camps and discriminated against them. You call that giving them asylum? You are a hypocrite David.

            Why did they do that instead of letting their fellow Palestinian Arabs (human beings) integrate? It is plain and simple for anyone who wants to look. Because they wanted to use the Palestinian Arabs as tools against Israel. As cannon fodder.

            But again, David, people like you just shut their eyes and don’t want to look.

            Reply to Comment
          • David T.

            > “In the case of the others, the children are classified as stateless refugees which means that they haven’t got automatic rights to return to the countries of their parents.”

            The same case with Palestinian children. And the UNHCR also operates with the principle of family reunification.

            > “In the case of the Palestinian refugees, all descendants for all generations are classified as Palestinian refugees …”

            Again, that is the same in other generational refugee cases.

            > “Please explain to anyone who is interested (me for one) why the Palestinian refugees are MORE special than other refugees?”

            I can’t explain your baseless Hasbara nonsense. But you can explain why you are so desperate to divert from the fact that it is Israel who keeps them expelled and denationalized against international and human rights law?

            > “You call that giving them asylum?”

            You wrote that they weren’t given asylum and you were proven wrong. Now you are trying to shift the meaning of this legal term.

            > “… when it comes to Israel, the Arabs have hijacked the agenda in the UN.”

            When it comes to Israel someone seems to have hijacked the Security Council cause there’s no resolution even threatening Israel with sanctions allthough it condems its annexation and settling of occupied territories multiple times.

            > “… but you don’t respect the idea that we Jews have the same right as Arabs or anyone else to have our own state.”

            To the contrary. I respect all people to have the same rights. No people should be kept oppressed, because a foreign world organisation is intersted to flow the country with settlers. No country should be partitioned against the will of the majority of its citizens. And no state should have the right to keep people expelled and denationalized because of their faith, annex territories or settle in occupied territories. But something tells me, that all of this is ok for you, if its good for Jews.

            > “Then why didn’t any Arab or Muslim states recognise those borders?”

            Because they found (and some of them still do) the partition of Palestine against the will of its majority to be illegal which was supported by the fact that all of their proposals in the General Assembly and Security Council to include the International Court of Justice into this matter were rejected.

            > “UN Security Council Resolution 242 (a binding resolution) which talks about withdrawal by Israel to SECURE and RECOGNISED borders …”

            Every Security Council resolution has to be accepted and carried out according to article 25. There’s no such wording in the charta regarding some to be binding and others not. And resolution 242 talks about Israel withdrawal from territories it occupied in the recent conflict and not “to” secure and recognized borders. It is quite laughable why Hasbara clowns think that Israel (and only Israel!) would have the right to change its recognized borders allthough the resolutions clearly states that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissable.

            And since I don’t want to wast my time with your selfdelusional interpretations:

            “The Security Council, …
            3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent “basic law” on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;”
            http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/ba123cded3ea84a5852560e50077c2dc?OpenDocument

            “The Security Council, …
            1. Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect;”
            http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/73D6B4C70D1A92B7852560DF0064F101

            “The Security Council, …
            5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;”
            http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/b86613e7d92097880525672e007227a7/5aa254a1c8f8b1cb852560e50075d7d5?OpenDocument

            Israel’s reply to the Security Council and what is outside its borders in May 1948:
            “… the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard.”
            http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            SHMUEL:
            “Then why didn’t any Arab or Muslim states recognise those borders?”

            DAVID:
            “Because they found (and some of them still do) the partition of Palestine against the will of its majority to be illegal”

            LOL, LOL, LOL
            Really? Are you saying that UN GA resolution 181 was illegal?

            Oh but wait … didn’t you say earlier that the UN partition borders were Israel’s recognised borders?

            Poor David, you got lost in your own circular arguments.

            LOL, LOL, you are a clown. I cannot take you seriously.

            ROLFLMAO ….

            Reply to Comment
    11. Samuel

      “Well, I love humanitarian law and humanity in general …”

      No you don’t David. Your posts ooze hatred and malice towards Israel. You respect everyone else’s “rights” even invented “rights” but you don’t respect the idea that we Jews have the same right as Arabs or anyone else to have our own state.

      You pretend that wanting our own state with a Jewish majority is racist. Whereas in fact the need for a single Jewish majority state in this world was brought about because of racism against the Jewish people in Europe, in the Arab world and yes, even in America not even all that long ago. And vestiges of that racism still exist, no matter how much you try to disguise and deny that fact.

      What feeds it, I know not. It could be a product of ignorance and brainwashing through reading or being exposed to one sided propaganda.

      Or in your case, it could be due to your inherent bias and hatred. I know not. Nor do I care. But your anti Israel bias is obvious.

      Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        “The borders in which it internationally binding declared independence – the borders of the partition plan.”

        Really? Then why didn’t any Arab or Muslim states recognise those borders? Not a single one of them did.

        By the way, technically they did not have to. They did not have to because UN GA resolution 181 for the partition of Palestine, was non binding. I thought you were an expert on International law David, but obviously you are not.

        So get this. Neither Palestine nor Israel has defined borders to this day. Those borders have yet to be negotiated as stated in UN Security Council Resolution 242 (a binding resolution) which talks about withdrawal by Israel to SECURE and RECOGNISED borders as opposed to the 1967 borders which were never secure. Unless you consider a narrow corridor of 10miles at the centre of the country, near it’s major population centres to be secure. On second thought I don’t give a damn what you consider to be secure for us because as far as I am concerned, you haven’t got our security needs in mind. You only care what is good for Arabs. But fortunately, you and your ilk are not the ones who will tell us what to do or not do.

        Reply to Comment
        • Samuel

          “It was ‘like in 1956 another war of choice’ according to Prime Minister Menachem Begin”

          You are quoting him out of context. That is if he even said anything of the sort. In 1967, Israel had only two choices. To fight or to die. I know which choice you would have preferred Israel to take.

          “and the acqusition of territoy by war is still inadmissable”

          What territory did Israel acquire? Since it had no recognised or self declared borders, and neither did the Palestinians who claimed ALL of Palestine to be theirs and theirs alone, there were ONLY armistice lines. And the armistice was broken as soon as Jordan started firing on Israel.

          http://www.merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/67-war-pal-isr-primer.html

          That’s International Law David. But I guess you are not interested in International Law when it goes against Arabs are you David?

          Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            “Now let’s take Jerusalem.”
            You allready illegaly took it.”

            You are a funny man David. You nean Israel re-took East Jerusalem from Jordan after Jordan illegally took it in 1948. Go on, admit it David, the truth will set you free.

            Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        SAMUEL:
        “In the case of the others, the children are classified as stateless refugees which means that they haven’t got automatic rights to return to the countries of their parents.”

        DAVID:
        “The same case with Palestinian children. And the UNHCR also operates with the principle of family reunification.”

        Sigh, you are a closed minded ignorant little clown aren’t you David? I don’t know why I bother with you. Maybe I am soft hearted and I just want to educate you. Now read the following:

        “he UN set up a range of special institutions exclusively for Palestine refugees. Of these, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, founded in 1949, stands out as the most important. It is both the only refugee organization to deal with a specific people (the United Nations High Commission for Refugees takes care of all non-Palestinian refugees) and the largest UN organization (in terms of staff).”

        Here is more:

        “Accepting UNRWA’s (exaggerated) number of 750,000 original Palestine refugees, only a fraction of that number, about 150,000 persons, remain alive.”

        And more:

        “UNRWA’s staff has taken three major steps over the years to expand the definition of Palestine refugees. First, and contrary to universal practice, it continued the refugee status of those who became citizens of an Arab state (Jordan in particular). Second, it made a little-noticed decision in 1965 that extended the definition of “Palestine refugee” to the descendants of those refugees who are male, a shift that permits Palestine refugees uniquely to pass their refugee status on to subsequent generations. The U.S. government, the agency’s largest donor, only mildly protested this momentous change. The UN General Assembly endorsed it in 1982, so that now the definition of a Palestine refugee officially includes “descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children.”

        So what is the net result?

        “These changes had dramatic results. In contrast to all other refugee populations, which diminish in number as people settle down or die, the Palestine refugee population has grown over time. UNRWA acknowledges this bizarre phenomenon: “When the Agency started working in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services.”

        I know David you will now go into your little speech, ignore, obfuscate but you will never concede even a single point no matter how wrong I prove you to be. You are a hopeless case but you are a classic specimen of what Israel is up against. A mindless hateful automaton.

        SIGH again …

        Reply to Comment
        • David T.

          > “Are you saying that UN GA resolution 181 was illegal?”

          As illegal as any other resolution which would ask to destroy the territorial integrity of a country whithout asking its citizens. Why do you think that several proposals in the GA and Security Council to let the International Court of Justice to decide wether partition was illegal and if the GA had the power to recommend it were denied? The same reason why the partition plan went through. The voting was even postponed several times until the US managed to achieve the necessary votes after it threatened to cut the financial to some countries which then changed their attitude.

          > “… didn’t you say earlier that the UN partition borders were Israel’s recognised borders?”

          Israel’s recognized borders are the borders in which it declared independence which are the same borders as recommended in the partition plan.

          By the way, what happened to your attempts to deny the illegality of Jerusalem’s and the Golan Hights annexation as the illegality of settlements or the strange view that Israel “retook its territory” from Jordan? To much reality from the Security Council?

          “I know David you will now go into your little speech, ignore, obfuscate but you will never concede even a single point no matter how wrong I prove you to be.”

          Because you quote a Hasbara clown like Daniel Pipes about Palestinian refugees instead of someone who is a refugee expert?

          Noone denies that the UNRWA regulations are unique, because they preceded the general UNHCR definition. There are also unique regarding those who are not considered to be Palestinian refugees allthough they would have been under UNHCR definition. The UNRWA regulations also applied to Jewish refugees within Palestine until they could achieve Israeli citizenship. And I can’t stop you from constantly repeating the same BS that children from Palestinian refugeese are not stateless or that Palestinian refugees are the only refugees who can pass their refugee status onto their descendants. UNHCR refugees can pass this status not only on their descendants, but under certain cirmumstances also unto their antecedents. But how would you know reading Hasbara clowns?

          If the Palestinians would have not been made or kept refugees by Israel, but were Israeli citizens they would have passed their status as citizens unto their children. But it’s not enough for you that you keep them expelled, dispossessed and denationalized, you even have a problem that they pass their status as refugees! I’m sure you wouldn’t have such a disgusting attitude if the refugees were Jewish.

          Reply to Comment
    12. Samuel

      SAMUEL: “Are you saying that UN GA resolution 181 was illegal?”

      DAVIDT:”As illegal as any other resolution which would ask to destroy the territorial integrity of a country whithout asking its citizens.”

      Yes we get David, UN resolutions are illegal when Arabs don’t like it. But they are legal when Arabs like it.

      And … partition was legal in India ….. Secession was legal in Kosovo where the minorities were Muslim. Right? Bias is not a virtue David.

      “Why do you think that several proposals in the GA and Security Council to let the International Court of Justice to decide wether partition was illegal and if the GA had the power to recommend it were denied?”

      Here we go. You just proved what I said above. When the UN says what you like to hear, it is legal. When they say the opposite, it is illegal. But here is reality: the UN is a joke. Israel exists in spite of the UN not because of it. We exist because like any other people, we are entitled to have our own country and be masters of our own destiny.

      “The same reason why the partition plan went through. The voting was even postponed several times until the US managed to achieve the necessary votes after it threatened to cut the financial to some countries which then changed their attitude.”

      Yes and now the opposite situation exists in the UN. It is now Arab influence and petro dollars that influence UN decisions. See the link that I presented above.

      SAMUEL: “… didn’t you say earlier that the UN partition borders were Israel’s recognised borders?”

      DAVIDT:”Israel’s recognized borders are the borders in which it declared independence which are the same borders as recommended in the partition plan.”

      Actually while Ben Gurion, the leader of the Zionists in 1948 indicated his willingness to accept the partition plan, he did not declare it’s borders. And once the Arabs rejected the partition and attacked the Jews, those PROPOSED borders became null and void.

