+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

A Palestinian ultimatum to end occupation?

In a diplomatic surprise, the Palestinians have threatened to turn to the International Criminal Court if no date is set for a withdrawal to the 1967 borders – a move that +972 writers predicted more than a year ago.

The PLO will demand that the UN Security Council announce a deadline for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, to the 1967 ceasefire lines, reported Haaretz today. Ma’an News Agency writes that Nabil Shaath, a senior Fatah figure and veteran negotiator, has said the bid will be submitted on September 15, 2014. If it is not accepted, he told Ma’an that the PLO will continue with long-rumored plans to pursue accession to the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), so that it can bring claims against Israel’s actions in Gaza.

With every other attempt to shake off Israel’s military rule proving futile, the idea of a simple ultimatum for withdrawal – with or without an agreement – ought not to come as a surprise. In fact, Noam Sheizaf and I not only predicted it, we advocated it over a year ago.

Netanyahu and Abbas in Washington, September 15, 2010 (State Dept. Photo)

Netanyahu and Abbas in Washington, September 15, 2010 (State Dept. Photo)

The move marks the third time in four years that the Palestinians have undertaken a major diplomatic effort for statehood in the 1967 territory. In 2011 Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called for UN membership, and submitted a bid to the General Assembly, but a vote was never held due to the certainty of a Security Council veto. In late 2012 a vote was finally held in the General Assembly. It passed, granting Palestine the status of non-member observer state in the UN, but made little difference on the ground.

Two further diplomatic attempts to achieve statehood and recognition happened before and after those: In 1988 the PLO first declared its independence along the 1967 ceasefire lines. That marked a major shift away from Fatah rhetoric, which up to then called for a single state from the river to the sea. Most recently, as the Kerry-led negotiations were falling apart, Abbas advanced applications and acceded to a number of international treaties and organizations to make statehood more meaningful on the international level.

The current move is, therefore, an extension of decades of Palestinian diplomatic action to end Israeli military rule. It may be partly designed to remind the world that the Palestinians have employed, and continue to draw on, numerous non-violent, as opposed to military strategies – including diplomacy, but also grassroots demonstrations and boycotts.

It is also a sign to the Palestinian people that Fatah still distinguishes itself from Hamas as the party of political rather than military means. Fatah may be hoping to capitalize on any Palestinian anger at Hamas for the destruction caused by the Gaza war, though it’s not clear how much there is.

Such action also speaks directly to Israel. It implies that joining the ICC and seeking indictments for top Israeli officials is not inevitable. Rather, Fatah is using the idea in an agenda-setting way: accept a deadline, and we will take away the stick of international court proceedings. It is a clever strategy: Either option advances the Palestinian cause; either one will be a painful blow – even if they remain headlines more than reality – to Israel.

Fatah is also taking a risk. The 2011 UN bid was underwhelming for the Palestinian people; even back then some thought the UN route was Fatah’s “last chance” for credibility at home. The second in 2012 was a happy moment but failed to make a dent in the occupation. Another such bust could lose what little residual faith Palestinians still have in Fatah.

However, Hamas is reportedly already considering backing the Fatah-led attempt to join the ICC. Should Hamas back the demand for a UN-decreed deadline, it could put Fatah back in a significant leadership role – at home, and abroad.

Related:
Giving the occupation an expiration date
What Palestinian statehood means for ICC jurisdiction over Israeli crimes

Newsletter banner 5 - 540

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. bor

      The world will play along as will the Hamas-controlled international media, but this is yet another violation of an internationally sponsored agreement – the Oslo Accords – by the Palestinians. And it will go unpunished. Therefore, now Israel has to deal with one more problem: it now knows the agreements it signs with the Palestinians will be violated.

      Reply to Comment
      • Average American

        Bor, you believe Hamas controls the media? What would be your reaction to someone saying Jews control the media? Jews control international banking? Jews control diamond mining? Jews control the music and movie industries? Jews control American Congress? Jews are engaged in a Jewish Lebensraum?

