+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

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

Netanyahu: Those who call to destroy Israel should have citizenship revoked

Just hours after thousands of Palestinian citizens of Israel demonstrated in the northern Israeli village of Kafr Kanna Saturday in response to the overnight killing from close range of 22-year-old Khir Hamdan by police, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued the following statement:

Israel is a nation of law. We will not tolerate disturbances and rioting. We will act against those who throw stones, block roads and call for the establishment of a Palestinian state in place of the State of Israel. Whoever does not honor Israeli law will be punished with utmost severity. I will instruct the Interior Minister to evaluate revoking the citizenship of those who call for the destruction of the State of Israel.

Netanyahu did not mention the protests in Kafr Kanna or the killing of Hamdan that prompted them, but the timing of the statement seems to imply he was referring to them. Considering the daily rioting in East Jerusalem, one would think he was directing his words at Palestinian residents. They, however, are not citizens of Israel.

WATCH: Security camera catches the killing of Khir Hamdan:

The statement is obscure and could be interpreted in several ways, but one thing is certain: Netanyahu is not seeking to calm tensions, but rather chose his words very carefully in order to add fuel to the fire. His message to all Palestinians is that they are not free to protest or resist the way they are treated; that when one of them is killed by the authorities, regardless of circumstance, there will be no questions or apologies; that their rights as citizens are in question; that their homes and livelihoods are under constant threat.

It is worth noting that under international law it is illegal to leave somebody stateless. As UN high commissioner for refugees, António Guterres, said: “Statelessness is a profound violation of an individual’s human rights. [It] makes people feel like their very existence is a crime.” So even if it’s legal under Israeli law to strip somebody of their citizenship, unless they hold a foreign passport it’s unlikely it will be approved.

In the statement, Netanyahu lumps together blocking roads and throwing stones with the call for a Palestinian state – labeling them all as a national security threat and implying that a Palestinian state will never come into existence because it would necessarily mean the destruction of Israel.

It is not clear what Netanyahu thinks qualifies as calling for the “destruction of the State of Israel,” but the statement could be implying that any demonstrations challenging the character of the country as it is devised by the ruling Israeli right will be under scrutiny.

What is clear is that on the same day that a Palestinian citizen of Israel was killed at close range by a police officer, the prime minister chose to tell 20 percent of the population that their citizenship is in question.

Related:
WATCH: Police kill would-be attacker as he runs away
PHOTOS: Protests in northern Israel after police kill Arab man

Newsletter banner 6 -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. eugenio

      It’s clear that Netanyahu’s endgame is to get rid of the Palestinians one way or the other. Yesterday he spoke of deporting Palestinians living in East Jerusalem to Gaza. What will he think of next?

      Reply to Comment
    2. Mikesailor

      The beauty of Bibi’s statement is that it could be interpreted to mean anything. Is advocating and end to Jewish privelege calling for Israel’s “destruction”? How about advocating an end to Bibi’s rule? Anti- or post Zionism (a term nobody seems to be able to explain)? BDS? Thank heavens I’m not Israeli for I would have no idea what in the world this fascist actually means. The only thing sure is that non-Jews and leftists are on notice that Bibi wants to eradicate you from any meaningful political opposition otherwise this statement would farcical to say the least. This is a warning that Israel will continue down the path it is already on. Strap in for it will be a bumpy ride.

      Reply to Comment
      • Lisa

        A bumpy ride indeed Mike, but if you stand in opposition to the Jewish nation, you are on the wrong side! Gods hand is over them, and protects them! Whether you believe or not, you will see Gods glory over this nation! And his protection of this people.

        Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          Ah, yes, we are the chosen people! We can do no wrong! And the rapture is nigh upon us! You MUST be an American. No one else could sound so credulous and so idiotic.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “You MUST be an American. No one else could sound so credulous and so idiotic.”

            That is a VERY ugly comment Brian, especially since you claim to be an American yourself. And it is racist too.

            Funny about these extreme leftist types. Raise a single bit of criticizm, based on fact, against the Saint-Palestinians and they will be at your throat, in a flash, accusing you of racism.

            Yet they make the most blatantly racist comments against countries like America and Israel.

            I have only one name for the likes of you Brian: HYPOCRITE!

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Spare us the fake indignation. You take yourself far too seriously. And you’ve been far, far ruder than I can even aspire to be. Religious justification for not thinking about Israel? For a gainsaying a rational political position? Where’s Christopher Hitchens when you really need him. THIS is where I should pull out the Christopher Hitchens video about not having to listen to nonsense. If someone comes here and spouts fundamentalist theological rhetoric as justification, on the topic of revoking ctizenship and basic rights, then they invite ridicule.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Where was you’re newfound indignation about ugliness when Tomer was talking about shipping “the Arabs” to Jordan when his buddy Feiglin takes over? When your buddies here were smugly pleased with cops killing Arabs?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yes Brian, I stand by what I said about you. You are a racist and a HYPOCRITE!

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Good luck with Lisa. God is apparently her real estate agent and yours. I’m sure you have a lot to talk about.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            And “racism”? ?? Are you kidding me??!! And you want to be taken seriously?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yes Brian dear, R-A-C-I-S-M!

            Everytime one heneralizes about a group of people and attributes to ALL of them negative characteristics, that is RACIST. Which is what YOU DID!!!! Here …

            “You MUST be an American. No one else could sound so credulous and so idiotic.”

            If you deny it then let’s just try a little test and see whether you would call me racist if I would have been the one who would have said this …

            “You MUST be an Arab. No one else could sound so credulous and so idiotic.”

            You would label me as a racist in a flash if I would have said that. But all I did was to substitute the word “Arab” for “American” in your sentence … stew on THAT … Brian dear …

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            heneralizes = generalizes

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Well, you give away the whole game. You show that you make no distinction between race and nationality. You show yourself to be the racist.
            “Arab” = race.
            “Syrian” = nationality
            “American” = nationality.
            “Israeli” = nationality (as in, a state of all its citizens).
            “Jewish” = amalgam of race/theology that the right wing would like to equate to nationality.
            Q. E. D.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yes Brian dear …

            Nevertheless, anyone who attributes negative characteristics to an entire designated group of people indiscriminately, like calling them ALL “Idiots” as you did, Brian, is the very definition of racism. You can try and run from your own stupid utterance, but you can’t hide from it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Saying or implying that somene is an idiot purely because they are Americans is no less racist than saying that someone is an idiot purely because they are Arabs.

            Don’t you think so, Brian?

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Nope. You’re mixed up about a lot of things here but to get down to basics, my off the cuff inference was based on what the person said, it was not a blanket statement about all Americans.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Good try Brian but no cigar. This is what you ACTUALLY said …

            “You MUST be an American. No one else could sound so credulous and so idiotic”

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            You really are obtuse about this. No surprise. The dimness of the statement combined with a particular, naive, credulous, fundamentalist religious tone and English usage characteristics sounded unmistakably American. None of this constitutes a blanket statement about all Americans. Please drop the illogic. (For example, to put it into simple terms for you, Peter Beinart is an intelligent and discerning American. Shel Adelson is a stupid, crass, venal, ugly American. LoL!)

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            I’d best make it clearer for you: The dimness of this particular individual’s statement combined with a particular, naive, credulous, fundamentalist religious tone and English usage characteristics of this particular individual made her sound unmistakably like a certain kind of American. But this is not a statement about all Americans. Ok, nudnik?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Contrast the difference between how you now describe Beinart and Adelson as against what you said to Lisa …

            “You MUST be an American. No one else could sound so credulous and so idiotic”

            In your response to Lisa, you actually talk about ALL Americans as idiotic.

            It is good that you are now trying to whitewash yourself. But you did say what you said. It is there for everyone to see and judge for themselves.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            “Well, you give away the whole game. You show that you make no distinction between race and nationality. You show yourself to be the racist.”

            “Yes Brian dear”

            I appreciate your acknowledging this. A rare moment of honesty.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            LOL. Are you for real, Brian? Talking about delusional …

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes.[2][6]

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

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Arab” is NOT a race.

            It is a group of people who have a common culture, and language.

            Look it up, Brian …

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yes Brian, I do like Lisa, she is a breath of fresh air around here.

            Thank you, Lisa for your post.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Yes why don’t you and Lisa trade notes on this and get back to us on your mutual assessment. We can hardly wait for the breath fresh air coming our way:

            http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.621721

            Pastor ties Ebola to Obama’s Israel policy
            John Hagee says epidemic is part of God’s judgment for U.S. president’s efforts to divide Jerusalem.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Lisa, like many Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish, indulges in a Disney theme park version of Israel. You, Gustav, know better, know that that version of Lisa’s is false, that it is kitsch, but you nevertheless encourage it. Therefore, see the article by Jo-Ann Mort, below (November 14).

            Reply to Comment
    3. Pedro X

      One can only hope that the new law will target traitors like Mairav.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Yeah, right

      OK, so Netanyahu carries through on this, and he revokes the citizenship of Mr Joe Bloggs.

      Then what? He’s got a “stateless person” on his hands, residing inside Israel.

      What does he do with Ol’ Joe?

      Does Bibi jail him? On what grounds?
      Does Bibi deport him? To where?

      This is pure, 100% rabble-rousing.

      Reply to Comment
      • Pedro X

        Israel will do the same thing as the United States does with people it wants to deport. It holds them in immigration prison until a place is found to where they can be deported. Case in point is Palestinian terrorist Mohammed Rashed who has been held in immigration custody since his release from jail in 2013. The Americans tried to deport him to the West Bank and Israel said it did not need another mad bomber so the United States is holding him in custody until Turkey or some other terror loving country agrees to take him.