      Unless of course you claim that something that the Arabs were not prepared to accept is still binding on the Jews? So that if the Arabs would have won the 1948 war then there wouldn’t be an Israel but since Israel won the war they just politely have to give everything up To the Arabs who by the way, still refused to recognise or even negotiate with Israel even after the war.

      You don’t expect much from Jews do you DavidT (sarcasm)?

      “By the way, what happened to your attempts to deny the illegality of Jerusalem’s and the Golan Hights annexation”

      You mean Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem is more illegal than when Jordan annexed it between 1949 and 1967? We didn’t hear a pip about it back then from people like you.

      Nor was East Jerusalem ever a Judenrein exclusive Arab city. It was always a mixed Jewish Arab city and from the mid to late nineteenth century, Jerusalem had a Jewish majority. But now you clowns insist that East Jerusalem has to be Jew free. Why?

      “Because you quote a Hasbara clown like Daniel Pipes about Palestinian refugees instead of someone who is a refugee expert?”

      He is no more a clown than the Adalah clowns whom you quoted on another blog in this site.

      “Noone denies that the UNRWA regulations are unique, because they preceded the general UNHCR definition. There are also unique regarding those who are not considered to be Palestinian refugees allthough they would have been under UNHCR definition. The UNRWA regulations also applied to Jewish refugees within Palestine until they could achieve Israeli citizenship.
      And I can’t stop you from constantly repeating the same BS that children from Palestinian refugeese are not stateless or that Palestinian refugees are the only refugees who can pass their refugee status onto their descendants.”

      No you can’t stop me because it is fact.

      “UNHCR refugees can pass this status not only on their descendants, but under certain cirmumstances also unto their antecedents.”

      Only with the consent of the states from which their parents fled. If those states don’t agree, they cannot. But in the case of Israel, the UN wants to enforce different standards. They don’t care what Israel’s position is. They insist that even children who were not born in Palestine are Palestinian refugees. You want me to give you a link to prove it? Just ask me. But I am sick of educating you.

      “If the Palestinians would have not been made or kept refugees by Israel,”

      They became refugees because they attacked the Jewish population of Palestine. Yes a number of them were expelled as a consequence. Others fled. And some were allowed to stay. The fact that Israel today has over 1 million Arab citizens, one fifth of Israel’s populatin, is a testament to the fact that there was no over-arching policy of expulsion. But ignorant biased fools like you deliberately ignore facts. You refuse to be mugged by reality.

      By the way, How many Arab countries have a sizeable Jewish population? What happened to the 1 million Jews who used to live in Arab lands? Where is your outrage, David, about the way that Jews were expelled from Arab countries? Nowhere? I didn’t think so. You are a great (selective) humanitarian (sarcasm).

      “But it’s not enough for you that you keep them expelled”

      Of course we keep them expelled. Had the Arabs accepted the UN partition plan and been willing to live side by side with us in peace, they would not have had to flee. But since they chose war with us … we are not obliged to let a hostile population live amongst us. Nobody else in their right mind would.

      “dispossessed and denationalized,”

      They are denationalised only because their Arab brothers chose to keep them in that status. They did that for political reasons to keep them as cannon fodder to keep the fight going against Israel.

      “you even have a problem that they pass their status as refugees!”

      You are lying again. I said that according to UNHCR, the children of Palestinian refugees who were not born in Palestine, should be given the status of STATELESS REFUGEES rather than Palestinian refugees. Of course, it would be better if the Arab countries in which they live would integrate them into their society. That would be the humane thing to do. But hey, you never worry about Arabs not being humane. Your finger points permanently and ONLY towards Jews when you perceive, real or imaginary wrongs that we do.

      “I’m sure you wouldn’t have such a disgusting attitude if the refugees were Jewish.”

      I am sure my attitude is no more disgusting than YOUR attitude towards Jews.

      Reply to Comment
    13. David T.

      > “Yes we get David, UN resolutions are illegal when Arabs don’t like it. But they are legal when Arabs like it.”

      Nice straw man, Samuel. I wrote that a resolution which asks to destroy the territorial integrity of a country whithout asking its citizens is illegal. Contrary to you my arguments can stand without differantiating between Jews and Arabs. Your’s cant, because YOU think that Arabs have less rights than Jews.

      > “And … partition was legal in India …..”

      Recognition and legality is not the same.

      > “Secession was legal in Kosovo where the minorities were Muslim. Right?

      LOL. Israel doesn’t even recognize Kosovo. And it was never decided if secession in Kosovo was legal, but only that its mere declaration of indepence was not illegal.

      > “Bias is not a virtue David.”

      Neither is creating mindless phrases and straw man arguments, Samuel.

      > “Here we go. You just proved what I said above.”

      You proved your own straw man arguments. That’s brilliant, even for you.

      > “When the UN says what you like to hear, it is legal. When they say the opposite, it is illegal.”

      Another mindless straw man. If the General Assembly and the Security council vote against the request to include an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice in such grave cases regarding the right to self determination of all citizens of a country, you know that justice is denied and the solution is only political. Btw, nearly all members of the Security Council only abstained with Syria and Belgium voting for it.

      > “We exist because like any other people, we are entitled to have our own country and be masters of our own destiny.”

      No peole are entitled to have a country of their own, only because they are a people or a religious community. It’s a civic, not an ethnic or a religious ight. It has to do with being a citizen in a country, or at least being a habitually resident. You would never argue that Palestinians are entitled to have a country of their own in 55% or even 78% of Israel, cause your approach is racist, hypocrit and nonsense.
      It was not even the case that Jews like let’ say the Scots had a defined territory in which every resident was considered to be of Jewish nationality (citizenship) after secession. To the contrary, you even stripped the nationality of these residents, because of their faith to achieve a certain state character.

      > “Yes and now the opposite situation exists in the UN. It is now Arab influence and petro dollars that influence UN decisions. See the link that I presented above.”

      Sure. The GA recently reaffirmed the applicability of the Geneva Conventions in the occupied territories. Only Israel, the US and its micro vasall states voted against it. I’m sure they did so, because the influence they are under is not Arab.

      > “And once the Arabs rejected the partition and attacked the Jews, those PROPOSED borders became null and void.”

      Again, Israel internationally binding declared its independence within this borders and corfirmed this a few days later by telling the Security Council that all other areas it held occupied beyond these borders are outside the state of Israel, even Jerusalem.

      > “You mean Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem is more illegal than when Jordan annexed it between 1949 and 1967? ”

      No, I asked what happened to your attempts to deny the illegality of Jerusalem’s and the Golan Hights annexation refering to ther quoted Security Council resolutions which declared both annexation null and void. Do you need me to simplify my question?

      > “Nor was East Jerusalem ever a Judenrein exclusive Arab city. It was always a mixed Jewish Arab city and from the mid to late nineteenth century, Jerusalem had a Jewish majority.”

      Again, no state is entitled to an area outside of its self declared borders only because of the ethnic composition of this area no matter if we are talking about Jerusalem or the Sudetenland.

      > “But now you clowns insist that East Jerusalem has to be Jew free.”

      No, you clowns insist that this is about them being Jews instead of them being citizens of Israel and not of Palestine. And you are actually making East Jerusalem Arab.

      > “He is no more a clown than the Adalah clowns whom you quoted on another blog in this site.”

      Adalah are legal experts. Pipes is not even a lawyer, he’s just one of Israel’s shysters.

      > “They insist that even children who were not born in Palestine are Palestinian refugees.”

      How dare they trying to keep Palestinian parents and childrens unified allthough you and like minded people try so hard to prevent this not only in your dungeons.

      > “They became refugees because they attacked the Jewish population of Palestine.”

      First of all, that is a disgusting Hasbara lie you will never be able to prove, because the whole Arab population was demilitarized after the Arab revolt and only some couple of thousands did acquire them afterwards. Second, Plan Daleth clearly states that armed forces have to be killed and the rest of the population has to be expelled. Third, you only want to divert from my argument that not only the refugees but also their children would be Israelis if Israel wouldn’t keep them expelled and denationalized which is a crime against humanity and a violation of international and human rights law regarding the transfer of nationality unto all residents of the successor state.

      > “Yes a number of them were expelled as a consequence. Others fled.”

      All of them are expelled, because contrary to post-Nazi-Germany, Israel doesn’t not allow refugees and expellees to return and denies them citizenship because of their faith.

      > “The fact that Israel today has over 1 million Arab citizens, one fifth of Israel’s populatin, is a testament to the fact that there was no over-arching policy of expulsion.”

      No, this is a result of Ben Gurion’s estimation that at least four fifth of the population has to be Jewish. Another factors were that commanders were not willing to carry out his expulsion orders. Druze backed Jews during the fights. A few Christian communities were left in peace because of fear of international reaction – which was the reason why Israel allowed some expelled Christians to return after Vatican’s pressure. Some Jews lobbied on Arab’s behalf because they needed them for labour. Others were able to sneak back and about 30,000 living in the little triangle were handed over to Israel as part of the armistice agreement. Watch them grow and you will hear Israel’s “democracy” decribing them as a demographic threat and openly discussing their “transfer” in parliament.

      > “Where is your outrage, David, about the way that Jews were expelled from Arab countries? Nowhere? I didn’t think so.”

      This is exactly the basic difference between us. For you everything is about the obsessive question wether we are talking about Jews or not. If I condem expulsion, I condem expulsion as such. I don’t need to express that the expulsion of Jews is as bad as the expulsion of Nonjews, cause when it comes to humans and their rights there’s no differencet between them. For you the distinction between Jews and Arabs is necessary. If you condem expulsion, you only condem the expulsion of Jews, but blame the expulsion of Arabs onto the victims which is exactly what other racist deniers do.

      > “Of course we keep them expelled. … we are not obliged to let a hostile population live amongst us.”

      Well, that could be copied right from Goebbels diary, couldn’t it? But we all know very well that Israel would not allow them to return, even if they were angels, because of Israel’s racist state ideology which needed Palestinians ethnically cleansed for demographic reasons in the first place. You need them to be expelled, denationalized, and disenfrenchized, because the factual Jewish oligarchy in Palestine has no other way of dominating Nonjews by democratic means otherwise. Which by the way is nothing else than Apartheid.

      > “They are denationalised …”

      Because Israel made them stateless with its racist nationality law which denied every Nonjewish former citizen of Palestine his new citizenship, if he was “absent” from Israel because of its ethnic cleansing. A circular inhumane perversion of a nationality law. No only this law, but also all the laws which allowed Israel to confiscate and misappropriate their property, because it continue to hold them “absent”.

      > “I said that according to UNHCR, the children of Palestinian refugees who were not born in Palestine, should be given the status of STATELESS REFUGEES rather than Palestinian refugees.”

      I know. That would be your most beloved final solution for Palestinian refugees. That not only they are denied their right to Israeli citizenship, but also that their descendants are made stateless and that parents could be seperated from their children when they would return to their homeland, but face a racist regime which – contrary the UNHCR – doesn’t support the family reunification of Palestinians by law.

      Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        SAMUEL: “Yes we get David, UN resolutions are illegal when Arabs don’t like it. But they are legal when Arabs like it.”

        “Nice straw man, Samuel. I wrote that a resolution which asks to destroy the territorial integrity of a country whithout asking its citizens is illegal.”

        Really? You mean made an illegal resolution? Do you think that maybe … just maybe … at least some of their resolutions against Israel are illegal too?

        “Contrary to you my arguments can stand without differantiating between Jews and Arabs. Your’s cant, because YOU think that Arabs have less rights than Jews.”

        You have a blind spot on this David. You on the other hand seem to think that JEWS have less rights than anyone else. Not just Arabs.

        SAMUEL:“And … partition was legal in India …..”

        DAVIDT:”Recognition and legality is not the same.”

        Both India and Palestine were partitioned by the UN. Why was Palestine’s partition illegal (according to you) but India’s partition wasn’t?

        SAMUEL: “Secession was legal in Kosovo where the minorities were Muslim. Right?”

        DAVIDT:”LOL. Israel doesn’t even recognize Kosovo.”

        So what? The secession was recognised by most members of the UN.

        “And it was never decided if secession in Kosovo was legal, but only that its mere declaration of indepence was not illegal.”

        Semantics.

        SAMUEL: “Here we go. You just proved what I said above.”