        Reply to Comment
        • Shannon Hall

          “Hamas controls the media”

          Bor-ing Bar read that in the “Protocols of the wise of Rafah” Great book, you should read it

          Reply to Comment
          • Randy Weinstein

            Bor —
            I read the article. Based on its content, your use of the phrase “Hamas controlled media” is both misleading and loaded. He claims instances of intimidation of foreign reporters by Hamas but provides only one documented incident to substantiate his claim. And even that one is a dubious example of intimidation. “Hamas controlled” suggests to me at least that Hamas owns major international media outlets and uses them as propaganda venues. The writer provides no such evidence and makes no such claims. The Qatar/al-jeezeera connection doesn’t count either. Overall the article is long ( and I do mean long ) on accusations and speculation but pitifully short on evidence. This pull epitomizes its overall tenor:
            “Hamas deliberately bombarded its own residential areas to blame Israel —but the only evidence is not good enough to prove it. “

            Reply to Comment
          • bor

            “Bor –
            I read the article. Based on its content, your use of the phrase “Hamas controlled media” is both misleading and loaded.”

            Randy, the phrase is most certainly “loaded” though I fail to see what is wrong with a loaded phrase. It isn’t misleading though. You might say that it is hyperbole or an exaggeration, and that would be fair if you read the phrase literally. But if you read it figuratively, it’s fairly accurate.

            We have Hamas officials admitting pressure on reporters. We have the reporting itself which was woefully biased against Israel with virtually no examples of Hamas fighting the war, although it was definitely fighting, we have the permitted stunt of using Shifa Hospital as their media base with reporters’ willingness to report from there.

            We have reporters admitting the pressure they felt. We have reporters who were kicked out.

            ““Hamas controlled” suggests to me at least that Hamas owns major international media outlets and uses them as propaganda venues.”

            Owns? Control comes in many forms, not just ownership. Intimidation and determination of reporters’ location for reporting are sufficient. That Hamas was using the media as propaganda resources is undeniable. And the media played along. When it didn’t, Hamas made threats, as we learned from one of their operatives who was interviewed on Lebanese TV and from a couple of reporters who were brave enough to admit it.

            Reply to Comment
      • Alun Palmer

        The settlements are a violation of the Oslo Accords, and Israel keep building more of them.

        Reply to Comment
        • Pedro X

          The Oslo Accords do not say that the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal. There is no impediment in the Oslo Accords which prevents Israel from building additional communities or growing existing ones. The Oslo Accords simply provide that the issue is a fnal status issue to be worked out at the end of the negotiations.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ray

            The UN says they are an impediment to the peace process, and they certainly are (if even due to the lengths Israel is going just to avoid forcing them to pack up and leave).

            If the settlers are OK with being a national ethnic minority (which Zionists, in their grandiosity and paranoia consider a grave dishonor and shame) they can stay and pay taxes to the Palestinian government. If not, they can damn well pack up and go home.

            Reply to Comment
    2. Kolumn8

      This is getting repetitive and boring. The Palestinians draw up a new and “revolutionary” plan to avoid sitting down to negotiate with Israel because they refuse to make the required compromises. The Palestinians and their supporters make empty and absurd threats that get picked up and amplified by compliant international media. The drums are banged and the old tired horses of ‘last chance for peace’ and ‘diplomatic tsunamis’ and ‘unprecedented support’ are brought out of their stables for yet another stroll on the track. Mahmoud Abbas makes another speech about how everyone owes the Palestinians something or other and must act now to help them and how Israel is irredeemably evil but he is willing to continue in his infinite mercy to tolerate it for now. Then there is the usual flood of proverbial barf about how the world must support Abbas or après lui, le déluge and how Israel should, in the interests of peace, bend over for Mahmoud Abbas and apply lube. This time I am sure some joker is going to announce that unless this particular gambit succeeds ISIS will take over Ramallah. Then the day comes, the paperwork gets lost or the US vetoes or waters down the resolution and suddenly the whole thing is exposed for being the useless PR gambit with no chance it was from the beginning by an old man seeking an audience.

      And always in the background some empty threat that only the writers at Haaretz and 972mag take seriously again and again and again. This time, what is it? The ICC? Another kangaroo court? It will take them years to decide whether they should have a trial and even if they in the end decide to do so the two or three by then retired leaders that may or may not be indicted will have to be careful about visiting European countries.

      In the meantime Israel will have built E1 and permanently cut off East Jerusalem from the West Bank. Which will have a bigger impact on eventual negotiations? The Palestinians sending some paperwork to the ICC or 80,000 Jews living in communities between the Hebrew University and Maale Adumim? I am happy to make the trade off any day.