        Reply to Comment
      • Kiwi

        “Then what? He’s got a “stateless person” on his hands, residing inside Israel.”

        Easy. Instead of making him a stateless person, make him look like a collaborator and let Hamas get near him, accidentally on purpose.

        Hamas will take care of him. Problem solved.

        Reply to Comment
    5. Yeah, right

      Pedro, this is an Israeli citizen who is stripped of his citizenship.

      Who, exactly, is going to “agree to take him”?

      And, no, the USA doesn’t revoke US Citizenship and then attempt to deport that (now ex-)American to Turkey.

      Reply to Comment
      • Pedro X

        The Americans are set to strip Rasmieh Yousef Odeh of her American citizenship and deport her.

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, right

          Pedro, the case you refer to involves someone who made a false declaration on their application for citizenship.

          It should be obvious that if citizenship was obtained via false pretenses then you can forfeit it upon discovery of that falsehood.

          But that is not the case w.r.t. Netanyahu’s statement, nor is it true to say (as you have claimed) that the US govt can revoke the citizenship of all 18 million naturalized US citizens.

          They can’t, and you are deluding yourself when you claim that they can.

          Reply to Comment
          • Merav

            Your argument fails.
            (a) The law PM Netanyahu has in mind is being practiced in the US and the EU as we speak and has been in practice there for several decades in the EU.
            (b) Under the nationality law of several major European countries, the nationality of a (natural born/naturalized) citizen may be withdrawn if specific conditions are met. ONE of said conditions is acquisition by fraudulent means. Beyond that, the European Convention on Nationality makes it absolutely possible to revoke the citizenships of both naturalized and natural born citizen for reason similar to the one stated by our PM;
            (c) If you want examples, begin with Article 14 of the Dutch Nationality law (official name: Rijkswet op de Nederlanderschap). See also Paragraph 17 so forth of the German Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetz (StAG).

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            I said that the USA government can not strip a US citizen of their citizenship.

            Not So! cries Merav, who then points me to the Dutch Nationality Law.

            Are you for real, Merav?

            Reply to Comment
    6. Mikesailor

      Pedro: I know you’re one of the more ignorant hasbaristas bur let me tell you a little not-so-secret. The US can NOT strip the citizenship of a US born citizen. Period. There are some instances ewhen a naturalized citizen can be stripped but those instances are exremely rare. Furthermore, speech,including calls for the ‘destruction’ of the state, is not punishable no matter what. An ignorant hasbarista like yourself should quit your day job: working for the Israeli government, unless you become at least semi-educated and try to, at least, put on a veneer of respectable intellectual endeavor. Unfortunately, your racism and ignorance are all that mark your writings.

      Reply to Comment
    7. Pedro X

      Oh, here come the ad hominem attacks again.

      With respect to stripping citizenship of naturalized citizens in the United States, there are 18.7 million such citizens who could be subject to having their citizenship removed.

      However, please note that bills are on the way to permit the United States to revoke the citizenship of naturally born Americans. Senator Ted Cruz has announced plans to introduce a bill that would modernize and strengthen the United States’ antiquated, and grossly inadequate, rules for stripping the citizenship of individuals, native-born or naturalized, who fight on behalf of designated terrorist organizations, particularly those that harm Americans.

      So, if the United States can contemplate such legislation to revoke citizenship, Israel can do the same for those who seek harm to or the destruction of the Israeli state.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ben Zakkai

        Do your homework, Pedro. Afroyim v. Rusk, 1967. The facts of the case may interest you because Afroyim was American-Israeli. The Supreme Court ruled that Americans can’t have their citizenship revoked. Ted Cruz is a Harvard lawyer, so he knows that, but he’s a politician, so he lies. The exception, that naturalized citizens who lied to obtain citz. may have it revoked, applies to a tiny number of people and in practice is reserved for foreign war criminals etc. Plus, even a bad guy can’t have his citz. stripped if he’d be stateless afterward, i.a.w. international law. And you can’t deport someone unless the receiving country agrees to take him, which it generally won’t do if he’s not a citizen thereof. Netanyahu’s just an asshole who doesn’t understand much beyond force, threats and lies.

        Reply to Comment
        • Who’s calling for destruction of the state of Israel? Does disagreeing with the GOI fall into that very loose interpretation? Is destruction of a wall considered destruction of the state? How about the people on the right, the settlers, the rabbis, the politicians, who are ratcheting up the violent, racist rhetoric and fanning the flames of violence; this will definitely lead to the destruction of state of israel – do they count? They are just as dangerous, with intent just as lethal, as someone boarding a bus strapped with explosives or somone driving their car into a crowd of israelis.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            “Who’s calling for destruction of the state of Israel?”

            Hanin Zoabi?
            Ahmad Tibi?
            BDS folk?
            Quite a few members of Hamas and Tanzim?

            Are you an extraterrestrial or something? No coverage of Arab-Israeli conflict on galactic TV?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Are you an extraterrestrial or something? No coverage of Arab-Israeli conflict on galactic TV?”

            A very apt response. She certainly asked for it. LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben Zakkai

            Okay, I’m an extraterrestrial, I come from a galaxy far far away, beep beep. When have Tibi and Zoabi called for the destruction of Israel? Sure, they’ve advocated changing Israel’s character/constitution from ethnocracy to state-of-all-its-citizens, but when have they demanded actual destruction of the state? Please provide specific, verifiable quotes, and try to keep the obfuscation and prevarication to a minimum.

            Also, I have to side with what Marnie said. If anyone’s working to destroy Israel, it’s the greedy right-wing majority that wants to steal as much Palestinian land as possible without granting Palestinians any rights. That, not Iran or even Hamas, is the big threat to Jewish statehood in 2014.

            You know, re Zoabi again, the ruling right-wing Forces of Darkness in Israel are lately feeling more and more need to stifle, forcibly, any vocal principled opposition. That is the surest sign that their arguments are weak and they will lose.

            Reply to Comment
          • “You know, re Zoabi again, the ruling right-wing Forces of Darkness in Israel are lately feeling more and more need to stifle, forcibly, any vocal principled opposition. That is the surest sign that their arguments are weak and they will lose.”

            Ben – surprised that “BDS folk” was also on Trespasser’s list of those who seek the destruction of israel. So it would appear if you seek the end of a policy of apartheid, racism, occupation, etc., that somehow translates (in magical ziothink) into seeking the destruction of the state of israel. That’s quite a leap for an earthling like Mr/Ms/Mrs Trespasser.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BS Benny. But you are right, you are not an extraterrestrial. You are probably impersonating as someone who is one of us while at every turn you promote the agenda of our enemies.

            By the way, Iran too is on the record of saying that they want to destroy Israel. Are they too just trying to change Israel from an ethnocracy to a state for all it’s citizens, Benny dear?

            And Hamas and Hezbollah too!

            As far as Zoabi and Tibi, have they got a model from the Arab world which they want to turn Israel into? Spare us your adulation of these enemy agents Benny. You can go anywhere with them we would all be better off without you. Go build your paradise on the moon. We don’t want any part of your socialist paradise with it’s gulags and re-education centres. You demonstrated what it turns into time and time again in places like Cambodia, North Korea and in Stalinist Russia.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            “you are probably impersonating as someone who is one of us”
            1. Like Netanyahu, Gustav, you always come across as one part paranoia, one part cynicism, one part smugness. No one ever gets the benefit of the doubt or politeness from you. Everyone is always an idiot. Ben seems like a very decent guy and in touch with a rock solid, humane concept of Jewishness and Israeliness.
            2. The Afrikaners too labelled Mandela and his compatriots as communists, Stalinists, etc., and could not understand why the rest of the world was not persuaded by this technique.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            And you are the epitome of politeness and reason huh Brian?

            A bit like Benny, huh?

            I am mirroring YOU guys and you don’t like what you see. At least that’s progress. Now all you need to do is to realize that fact but I bet that will be the hard bit.

            Never mind, I will stick around here till you see yourselves as others see you or you’ll get sick of me trying to show you.

            Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        PX: …”who fight on behalf of designated terrorist organizations, particularly those that harm Americans”

        No, quite untrue.

        The law would apply to those who join a terrorist organization with the *specific* intent of harming Americans.

        Why?

        Because the only time that the US Govt can strip someone of their citizenship is when that person makes it clear that they are renouncing that citizenship.

        The Cruz bill attempts to argue that joining ISIS amounts to exactly that i.e. joining ISIS amounts to a declaration that the recruit is renouncing their US citizenship.

        So even in wacky-way-out Cruz-World just “fighting on behalf of designated terrorist organization” would not be enough.

        The US govt would have to demonstrate that the citizen joined ISIS “specifically” to harm Americans.

        Reply to Comment
        • Merav

          Ben Zakkai and “YeahRight”, I put it to you that you neither understand the law nor understood the case law cited by Ben Zakkai. Under federal law, a (natural born or naturalized) citizen of the United States can lose his/her citizenship on SEVERAL grounds. ONE of such grounds is – as in the case you cited – “Expatriation”. Now, what does that mean? “Expatriation is the voluntary RENUNCIATION or ABANDONMENT of nationality and allegiance” (see Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 334 (1939). While SCOTUS insists on the voluntary character of the renunciation, it has sustained the power of Congress to prescribe conditions and circumstances the voluntary entering into of which constitutes renunciation; the person need not intend to renounce so long as he intended to do what he did in fact do (see Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 309, 311–312 (1915); Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, 506 (1950). Put in layman’s language for you boys: ‘renunciation’ may flow from specific actions which – as stipulated by Congress – amounts to renunciation (regardless of what the person in question claims to have intended with said actions)! See also Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U. S. 252 (1980). Your claim fails, Ben. To you “YeahRigh”, the law is not as black&white as the ink and paper it is written on. Think before you start throwing words like “wacky”, etc. around.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Merav: “I put it to you that you neither understand the law:..