        DAVIDT:”You proved your own straw man arguments. That’s brilliant, even for you.”

        What straw man argument. You said that the US twisted the arms of UN member states in 1948 to get UN resolution 181 through. Do you mean that was a straw man argument?

        All I said was that the same thing is happening todayin the opposite direction with Arab petro dollars, petro blackmail and the influence of over 50 Islamic countries in the UN.

        Or are you saying that today’s UN has become spotlessly pure? Not even you could believe that could you?

        SAMUEL:“When the UN says what you like to hear, it is legal. When they say the opposite, it is illegal.”

        DVIDT:”Another mindless straw man. If the General Assembly and the Security council vote against the request to include an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice in such grave cases regarding the right to self determination of all citizens of a country, you know that justice is denied and the solution is only political. Btw, nearly all members of the Security Council only abstained with Syria and Belgium voting for it.”

        You are waffling again, David. You said UN resolution 181 was illegal. But you are saying that all the other resolutions which are anti Israel are legal. That is picking and choosing.

        SAMUEL“We exist because like any other people, we are entitled to have our own country and be masters of our own destiny.”

        DAVIDT:”No peole are entitled to have a country of their own, only because they are a people or a religious community. It’s a civic, not an ethnic or a religious ight. It has to do with being a citizen in a country, or at least being a habitually resident. You would never argue that Palestinians are entitled to have a country of their own in 55% or even 78% of Israel, cause your approach is racist, hypocrit and nonsense.
        It was not even the case that Jews like let’ say the Scots had a defined territory in which every resident was considered to be of Jewish nationality (citizenship) after secession. To the contrary, you even stripped the nationality of these residents, because of their faith to achieve a certain state character.”

        Whoops what a big waffle again. But you still did not negate what I said. We the Jewish people (as in nation not necessarily religion) are entitled to have our own country. It is Israel. We have it and we will keep it thank you very much. Now go and stand on your head or whatever else if you don’t like it.

        SAMUEL:“Yes and now the opposite situation exists in the UN. It is now Arab influence and petro dollars that influence UN decisions. See the link that I presented above.”

        DAVIDT:”Sure. The GA recently reaffirmed the applicability of the Geneva Conventions in the occupied territories. Only Israel, the US and its micro vasall states voted against it. I’m sure they did so, because the influence they are under is not Arab.”

        You just reinforced what I said. The UN is still corrupt. Or are you saying that the UN is now saintly because when it comes to Israel, the Arabs are the ones who can twist arms? That only proves your own bias.

        SAMUEL:“And once the Arabs rejected the partition and attacked the Jews, those PROPOSED borders became null and void.”

        DAVIDT:”Again, Israel internationally binding declared its independence within this borders and corfirmed this a few days later by telling the Security Council that all other areas it held occupied beyond these borders are outside the state of Israel, even Jerusalem.”

        Again: Israel did not declare it’s borders once it became aware that the Arabs rejected the partition. Go look it up.

        SAMUEL: “You mean Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem is more illegal than when Jordan annexed it between 1949 and 1967? ”

        DAVIDT:”No, I asked what happened to your attempts to deny the illegality of Jerusalem’s and the Golan Hights annexation refering to ther quoted Security Council resolutions which declared both annexation null and void. Do you need me to simplify my question?”

        And I had the temerity to point out that Israel did nothing more than what the Arabs did in 1948. In fact Israel behaved more morally because unlike the Arabs in 1948, who kicked out all the Jews from East Jerusalem in 1948, Israel did not kick out Arabs in 1967. Nor did Israel desecrate Muslim shrines in East Jerusalem. Unlike the Arabs who desecrated Jewish places of worship between 1948 and 1967.

        SAMUEL:“Nor was East Jerusalem ever a Judenrein exclusive Arab city. It was always a mixed Jewish Arab city and from the mid to late nineteenth century, Jerusalem had a Jewish majority.”

        DAVIDT:Again, no state is entitled to an area outside of its self declared borders only because of the ethnic composition of this area no matter if we are talking about Jerusalem or the Sudetenland.”

        Really? Then why didn’t you tell that to Jordan between 1948 and 1967? Nobody seemed to. Everybody only suddenly came to life only when Israel took control of East Jerusalem.

        You do know that according to UN resolution 181 Jerusalem was designated as an International city. Not as the capital of a Palestinian Arab state? Of course you do. You just want to pretend it isn’t so. Oh well I am calling you on it. OK David?

        SAMUEL: “But now you clowns insist that East Jerusalem has to be Jew free.”

        DAVIDT:No, you clowns insist that this is about them being Jews instead of them being citizens of Israel and not of Palestine. And you are actually making East Jerusalem Arab.”

        What? We are making East Jerusalem Arab? Are you confused?

        SAMUEL “He is no more a clown than the Adalah clowns whom you quoted on another blog in this site.”

        DAVIDT:”Adalah are legal experts. Pipes is not even a lawyer, he’s just one of Israel’s shysters.”

        LOL Adalah are a self appointed kangaroo court.

        SAMUEL:“They insist that even children who were not born in Palestine are Palestinian refugees.”

        DAVIDT:”How dare they trying to keep Palestinian parents and childrens unified allthough you and like minded people try so hard to prevent this not only in your dungeons.”

        Yet, whichever way you wriggle, the UNHCR does not apply the same rules to non Palestinian refugees. Why? What is so special about Palestinians? Others who are non Palestinian refugees want to keep THEIR families together too.

        SAMUEL: “They became refugees because they attacked the Jewish population of Palestine.”

        DAVIDT:First of all, that is a disgusting Hasbara lie you will never be able to prove, because the whole Arab population was demilitarized after the Arab revolt and only some couple of thousands did acquire them afterwards.”

        Yet they still rioted, attacked and murdered Jews randomly immediately after the UN declaration of resolution 181. The Jews then turned the table on them and went on the offensive. What did you want the Jews to do? Beg for mercy? There would have been none.

        DAVIDT:”Second, Plan Daleth clearly states that armed forces have to be killed and the rest of the population has to be expelled. Third, you only want to divert from my argument that not only the refugees but also their children would be Israelis if Israel wouldn’t keep them expelled and denationalized which is a crime against humanity and a violation of international and human rights law regarding the transfer of nationality unto all residents of the successor state.”

        Read Benny Morris. He is the foremost authority about what happened in 1948. He clearly says that Israel had no formal policy of expulsion.

        Want further proof? If there would have been an Israeli policy of expulsion, there wouldn’t be a single Arab citizen in Israel. Instead, one fifth of Israel’s citizens are Arabs. Explain how can that be?

        Oh and you are still not talking about the 1 million Jews whom the Arab states expelled from their countries. What’s the matter David? You have no humanitarian feelings for Jews?

        Reply to Comment
        • Samuel

          SAMUEL: “Yes a number of them were expelled as a consequence. Others fled.”

          DAVIDT:”All of them are expelled”

          Nope.

          “because contrary to post-Nazi-Germany, Israel doesn’t not allow refugees and expellees to return and denies them citizenship because of their faith.”

          Nor is Israel obliged to allow them to return, not because of “their faith” but because of their historical enmity to Israel. And certainly not any descendants who were born outside Palestine because the UNRWA laws are discriminatory and therefore illegal.

          SAMUEL: “The fact that Israel today has over 1 million Arab citizens, one fifth of Israel’s populatin, is a testament to the fact that there was no over-arching policy of expulsion.”

          DAVIDT:No, this is a result of Ben Gurion’s estimation that at least four fifth of the population has to be Jewish.”

          Wow, that’s a new one on me. Did you just invent this? Maybe you have a link to a reliable site (not a pro Arab propaganda site) to verify your fancy claim?

          “Another factors were that commanders were not willing to carry out his expulsion orders. Druze backed Jews during the fights. A few Christian communities were left in peace because of fear of international reaction – which was the reason why Israel allowed some expelled Christians to return after Vatican’s pressure.”

          Yea but they were not afraid to kick out the rest? That does not add up. Either them nasty Jews were not afraid. In which case they would kick out everyone. Or they were afraid in which case they would kick out no one. You have no logic David.

          “Some Jews lobbied on Arab’s behalf because they needed them for labour.”

          That’s a new one as well but it sounds like a page out of the protocols of the elders of Zion. Which is a Nazi like blood libel about Jewish conspiracies and greedy exploitative Jews. Yep, David, it fits in with the rest of your bile against Jews.

          “Others were able to sneak back and about 30,000 living in the little triangle were handed over to Israel as part of the armistice agreement.”

          Sneak back? Wow, it’s getting better. Where do you suck this out from? They would sneak back to a place from which they were driven out at the point of a gun? But they would not be afraid that them nasty vicious blood thirsty Jews would kill them? Sounds like something is not consistent there David. Better make up some better more believable fairy tales.

          “Watch them grow and you will hear Israel’s “democracy” decribing them as a demographic threat and openly discussing their “transfer” in parliament.”

          Ooooooh now you have become a soothsayer. Tell me, do you use the uiji board? Or do you read tea leaves?

          Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            SAMUEL: “Where is your outrage, David, about the way that Jews were expelled from Arab countries? Nowhere? I didn’t think so.”

            DAVIDT:”This is exactly the basic difference between us. For you everything is about the obsessive question wether we are talking about Jews or not. If I condem expulsion, I condem expulsion as such. I don’t need to express that the expulsion of Jews is as bad as the expulsion of Nonjews, cause when it comes to humans and their rights there’s no differencet between them. For you the distinction between Jews and Arabs is necessary. If you condem expulsion, you only condem the expulsion of Jews, but blame the expulsion of Arabs onto the victims which is exactly what other racist deniers do.”

            Sounds good at first. There is only ONE problem with your explanation (which by the way is a simple translation for the word Hasbarah, which you use as a derogatory term). The problem with it is that you always mention the words Israel and Zionist in connection with bad things that happen. But you NEVER, NEVER, EVER mention the words Arab or Palestinian in the context of the SAME bad things.

            SAMUEL:“Of course we keep them expelled. … we are not obliged to let a hostile population live amongst us.”

            DAVID:”Well, that could be copied right from Goebbels diary, couldn’t it?”

            Could it? Why do you think only Jews are reluctant to allow those who rose up against them to live amongst them? Is that a peculiarity Jewish thing? I don’t think so. Remember the Americans, the Brits, The Canadians and the Australians who put Italians Germans and Japanese citizens in prison camps during WW2?

            “But we all know very well that Israel would not allow them to return, even if they were angels, because of Israel’s racist state ideology”

            What is racist about wanting to remain a majority in your own country?

            I tell you what: why don’t you propose that Western countries should allow 25 million refugees settle in their countries. Let’s see how popular you would be.

            ” which needed Palestinians ethnically cleansed for demographic reasons in the first place.”

            Needed? Those are your words.

            I’ll tell you what though. My bet is that had the Arabs not attacked the Jews in 1948, they would have been allowed to stay. Those who would have wanted to that is. But many would have been willingly leaving because they would have been offered generous amounts of money to move to the adjacent Palestinian state to live amongst their brothers.

            I guess we will never know though because the Arabs chose violence instead.

            “You need them to be expelled,”

            Expelled no. But to come back? No again.

            “denationalized, and disenfrenchized,”

            No, the Arabs need them to be like that so that the Palestinians can be used as cannon fodder.

            “because the factual Jewish oligarchy in Palestine has no other way of dominating Nonjews”

            Who told you that we want to dominate? We just want to be left alone in our country in security. Don’t you want to be secure in YOUR country?

            “by democratic means otherwise. Which by the way is nothing else than Apartheid.”

            You are muddled up David. Israel IS a democracy. It’s one million Or more Arab citizens have their own political reps who sit in the Israeli parliament and Arabs have the same voting rights as Jews.

            By the way, I had to delete some of your stuff because now you even repeat yourself in the SAME post. I think you are getting a bit unhinged David. Time to take your medications.

            Reply to Comment
    14. Samuel

      SAMUEL: “I said that according to UNHCR, the children of Palestinian refugees who were not born in Palestine, should be given the status of STATELESS REFUGEES rather than Palestinian refugees.”

      DAVID:”I know. That would be your most beloved final solution”

      “Final solution”? Are you listening to yourself? You are beginning to sound paranoid.