      This Palestinian ultimatum and $5 will buy you some Starbucks coffee in Manhattan.

      Reply to Comment
      • Average American

        Kolumn8, “required compromises” does not sound like “negotiation” to me. Sounds like Jewish bullying. Also sounds like disregard for ICC. Who dares stand in the way of The Jews? Don’t you know we’re The Jews?

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          “Don’t you know we’re The Jews”

          We DO know that you are an Arab, not an American.

          Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            And Gustav your response addresses nothing in my post. As though you think labeling me an Arab is the clever zinger deflection that will make people ignore Zionism.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “And Gustav your response addresses nothing in my post.”

            @Average Arab

            There is nothing in your post which is worth addressing.

            Reply to Comment
      • Ohmz

        What Israel is doing, is occupying Palestine just because it wants to and it has the force to do so. It’s not legal, why should anyone have to compromise to a point where they have to suffer from illegal acts? That’s not a negotiation at all, it’s a forced surrender, and the Palestinians have NOTHING to surrender for and NOTHING to apologise for. It is NOT a crime for a Palestinian to want to live in Palestine, it is NOT a crime for a human to not want to hand over their homes to a bully. It IS a crime for someone to occupy someone else’s land without permission. Just because Palestinians can’t protect themselves, it means they have to forfeit everything? No, I don’t think so. Israel is very well equipped and very well funded. What ever they want, US gives to them, it’s sickening seeing them treat humans the way they are doing. “Give me control of your land, be quiet and get lost. If you don’t quietly submit or disappear, we will make your life a misery”.

        Reply to Comment
        • Kolumn8

          Israel has the full legal right to control the territory that it won in a defensive war from Jordan in 1967. The idea that the occupation of the territory of the West Bank is “illegal” is fiction. Palestine didn’t exist until it was recognized as a non-member state by the UN two years ago. It has never exercised control over the areas that it claims. As such, the idea that Israel occupies “Palestine” and more so that it does so “illegally” is complete and utter garbage. Israel has a better claim to most of the “West Bank” than the state of “Palestine”.

          The Palestinians, in their infinite stupidity, continue to reject their own state as long as they also have to accept that Israel continues to exist. Instead of accepting living in peace with Israel in their own state, as Israel has repeatedly offered, the Palestinians continue to launch terror attacks on Israeli civilians, including blowing up Israeli women and children on buses and in restaurants and launching rockets randomly at Israeli cities. And this whole time their ‘moderate’ leadership, while pretending to want peace, continues to praise the murderers of Israeli women and children, name schools and squares after them, and teach children that they are heroes that should be emulated. Their other leadership, Hamas, explicitly announces that their goal is the destruction of Israel and the massacre of all Jews.

          The Palestinians can either accept living in peace with Israel or, yes, we will continue to ensure that they fail in their attempts to destroy us, and we will ensure that they fail to do so with the maximum damage to them and the minimum damage to us. When the Palestinians choose living in peace with Israel there will be peace. As of now they are only willing to consider the kind of peace in which Israel is destroyed. In such circumstances we are not being asked to “not be bullies”. We are being asked to commit suicide. This we shall not do.

          Reply to Comment
    3. You don't say

      Bar: …”but this is yet another violation of an internationally sponsored agreement – the Oslo Accords – by the Palestinians”…

      Now would be a very good moment for you to quote the section of the Oslo Accords that would be violated by this move.

      Reply to Comment
      • bor

        Sure. Article XV.

        “Article XV:
        Resolution of disputes:
        1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Declaration of Principles, or any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, shall be resolved by negotiations through the Joint Liaison Committee to be established pursuant to Article X above.

        2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties.

        3. The parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both parties, the parties will establish an arbitration committee.”

        You will note that the mechanisms for resolution of disputes do not include declaring steps that contravene the spirit and letter of the agreement. Going to the UN to demand a state, for example, is precisely such a violation. And, the new plan to go to the UN and demand that Israel vacate all of the territory it captured in 1967 is a violation of Article I of the Accords.

        Reply to Comment
        • Fred

          Right, that’s why Jimmy Carter (with direct personal experience) states here how Israel have broken every promise they made from Camp David, through Oslo to the present day.
          http://youtu.be/uvtC_qzHVM4

          Can’t trust them. Liars (and thieves and murderers of children) and.. Oh where does this list end ?