            I put it to you that you are a pompous waste of everyone’s time.

            Merav: “ONE of such grounds is – as in the case you cited – “Expatriation”.”

            Yeah, we’ve both agreed on that, so why then follow with a paragraph explaining what we have both agreed.

            Merav: “Put in layman’s language for you boys: ‘renunciation’ may flow from specific actions which – as stipulated by Congress – amounts to renunciation ”

            Yeah, tell me something I haven’t ALREADY pointed out i.e. that Ted Cruz is proposing a law wherein joining ISIS will be considered by the US Govt to be “renunciation”.

            I ALREADY said that, so what’s this nonsense about “educating” me regarding something that I have ALREADY said.

            Pompous ass.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben Zakkai

            Sorry Merav, you’re wrong. Afroyim created such a sea change in the law that the pre-Afroyim cases you cite no longer have any practical force or relevance. Vance v. Terrazas affirmed and strengthened the principle that loss of citizenship must be voluntary. Indeed, the plaintiff in that case got to keep his citizenship even though he previously signed a statement explicitly renouncing it, because the Court ruled that the government hadn’t sufficiently proved his intent. The fact that Congress didn’t go back and repeal all of the pre-Afroyim statutory provisions regarding revocation of citizenship doesn’t matter, because those provisions have been ruled unconstitutional and remain unenforceable dead letter. Here’s the acid test: Can you provide even one post-Afroyim example – and remember it’s been 47 years, and we’re not talking about the exception I cited earlier, i.e. revocation of fraudulently procured naturalization – where the US government stripped an American of his citizenship against his will, and without his having knowingly and voluntarily signed a statement of renunciation? If there has been such a case, I will be genuinely interested to hear about it. But don’t try to bullshit me, because I do my homework.

            Reply to Comment
    8. Yarenn Šagor

      Right in the beginning you translate his words as “Israel is a nation of law”. But they never say that, they don’t recognize Israel as a nation.

      Reply to Comment
    9. Ike af Carlstèn

      It`s Time To Revoke All Dual Citizenship For Israelis!!! The solution is simple: no dual citizens!!!!

      Reply to Comment
    10. Richard Witty

      “What is clear is that on the same day that a Palestinian citizen of Israel was killed at close range by a police officer, the prime minister chose to tell 20 percent of the population that their citizenship is in question.”

      This is more inflammatory and prejudicial than even Netanyahu’s statement.

      Reply to Comment
    11. Bryan

      Pedro X – slandering someone as a traitor who merely voices criticism of an ill-thought out Israeli policy proposal, then attempting to produce false equivalence between that proposal and existing US policy; Kiwi – chipping in with an impractical and irrelevant attempt to demonize Hamas; Gustav and the Trespasser jumping on the band-wagon with abusive invective. Where have all the cogent, logical, informed defenders of Israel gone? What is it that drives the feeblest of hasbarists to immediately open their big mouths and come to the defense of an Israeli politician’s ill-considered blustering electioneering. Surely if you have a worthy cause to defend this does not require you to defend each and every action, right or wrong, in an undiscriminating, disproportionate, unprincipled manner – like cowboys coming into town, high on liquor with guns ablaze, or more to the point perhaps, like the IDF restoring calm in the unoccupied territories. If your cause is a noble one it surely deserves that your passion be tempered by rationality, judgement, perspicacity – otherwise you surely risk damaging that cause by your loud-mouthed invective.

      Reply to Comment
    12. Tomer

      Fakestinyan-Israeli
      What’s that?

      How about Elvine-israeli, Hobbit-Israeli, Narnian-Israeli or Unicorn-Israeli?

      A fake people who don’t exist and never ever existed need a fantastic past !!!

      Reply to Comment
      • Ben Zakkai

        Please pardon Tomer, he’s retarded.

        Reply to Comment
    13. Brian

      These cowboys drunk on liquor, guns ablaze, are just a taste of just who Netanyahu is inviting to come out of the woodwork with his comments. Netanyahu is just a superficially more “respectable” version of openly fascist GOI ministers like Naftali Bennet.

      Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        This gang is increasingly plain spoken about it. The veneer is dropping:
        Tomer: “Lets put an end to all this Bull&%. When Feiglin becomes PM, we must expel the Arabs back to Jordan. We will let King Abdullah go to the UN and they will pass some ridiculous resolutions against us.
        End of Problem.”

        Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Merav you are the second arrogant rightist on this site to take Frank Underwood as your model Zionist, and I find that so interesting the way you folks look up to that character and think you are throwing something clever at us. It is revealing. More than you realized. As I said, the veneer is dropping.

            Reply to Comment
        • Thanks for link –

          Reply to Comment
    14. 8 U.S. Code § 1481 – Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

      Current through Pub. L. 113-185. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

      US Code
      Notes
      Authorities (CFR)

      (a)A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
      (1)obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

      (2)taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

      (3)entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
      (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or

      (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

      (4)
      (A)accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or

      (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or

      (5)making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or

      (6)making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or

      (7)committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

      (b)Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

      Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        One point regarding Cruz’ proposed bill is that it would be enough to be “providing material assistance” for the US govt to regard that individual as having just “renounced their citizenship”.

        But this is undeniable: organizations can be – and have been – removed from that terrorist list, and that can only happen when SOMEONE in the US government lobbies long and hard on behalf of that group.

        Under Ted’s Terrorist Bill(tm) such advocacy would be a renunciation of US citizenship.

        Here, an example: many and varied US Notables lobbied for years(ultimately, successfully) for the MEK to be removed from the list of terrorist organizations.

        Under Ted-Law(tm) that would mean that Daniel Pipes, James Woolsey, Louis Freeh, Ed Rendell, Howard Dean, etc. etc. were renouncing their citizenship.

        After all, this is axiomatic: they were lobbying on behalf of the MEK while it was still a “designated terrorist group”.

        And if such lobbying isn’t “providing material assistance” to “a designated terrorist group” then there is something seriously wrong with the English language.

        Reply to Comment
      • Ben Zakkai

        Yes Marnie, 8 USC 1481, originally enacted (not surprisingly) during the McCarthy era, is the law whose provisions for involuntary loss of citizenship were ruled unconstitutional by Afroyim v. Rusk in 1967. As I noted above, it is still on the books but has no force.

        Reply to Comment
    15. Ben Zakkai

      Thank you Gustav, for going off on an irrelevant rant, thus implicitly conceding my point, to wit, Tibi and Zoabi haven’t called for the destruction of Israel.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        They don’t have to. They call for everything else that would bring about the destruction of the nation state of the Jewish people. They are trying to do from the inside what Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran are trying to do from the outside. But you want us to stick our collective heads in the sand about it. And we won’t because we are not ostriches no matter how much you want it to be so.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ben Zakkai

          I don’t favor the ostrich approach, but I’m not for hysteria either. And excuse me, you hasbaraniks are hysterical, in both senses of the word. It reminds me of Jews who wail that Jewish assimilation through intermarriage is a “second Holocaust,” whereas anyone in his right mind can see the huge difference between a nice Jewish boy marrying an Episcopalian, and a Jew murdered in a gas chamber. So, you don’t agree when someone like Zoabi says that Palestinian terror is understandable given the Occupation, or that Israel itself uses terror, or that Palestinians abroad should have a right of return to Israel? Fine, argue with her! The Israeli supermajority is firmly on your side. But no, you’ve got to suspend or expel her from the Knesset, criminally prosecute her for her remarks, and now revoke her citizenship. Your approach doesn’t show much confidence in the strength of your values.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I will keep it as polite as possible Ben.

            Zoabi and Tibi are unabashed nationalists. What they essentially want is a 23rd Arab state in the Middle East with at best, a Jewish minority (that’s the most optimistic view that I can muster about them)..

            We on the other hand want a Jewish majority state (the only one in the world) with an Arab minority.

            Which side do you think someone like me should support?

            That’s what our debate boils down to. The rest is just BS.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben Zakkai

            No Gustav, our debate is about at least two things: What we want, and How we get it. I’m fine with a large-majority-Jewish state that speaks Hebrew, rests on Jewish holidays and gives immigration preference to Jews (although I’d prefer a new anthem/flag that everyone can feel good about singing/saluting, and I very much dislike Israel’s theocratic aspects). I’m okay with a largely Jewish state not because I think we Jews are the greatest thing on earth, but simply because it seems to me that nation-states do better when they’re built on some level of homogeneity; as I’ve often written here on +972, I think a one-state bi-national solution would be a disaster. So, for example, if Zoabi favors unrestricted migration of millions of Palestinians to Israel under the rubric of the Palestinian Right of Return, I’d disagree: I’d say Yes, Israel should admit its past wrongdoing and pay Naqba damages, but No, it should not accept large numbers of Palestinian refugees and their decendants. But I shouldn’t be allowed to resolve that disagreement by putting a bullet through her head or throwing her in a dungeon for twenty years. So you go ahead and advocate whatever policies you favor, and let her do the same. Why not?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I am sorry Ben but you specifically claimed that Tibi and Zoabi don’t want Israel’s destruction.

            However, by your own admission, they DO, because they insist on the so called right of return. Oh and in addition, they bolster the agendas of organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas who openly admit that their aim is our destruction. That’s nothing to be sneered at or ignored either.