      “for Palestinian refugees. That not only they are denied their right to Israeli citizenship, but also that their descendants are made stateless and that parents could be seperated from their children when they would return to their homeland, but face a racist regime which – contrary the UNHCR – doesn’t support the family reunification of Palestinians by law.”

      No David. I said that my ideal solution is for Palestinian Arabs to be integrated into the societies of brother Arab states. In the same way that Israel integrated hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

      What is wrong with that David?

      Reply to Comment
      • David T.

        That Resolution 181 was legal, was contested. The question was, if the General Assembly even had the power to recommend the partition of a country which is a basic violation of the territoral integrity of a country enshrined in the principles of the UN Charta. The proposal to let the International Court of Justice give its opionion was rejected with only one vote difference in the GA. But the Security Council did not follow the request to implement this solution and because the GA was working on a solution to put Palestine under UN trusteeship the Security Council on April 17th 1948 called everyone to “Refrain, pending further consideration of the future Government of Palestine by the General Assembly, from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community.” The proclamation of Israel was clearly in violation of this resolution. Here are its borders:

        “Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States
        (May 15, 1948)

        MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, …”
        http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/epsteinlet.html

        Why shouldn’t Israel secession be contested, if it is amongst the 46% UN Members which does not recognize Kosovo’s secession?

        Jordan’s annexation of the Westbank was not recognized, but its and Egypt’s occupation of Palestinian territory was legal, because it was in the interest of the occupied which wanted to be protected against expulsion, being put under its military law and enclosed in enclaves, and watching Zionist aqcuiring the rest of Palestine by war and colonialize it. Which exactly happend in and after 1967, where Israel expelled another 300,000 Arabs, revoked the residency right of another quarter of a million and started consficating Palestinian private land to build about 30% of their illegal settlements on them and still trying to make East Jerusalem and other places Arab free. And btw. Israel destroyed many Mosques in Palestine since 1948 and is still destroying them in the 21st century.

        If Israel razed more than 400 villages it is clear that it was attacking Arab villages and not defending Jewish settlements. And in case of armed RESISTANCE Plan Daleth told them to kill the armed forces and expell the population. Benny Morris documented the expulsion of Palestinians very well, whether Israel’s expulsion policy was “formal” or not. And Palestinian all refugees are considered to be expelled, because Israel does not allow them to “come back”.

        It’s not a surprise that YOUR mind associates with antisemitism or the “protocols of the elders of zion” the simple economic reality that also Israel’s economy depends on ‘foreign’ cheap labour and Jewish communities in 1948 lobbied on behalf of the Arabs of Jisr al-Zarqa and Fureidis not to be expelled, because they relied on their labour. So please keep you antisemitic associations of “greedy exploitative Jew” for yourself. And yes, some Jews like some Nonjews are greedy and exploitative, grow up!

        Ben Gurion said: “the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment will be about one million, including almost 40 per cent non-Jews. Such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority… There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60 per cent.”.
        http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/29/on-the-64th-anniversary-of-un-resolution-181-lebanon%E2%80%99s-palestinians-continue-their-descent/

        And that exactly is the reason, why Israel ethnically cleansed the Palestinians and doesn’t allow the refugees to return, no matter how hard you try to be racist and frame Palestinian refugees as such as “hostile enemy”, because Israel would not act different, even if they were its friends.

        Regarding your factless claim that only UNRWA tries to keeps refugee families together:
        UNHCR GUIDELINES ON REUNIFICATION OF REFUGEE FAMILIES http://www.unhcr.org/3bd0378f4.pdf
        I’m still waiting for you to prove that children of Palestinian refugees are not considered stateless.

        And everyone has the right to return because it is a principle of international law, codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, giving any person the right to return to, and re-enter, his or her country of origin. It’s up to you to claim that Jews have the right to violate this right, especially of Nonjews. But I can understand that your ideal solution for Palestinians would be to be integrated inBto other Arab societies. Others ideal solution is Jews to be reintegrated into the society the left. Both are “ideal solution” for a racist, inhumane mindset, who doesn’t cares a bit about those who are concerned.

        If inhumane acts against one ethnic group are commited to maintain the domination of another, international law speaks of the Crime of Apartheid. And you are dominating Palestinians. The ones you keep segregated not only from historic, but also from today’s Palestine, the ones who live or you expelled into what’s left of Palestine and the ones who live in Israel. Jews in historic Palestine are a minority controlling a majority by different inhumane means: 1.) Denationalization and ethnic cleansing to 2.) control the rest as a minority (that’s what you call democracy) and 3.) occupation and military law to steal and colonialize the rest of Palestine and 4.) blockade the rest, they don’t want to occupy 24/7, because they want to avoid to be accused of being a minority controlling a majority even without inluding the refugees in other countries. That’s what you call democracy.

        Please answer the questions. After the detachment of the Ottoman Empire:
        1.) Did Palestinians have a right to an independent country of their own?
        2.) Did they have a right to the territorial integrity of their country?
        3.) Did they have the right to allocate Palestine’s land?
        4.) Did they have a right to be an Arab majority and remain one?
        5.) Did they have the right to live in security?
        6.) Did they have a right to prevent foreign refugees from entering their country?

        Reply to Comment
    15. Samuel

      I won’t comment on your counterpunch BS which is a rabid pro Arab publication. It is a bit like a Nazi quoting from Der Strummer to back up his claims. Or a Soviet communist quoting from Pravda. The fact that you even attempt to use them as proof makes you too look ridiculous.

      But I will answer your questions. In fact I already answered many of them before but you think that if you ask them again, you can pretend that I did not. But since you like repetition and verbosity, I will playalong with you:

      “After the detachment of the Ottoman Empire:
      1.) Did Palestinians have a right to an independent country of their own?”

      Yes, not necessarily immediately though but when ready. In fact they were entitled to two countries in due course. One Jewish and one Arab. Because there were two people in Palestine. So the League of nations which was the predecessor of the UN did not make that a reality at that time.

      “2.) Did they have a right to the territorial integrity of their country?”

      How could they have a territorial integrity if a country did not even exist yet?

      “3.) Did they have the right to allocate Palestine’s land?”

      No. A number of parties had a say in it. That’s how all countries were created at the end of the colonial era. But the fact is that it wasn’t Palestine’s turn to be granted independence at that time. Palestine was not ready for independence in 1914. It was under- populated and under-developed.

      “4.) Did they have a right to be an Arab majority and remain one?”

      No. Palestine was never a sovereign Arab country historically. It was a sovereign Jewish country though 2000 years ago and for 1000 years before that. Plenty of archeological and historical evidence supports that. You want links? I’ll give them if you ask.

      “5.) Did they have the right to live in security?”

      Yes, everyone does. Even the Jews of Palestine had the right to live in security.

      “6.) Did they have a right to prevent foreign refugees from entering their country?”

      Who is “they”? There were Arabs AND Jews living in Palestine. The Jewish Palestinians were not objecting to Jewish refugees entering Palestine. But hey even many Arab Palestinians did not object and they were therefore targeted and murdered by the Mufti’s fanatics who called Arabs who were willing to get along with Jews as traitors.

      Question to you David, why do you support Arab supremacists and fanatics over Arabs who are willing to consider peaceful coexistence with Jews?

      Reply to Comment
    16. Samuel

      DAVIDT:”Regarding your factless claim that only UNRWA tries to keeps refugee families together”

      Yes, David, but I ask you for the fourth time:

      Why doesn’t the UNHCR have the same rule for non Palestinian families? Why are Palestinians unique? Why do only THEIR children inherit the nationality of their parents? But not the children of non Palestinian refugees? Are non Palestinian refugees inferior human beings, David? Please explain.

      Here, read about it:

      http://www.unicef.org/violencestudy/pdf/refugee_children_guidelines_on_protection_and_care.pdf

      “A stateless child lacks the guaranteed protection of any state. His or her basic rights, legal status, security in the country of residence and travel outside that country are subject to state discretion. Statelessness is often caused by states’ deliberate policies not to confer nationality to children born to refugees. It may also be caused by the existence of conflicting laws regarding nationality. Some countries grant their nationality to children born on their territory (jus solis), while others confer their nationality exclusively to children born of parents who are their nationals (jus sanguinis). Thus, for example, a refugee child born in a country that applies the jus sanguinis principle to nationals of another country that applies the jus solis principle, will not be able to benefit from either nationality.”

      Reply to Comment
    17. Samuel

      Here is another link about how children of NON Palestinian refugees can become stateless:

      http://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/refugee_en.pdf

      “The problem of statelessness is widespread in certain parts of the world and may be particularly acute among children of parents of mixed origin, or who are born in a country other than their parents’ country of origin,”

      But Palestinian children inherit their Palestinian refugee status from their parents. You say because they have this right under family unification rights. Don’t you think though that other NON Palestinian refugees should have the same right? Or do you think they are inferior human beings to Palestinians?

      Reply to Comment
      • David T.

        “I won’t comment on your counterpunch BS which is a rabid pro Arab publication. It is a bit like a Nazi quoting from Der Strummer to back up his claims. Or a Soviet communist quoting from Pravda. The fact that you even attempt to use them as proof makes you too look ridiculous.”

        ROFL. Of course you won’t! You want to avoid the subject by smearing the source, which quotes Ben Gurion. Very original. Don’t you think that in years debating with predictable Hasbara clowns I haven’t learned to prove my claims with kosher sources? (Well, some fanatics will only except the King’s Torah, but …)

        This is only my way to make you look ridiculous. Cause Karsh quoted Ben Gurion in his ‘rabid pro Jewish publication’ which is a bit like a … well, quoting other deniers of crimes against humanity:
        http://books.google.de/books?id=yy7yRUDu_uQC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179

        “Yes, not necessarily immediately though but when ready.”

        So the citizens of Palestine had a right to an independent country of their own which means noone had the right to prevent Palestine from becoming independent, right?

        “In fact they were entitled to two countries in due course. One Jewish and one Arab. Because there were two people in Palestine.”

        So are in Israel, what you fail to acknowledge when you only claim a Jewish right to secession.

        And the right to self determination is based on citizenship (or if not established yet, habitually residency), not on ethnicity or faith.
        So did the citizens of Palestine had a right to decide how many countries they wanted?

        “So the League of nations which was the predecessor of the UN did not make that a reality at that time.”

        The League of Nations provisionally recognized states under class A mandates to be independent and its task was not to make this a final reality, but to supervise the making.

        “How could they have a territorial integrity if a country did not even exist yet?”

        What didn’t exist was the independence of this country which boundaries were defined for example in this treaty between Palestine, Syria and Lebanon:

        “His Britannic Majesty’s Ambassador, in addressing to his Excellency the President of the Council, Minister for Foreign Affairs, a copy of the report and of the maps annexed thereto, signed by Lieutenant-Colonel Newcombe, the British delegate, whose signature EQUALLY BINDS THE STATE UNDER MANDATE, has the honour to inform him that His Britannic Majesty’s Government agree to ratify the proposals of the commission, and consider the present note as being equivalent to ratification.”
        http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/LNTSer/1924/24.pdf

        So, did they citizens of Palestine had a right to the territorial integrity of their state?

        “A number of parties had a say in it. That’s how all countries were created at the end of the colonial era. Palestine was not ready for independence in 1914. It was under- populated and under-developed.”

        Palestine was not detached or put under mandate in 1914 and the people of Palestine were not less advanced than their neigbours on the other side of artifically created mandate borders. The former ‘local’ administrations (including courts) of the districts in the Ottoman empire only had to be consolidated and upgraded with self-governing institutions. (By the way, Iraq was still under mandate for a while, even after it became independent.)

        But my question was not if the Ottomans before, but rather if the Palestinians after Palestine’s creation had the right to allocate Palestine’s land, which means land in Palestine?

        “Palestine was never a sovereign Arab country historically.”

        I was not talking about a “sovereign Arab country”. Did the citizens of the state of Palestine had the right to remain to have an Arab majority?

        “Yes, everyone does. Even the Jews of Palestine had the right to live in security.”

        I agree. Does this include the right to defend their country against seperatists or to allow other states to invervene on their behalf?