          Reply to Comment
          • bor

            You’re changing the subject, dude. Let’s try again. I made a claim. Somebody challenged the claim by demanding proof. I provided proof. Now you have nothing to say, so you’re trying to change the subject. Why don’t you wait until 972 writes an article about Jimmy Carter and then discuss him with me instead of diverting?

            Reply to Comment
        • You don't say?

          Bor: “You will note that the mechanisms for resolution of disputes do not include declaring steps that contravene the spirit and letter of the agreement.”

          So sorry, but you just made a claim that you are not justified in making.

          Article XV talks about dispute resolution regarding the articles of the Oslo Accords itself.

          Any issues that lie outside the articles of the Oslo Accords are, by definition, not included in the “dispute resolution” article XV.

          Get it?

          Bor: “Going to the UN to demand a state, for example, is precisely such a violation.”

          No, precisely because that is one of the issues that lies completely OUTSIDE the framework of the Oslo Accords.

          We know that for a fact, precisely because the PLO declaration of the state of Palestine PRECEDED the signing of the Oslo Accords.

          So going to the UN and saying “we are a state, right?” violates nothing in the Oslo Accords and, therefore, is entirely outside of the mandate of article XV.

          Bor: “And, the new plan to go to the UN and demand that Israel vacate all of the territory it captured in 1967 is a violation of Article I of the Accords.”

          An article that you have not quoted. How odd….

          Reply to Comment
          • bor

            1.
            Are you kidding? Here is Article I, in full:

            “Article I:
            Aim of negotiations:
            The aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected Council (the “Council”), for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). It is understood that the interim arrangements are an integral part of the whole peace process and that the negotiations on the permanent status will lead to the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).”

            2.
            “Any issues that lie outside the articles of the Oslo Accords are, by definition, not included in the “dispute resolution” article XV.”

            The entire relationship between Israel and the PA is governed by Oslo. All of it. Every last bit. There would be no PA without it. And if you need evidence of this, just look at how many times Erakat and Abbas have threatened to dismantle the PA and they claim that Israel would then become responsible for all aspects of Palestinian life in the territory.

            Nice try, though.

            Reply to Comment
          • Say that again?

            bor: “The entire relationship between Israel and the PA is governed by Oslo. All of it. Every last bit.”

            *chortle*

            You really don’t understand what you are talking about, do you?

            Approaching the UN can not be a violation of a “governing between Israel and the PA”, precisely because The United Nations Isn’t Israel.

            Honestly, it’s like trying to talk sense to a bigot who thinks the whole world revolves around them….. oh, yeah, right, “chosen people” ‘n’ all….

            Reply to Comment
          • Say that again?

            bor: “Here is Article I, in full:”

            Followed by a paragraph that makes no mention whatsoever regarding the 1988 declaration of the State of Palestine by the PLO.

            You don’t dispute that, bor?

            You accept that the 1988 declaration of the Palestinian state is not mentioned anywhere within the Oslo Accords?

            Correct?

            In which case I’ll point this out again; the 1988 declaration of the state of Palestine lies completely and utterly OUTSIDE the Oslo Accords.

            And as such it is axiomatic that the PLO is perfectly free to seek recognition from ANYBODY for that declaration, at ANY venue, at ANY time, and by doing so they do not violate a single article of the Olso Accords.

            Reply to Comment
          • bor

            It seems to me that I answered a bigot (“chosen people” idiocy). I don’t typically respond to bigots.

            My answer stands. You don’t have a clue.

            Reply to Comment
          • Say that again?

            Oh, please, spare me the fake sanctimony.

            bor: “My answer stands”

            Both of your attempts to “answer” are demonstrably wrong, bor.

            You can not show that there is any mention anywhere within the Oslo Accords to the 1988 PLO declaration of the state of Palestine.

            QED: that declaration of statehood is an issue that lies entirely OUTSIDE the Oslo Accords, and so the PLO is perfectly free to pursue international recognition of that state.

            You haven’t even begun to refute that point, precisely because you can’t.

            And your claim that the PLO can’t approach the UN because the Oslo Accords governs the “relationship between Israel and the PA” is so ludicrously internally-contradictory that it is hard to know where to start.