            The rest are just side issues compared to this. We need to lay the above to rest before we move onto debating the other side issues which you insist on raising as red herrings.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben Zakkai

            Well, one man’s red herring is another man’s matjes. If you’re willing to throw out civil rights and the rule of law to achieve your goals, I’m not with you. For the record, support for the Palestinian right of return is not, in my book, a call for destruction of Israel. In many cases it’s a heartfelt cry for justice for families who were kicked out of their homes and villages and have spent generations in refugee camps; in other cases it may accompany or conceal existential hatred of Israel, but it’s not the same thing. The only thing that could make the PROR a reality is Israel getting so deeply enmeshed in the Territories that it can’t get out, at which point Palestinians become a majority in Greater Israel. Which is exactly what you want, right?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Ben, are you there, Ben? Earth to Ben …

            Did you or did you not claim that Zoabi and Tibi don’t want Israel’s destruction? Well? Do they or don’t they?

            It is a very simple question. Do you stand by that claim of yours or not? To me as an Israeli Jew, it is a crucial question. And it should be to you too if you really are an Israeli Jewish person.

            Just answer that and we can move on to your other favorite topics too.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Did you or did you not claim that Zoabi and Tibi don’t want Israel’s destruction?”

            Nice try, Gustav, but Ben did not make that claim.

            Ben claimed this:
            “Tibi and Zoabi haven’t called for the destruction of Israel”

            A distinction that is well made by him, since anyone can point to what they say, whereas claiming to know what they “want” is pure conjecture.

            Gustav: “It is a very simple question. Do you stand by that claim of yours or not?”

            Well, he does appear to by standing by HIS claim. But I see no reason why he has to go and stand alongside YOUR omniscient straw man.

            That’s YOUR job. Hop to it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben Zakkai

            Thank you, Yeah, Right, that is exactly the nub of the matter. I’m not on intimate, secret-sharing terms with either Tibi or Zoabi, so I can’t pretend to know what they feel or want. I can only listen to what they say. If one of them says, “Arab brothers, kill the Jews!”, I’ll be happy to see them prosecuted. But you can’t assume you know what someone wants and on that basis fire him from his job, put him in jail and revoke his citizenship. That’s precisely the gulag mentality of which Gustav has baselessly accused me, but which he himself seems secretly to admire.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Nice try Benny.

            Did you or did you not say this a few posts ago?

            “Zoabi says that Palestinian …. or that Palestinians abroad should have a right of return to Israel?”

            Tibi says that too. And you do know that they BOTH agitate for a bi-national state. You admitted to that too Benny.

            Moving on, didn’t you say this too?

            “I think a one-state bi-national solution would be a disaster.”

            Don’t pretend, Benny, you know exactly what you meant by the word “disaster”. You meant the end of the Jewish state.

            So after all that, saying this …

            ” I’m not on intimate, secret-sharing terms with either Tibi or Zoabi, so I can’t pretend to know what they feel or want”

            Is just an attempt to weasel out of your previous claim. An attempt to grasp at straws. And the fact that you took that cue from the likes of WHATSHISFACE who is just a clown who comes to this site to argue for argument’s sake and to play word games, just makes you look worse Benny.

            The least you could do is to man-up and argue for your belief. But even on that score you would now have a hard time, given the things you already said..

            Reply to Comment
          • sam

            Israelis learn from the recent Kurdish experience in Iraq and Syria. Before ISIS entered their villages they assumed their Arab Sunni neighbors would side with them(Kurds). After all the years of living together it was assumed they would not act as a 5th column and side with the ISIS foreigners. But to the Kurds surprise and horror their Arab friends sided with ISIS. After ISIS was repelled by the Kurds they reassed their situation and expelled their Arab Sunni neighbors. Human kindness & warmth fall away from Arabs who keep rage in their hearts and who worship a God they imagine is a raging dictator who supports the rage of His followers. Israelis is their any doubt that your Arab neighbors will visit the Kurdish experience on your heads. Expell them now there are 22 Arab league
            countries for them to live in. Learn from the valiant Kurds.

            Reply to Comment
    16. Yeah, right

      Ben: “Tibi and Zoabi haven’t called for the destruction of Israel.”

      Gustav: “They don’t have to.”

      Ahem. Apparently they do…

      Bibi: “I will instruct the Interior Minister to evaluate revoking the citizenship of those who call for the destruction of the State of Israel.”

      Humpty-Dumpty-Logic: words mean whatever Gustav wants them to mean, neither more nor less.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        “Humpty-Dumpty-Logic: words mean whatever Gustav wants them to mean, neither more nor less.”

        Good old WHATSHISFACE is besotted with himself again.

        “Ben: “Tibi and Zoabi haven’t called for the destruction of Israel.”

        Gustav: “They don’t have to.”

        Ahem. Apparently they do…”

        Sigh … Ok have it your way, I give in. Yes they DO and Yes they DO want to destroy Israel.

        Happy now? Petulant little boy?

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, right

          Gustav thinks it is a minor matter – a mere trifle, unworthy of further mention – that he can say the exact opposite to what is quoted in this article.

          Apparently we are supposed to not notice when Gustav writes utter nonsense.

          Because – apparently – in Gustav-world both of these propositions can be simultaneously true: you have to “call for the destruction of Israel” and you DON’T have to “call for the destruction of Israel”.

          As far as Gustav is concerned the end result is the same: he doesn’t like Zoabi, so she should be stripped of her citizenship.

          How wonderfully hasbarah of you, Gustav.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Gustav thinks it is a minor matter – a mere trifle”

            Rile, little boy, rile…

            I hope your mouth is not foaming though?

            Be careful, WHATSHISFACE, if your head gets any bigger, well, it will swell … LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Gustav thinks it is a minor matter – a mere trifle”

            Yawn

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Ever since they have been confronted with the reasonable Abu Mazen and to their distress no longer have their beloved Arafat as a perfect foil, the Right has taken to demanding, like a lover, to know what the Palestinians really really feel deep in their hearts. They want lie detector tests. Sworn valentines. Not for them the evidence of public statements by leaders and politicians not for them the sensible, practical, verifiable arrangements and guarantees (including those pesky borders they never can bring their right hand to pick up a pencil and draw). No, they want to hear their lovers swear fealty to Jewish Nation States and sing Hatikvah. “But what do they really feel about us?!”

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Poor Brian, he is trying so hard to get his ill informed message across but he fails at every turn because he is such a bad listener. Take this silly rant of his for instance:

            “the Right has taken to demanding, like a lover, to know what the Palestinians really really feel deep in their hearts.”

            We demand nothing dearie. We know how they feel about us. Contrary to your assurances that they have a deep affection for us underneath that veneer of deep hatred of theirs for us which they have had for for many years, even before the occupation, even before Israel was born, we know that you are just telling us bed-time stories, Brian dear. We admit, your story IS entertaining but it has nothing to do with reality.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            And no Brian dear, just for the record, we are not looking for confessions of deep love for us from your Palestinians. Hey, we don’t love them either. But we are looking for a clear undertaking which might even go something like this:

            We hate you, you bloody Jews but we solemnly undertake to renounce our old undertaking to destroy you and to displace your state by ours. Instead we now accept your right to exist here as a Jewish state next to our Arab state and we won’t be doing anything ANYMORE to try to destroy your presence here.

            That is called a grudging acceptance of reality. That would do us.

            Love between Arabs and Jews? That’s just a pipe dream for several generations at least. It may or may not ever happen. In any case we won’t be around to see that. And it doesn’t matter. The future will look after itself.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            The love affair is actually sicker than all that:

            In Jerusalem, the Israeli tormentor whines
            The question isn’t why firecrackers are being thrown in East Jerusalem, but what are the aims of a government that systematically beats down and harasses a population.

            By Amira Hass
            Published 00:37 10.11.14

            East Jerusalem is a battered and tortured city. And the master doing the beating and inflicting the torture rubs his hands contentedly since, once again, he’s been able to get his fellow masters abroad and in the media to be shocked by the violence of the beaten ones and to ignore the nonstop terror attacks that he commits.

            East Jerusalem under Israeli domination for nearly half a century is a city haunted by violence. State violence. To calculate the proper dosage of new draconian laws, cement blocks and stinking water [to “quell riots”] our experts measure and weigh why there is unrest now in East Jerusalem and break down the reasons as follows: 13 percent is due to the population paying municipal taxes without receiving municipal services; 12 percent, to a shortage of classrooms and housing while land is appropriated for building roads and housing for Jews; 17 percent, to Jews with an overt pogrom-type syndrome who settle in the middle of one’s home; and 58 percent, to Al Aqsa. In short, it’s all due to incitement. If not for the incitement quiet would prevail in East Jerusalem and the master could continue to hurt, torture, beat, rob, torment, and enjoy himself.

            One other way the abuser derives pleasure is by talking at length about the violence carried out by the abused. So we’ll do the opposite and talk at length about the abuse.

            The master abuses, and hundreds of thousands of Jews who live in the city and profit from the abuse act as if they don’t see or know about it, as if it has nothing to do with them.

            Intentional abuse

            The question isn’t why is there unrest in East Jerusalem, but what are the aims of the government that for nearly half a century has been torturing, beating, abusing and robbing – and in the past 20 years, under the cover of a peace process, has only intensified its terror attacks against the population under its domination. The country’s leaders are no dummies. Nor are they inexperienced in the ways of oppression. They know that action X results in consequences Y and Z. They know that they are creating an intolerable situation for the native, non-Jewish population.

            The answer to the question is clear, and is no earth-shattering revelation. If you purposely create an intolerable situation, your aim is to cause people to decide to go live somewhere else where their situation will be tolerable, perhaps good or even very good. In short, over the years, the Israeli governments and Jerusalem municipal governments, whether Labor or Likud, hoped and aimed to get the Palestinians to vanish from our sight and from the city.