        “Who is “they”? There were Arabs AND Jews living in Palestine.

        So are in Israel what you fail to acknowledge when you talk about “our” country, and not about the people of Israel.
        So did the people of Palestine have a right to prevent foreign refugees from entering their country?

        “Question to you David, why do you support Arab supremacists and fanatics over Arabs who are willing to consider peaceful coexistence with Jews?”

        Do you need to end your comment with lies, because it otherweise directly and indirectly demonstrates how you support Jewish supremacists and fanatics over Jews who are willing to consider peaceful, REAL coexistence with Arabs, like I do?

        ***

        “… but I ask you for the fourth time:”

        Yes, I’m still waiting for you to prove that children of Palestinian refugees are not considered stateless.

        “Why doesn’t the UNHCR have the same rule for non Palestinian families? Why are Palestinians unique? Why do only THEIR children inherit the nationality of their parents? But not the children of non Palestinian refugees? Are non Palestinian refugees inferior human beings, David? Please explain.”

        The link I provided is to an UNHCR document supporting the principle of familily unification for all refugee families. I could provide you with other links to UNHCR guidelines to reduce statelessness for all refugees. But you would have to ignore them, too. So why should I waste my time, instead of concentrating what your real intentions are. (See below).

        “But Palestinian children inherit their Palestinian refugee status from their parents.”

        Please ignore again why you are ignorant:
        “All refugee communities, whether those under the care of UNRWA or UNHCR, have their refugee status passed through the generations while their plight remains unresolved. Refugees in Kenya administered by UNHCR are a good example. In this regard, the accusation that UNRWA uniquely perpetuates the Palestine refugee problem is ignorant of international refugee law and practice.”
        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4082176,00.html

        So let me elaborate on the racist, inhumane and disgusting game someone like you has to play.

        Let’s assume that you are correct and the refugee children under UNHCR ruling fall under and less humane approach of solving their problems, especially of those being descendents of refugees and expellees of racist states, who fail “to include all residents in the body of citizens when a state becomes independent (state succession).” http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c155.html

        You don’t ask from the UNHCR to act as humane as you think UNRWA treats refugees and their children under its regulation. Your are so noble and humane, that you demand all refugees and their children to be equally treated LESS humane as UNHCR does according to you. Which is “a bit like” … well … others who want everybody else than their own nation to be equally treated less humane.

        And you don’t demand equality for all, when it is not good for ‘your’ nation. If there’s a Jewish refugee problem, you claim they have even a right to create a state within a state against the will of its majority. And if Jews create a state, you claim that they not only have a right to have a state not for all of its citizens, but a right to create a nationality law which does not include all of its residents and make Nonjewish refugees and generations to come stateless. If it’s about the right of return and being a majority, you not only claim that Jews have a right to only allow Jewish refugees or Jews to return – who without any prove only claim to be descendants not of converts, but of ancient Hebrews – but a right to prevent Nonjewish refugees or Nonjews to return – who can even prove that they were allready citizens or habitually resident in this country.

        You don’t care for humanity or equality. All you care about is, if its is ‘good for the Jews’. Which actually IS a bit like … well, let’s say the “supremacists and fanatics” you have to project onto others.

        Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        SAMUEL:”I won’t comment on your counterpunch BS which is a rabid pro Arab publication. It is a bit like a Nazi quoting from Der Strummer to back up his claims. Or a Soviet communist quoting from Pravda. The fact that you even attempt to use them as proof makes you too look ridiculous.”

        DAVIDT”ROFL. Of course you won’t! You want to avoid the subject by smearing the source,”

        Ok, so you think it is valid for a Nazi to quote Der Strummer, for a Soviet Communist to quote Pravda and for an Anti Zionist to quote a rabid anti Zionist publicution like Counterpunch to prove their claims? You pretend that just by laughing like the hyena and writing “ROFL” it makes your approach valid?

        Ok. But all you did by that is revealed once again your intellectual dishonesty.

        Reply to Comment
        • Samuel

          DAVIDT”This is only my way to make you look ridiculous. Cause Karsh quoted Ben Gurion in his ‘rabid pro Jewish publication’ which is a bit like a … well, quoting other deniers of crimes against humanity:
          http://books.google.de/books?id=yy7yRUDu_uQC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179

          English please. Your link leads to a German publication which makes YOU look ridiculous.

          Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            SAMUEL:“Yes, not necessarily immediately though but when ready.”

            DAVIDT”So the citizens of Palestine had a right to an independent country of their own which means noone had the right to prevent Palestine from becoming independent, right?”

            Like I said, they had the right to two countries. They had the right to partition the land between the two peoples in Palestine, the Arabs AND the Jews. Same as India was partitioned between Muslims and Hindi when India was granted independence.

            Booooooring … we discussed this all before but you just cannot help yourself with your repetition David. Think you will tire me out? LOL, think again … even if I am boooooored.

            SAMUEL:“In fact they were entitled to two countries in due course. One Jewish and one Arab. Because there were two people in Palestine.”

            DAVIDT:”So are in Israel, what you fail to acknowledge when you only claim a Jewish right to secession.”

            Really? So no you equate an independent sovereign country (Israel) to a land under colonial rule which was never a sovereign country in it’s own right except 2000 years ago and before when it was a sovereign Jewish country.

            DAVIDT:”And the right to self determination is based on citizenship (or if not established yet, habitually residency), not on ethnicity or faith.”

            BS!!!!! That’s not how it was when India was partitioned between Muslims and Hindi. And the Muslims were only 12% of India’s population.

            DAVIDT:”So did the citizens of Palestine had a right to decide how many countries they wanted?”

            Yes. The Jews too had the right to choose to go their own way like the Muslims of India had the right to go their own way and have THEIR own country, Pakistan. Or are you saying that Pakistan has no right to exist? LOL. I wonder how the Pakistanis would react to that if you would say that? Are you saying that David?

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            SAMUEL:“So the League of nations which was the predecessor of the UN did not make that a reality at that time. (Independence)”

            DAVIDT:”The League of Nations provisionally recognized states under class A mandates to be independent and its task was not to make this a final reality, but to supervise the making.”

            BS David. When the Brits took over Palestine from the Ottomans, Jordan was considered to be part of Palestine. It was designated as Eastern Palestine on all the maps of the day. Yet in 1929, Eastern Palestine (today’s Jordan) was detached from the rest of Palestine and was granted independence under the rule of the Arab Hashemite king.

            SAMUEL:“How could they have a territorial integrity if a country did not even exist yet?”

            DAVIDT:”What didn’t exist was the independence of this country which boundaries were defined for example in this treaty between Palestine, Syria and Lebanon:”

            Yes, and the League of Nations gave a mandate to the Brits to establish a Jewish state in Palestine at the earliest practicable date.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            SAMUEL:“A number of parties had a say in it. That’s how all countries were created at the end of the colonial era. Palestine was not ready for independence in 1914. It was under- populated and under-developed.”

            DAVIDT:”Palestine was not detached or put under mandate in 1914 and the people of Palestine were not less advanced than their neigbours on the other side of artifically created mandate borders. The former ‘local’ administrations (including courts) of the districts in the Ottoman empire only had to be consolidated and upgraded with self-governing institutions. (By the way, Iraq was still under mandate for a while, even after it became independent.)”

            Well, David, the powers to be at the time thought that Palestine was not ready for independence yet. It had maybe 600,000 people in 1914? And very little infrastructure.

            You don’t agree with them? Well OK, travel back in time and argue with them.

            DAVIDT:”But my question was not if the Ottomans before, but rather if the Palestinians after Palestine’s creation had the right to allocate Palestine’s land, which means land in Palestine?”

            How many more times are you going to ask the same question. My answer is still the same. The Jews of Palestine too had a say in their own destiny in the same way that the Muslims of India did when they too chose a separate destiny for themselves.

            SAMUEL:“Palestine was never a sovereign Arab country historically.”

            DAVIDT:”I was not talking about a “sovereign Arab country”. Did the citizens of the state of Palestine had the right to remain to have an Arab majority?”

            Only if the Jews too would agree to live in a majority Arab country as a minority. But the Jews didn’t. Because historically, Jews were persecuted as minorities in Both Arab and non Arab countries.

            So the Jews had a right to have ONE place on this earth where Jews would be a majority where they could defend themselves.

            I am sorry if that hurts you so much David.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            SAMUEL:“Yes, everyone does. Even the Jews of Palestine had the right to live in security.”

            DAVIDT:”I agree. Does this include the right to defend their country against seperatists or to allow other states to invervene on their behalf?”

            Their country? What country? There wasn’t a country yet. There was a colony named Palestine in which two people lived, Arabs AND Jews. And after the Brits conquered Palestine (from the Ottomans), the League of Nations entrusted them with a mandate to govern the country and to eventually allow the Jewish people to have their own state in Palestine.

            SAMUEL:“Who is “they”? There were Arabs AND Jews living in Palestine.

            DAVIDT:”So are in Israel what you fail to acknowledge when you talk about “our” country, and not about the people of Israel.”

            But unlike Palestine in 1914 Israel is a sovereign country. Palestine was a colony under British rule.

            DAVIDT:”So did the people of Palestine have a right to prevent foreign refugees from entering their country?”

            No because they were not the rulers of the country. And it wasn’t JUST sn Arab country. Jews lived in Palestine too. The Brits were entrusted by the League of nations to develop the country so that eventually it would be ready for independence. And to allow the Jews to have their state in Palestine. Or at least part of Palestine.

            Reply to Comment
    18. Samuel

      SAMUEL:“Question to you David, why do you support Arab supremacists and fanatics over Arabs who are willing to consider peaceful coexistence with Jews?”

      DAVIDT:”Do you need to end your comment with lies,”

      No David, you are the only one who tells lies.

      DAVIDT:”because it otherweise directly and indirectly demonstrates how you support Jewish supremacists and fanatics over Jews who are willing to consider peaceful”

      I support those Jews who are willing to defend ourselves and stand up for OUR rights and interests. Every normal person and groups of people, including nations, do that for THEIR peoples. Yes, even the Arabs do that for THEMSELVES.

      You (and by your own admission you are NOT of a Jewish/Hebrew nationality) on the other hand stand on the outside and expect us the Jews to be altruistic to the extreme. To our own detriment. You expect us to forego our own interests for the benefit of others (the Arabs). I am sorry but no one does that. You Americans dropped the bomb (no, two bombs) on Horoshima and Nagasaki in order to save hundreds of thousands of your soldiers lives at the end of WW2. Russia dealt extremely ruthlessly with the Germans too and rightly so. Everyone fights back when they are attacked. So don’t expect less from us. On second thought, I don’t care what you expect. Because you and your kind are of no interest to me.

      Yes, I expect us to stand up for ourselves and I take it for granted that Arabs stand up for THEIR interests.

      But it seems that in 1948 and ever since, they miscalculated because they would have been better off if they would have accommodated us. We could have built our state peacefully and they could have built THEIR state peacefully too.

      DAVIDT:”REAL coexistence with Arabs, like I do?”

      BS David. You, an outsider, a kibitzer who is not affected by what you advocate, expect US, who are affected, to abdicate our rights. You can get knotted.

      I’ll tell you what though. If you want to be really altruistic, go back to Khazaria, the land of YOUR ancestors, NOT mine. And give up the stolen land that you live on to a needy native American Indian. Ok, David?

      Mind you, I give this advice ONLY to YOU and people like you David. Because you expect ME/US to be unrealistic. I don’t give the same advice to normal every day Americans who support us.

      Reply to Comment
    19. Samuel

      DAVIDT:”“All refugee communities, whether those under the care of UNRWA or UNHCR, have their refugee status passed through the generations while their plight remains unresolved”

      You are lying again David. Here is the link again which I gave you earlier which proves thaf you are lying:

      Here is another link about how children of NON Palestinian refugees can become stateless:

      http://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/refugee_en.pdf

      “The problem of statelessness is widespread in certain parts of the world and may be particularly acute among children of parents of mixed origin, or who are born in a country other than their parents’ country of origin,”

      Which bit of “statelessness” don’t you understand David?

      AND

      Which bit of “who are born in a country other than their parents’ country of origin” don’t you understand, David?