            But it is enough to point out these simple, indisputable facts:
            a) The UN isn’t “Israel”.
            b) The PLO isn’t the “PA”.

            Honestly, there is a clueless person here, but it ain’t me….

            Reply to Comment
          • bor

            You moron, it was the PLO that signed the Oslo Accords, 6 years after their supposed declaration of a state, and they specify that the agreement stands on UN resolutions 242 and 338. The ENTIRE relationship between the two sides stands on the foundation of Oslo.

            Reply to Comment
          • Say that again?

            Such nonsense.

            This is a fact:
            The PLO declared the state of Palestine in 1988

            This is also a fact:
            Nowhere in the Oslo Accords did the PLO and Israel agree that the declaration of statehood was being annulled by this later agreement.

            This is also a fact:
            The PLO has never, ever, withdrawn or otherwise retracted that 1988 declaration of statehood.

            QED: the Palestinians are perfectly at liberty to pursue international recognition of their statehood from anyone, anywhere, at any time, and by doing so they violate absolutely nothing in the Oslo Accords.

            Reply to Comment
          • Say that again?

            bor: “The ENTIRE relationship between the two sides stands on the foundation of Oslo.”

            *sigh*

            One more time for the slow people….

            The. UN. Is. Not. One. Of. Those. Two. Sides.

            QED: The PLO is perfectly at liberty to approach the UN for any reason, on any topic, and by doing so they violate no “relationship between the two sides”, precisely because The. United. Nations. Is. Not. One. Of. Those. Two. Sides.

            Honestly, what’s so hard to understand about that?

            Reply to Comment
    4. Maha

      Why an ultimatum ? They should withdraw AND they should be tried in criminal courts!

      Reply to Comment
    5. Richard

      You’re all delusional. Israel didn’t even come close to committing war crimes, and no ICC prosecutor will waste time making that argument. The lawyers “advising” your anti-Israel organizations are all wackos themselves, which is why you’ve confident about this. Sorry, but you’re being fools. Abu Mazen’s threat is strictly symbolic.

      Reply to Comment
      • Dahlia Scheindlin

        Maybe. But better not underestimate the potential impact of political symbols in conflict societies in my presence – I wrote my dissertation about them. I’ll spare you the 314 pages: in certain circumstances, they can have a major impact.

        Reply to Comment
        • Richard

          Abu Mazen has already joined a bunch of UN organizations and that didn’t accomplish anything. This won’t either, and he won’t go through with it in any case because, unlike joining UNESCO, joining the ICC would put most of the Palestinian leadership in the dock. Also, I have to say I’m a little confused/disturbed by the self-effacing “oh I’ll spare you” tone of your comment. +972 works around the clock to delegitimize Israel’s use of force. Everyday you are helping Iran and Hamas sacrifice human beings for political capital to no end but more war and death. Without people like +972 to rely on for anti-Israel spin, Hamas would not have done what it just did, and scores of now dead people would still be alive. But for you this is just an academic discussion where little jokes about insufferably long dissertations are appropriately. Pretty weird attitude I must say.

          Reply to Comment
          • It was a self-deprecating assumption that most people do not want to read that kind of thing. If you do, feel free. But you can rest assured I did not spend years of my life doing it b/c it’s a game to me. I studied these issues (complementing my professional work)b/c they are of burning importance, no less than an obsession. I do live here, i made that choice myself and for 17 years I have made it my life and home. Sorry you are disturbed by a moment of levity. The fact that you seem truly convinced that +972’s work is directly responsible for killing people is, I daresay, deeply disturbing to me. Not to mention beyond any logic I can follow.

            Reply to Comment
          • Richard

            Maybe a bit harsh of me there, but I don’t know you, and I’m sure we both know plenty of PhD’s and “activists” who invest years of their lives on other peoples’ causes for totally self-gratifying reasons. Human nature is funny and sad that way. Maybe +972 isn’t a big player in the hate-on-Israel game, but if you do a little thought experiment and imagine that Americans and Europeans just didn’t care about Gaza the same way they don’t care about dead Syrians or Nigerians or Sudanese, Hamas would never have decided to fight this war. The West’s obsessions with Palestinians suffering is an absolute lynchpin (along with Iranian money and technology) in the willingness of Hamas to fight Israel. If your site shut down tomorrow it wouldn’t start a titanic shift in Hamas’ strategy. But you are without a doubt part of the problem even if you’re not directly responsible. You know Israel will stand its ground and kill people if Tel Aviv is being shelled, and you’re making it easier for people to decide to shell Tel Aviv.