            Palestinian resistance

            But the Palestinians in Jerusalem didn’t go along with the plan. They’re not leaving. Or at least not in the kind of numbers that would satisfy the demography wizards. And not only are they not going away, they’re disturbing the peace. Hundreds of brave, heroic children and youths are putting their lives on the line and clashing with the security forces to try to remind the world that for the past half century they have been living under a foreign, hostile, oppressive and abusive rule. Dozens more occasionally throw stones at Jews, whom they see as representing that part of the city’s population that isn’t lifting a finger to put an end to the abuse. A few, driven by a desire for revenge, have rammed into Jews with their vehicles in suicide terror attacks.

            Over the past 20 years, Israel has added a political tool to its repertoire of devices designed for abuse: the isolation of East Jerusalem from the population of the West Bank and Gaza and a prohibition preventing the official leadership from operating in the city (through the closing of PLO institutions and a ban on political and cultural activity, claiming it is sponsored by the Palestinian Authority). Like many colonialists before it, Israel figures that by fragmenting the population this way and neutralizing its leadership, it will weaken its power of resistance….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Bravo, Brian, I’ll see your Amira Haas bid and UP YOUR’s by quoting from an article by the Palestinian, East Jerusalem resident, Riman Barakat, which appeared in + 972 Magazine in 2012.

            “Today marks the 45th anniversary of what Palestinians and the international community refer to as the illegal annexation of East Jerusalem, and what some Israelis refer to as the unification of Jerusalem. It is a good opportunity to examine one recent example of how unification or illegal annexation is changing the identity and political future of the Palestinian residents of the city.

            As an East Jerusalem resident, I am struck by a recent trend: many of my friends and acquaintances who hold Jerusalem identification cards – documents of permanent residency rather than Israeli citizenship – are quietly applying for and obtaining Israeli passports.”

            So Brian, tell us this please, if we are so bad then how come East Jerusalem’s Arabs are falling over backwards trying to become Israeli citizens? Mmmmmmmm?

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Amira Hass is not my “bid.” She is a far, far harder working and braver and truthful Israeli than you will ever even come close to being. She is great.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Do you disingenuously or honestly miss the whole point?

            “Contrary to your assurances that they have a deep affection for us underneath”

            The whole point is that Netanyahu, and you, disingenuously pretend that the issue now, voilà, is “what lies in their hearts” rather than what practical arrangements must be made. Netanyahu concocted this as a new excuse when the old excuses were no longer working.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “The whole point is that Netanyahu, and you, disingenuously pretend that the issue now, voilà, is “what lies in their hearts” rather than what practical arrangements must be made.”

            Brian, earth to Brian…

            You are doing a perfect impersonation of a robot. Either that, or you suffer from short term memory loss. Here read again what I wrote only a few posts ago …

            “And no Brian dear, just for the record, we are not looking for confessions of deep love for us from your Palestinians. Hey, we don’t love them either. But we are looking for a clear undertaking which might even go something like this:

            We hate you, you bloody Jews but we solemnly undertake to renounce our old undertaking to destroy you and to displace your state by ours. Instead we now accept your right to exist here as a Jewish state next to our Arab state and we won’t be doing anything ANYMORE to try to destroy your presence here.

            That is called a grudging acceptance of reality. That would do us.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Do you agree that the settlers steal land? Are they thieves? Yes or no.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Good one Brian, when beaten on a topic, just change the topic.

            Sigh … ok then … I will play your game too …

            When are you going to stop beating your wife Brian …?

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            No. The analogy is wrong. I am not peremptorily accusing you of doing something I have scant reason to suspect you are doing. I am not playing a trick. I simply asked YOU (assuming you are not a settler–maybe you are but I suspect you are one of those complacent Israelis who finds it convenient to use the settlers as a proxy but would not dirty your own hands) if you agree that the settlers steal land–are they thieves? Yes or no.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Still got that strange paralysis of the right hand when it comes to picking up a pencil and drawing borders. Medically unexplainable.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            No Brian dear, I already reminded you at least 10 times about how Olmert drew the map in 2008 and Abbas ignored it for 6 months. Till Olmert lost the elections and Abbas muttered his thanks to Allah.

            I don’t have paralysis. But you obviously have Alzheimers, Brian.

            Reply to Comment
          • “Ever since they have been confronted with the reasonable Abu Mazen and to their distress no longer have their beloved Arafat as a perfect foil, the Right has taken to demanding, like a lover, to know what the Palestinians really really feel deep in their hearts. They want lie detector tests. Sworn valentines. Not for them the evidence of public statements by leaders and politicians not for them the sensible, practical, verifiable arrangements and guarantees (including those pesky borders they never can bring their right hand to pick up a pencil and draw). No, they want to hear their lovers swear fealty to Jewish Nation States and sing Hatikvah. “But what do they really feel about us?!”

            You’re have said what I feel and have trouble expressing. I said to G a while back something to the effect of having dealt with men like him before which was not exclusively talking about sex, just relationships with abusive men I’ve had to “deal with”. The more abusive the man was, the more he demanded I love him. Being an abusive man, loving him was next to impossible, and the more I failed to “prove” my love, loyalty, respect, whatever, the more he brutalized me and then increased his demands. They knew they were wrong. They knew it. They knew they were bastards that deserved absolutely nothing, but they had all the power and all the muscle. I draw the same conclusion with the situation in the state of israel, a terrible romance between a habitual abuser and the target of his affection. It is crazy-making stuff.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Nice try Benny.

            Did you or did you not say this a few posts ago?

            “Zoabi says that Palestinian …. or that Palestinians abroad should have a right of return to Israel?”

            Tibi says that too. And you do know that they BOTH agitate for a bi-national state. You admitted to that too Benny.

            Moving on, didn’t you say this too?

            “I think a one-state bi-national solution would be a disaster.”

            Don’t pretend, Benny, you know exactly what you meant by the word “disaster”. You meant the end of the Jewish state.

            So after all that, saying this …

            ” I’m not on intimate, secret-sharing terms with either Tibi or Zoabi, so I can’t pretend to know what they feel or want”

            Is just an attempt to weasel out of your previous claim. An attempt to grasp at straws. And the fact that you took that cue from the likes of WHATSHISFACE who is just a clown who comes to this site to argue for argument’s sake and to play word games, just makes you look worse Benny.

            The least you could do is to man-up and argue for your belief. But even on that score you would now have a hard time, given the things you already said.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Don’t pretend, Benny, you know exactly what you meant by the word “disaster”. You meant the end of the Jewish state.”

            Your talents never cease to amaze me. Apparently all you need to do is to remove your tinfoil helmet and – hey, presto! – you are able to mind-read.

            Zoabi, Tibi, and now Ben. All of whom have had their minds read by the mystical super-powers of Gustav.

            Did Zoabi call for the destruction of Israel? No.

            Did Tibi call for the destruction of Israel? No.

            Did Ben call for the destruction of Israel? No.

            Yet in all three cases Gustav is able to peer into their minds to know their innermost thoughts.

            After he takes off the tinfoil hat, that is…..

            Gustav: “Don’t pretend, Benny, you know exactly what you meant by the word “disaster”. ”

            Yeah, it means “disaster”.

            Plenty of countries have run smack into “disasters” without “meeting their end”.

            I can name one right now: Israel, which is exhibiting a “disastrous” inability to distinguish between “a clown car” and a “government”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Poor old WHATSHISFACE, he reminds me of the dead parrot sketch by Monthy Python. Only he is nowhere near as funny. Watch this …

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

            Just as in the video, WHATSHISFACE seems to look one in the eye and assert that what we are dealing with is not a dead parrot. Or in his case, he claims that Zoabi and Tibi are not out to destroy the Jewish state, Yeah, Right, not much. WHATSHISFACE is trying to sell a dead parrot. LOL!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Or in his case, he claims that Zoabi and Tibi are not out to destroy the Jewish state”

            Notice how Gustav has just pulled the most crude of sleight-of-hands?

            Yeah, right where he removed the word “Israel” and replaced it with the phrase “the Jewish State”.

            Which is odd, since he has been insisting is that The Hated Zoabi and Tibi were calling for the “destruction of Israel”.

            Apparently not.

            Now he appears to be insisting that The Hated Zoabi and Tibi are objecting to the notion that Israel Belongs To The Jews, rather than that Israel Belonging To The Israelis.

            I am sure that you’ve never noticed this before, Gustav, but under both propositions there is still an “Israel”.

            Where they disagree with you isn’t regarding the “destruction of Israel”, but about what Israel **is** (i.e. the nature of Israel’s “ruling regime”).

            Here, an example: an Afrikaaner would have been unable to comprehend the distinction between apartheid (which was a ruling regime) and South Africa (which is a state that still exists, even post-apartheid).

            What Gustav is showing us is that same small-minded mind-set, writ large…..

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Notice how Gustav has just pulled the most crude of sleight-of-hands?

            Yeah, right where he removed the word “Israel” and replaced it with the phrase “the Jewish State”.

            Yeah, Right, and only in WHATSHISFACE-WORLD is Israel NOT the Jewish state.

            Note, UN Resolution 181 referred to a JEWISH state and to an ARAB state. Moreover, the Zionists who declared the state of Israel created it as the state for the Jewish people.

            I repet, only in WHATSHISFACE-WORLD is there a distinction between Israel and the Jewish state.

            Dead parrots anyone? LOL!!!!!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Yeah, Right, and only in WHATSHISFACE-WORLD is Israel NOT the Jewish state.”

            There is a world of difference between “Israel belongs to the Jews” and “Most Israelis are Jewish”.

            I doubt very much that either Tibi or Zoabi have any problem with the latter e.g. they will have no problem agreeing with the proposition that Israel is chock full’a’ people who call themselves Jews.