      So back to my original question, ANSWER it please David, if you can.

      But Palestinian children inherit their Palestinian refugee status from their parents. You say because they have this right under family unification rights. Don’t you think though that other NON Palestinian refugees should have the same right? Or do you think they are inferior human beings to Palestinians?

      Reply to Comment
    20. David T.

      “I won’t comment on your counterpunch BS which is a rabid pro Arab publication. It is a bit like a Nazi quoting from Der Strummer to back up his claims. Or a Soviet communist quoting from Pravda. The fact that you even attempt to use them as proof makes you too look ridiculous.”

      I understand you totally, regarding your Rostow’s quote from a Hasbara site which are a bit like … well. Unfortunately for you, I set this up, to make you look ridiculous. Cause Karsh quoted Ben Gurion in his ‘rabid pro Jewish publication’ which is a bit like a … well, quoting other deniers of crimes against humanity: http://books.google.de/books?id=yy7yRUDu_uQC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179

      “Yes, not necessarily immediately though but when ready.”

      So the citizens of Palestine had a right to an independent country of their own which means noone had the right to prevent Palestine from becoming independent, right?

      “In fact they were entitled to two countries in due course. One Jewish and one Arab. Because there were two people in Palestine.”

      So are in Israel, what you fail to acknowledge when you only claim a Jewish right to secession. And the right to self determination is based on citizenship (or if not established yet, habitually residency), not on ethnicity or faith. So did the citizens of Palestine had a right to decide how many countries they wanted?

      “So the League of nations which was the predecessor of the UN did not make that a reality at that time.”

      The League of Nations provisionally recognized states under class A mandates to be independent and its task was not to make this a final reality, but to supervise the making.

      “How could they have a territorial integrity if a country did not even exist yet?”

      What didn’t exist was the independence of this country which boundaries were defined for example in this treaty between Palestine, Syria and Lebanon:
      “His Britannic Majesty’s Ambassador, in addressing to his Excellency the President of the Council, Minister for Foreign Affairs, a copy of the report and of the maps annexed thereto, signed by Lieutenant-Colonel Newcombe, the British delegate, whose signature EQUALLY BINDS THE STATE UNDER MANDATE, has the honour to inform him that His Britannic Majesty’s Government agree to ratify the proposals of the commission, and consider the present note as being equivalent to ratification.” http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/LNTSer/1924/24.pdf

      So, did they citizens of Palestine had a right to the territorial integrity of their state?

      “A number of parties had a say in it. That’s how all countries were created at the end of the colonial era. Palestine was not ready for independence in 1914. It was under- populated and under-developed.”

      Palestine was not detached or put under mandate in 1914 and the people of Palestine were not less advanced than their neigbours on the other side of artifically created mandate borders. The former ‘local’ administrations (including courts) of the districts in the Ottoman empire only had to be consolidated and upgraded with self-governing institutions. (By the way, Iraq was still under mandate for a while, even after it became independent.)

      But my question was not if the Ottomans before, but rather if the Palestinians after Palestine’s creation had the right to allocate Palestine’s land, which means land in Palestine?

      “Palestine was never a sovereign Arab country historically.”

      I was not talking about a “sovereign Arab country”. Did the citizens of the state of Palestine had the right to remain to have an Arab majority?

      “Yes, everyone does. Even the Jews of Palestine had the right to live in security.”

      I agree. Does this include the right to defend their country against seperatists or to allow other states to invervene on their behalf?

      “Who is “they”? There were Arabs AND Jews living in Palestine.

      So are in Israel what you fail to acknowledge when you talk about “our” country, and not about the people of Israel.
      So did the people of Palestine have a right to prevent foreign refugees from entering their country?

      “Question to you David, why do you support Arab supremacists and fanatics over Arabs who are willing to consider peaceful coexistence with Jews?”

      Do you need to end your comment with lies, because it otherweise directly and indirectly demonstrates how you support Jewish supremacists and fanatics over Jews who are willing to consider peaceful, REAL coexistence with Arabs, like I do?

      ***

      “… but I ask you for the fourth time:”

      Yes, I’m still waiting for you to prove that children of Palestinian refugees are not considered stateless.

      “Why doesn’t the UNHCR have the same rule for non Palestinian families? Why are Palestinians unique? Why do only THEIR children inherit the nationality of their parents? But not the children of non Palestinian refugees? Are non Palestinian refugees inferior human beings, David? Please explain.”

      The link I provided is to an UNHCR document supporting the principle of familily unification for all refugee families. I could provide you with other links to UNHCR guidelines to reduce statelessness for all refugees. But you would have to ignore them, too. So why should I waste my time, instead of concentrating what your real intentions are. (See below).

      “But Palestinian children inherit their Palestinian refugee status from their parents.”

      Please ignore again why you are ignorant:
      “All refugee communities, whether those under the care of UNRWA or UNHCR, have their refugee status passed through the generations while their plight remains unresolved. Refugees in Kenya administered by UNHCR are a good example. In this regard, the accusation that UNRWA uniquely perpetuates the Palestine refugee problem is ignorant of international refugee law and practice.”
      http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4082176,00.html

      But let’s assume that you are correct and the refugee children under UNHCR ruling fall under and less humane approach of solving their problems, especially of those being descendents of refugees and expellees of racist states, who fail “to include all residents in the body of citizens when a state becomes independent (state succession).” http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c155.html

      You don’t ask from the UNHCR to act as humane as you think UNRWA treats refugees and their children under its regulation. Your are so noble and humane, that you demand all refugees and their children to be equally treated LESS humane as UNHCR does according to you.

      And you don’t demand equality for all, when it is not good for ‘your’ nation. If there’s a Jewish refugee problem, you claim they have even a right to create a state within a state against the will of its majority. And if Jews create a state, you claim that they not only have a right to have a state not for all of its citizens, but a right to create a nationality law which does not include all of its residents and make Nonjewish refugees and generations to come stateless. If it’s about the right of return and being a majority, you not only claim that Jews have a right to only allow Jewish refugees or Jews to return – who without any prove only claim to be descendants not of converts, but of ancient Hebrews – but a right to prevent Nonjewish refugees or Nonjews to return – who can even prove that they were allready citizens or habitually resident in this country.

      Btw. calling someone a liar who has a different opinion than you is just opinion fascism. If you want to know what an real lie is, read your comment about my parents. It demonstrates perfectly that no lie, not even an obvious one seems to be to big for someone like you.

      Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        You are pathetic David. You copied and pasted your previous post to which I replied in detail already, see my previous posts.

        As for your Karsh quote which you now present in English instead of German (which I don’t speak), I will respond to that in my next post.

        Reply to Comment
    21. Samuel

      Never mind about what Karsh says about what Benny Morris said. Here is what Benny Morris himself says:

      http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com.au/2008/02/benny-morris-on-fact-fiction-propaganda.html

      Here are some quotes from the link:

      “Madam, – Israel-haters are fond of citing – and more often, mis-citing – my work in support of their arguments. Let me offer some corrections.

      The Palestinian Arabs were not responsible “in some bizarre way” (David Norris, January 31st) for what befell them in 1948. Their responsibility was very direct and simple.

      In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29th, 1947 (No. 181), they launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes.”

      “Most of Palestine’s 700,000 “refugees” fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops.

      The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became “refugees” – and I put the term in inverted commas, as two-thirds of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee) – was not a “racist crime” (David Landy, January 24th) but the result of a national conflict and a war, with religious overtones, from the Muslim perspective, launched by the Arabs themselves.

      There was no Zionist “plan” or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of “ethnic cleansing”. Plan Dalet (Plan D), of March 10th, 1948 (it is open and available for all to read in the IDF Archive and in various publications), was the master plan of the Haganah – the Jewish military force that became the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) – to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the emergent Jewish state. That’s what it explicitly states and that’s what it was. And the invasion of the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq duly occurred, on May 15th.”

      Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        Oh, I should have also added this from the link, above, about what Benny Morris said:

        “The demonisation of Israel is largely based on lies – much as the demonisation of the Jews during the past 2,000 years has been based on lies. And there is a connection between the two.”

        Recognise yourself David? He is talking about people (I use the term loosely) like you.

        Reply to Comment
        • David T.

          “Ok, so you think … Ok. … You pretend … Ok. But all you did by that is revealed once again your intellectual dishonesty.”

          LOL. The only one who proves his intellectual dishonesty is you. You STILL put up strawman arguments based on variations of your “You mean”-idiocies and – without even waiting for my rejection – and then react with an “OK”, as if I have confirmed your pathetic insinuations. But there’s more intellectual dishonesty from you. On the one hand you try to paint Counterpunch – who quotes Ben Gurion – as being “rabit antizionist”, only to avoid dealing with Ben Gurion’s quote. On the other hand you have no problem to quote the rabid prozionist Rostow from a pro rabid prozionist propaganda site when it comes to the interpretation of 242 made by an impostor who claimed that he has helped producing 242. So I can understand why you need to divert even from the fact, that I first used Counterpunch to demonstrate this double standard and your intellectual dishonesty.

          > “You are pathetic David. You copied and pasted your previous post to which I replied in detail already, see my previous posts.”

          No I didn’t. How pathetic are YOU, if you really think that I would answer your comment by copy pasting mine? I ‘reposted’ my comment, because it wasn’t published the first time. I even had to change it a little bit, because the blog didn’t allow me to repost a duplicate, which you can easyly see in the first and list lines. Then, so it seems, my original post, your first answer and my repost were published at the same time, but not in the correct chronical order. But please, keep reacting like a Zionist maniac.

          >”English please. Your link leads to a German publication which makes YOU look ridiculous.”
          >”As for your Karsh quote which you now present in English instead of German (which I don’t speak), I will respond to that in my next post.”

          LOL. The link is the same as in the ‘repost’ and still linking to a page of Karsh’s English book which quotes Ben Gurion. So much for looking ridiculous, keep asking for the next slap in your face.

          >”Never mind about what Karsh says about what Benny Morris said.”

          You asked me to prove what Ben Gurion said. I delivered a quote from Counterpunch and a more eloborate one from Karsh’s book. You still fail to adress it. And look how much space my comment allready has used up by now, because of your ignorance, double standards, your pathetic strawman arguments and your infantile behaviour to just mirror my accusations about your intellectual dishonesty.

          >”Here are some quotes from the link:”

          Why do you keep ignoring that Benny Morris contradicts himself with statements like “cultured officers . . . had turned into base murderers and this not in the heat of battle . . . but out of a system of expulsion and destruction; the less Arabs remained, the better; this principle is the political motor for the expulsions and the atrocities”. Why do you keep ignoring that his claim that there was not expulsion policy or no formal expulsion policy is irrelevant when he writes “transfer consensus” which leads to ethnic cleansing? Why do you keep ignoring that refugees which are prevented from returning are considered to be expelled and in this case also victims of ethnic cleansing? And why do you keep ignoring that your racist authority even regrets, that the expulsion was only partly?

          > “Oh, I should have also added this from the link, above, about what Benny Morris said: “The demonisation of Israel is largely based on lies – much as the demonisation of the Jews during the past 2,000 years has been based on lies. And there is a connection between the two.” Recognise yourself David? He is talking about people (I use the term loosely) like you.”

          He can’t be talking about me, because I’m only quoting him – and the expulsion mastermind Ben Gurion, which is not the only criminal against humanity who avoid his criminal orders to get on paper. That’s the only reason, why the Nonjews of Nazareth were never expelled thanks to this Jew, who chose to remain a Mensch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Dunkelman#Military_career
          Unlike the Jews who expelled the Nonjews of Ashkalon in 1950: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkelon#State_of_Israel
          Or the masscring Jews in 1956: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafr_Qasim_massacre

          ***

          > Me: “So the citizens of Palestine had a right to an independent country of their own which means noone had the right to prevent Palestine from becoming independent, right?”
          > You: “Like I said, they had the right to two countries.”

          Do you want to deny that the citizens of Palestine also the right to only ONE independent country of their own and that nobody had he right to prevent this?

          > You: “Booooooring … we discussed this all before but you just cannot help yourself with your repetition David. Think you will tire me out? LOL, think again … even if I am boooooored.”