            Reply to Comment
          • I am one of those people. I wrote about 3 conflicts unrelated to this one (except in comparative terms) for self-serving reasons: to learn more about my own and think of insights that can help deal with it. I might add that what I learned is that those other conflicts erupted although at least two of them were as far away from the public (int’l) eye as can be when they emerged. They erupted b/c people felt their current reality was intolerable and were prepared to kill and die instead (I don’t romanticize this or their violent methods – it’s just true). They hoped larger forces would pay attention and get involved to help. And that’s what happened, even in places the Western powers couldn’t find on a map beforehand. So I can’t see this whole thing as an unprecedented drama of images, which rests exclusively on the western media’s disproportionate interest in Israel. People who are suffering do eventually rebel – it’s almost an iron law of human nature.

            Reply to Comment
          • Richard

            It doesn’t seem like you’re claiming to be one of “those people” who make a career out of championing an armed struggle without regard for the well-being of those affected by it, which was the group I was referring to. I’m not sure whether I wasn’t being clear or you’re going for something clever/obtuse there. It doesn’t matter what two other conflicts you studied because your claim about “iron-clad” human nature doesn’t hold up in view of the rest of human history, which offers a lot more than two precedents to contradict your point of view, and in the case of Is/Pal, a lot of explanations for Palestinian violence that have much more to do with ideology and politics than an emotional circuitry which is common to most of humanity. In any case, it isn’t useful to try to understand a conflict as unique and complex and Is/Pal based on sociological generalizations. You may have come to some useful conclusions in your dissertation, but that doesn’t mean those conclusions answer questions about other conflicts where there are particular facts that are more important to the analysis than what you learned as a PhD student. Based on his most recent piece, which to its credit looks at some of the specific facts, I think Noam would probably agree with me. In the end, my point stands. Without the West’s Palestinian obession, Hamas would not feel itself strong enough to fight Israel using the tactics it does, which claim so many innocent lives. +972 feeds the obessession, which is a bad thing.

            Reply to Comment
          • Richard

            Thanks Gustav, but that isn’t a nice thing to say to Dahlia.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Thanks Gustav, but that isn’t a nice thing to say to Dahlia.”

            @Richard

            I am genuinely puzzled. What isn’t a nice thing to say to Dahlia?

            I did not say she is not open minded. Nor did I say that she is. I don’t know her, but I am prepared to believe that she might be open minded. In fact, from her articles, I believe that out of all the writers here, she is one of the more likely ones to be open minded although I am sure that she has very firm opinions with which more often than not, I would probably disagree. Although not always …

            Reply to Comment
          • Richard

            Common dude I think we both know the tone of “at all” is not respectful.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            If it is so important to you then so be it. Don’t let me tell you what I really meant.

            Sigh.

            Reply to Comment
    6. Nice article but really, 972, the Palestinians, despite Israel’s hope ARE NOT MAD AT HAMAS FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF GAZA. Hello????? Guess what? They are mad at Israel, yup. Aren’t you amazed. I really am sorry to read such a pathetic remark in your generally excellent publication.

      Reply to Comment
    7. Tomer

      Fakestinyans believe this… , fakestiyans said that… , fakestinyans will do this… blah blah blah.

      All this talk about fakestinyans assumes that such an entity exists.

      The reality is that these former Jordanians are just that… former Jordanians. They were rebranded in the early 1970s by a Gay Egyptian Pedophile wearing fancy headgear.

      These imposters must be expelled from Eretz Israel. Our next PM will achieve this aim asap.

      Reply to Comment
    8. Say that again?

      bor: “The ENTIRE relationship between the two sides stands on the foundation of Oslo.”

      *sigh*

      One more time for the slow people….

      The. UN. Is. Not. One. Of. Those. Two. Sides.

      QED: The PLO is perfectly at liberty to approach the UN for any reason, on any topic, and by doing so they violate no “relationship between the two sides”, precisely because The. United. Nations. Is. Not. One. Of. Those. Two. Sides.

      Honestly, what’s so hard to understand about that?

      Reply to Comment
    9. Click here to load previous comments