            Indeed, I would suggest that they would be willing to count more Jews amongst the popln of Israel than would More Than A Few Rabbis We Could Both Name.

            Gustav: “Note, UN Resolution 181 referred to a JEWISH state and to an ARAB state.”

            Indeed it did, and I now invite everyone to read that resolution.

            Because in it you will see that the UN uses the terms “Jewish state” and “Arab state” in exactly the same way that I would e.g. as a simple (and demographically-accurate) shorthand for
            a) “the state whose borders contain as many Jews as we could realistically manage” and
            b) “the state that has as few Jews as we could realistically manage”.

            That is demonstrably true:
            1) Factual: the “Jewish state” described in UNGAR 181 would have a popln that was 60% Jewish and fully 40% Arabs, so it was hardly intended to be an exclusive country club whose membership is only open to Jews.
            2) Logical: if UNGAR 181 had intended “Jewish state” to mean “the state for the Jews” then, likewise, “Arab state” must have meant “the state for the Arabs”.

            Which would have come as quite a shock to all the *other* Arab states.

            No wonder all the *other* Arab states voted against UNGAR 181, because according to Gustav-logic (I know, I know…) that resolution delegitimized every last one of them.

            Gustav: “Moreover, the Zionists who declared the state of Israel created it as the state for the Jewish people.”

            No shit, heh? The ruling regime declared itself to be the ruling regime!

            I’m shocked.
            Shocked, I tell you….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Oh how about we use your idea the other way around then, WHATSHISFACE?

            Let’s create a PALESTINIAN state in the West Bank with a majority Jewish population. Alongside Israel.

            Would that satisfy your demand about the Palestinian state?

            Under this proposition too there is still a “PALESTINE”. Just like you claim that there would still be an Israel even if it would become a majority Arab state (one would have to wonder though for how long they would keep calling it Israel?)

            Word games anyone? Or dead parrots?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “so it was hardly intended to be an exclusive country club whose membership is only open to Jews.”

            Vintage WHATSHISFACE double talk. Nowhere did I talk about an Israel with an EXCLUSIVELY Jewish population. I always called the Jewish state a majority Jewish state. Which was also the specific intent of the UN and the founding fathers of Israel.

            By the way, why exactly did the Arabs object to the creation of Israel if it wasn’t to be a majority Jewish state?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Nowhere did I talk about an Israel with an EXCLUSIVELY Jewish population.”

            Non-sequitur.

            I’m pointing out that a plan that envisions a 40% Arab population is completely incompatible with the notion that UNGAR 181 intended that “Jewish state” to be a state that was “for the Jews”.

            The UN clearly meant the phrase to be *descriptive* i.e. a shorthand notion for the demographic difference between the “Jewish state” (60% Jewish, 40% Arab) and the “Arab state” (98% Arab, 2% Jewish).

            Gustav: “I always called the Jewish state a majority Jewish state.”

            No, you didn’t. You still don’t.

            You have repeatedly called Israel “the state for the Jewish people”, which is not at all the same thing as calling Israel “a majority Jewish state”.

            Be honest with yourself: you consider the “destruction of Israel” to be synonymous with the loss of the privileged position of Jews.

            In Gustav-world it isn’t JUST that the Jews are in the majority.

            In Gustav-world the Jews – and only the Jews – “own” Israel, and everyone else merely lives there.

            Nothing more.
            No less.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Now he appears to be insisting that The Hated Zoabi and Tibi are objecting to the notion that Israel Belongs To The Jews, rather than that Israel Belonging To The Israelis.”

            “I am sure that you’ve never noticed this before, Gustav, but under both propositions there is still an “Israel”.”

            Oooos Aaaahhhh WHATSHISFACE, you are a wizard …

            No, I haven’t noticed (not much). But you have given me an idea, oh great almighty guru. I will approach Bibi with it and I am sure he will like it. Especially once he hears that you spawned the idea. Here it is.

            Let’s create a state called PALESTINE on the West Bank and populate it with a majority Jewish population. This will of course satisfy everyone because isn’t that what everyone is jumping up and down for? A PALESTINIAN state? The TWO state solution, Israel in it’s present form and a Palestinian state.

            Ah but hold on, you say. That isn’t fair. Everyone meant Palestine to be a state for the Arab Palestinians. Yes but that’s true about Israel too. It was always meant to be a state for the Jewish Palestinians even though it could and can have an Arab minority. But that isn’t what Tibi and Zoabi have in mind for Israel. They want Israel to have an Arab majority (and maybe even no Jews). So calling an Arab majority state Israel would be as much of a consolation to Israeli Jews as creating a Jewish majority state in the West Bank and calling it Palestine would be a consolation to Arabs. Neither is fair or acceptable.

            Get it, WHATSHISFACE? Or do you still want to sell us a dead parrot?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Let’s create a state called PALESTINE on the West Bank and populate it with a majority Jewish population”

            Ahem. Where are you going to get all those Jews from, Gustav?

            They can’t be “Israelis” because (and I don’t know why I need to remind Gustav of this) all “Israelis” already have a state, and it’s *over* *there*.

            So they don’t get two bites of the cherry, precisely because they’ve already had their nibble *over* *there*.

            And, while we’re at it, “Netanyahu” can’t legally do this no matter how much he likes to pretend otherwise.

            He can’t legally do this because he’s the leader of “Israel, the occupying power”.

            And – repeat after me, everyone! – an occupying power is unconditionally prohibited from transferring its own popln into the territory that it occupies.

            So if that’s your idea of a brainstorm then, so sorry, it’s a brain-fart of an idea.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “So they don’t get two bites of the cherry, precisely because they’ve already had their nibble *over* *there*.”

            And how many bites of the cherry do Arabs get? 22 going on 23? There are already 22 Arab countries you know.

            As to where we are going to get all them Jews from, WHATSHISFACE, that ain’t your worry. Leave it to us.

            You just come up with your one sided stupid ideas and we use your own double standards against you. Ok?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “And how many bites of the cherry do Arabs get?”

            All the *other* Arabs already have their states, Gustav, as you quite correctly point out.

            That’s why THEY don’t get a bite of this cherry either, which is precisely why Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank in 1950 was as illegal as any annexation of territory by Israel post-1967.

            You simply don’t get even the most elementary of concepts, do you?

            Here is a territory, and you insist that it is “not a state”.

            Here are the people who live on that territory, and you insist that they are “stateless”.

            Here are the states that surround that stateless territory, and at least two of them have shown a marked tendency to want to devour that stateless territory for itself.

            Q: Who gets to decide the fate of that stateless territory?
            A: The stateless people who live on it.

            Q: Not the surrounding states?
            A: No, they’ve already got their territory.

            Pretty simple, really….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “All the *other* Arabs already have their states, Gustav, as you quite correctly point out.”

            Really? They have 22 states? And they want a 23 state which would encompass the Jewish state too?

            Don’t worry, WHATSHISFACE, I get that. That’s why I am arguing with obtuse people like you who see nothing wrong with that.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Really? They have 22 states? And they want a 23 state which would encompass the Jewish state too? ”

            And that’s yet another Gustav non-sequitur, because I was referring to **your** Very Cunning Plan to flood the West Bank with “Israeli colonists” in order to acquire that territory for yourself.

            And I am quite correct that no state is allowed to do that.

            This was all in response to Gustav’s original comment:
            Gustav: “And how many bites of the cherry do Arabs get?”

            That’s also a non-sequitur.

            The correct Q&A is this:
            Q: How many bites of the cherry do the Palestinians get?
            A: Only the one, inside “Palestine”.

            Just as….
            Q: How many bites of the cherry do the Israelis get?
            A: Only the one, inside “Israel”.

            And, for completeness’ sake:
            Q: How many bites of the cherry do the Canadians get?
            A: Only the one, inside “Canada”.

            Q: Australia?
            A: Same.

            Q: Egypt?
            A: Same.

            Q: Japan?
            A: Same.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Just as….
            Q: How many bites of the cherry do the Israelis get?
            A: Only the one, inside “Israel”.

            No, no, no, WHATSHISFACE, thats the wrong question.

            Israel is the state of the Jewish people. Israel has an Arab minority. Both are Israeli citizens. But when it gets to the question of “how many bites of the cherry …” The correct question is:

            Just as….
            Q: How many bites of the cherry do Jews get?
            A: Only the one, inside “Israel” which is the only Jewish majority state in the world.

            Of course, your Palestinian Arabs have no such problems because they can end up in anyone of 22 Arab majority states which already exist. Or if they prefer, they can even end up in the 23rd Arab majority state of “Palestine” if they come to their senses and negotiate a deal with Israel which would lead to the establishment of such a state.

            Unfortunately though they seem to listen to fat headed idiots like you who seem to be able to convince them that it is perfectly ok for them to try and turn the only Jewish state (Israel) into another Arab state while at the same time they think they can also establish the 23rd Arab only state (Palestine).

            But the reality is that they CANNOT, nor will they. Moreover, if they’ll keep trying to do it, they will lose their chance to establish their shiny Palestinian Arab state too. That is a promise which they ignore at their own peril. Not yours of course WHATSHISFACE, because you are just another arguing idiot on the internet who will move on without even muttering … “sorry guys, I gave you the wrong advice …”

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Q: How many bites of the cherry do Jews get?”

            What *is* it with Gustav and his non-sequiturs?

            This is a fact: there are over 12 million Jews on Planet Earth.

            This is also a fact: some 6 million of those Jews are Israelis.

            So this is also true: at least half of all the Jews in the world are not Israelis.

            Now, the nub: the number of Jews who are “stateless” is… zero.