          I will demonstrate to you what results into boring repetitions and quote myself first.

          > Me: “So are in Israel, what you fail to acknowledge when you only claim a Jewish right to secession.”
          > You: “Really? So no you equate an independent sovereign country (Israel) to a land under colonial rule which was never a sovereign country in it’s own right except 2000 years ago and before when it was a sovereign Jewish country.”

          That’s why I have to repeat myself. I was talking about a right to secession, not about the equation of independent states, dependant states under mandate (not colonial rule) or tribal settlements who disregarded its population right to self determination by violently submitting them under the rulings of kings. Do minorities in Israel, Serbia and other countries have the right to secession, too, if it is against the right to self determination of its majority? And does the minority have to be only of one ethnic or religious subgroup which isn’t in Kosovo?

          > Me: “And the right to self determination is based on citizenship (or if not established yet, habitually residency), not on ethnicity or faith.”
          > You: “BS!!!!! That’s not how it was when India was partitioned between Muslims and Hindi. And the Muslims were only 12% of India’s population.”

          That’s why I have to repeat myself. What has your sideshow to do with the fact that the right to self determination is based on citizenship regardless of faith and heritage? Nothing. Regarding your sideshow: I didn’t even claim that that was the way how India was partitioned, because it partition was imposed by Britain.

          > Me: “So did the citizens of Palestine had a right to decide how many countries they wanted?”
          > You: “Yes.”

          So the Palestinians DID have the right to decide to even have ONE independent country.

          > “The Jews too had the right to choose to go their own way … [blubb]”

          We are not talking about “The Jews”, but about the Palestinians which had the right to self determination regardless of faith or heritage.

          > Me: “The League of Nations provisionally recognized states under class A mandates to be independent and its task was not to make this a final reality, but to supervise the making.”
          > You: “BS David. When the Brits took over Palestine from the Ottomans, Jordan was considered to be part of Palestine. It was designated as Eastern Palestine on all the maps of the day. Yet in 1929, Eastern Palestine (today’s Jordan) was detached from the rest of Palestine and was granted independence under the rule of the Arab Hashemite king.”

          That’s why I have to repeat myself. What has your sideshow to do with my original claim? Nothing. Regarding your sideshow: Transjordan was decoupled before the mandate came into effect and in accordance with article 25 of the mandate, which the LoN confirmed.

          > You: “How could they have a territorial integrity if a country did not even exist yet?”
          > Me: “What didn’t exist was the independence of this country which boundaries were defined for example in this treaty between Palestine, Syria and Lebanon:”
          > You: “Yes, and the League of Nations gave a mandate to the Brits to establish a Jewish state in Palestine at the earliest practicable date.”

          That’s why I have to repeat myself. What has your sideshow to do with my original claim that Palestine was allready a state provisionally recognized as independent? Nothing. Regarding your sideshow: The LoN didn’t gave any mandate to Britain. The Britain gave it to itself on behalf of Zionism and put it’s implementation under the LoN’s supervision. A “national home” is not a state and the Britains saw its establishment fulfilled in (White book) 1939 and decided it was time to release Palestine into its independence within the following 10 years. So back to my original question:

          3. Did the Palestinians have a right to the territorial integrity of their state?

          > “Well, David, the powers to be at the time thought that Palestine was not ready for independence yet. It had maybe 600,000 people in 1914? And very little infrastructure. You don’t agree with them? Well OK, travel back in time and argue with them.”

          Well Samuel, I don’t know why you keep talking about “1914″. You don’t seem to have a clue when Palestine was detached or put under mandate. And Class A mandates were charecterized by the League of Nations’s convent as “have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.”

          Were the wishes of Palestinians considered in the selection of the mandatory, since it is so “principal”?

          > “Me: But my question was not if the Ottomans before, but rather if the Palestinians after Palestine’s creation had the right to allocate Palestine’s land, which means land in Palestine?”
          > You: “How many more times are you going to ask the same question. My answer is still the same. The Jews of Palestine …”

          Thats’s why I have to repeat my question. We are not talking about the Jews or Arabs or Jewish Arabs of Palestine (or Israel) nor about Britains partition of India, but about the Palestinians regardless of faith and heritage. Did the Palestinians have the right to allocate their land?

          > Me: “Did the citizens of the state of Palestine had the right to remain to have an Arab majority?”
          > You: “Only if the Jews too would agree to live in a majority Arab country as a minority.”

          So the citizens of Israel have the right to have a Jewish majority only, if the Nonjews too would agree (or would have agreed in 1948) to live in a majority Jewish country as a minority?

          > Me: “I agree. Does this include the right to defend their country against seperatists or to allow other states to invervene on their behalf?”
          > You: “Their country? What country? There wasn’t a country yet. There was a colony named Palestine …”

          LOL. So much for ‘boring repetitions and we allready discussed this’. That’s why I have to repeat myself. I proved to you by quoting from a boundary agreement between Syria and Palestine that the signature of the mandataries’ delegates would equally bind the “state under mandate”, so Palestine was a state, and not a British colony. I also wrote that the League of Nation had provisionally recognized these mandated states (Class A mandates) to be even provisionally recognized as independent (see article 22 of its convent) – which basically means that the LoN treated them as if they allready were independent states. For example, the mandatory could conclude bi and multi lateral state contracts on their behalf, which it did not only in the case of Palestine. And Britain never annexed Palestine to be one of its colonies. So. Did the Palestinian’s right to live in security include the right to defend their country against seperatists or to allow other states to invervene on their behalf?

          > Me: “So are in Israel what you fail to acknowledge when you talk about “our” country, and not about the people of Israel.”
          > You: “But unlike Palestine in 1914 Israel is a sovereign country. Palestine was a colony under British rule.”

          Are you sure it was not 1814? Palestine was not a colony under British rule, but a state under Britain’s mandate ruling. Yawn, you even’t down know the basics.

          > Me: So did the people of Palestine have a right to prevent foreign refugees from entering their country?”
          > You: “No because they were not the rulers of the country.”

          What do you mean by “rulers”? A mandatory is not a “ruler” and Britain never annexed Palestine.
          Do You think that citizens of a state under mandate have no rights at all?

          ***

          > “No David, you are the only one who tells lies.”

          LOL. Do you know the pathological sociopath who had not problem to accuse my parents of killing Jews in concentration camps to survive? He’s compulsery lying disorder is impossible to treat. He also claimed that I was the only one who tells lies. Poor lost soul. Karma can be such a bitch.

          > “I support those Jews who are willing to defend ourselves and stand up for OUR rights and interests. Every normal person and groups of people, including nations, do that for THEIR peoples. Yes, even the Arabs do that for THEMSELVES.”

          And that is totally fine and not supremacist, as long as nobody thinks to have the the right of violating the rights of others or treat them unequal, because of his heritage or faith. You dou, but you disguse it as “survival of the Jewish state” and “security”.

          > “You (and by your own admission you are NOT of a Jewish/Hebrew nationality).”

          No. I – like you – just can’t prove that I am more likely a descendent of ancient Hebrews than … Palestinians, LOL, but I – unlike you – am not brainwashed by Zionism to think I can. You can also not prove that you are not a descendant of non Israelites who lived in Israelite communities. And you seem to know nothing about Jew’s proselytizing history. Actually those who received or accepted the Torah were all ‘converts’. But like antisemities you only have a racist idea of what it means to be Jewish. Maybe because YOU are not a real Jew and your racist idea is all that is left.

          > “… on the other hand stand on the outside and expect us the Jews to be altruistic to the extreme.”

          No, that would be only the opposite extreme of your view. The only thing I want to make clear is that someone like you who puts Zionism above humanism (and actually beyond Judaism) doesn’t speak for all Jews and that he’s a fascist, if he thinks he does.

          > “You Americans dropped the bomb …”

          LOL. Now I am American. What’s next, a Chinese Arab? But I see. “Americans” dropped the bomb, developed by “Americans”. And if Jews were involved, G-d forbid, they do not actually belong to the Jewish race, right?

          > “We could have built our state peacefully and they could have built THEIR state peacefully too.”

          “They” allready had their state and just wanted it to be released into independence, which you prevented, because you didn’t accept their right to independency since 1919 and did anything to deny them their right to self determination for nearly a century.

          > “I’ll tell you what though. If you want to be really altruistic, go back to Khazaria, the land of YOUR ancestors, NOT mine. And give up the stolen land that you live on to a needy native American Indian. Ok, David?”

          LOL. Even if I where an American, why don’t YOU give up the stolen land YOU live on to a needy Palestinian or Jewish Arabs, too, Samuel? Double standards, as usual? And I’m still waiting for you to prove where you ancestors came from. Any news from the national skull and nose measurement department? I will not longer wait for your mind to sober up to understand that mine never claimed to really know, where their ancestors came frome, but can only speculate.

          > “Mind you, I give this advice ONLY to YOU and people like you David. Because you expect ME/US to be unrealistic.”

          No, I’m realistic enough to expect anything from you than the worse. I only want to distance myself from you as much as I can. So let me give you and advice. PLEASE, what ever happens, STAY IN ISRAEL! STAY THERE! I BEG YOU! We are happy without you and those, your racist and slowly into fascism sinking state attracts. Just like the racist in your state wants to live in Arabfree communities, we want to live in racistfree communities. We want to freely speak our minds without being threatened by mentally deranged and fascists Zionists whose hateful mind can only accuse others of hatred, because the real hate is in the mind of the observer.

          > “I don’t give the same advice to normal every day Americans who support us.”

          Not to those your national welfare case lives on? Or not to those who use you for their antisemitic end game? Imagine latter being behind the latest US-Iran deal.

          > “You are lying again David.”

          You are lying again, Samuel:
          “All refugee communities, whether those under the care of UNRWA or UNHCR, have their refugee status passed through the generations while their plight remains unresolved. Refugees in Kenya administered by UNHCR are a good example. In this regard, the accusation that UNRWA uniquely perpetuates the Palestine refugee problem is ignorant of international refugee law and practice.”
          http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4082176,00.html

          >”Here is another link about how children of NON Palestinian refugees can become stateless:”

          I’m still waiting for a link from you to prove that children of Palestinian refugees can’t or don’t become stateless.

          > “Don’t you think though that other NON Palestinian refugees should have the same right? Or do you think they are inferior human beings to Palestinians?”

          If you really think that there are basic differences, I expect you to be inhumane enough to think that NON Palestinian refugees should NOT have the same rights as Palestinian refugees and both should have less rights than Jewish refugees which return to their “homeland” you even support. Am I correct?

          Reply to Comment
    22. Samuel

      “Ony to avoid dealing with Ben Gurion’s quote.”

      You mean misquote? Out of context quote? Other dishonest tricks that one expects from dishonest rags like counterpunch David? Go discuss it with them yourself.

      Me, I will deal with them with the disdain and contempt that they and you deserve. Yes, you too David. But I am not finished with YOU YET.

      To be continued …

      Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        “Regarding your sideshow: I didn’t even claim that that was the way how India was partitioned, because it partition was imposed by Britain”

        So according to you, India’s partition was illegal, David?

        Reply to Comment
    23. Samuel

      DAVIDT:”LOL. The link is the same as in the ‘repost’ and still linking to a page of Karsh’s English book which quotes Ben Gurion. So much for looking ridiculous, keep asking for the next slap in your face.”

      Sigh …

      Your link quotes, Karsh who quotes Benny Morris who quotes Ben Gurion.

      Ho hum, couldn’t you just simplify it by giving me a direct link to a credible site which quotes Ben Gurion himself?

      I at least gave a direct quote of Benny Morris which suggested that what Karsh attributed to him saying about Ben Gurion could not possibly be correct. Otherwise, why would Benny Morris say that there was no policy of expulsion by Israel?

      Ye gads, David, you have an obtuse, yet strangely convoluted mind.

      To be continued…

      Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        “Why do you keep ignoring that Benny Morris contradicts himself with statements like “cultured officers . . .”

        Whoooaaaa there David, not so fast. I called you a liar for attributing that quote to Benny Morris (the way you quoted him – never mind your attempt to mask it now with your “…”

        So, again, first prove to me that your original quote of Benny Morris was correct by pointing to a credible link, preferably to what Benny Morris himself says. If you do that, only then can you claim that Benny Morris contradicts himself. Otherwise, I take it as just another one of your lies, David.