            Therefore not a single one of those Jews can “claim” the West Bank, precisely because that involves Two Bites Of The Cherry.

            Compare and contrast.

            Fact: There are 450 million Arabs on planet Earth

            Fact: There are around 10 million Arabs who are Palestinians i.e. they live in the occupied territories or they are stateless refugees.

            Which leads to this: 440 million Arabs ALREADY have a state, and so none of them can claim the West Bank, precisely because that involves Two Bites Of The Cheery

            But this is also true: there are 10 million Arabs who are stateless (e.g. “Palestinians”) and so they are perfectly entitled to decide the fate of “Palestine”.

            But anyone who lives in the West Bank who ALREADY has a sovereign (e.g. the “Israelis”) have ALREADY claimed their state, so they aren’t entitled to claim another one.

            Pretty simple, really.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            No WHATSHISFACE, the nub of the problem is nothing like how you describe it.

            The nub of the problem is that there were BOTH Arab and Jewish refugees due to the war of aggression which the Arabs initiated.

            We, the Israeli Jews, concentrated on resolving the problem of the Jewish refugees from Arab countries. We spent time effort and treasure to give them shelter and to integrate them into Israel.

            Compare and contrast what the Arabs did.

            They deliberately kept Palestinian Arab refugees in squalid refugee camps as second class citizens for the purpose of keeping the conflict alive and so that those refugees would serve as cannon fodder in the ongoing Arab war on the Jewish state. While at the same time they confiscated billions of dollars worth of Jewish properties and assets.

            All of the above facts lead to the obvious solution. It is the responsibility of those Arab States to right the wrongs which they committed against both their Jewish refugees and against the Palestinian Arab refugees whom they chose to mistreat and keep under virtual apartheid. How will they fund this? They can fund it from the properties and assets of the Jews whom they kicked out.

            Of course some of those Palestinian Arab refugees may be able to settle in the WB and Gaza once a peace would be negotiated. But if it won’t be, and if they would pursue your silly ideas of trying to turn Israel into another majority Arab state, then they may end up losing even what they are now still being offered. And yes, we too can use the bloody minded logic which you are attempting to use to justify it against us.

            After all, WHATSHISFACE, you have heard of the saying: “what is good for the goose is good for the gander too”. Haven’t you?

            Reply to Comment
    17. Gustav

      Then there is this too, Benny, you said these two things …

      “If one of them says, “Arab brothers, kill the Jews!”, I’ll be happy to see them prosecuted”

      “So, you don’t agree when someone like Zoabi says that Palestinian terror is understandable given the Occupation”

      So she does say “Arab brothers” kill the Jews and you are not happy to see them prosecuted. The fact that you bring up the “occupation” as an excuse, does not lessen the contradiction in your position.

      As I said above. Zoabi and Tibi are unabashed Arab nationalists who want to see The only Jewish state in the world replaced by an Arab state. The 23rd one.

      I am an Israeli nationalist who knows where I stand on that score. You, Benny, on the other hand want to have a foot in each camp. It will never work. You need to pick sides. If we win, no, WHEN we win, our task will be to make sure that we will treat our Arab minority justly. During peace times it will be possible. Right now, it is very hard. You won’t or can’t grasp that fact.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ben Zakkai

        Whoops, the moderator didn’t post my latest reply, so I’ll try to reconstruct it from (failing) memory:
        Gustav, knock off the bullshit. You’re trying to play Perry Mason but coming across like Hamilton Burger. If you’d define what you mean by “trying to destroy Israel” we could have a more intelligent discussion, but that would go counter to your tendency to mash up concepts, blur important distinctions and fail to understand the meaning of simple English words. I’ll tell you why I don’t worry about Tibi and Zoabi. If they want less discrimination against Israeli Arabs and an end to Israel’s Occupation, I’m all for it. If they want the PROR or a one-state solution or even (which I doubt) to throw the Jews in the sea, I’m against it, but I don’t think they have a chance in hell of making any of that happen UNLESS we insist on claiming Greater Israel from the river to the sea, which will soon have a Palestinian majority that will probably take charge at some point – so please speak to your (our) right-wing masters about that. Anyway, I have chosen my side, which is that of sanity and decency. My (non-rational) response to conflicts over the Temple Mount is to want to raze the whole compound and build a casino/whorehouse in its place, just to piss off fanatics on all sides, plus a WalMart for shopping and a playground for the kids. People like Uri Avnery and Salman Masalha are on my side; people like Naftali Bennett and Raed Salah aren’t.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          “If you’d define what do you mean by “trying to destroy Israel”, we could have a more intelligent discussion”

          I already did, more than once. Here, I’ll say it again …

          “Zoabi and Tibi are unabashed Arab nationalists who want to see The only Jewish state in the world replaced by an Arab state. The 23rd one.”

          Reply to Comment
          • Ben Zakkai

            Well, again, maybe Tibi/Zoabi really do want a prototypical Arab state here rather than a state-of-all-its-citizens; I’ve never heard them say that, though, and I would think they’re too outspoken and secular to thrive in the average Arab country, or in Hamastan. Even if they wanted that, though, they won’t get it if Israel gets the hell out of the territories and preserves the large non-Arab majority within its legitimate, pre-1967 borders. And if we don’t do that, then Zoabi and Tibi will be the least of our problems.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Excuse me?

            Didn’t you admit that they both call for the so called right of return? What do you think that would lead to?

            Can I respectfully suggest that it would lead to Israel becoming a majority Arab state?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Didn’t you admit that they both call for the so called right of return? What do you think that would lead to?”

            It would lead to a change in the demographics of the state of Israel.

            That’s not exactly unusual, nor does it have to be frightening.

            After all, UNGAR 192 acknowledged the right of those refugees to return, as did the Government of Israel when it applied to be allowed to join the United Nations.

            Gustav: “Can I respectfully suggest that it would lead to Israel becoming a majority Arab state?”

            Maybe, but I’m still seeing the word “Israel” in there…..

            The demographics of states change, Gustav. It happens.

            The nature of states change, Gustav. That also happens.

            The REGIME of states change, Gustav, far more often that you appear to believe.

            But the state is still there.

            It still exists, even if it is no longer the state in which you get to lord over The Hated Others.

            That happens too, Gustav. Get over it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Gustav: “Can I respectfully suggest that it would lead to Israel becoming a majority Arab state?”

            Maybe, but I’m still seeing the word “Israel” in there…..”

            Till the majority Arabs would change the name to Ali Babastan. And voila, Israel would be destroyed. What was the topic again? WHATSHISFACE? Israel’s destruction? Yes … it was … but you were pretending …?

            “The demographics of states change, Gustav. It happens.”

            Only if we allow Arabs from the outside to enter our country. Otherwise, no, it does not happen …

            “The nature of states change, Gustav. That also happens.”

            Only if the majority voters allow it, but we won’t.

            “The REGIME of states change, Gustav, far more often that you appear to believe.”

            Regime? You are talking of course about dictatorships in Arab countries. In Israel, we get rid of governments via legitimate elections.

            “But the state is still there.”

            Of course, Israel will be there so long as we won’t let Zoabi and Tibi to implement THEIR agenda for Israel’s destruction.

            “It still exists, even if it is no longer the state in which you get to lord over The Hated Others.”

            Hated others? You mean like how the Palestinian Arabs hate us the Jews because to them, we are the others?

            “That happens too, Gustav. Get over it.”

            Nothing happens in Israel without the ‘say so’ of the voters. And guess what, the majority of the voters think like me with regards to Zoabi and Tibi.

            So, WHATSHISFACE, you can keep on salivating about what might happen. But we will make sure that nothing the likes of you like will happen.

            Howzat?

            Reply to Comment
          • David T

            “Only if we allow Arabs from the outside to enter our country.”

            If only the Palestinians had reacted the same way when you “entered” their country from outside, right?

            You seem to have no problem with majority decision as long as Jews are the majority no matter how they became and maintain to be a majority. It is totally ok for you that there is no Palestine as it used to be before 1948 even if this wasn’t the outcome of a democratic process or referendum of the citizens of Palestine. But you have a problem with majority decisions, if Jews would be a minority and Zionism simply voted off. That’s because you are not a democrat at all, but an ethnocrat hiding behind the concept of a “Jewish democracy” which is as democratic as “cotton candy” is cotton.

            “Note, UN Resolution 181 referred to a JEWISH state and to an ARAB state. Moreover, the Zionists who declared the state of Israel created it as the state for the Jewish people.”

            Yeah, note also that UN Resolution 181 says in chapter 3 that Palestinian citizens (which don’t exist according to some delusional hasbarats) residing in Palestine shall become citizens of the state in which they are resident.

            That is called “the Jewish state as envisaged by this resolution” and not the Jewish state as envisaged by you or others you think that Jews have the right to keep Gentiles expelled to maintain a regime ruled by a Jewish minority.

            And by the way. Since you seem to have a problem to even recognize what Israel, which declared statehood within partition borders, keeps occupied since 1948; letter from Israel to the security council one week after proclamation:

            “In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, OUTSIDE THE TERRITORY OF 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
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “You are talking of course about dictatorships in Arab countries. In Israel, we get rid of governments via legitimate elections.”

            And there is proof-positive that Gustav does not understand the concept of the “ruling regime”, and therefore is completely unable to distinguish it for the state.

            It would be laughable were it not so tragic…

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            My apologies, Gustav, I hadn’t noticed that another ignorant propagandist has entered the discussion.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “My apologies, Gustav, I hadn’t noticed that another ignorant propagandist has entered the discussion.”

            Nah really, WHATSHISFACE, no need to apologize. You can’t help being ‘you’.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            From the free online dictionary …

            “1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a system of government or a particular administration: a fascist regime; the regime of Fidel Castro.”