        HERE IS YOUR ORIGINAL QUOTE OF BENNY MORRIS, David:

        “cultured officers … had turned into base murderers and this not in the heat of battle … but out of a SYSTEM OF EXPULSION and destruction; THE LESS ARAB REMAIND, THE BETTER; this PRINCIPLE is the POLITICAL MOTOR FOR THE EXPULSIONS AND THE ATROCITIES”

        I say it again, David, you pulled the above quote out of your back passage because Benny Morris never said anything THAT WAY. I caught you with too many lies already David. You just cannot be trusted.

        To be continued ….

        Reply to Comment
        • Samuel

          SAMUEL:” only then can you claim that Benny Morris contradicts himself”

          … oh and I should have added, depending on context. In other words, what else did he say IF he said such things at all which I for one highly doubt.

          Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            Actually after a bit of further research, I now realise that Benny Morris DID use those harsh words to describe SOME expulsions by SOME individual Israeli commanders. I already admitted those facts, I just didn’t know that he used such a harsh description of what they did.

            Having said that, this if anything enhances Benny Morris’s credibility because as I previously said, he is fearless and does not pull any punches when he describes wrong doings by Israel too.

            But overall, Benny Morris clearly says that there was no POLICY of expulsion by Israel in 1948 (see links that I provided earlier). Action by SOME individual commenders YES, overarching policy of expulsion by the Israeli government, NO. That’s what Morris clearly says.

            Reply to Comment
    24. David T.

      “You mean misquote? Out of context quote? Other dishonest tricks that one expects from dishonest rags like counterpunch David? Go discuss it with them yourself. Me, I will deal with them with the disdain and contempt that they and you deserve. Yes, you too David. But I am not finished with YOU YET. Your link quotes, Karsh who quotes Benny Morris who quotes Ben Gurion. Ho hum, couldn’t you just simplify it by giving me a direct link to a credible site which quotes Ben Gurion himself?”

      Please prove that Counterpunch quoted Ben Gurion out of context and he actually meant something else. You can use Karsh’s book, who cites Ben Gurion’ text from which Morris drew his citation. ROFL.

      “Ye gads, David, you have an obtuse, yet strangely convoluted mind. … Whoooaaaa there David, not so fast. I called you a liar for attributing that quote to Benny Morris (the way you quoted him – never mind your attempt to mask it now with your “…” … I say it again, David, you pulled the above quote out of your back passage because Benny Morris never said anything THAT WAY. I caught you with too many lies already David. You just cannot be trusted. … Actually after a bit of further research, I now realise that Benny Morris DID use those harsh words to describe SOME expulsions by SOME individual Israeli commanders. I already admitted those facts, I just didn’t know that he used such a harsh description of what they did.”

      Samuel did finally finish me, but not how I expected it. The obtused and yet strangely convoluted mind tricked me and I died from laughing.

      Btw. the quote doesn’t refer to SOME expulsions by SOME individual commanders, but to a principle (the less Arab remained, the better) which was the political motor for the system of expulsion and distruction which turned cultured officers into base murderers.

      “… , why would Benny Morris say that there was no policy of expulsion by Israel?”

      Because he came to the conclusion: The Nakba is just a grand illusion, for, he reasoned pointedly, that which must not, can not be.

      Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        DAVIDT:”Please prove that Counterpunch quoted Ben Gurion out of context and he actually meant something else. You can use Karsh’s book, who cites Ben Gurion’ text from which Morris drew his citation. ROFL.”

        You can ROFL all you like but I won’t respond to the polemics of rag publications like counterpunch. Just as I don’t believe a Nazi quoting from Der Strummer, or a Commo quoting from Pravda, as far as I am concerned counterpunch has no credibility.

        So the onus is on you David to produce proof from credible sources. Otherwise, I will just ignore your quotes from counterpunch as meaningless propaganda.

        I hope you will get over it one of these days. But sounds like you are just a born repetitive robotic troll who wants to bore everyone to death. You are succeeding with your “boring” part. But I am here to stay so long as you stay. I am not about to die for you David, LOL.

        Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        DAVIDT:”Please prove that Counterpunch quoted Ben Gurion out of context and he actually meant something else.”

        I don’t have to do anything about counterpunch just as much as I wouldn’t have to do anything about what Nazi publications like Der Strummer said or Commo publications like Pravda used to say. They are collectively, all three known as propaganda publications.

        DAVIDT:”You can use Karsh’s book, who cites Ben Gurion’ text from which Morris drew his citation. ROFL.”

        You mean what Karsh accused Benny Morris saying about Ben Gurion? And which Benny Morris denies saying?

        No, I would prefer to see a credible publication which quotes Ben Gurion advocating transfer. Have you got one? Put up or shut up David.

        Reply to Comment
        • Samuel

          DAVIDT:”“… , why would Benny Morris say that there was no policy of expulsion by Israel?”

          Because he came to the conclusion: The Nakba is just a grand illusion, for, he reasoned pointedly, that which must not, can not be.”

          Even Benny Morris’s little finger is more honest than your entire body David. He is an idealist. He was critical of Israel too. In fact, By 1988, during the first intifada, he refused to serve on the West Bank He was jailed for three weeks, the 39th Israeli reservist to refuse to try to suppress the stone-throwers. But in later years he has come to the realisation that the Arabs don’t just want to end the occupation of the West Bank but they consider ALL of Israel itself to be occupied territory and like in 1948, they still want Israel’s destruction. So suddenly, the Israel bashers like you David, no longer consider Benny Morris to be your pin-up boy.

          Reply to Comment
    25. David T,

      “So the onus is on you David to produce proof from credible sources. Otherwise, I will just ignore your quotes from counterpunch as meaningless propaganda.”

      You seem to be a little bit confused, Samuel. I allready told you that I quoted from Counterpunch, because you Hasbara nuts are predictable hypocrits who have no problem with using obvious Hasbara sites like the one you quoted the propagandist Rostow from. And it was you who claimed that Counterpunch quoted Ben Gurion out of context, which you have not proven so far.

      “I hope you will get over it one of these days. But sounds like you are just a born repetitive robotic troll who wants to bore everyone to death.”

      Being a hypocrit you also seem to lack of any self awareness, Samuel. Do you realize how often you repeated your Stuermer/Pravda idiocy? You actually used it twice in your actual run of multiple comments. Does a short attention span prevent you from writing only one comment? It could explain your confusion in general and your “You mean”-like distortions of my arguments in particular.

      “You mean what Karsh accused Benny Morris saying about Ben Gurion? And which Benny Morris denies saying?”

      Again, you seem to be confused, Samuel. It was always only about Ben Gurion’s quote, which you avoid to adress and which not only Benny Morris quoted in his book, but also Karsh in his. If you can’t follow a discussion it’s not a surprise that I react with repetitions.

      “He is an idealist.”

      More an outspoken racist ideologist who doesn’t like that Israel did not fully get rid of all Palestinians. I mean, what kind of a person would be sad, that not all Jews were murdered or expelled? Go figure, that’s what someone like you considers to be an “idealist”.

      But considering the quote which speaks about a “principle” (“the less Arab remained, the better”), which was the “political motor” for the “system of expulsion and distruction”, which “turned cultured officers into base murderers”, please answer your the question which was your own, not mine: “… why would Benny Morris say that there was no policy of expulsion by Israel?”

      Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        “Being a hypocrit you also seem to lack of any self awareness, Samuel. Do you realize how often you repeated your Stuermer/Pravda idiocy?”

        I told you David, you repeat, then I repeat. Get it?

        To be continued …

        Reply to Comment
    26. Samuel

      “And it was you who claimed that Counterpunch quoted Ben Gurion out of context, which you have not proven so far.”

      LOL What I actually said about counterpunch is that they are a known propaganda site which distorts and quotes out of context, period. Not just Ben Gurion but whenever they want to fool anyone about anything. It is self evident. I urge any non half wit who has any knowledge to read the site for themselves and make up their own minds.

      But be careful. If you are ill informed and ignorant to start with then they may suck you in because they are robotic, repetitive and biased in the mould of Goebbels who proved that if one repeats lies often to people who are not exposed to any other information then the lie becomes their reality. And what happens then? Another David is born, LOL. Or maybe one should not laugh …

      Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        SAMUEL:“You mean what Karsh accused Benny Morris saying about Ben Gurion? And which Benny Morris denies saying?”

        DAVIDT:”Again, you seem to be confused, Samuel. It was always only about Ben Gurion’s quote, which you avoid to adress and which not only Benny Morris quoted in his book, but also Karsh in his. If you can’t follow a discussion it’s not a surprise that I react with repetitions.”

        No David, YOU are the one who is confused. You quoted someone (Karsh) who asserted that someone else (Benny Morris) said something about another person (Ben Gurion). But Benny Morris denies saying that about Ben Gurion otherwise he would not say what he says in the link that I gave you. Get it now, thick head?

        SAMUEL:“He is an idealist.”

        DAVIDT:”More an outspoken racist ideologist who doesn’t like that Israel did not fully get rid of all Palestinians. I mean, what kind of a person would be sad, that not all Jews were murdered or expelled? Go figure, that’s what someone like you considers to be an “idealist”.

        Actually, I should have said: he WAS an idealist. Now he is a realist.

        DAVIDT:”But considering the quote which speaks about a “principle” (“the less Arab remained, the better”), which was the “political motor” for the “system of expulsion and distruction”, which “turned cultured officers into base murderers”, please answer your the question which was your own, not mine: “… why would Benny Morris say that there was no policy of expulsion by Israel?”

        Ho hum, thick head. I already answered this question. He talked about individual officers who did what they did out of their own volition. There were no orders from above telling them to do it. Such things happen in all wars and all armies. Have you heard of Abu Ghreib, the Mai Lai massacre? Etc.

        Now, you see what an idealist Benny Morris was? He reported on what the rogue army officers did too. Had he been only a Zionist stooge, he would have just kept quiet about it.

        Tell me David. No offence intended (LOL) are you really this thick? Or are you just pretending?

        Reply to Comment
    27. Samuel

      DAVIDT:”More an outspoken racist ideologist who doesn’t like that Israel did not fully get rid of all Palestinians. I mean, what kind of a person would be sad, that not all Jews were murdered or expelled? Go figure, that’s what someone like you considers to be an “idealist”.

      Like I said, Benny Morris started out to be an idealist but since 2000/2001 after he saw how Palestinians reacted to Ehud Barak’s peace offer, he became a realist.

      Yes, he is now unhappy that Israel did not get rid of all the Arabs in 1948. And who do you think he blames for not doing that? You guessed it: Ben Gurion! So much for your lie that Benny Morris claimed that Ben Gurion had an expulsion policy.

      David, you are so stupid that you don’t realise the internal contradictions between your own statements.

      Reply to Comment
    28. Samuel

      Again, here is what Benny Morris himself says. Read this:

      http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com.au/2008/02/benny-morris-on-fact-fiction-propaganda.html

      “There was no Zionist “plan” or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of “ethnic cleansing”. Plan Dalet (Plan D), of March 10th, 1948 (it is open and available for all to read in the IDF Archive and in various publications), was the master plan of the Haganah – the Jewish military force that became the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) – to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the emergent Jewish state. That’s what it explicitly states and that’s what it was. And the invasion of the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq duly occurred, on May 15th.”

      Reply to Comment
    29. Samuel

      Just to refresh your tired old mind, David, (I use the term “mind” loosely in your case). Here is what Benny Morris himself wrote in the Irish Times:

      http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com.au/2008/02/benny-morris-on-fact-fiction-propaganda.html

      There was no Zionist “plan” or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of “ethnic cleansing”. Plan Dalet (Plan D), of March 10th, 1948 (it is open and available for all to read in the IDF Archive and in various publications), was the master plan of the Haganah – the Jewish military force that became the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) – to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the emergent Jewish state. That’s what it explicitly states and that’s what it was. And the invasion of the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq duly occurred, on May 15th.”

      Which bit of “no Zionist “plan” or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population” don’t you understand, David?

      Reply to Comment
    30. 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