            Like I said Arab dictatorships etc are talked about as regimes. Democratically elected governments are usually not described as regimes. But who cares, WHATSHISFACE, right? If it sounds good then people like you have poetic licence …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav, just admit that you don’t understand what the term “the ruling regime” actually means.

            Because it is painfully, painfully obvious that you don’t know that “the ruling regime” has a precise meaning in sociology and political theory, whereas “regime” is simply a pejorative political buzz-word used to demonize Any Government We Would Like To Overthrow.

            How wonderfully Humpty-Dumpty of you….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Gustav, just admit that you don’t understand what the term “the ruling regime” actually means.”

            You wanna argue with the dictionary, WHATSHISFACE? Go ahead, be my guest, argue away …

            Just for the record though, my fat headed little buddy, when was the last time YOU admitted to being wrong about ANYTHING, mmmmmm?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “You wanna argue with the dictionary, WHATSHISFACE? Go ahead, be my guest, argue away …”

            *sigh* Once more with the non-sequitur…..

            I use the phrase “the ruling regime”, and by way of rebuttal Gustav quotes me his dictionary-definition of “regime”.

            One. More. Time. For. The. Slow. People.

            If you want to get into an argument about the dictionary-definition of the phrase “the ruling regime” then you have to provide a dictionary-definition of the phrase “the ruling regime”.

            Which, so sorry, you have not done.

            Not once.
            Not ever.

            What Gustav has done is akin to someone talking about “the passion of the Christ”, only to have some dimwit arguing about how his dictionary defines the word “passion” as being about all things kissy-kissy lovey-dovey.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            WHATSHISFACE:”I use the phrase “the ruling regime”, and by way of rebuttal Gustav quotes me his dictionary-definition of “regime”.

            Yes, and I gave you the following definition of it from the online dictionary …

            “1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a system of government or a particular administration: a fascist regime; the regime of Fidel Castro.”

            Which bit of the above does not sound like a “ruling regime”?

            Does it sound like a “NON ruling regime”? … no it does not …

            So, for the slow witted …

            If it does not sound like a NON ruling regime … then for WHATSHISFACE ‘s benefit … I’ll give him two guesses …

            1) …. it sounds like a NON ruling regime?

            2) …. It sounds like a “ruling regime”

            Yea … by George, I think WHATSHISFACE has got it at long last … yea … it’s Number 2) give WHATSHISFACE three cheers … He deserves it … his second guess was right!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            “Only if we allow Arabs from the outside to enter our country.”

            Please, remind me again how they got to be on “the outside”.

            Oh, yeah, that’s right: they represent that 40% of the polpn of Israel that the Haganah chased out of town.

            I’ll now invite Gustav to read his copy of UNGAR 181 (you have read it, right?), because in it he will see that anyone who’s Place of Residence was inside Israel at te moment of Independence is…. an Israeli.

            That remained true even if they had been chased out of their village, because that doesn’t change their Place of Residence any more than going on holidays to the Bahamas does.

            Gustav: “Otherwise, no, it does not happen …”

            Actually, I can think of another way in which it will happen: if Netanyahu annexes the West Bank.

            But, honestly, Gustav, it’s inevitable that Jews will become the minority.

            The demographics of Israel has been changing ever since the dust settled on 1948-49 (the popln of Israel wasn’t 20% Arab in 1949) and refusing RoR simply delays the moment, it can not prevent it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Please, remind me again how they got to be on “the outside”.

            The same way it happens in all wars. Civilians flee. In the war between Arabs and Jews, a million Jews from Arab lands had to flee and about 700,000Arabs had to flee too in a war which the Arabs started and wanted and we didn’t.

            In the war between India and Pakistan too there were millions of Hindi and Muslim refugees.

            That’s war for you WHATSHISFACE. Don’t want refugees? Don’t start wars!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “The same way it happens in all wars. Civilians flee.”

            Annnnnnd, I’ll remind him once again that fleeing from a warzone does not change their “place of residence”.

            It remains what it was before the war started i.e. “the place where they resided”.

            Annnnnnd, once more, yet again, I’ll point out to Gustav that the text of UNGAR 181 clearly states that you become an “Israeli” if your “place of residence” is inside “Israel” at the time of its independence.

            Gustav: “In the war between Arabs and Jews, a million Jews from Arab lands had to flee”…

            And they also have a right to seek redress for that event, and so an (ex)Egyptian Jew or a (former) Yemani Jew is perfectly entitled to take up the issue of restitution with…. Egypt and Yemen.

            So, when do they plan to start?

            Gustav: …”and about 700,000 Arabs had to flee too in a war which the Arabs started and wanted and we didn’t”

            This is a classic example of how Gustav uses words like a loose-bowel-movement.

            Note that he uses “700,000 Arabs” when I have already pointed out to him that UNGAR 181 said that would have to be regarded as “700,000 Israelis”.

            Gustav, laddie, I’ll point you once more to UNGAR 181 in the (no doubt futile) hope that you’ll actually read the damn thing.

            According to UNGAr 181 all 700,000 of those “fleeing Arabs” were to become “Israeli citizens” upon the independence of “Israel”, precisely because their “place of residence” was “inside Israel”.

            Therefore they do indeed have a right to return to their place of residence (i.e. “inside Israel”) once the reason that forced them to flee (i.e. the Haganah, Irgun, and Stern) had ended.

            Which was, oh, about the time that the Armistice Agreements were signed.

            The UN acknowledged that fact with UNGAR 192, and the state of Israel accepted that notion when it was applying to join the United Nations.

            That’s over 60 years ago, and you are still arguing over something that the UN and Israel agreed to back then.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Annnnnnd, I’ll remind him once again that fleeing from a warzone does not change their “place of residence”.

            Ohhh yes it does.

            Option 1. They may be repatriated but only with the consent of the power who ends up controlling the land (Israel in our example).

            Option 2. They may receive compensation. But if so, the 1 million Jews who were forced to flee from Arab lands are entitled to compensation too. Did they get compensation? NO!!!!

            Option 3: A mixture of both options.

            So you see? The whole thing is a complicated process of negotiation. Which in reality ends in a stalemate in most similar conflicts like for example in the India-Pakistan and the Turkey-Greece conflicts where the process ended in a population exchange.

            That’s exactly how it will end up in the Arab -Israeli conflict too …

            Hey, you don’t have to like it WHATSHISFACE, but you will have to wear it nevertheless …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Option 1. They may be repatriated but only with the consent of the power who ends up controlling the land (Israel in our example).”

            And if that “consent” is withheld then that “controlling power” is violating the human rights of its own citizens.

            Now, I don’t think that’s anything to be proud of, though you appear to be very proud that Israel emerged via an orgy of ethnic-cleansing, which it then followed up with decades of insisting on perpetuating the resulting ethnic-purity.

            It must therefore puzzle you when Israel is described as a racist country….

            Gustav: “Option 2. They may receive compensation.”

            Oh, I quite agree. The formula in UNGAR 192 is “return OR compensation”.

            And since Israel absolutely refuses to offer any compensation then the alternative would be…. oh, yeah, OK.

            Gustav: “But if so, the 1 million Jews who were forced to flee from Arab lands are entitled to compensation too.”

            And, again, I quite agree.

            A Yemeni Jew is perfectly entitled to seek restitution…. from Yemen.

            A Libyan Jew is perfectly entitled to seek restitution… from Libya.

            That proposition is perfectly reasonable to me.

            Gustav: “Did they get compensation? NO!!!!”

            Have they sought restitution? No.

            The Palestinian Arabs who were ejected from Israel are perfectly entitled to seek restitution from Israel, and they have been tireless in seeking that from the very first day that they were forced from their homes.

            Good. On. Them.

            Likewise, the Jews who were ejected from Egypt, or Libya, or Yemen, etc. are perfectly entitled to seek restitution from… Egypt, or Libya, or Yemen, etc.

            Yet in the 60+ years that have passed I have seen scant evidence that they could even be bothered trying.

            Apparently it’s not that big a deal for them.

            And, again, Good. On. Them.

            But that’s the rub: that the (ex)Yemeni Jew or the (former)Egyptian Jew can’t be bothered to get off their fat, lazy arses and pursue their rights does not in any way invalidate the rights that the Nakba Refugees insist must be fulfilled.

            One does not depend upon the other, and I have no idea why you think that they do.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “Option 1. They may be repatriated but only with the consent of the power who ends up controlling the land (Israel in our example).”

            WHATSHISFACE:”And if that “consent” is withheld then that “controlling power” is violating the human rights of its own citizens.”

            What citizens? Those Palestinian Arabs were never Israeli citizens. They were citizens of Palestine which was to be partitioned into two states had the UN recommendation (Res 181) been accepted by the Arabs. But the Palestinian Arabs rejected it so that rejection certainly did not make them Israeli citizens.

            WHATSHISFACE:”Now, I don’t think …”

            Sounds right. You don’t think.

            WHATSHISFACE:”It must therefore puzzle you when Israel is described as a racist country…. ”

            Nope, it doesn’t puzzle me because I accept that the Arabs and their allies are clever propagandists. Hey, that’s the world we live in. We do our best to counter Arab propaganda but they are flush with petro-dollars and it ain’t always easy. Ces’t Lavie …

            GUSTAV: “Option 2. They may receive compensation.”

            WHATSHISFACE:”Oh, I quite agree. The formula in UNGAR 192 is “return OR compensation”.

            And since Israel absolutely refuses to offer any compensation then the alternative would be…. oh, yeah, OK.”

            … easy least Japanese … compensation from Arab governments who stole millions of dollars worth of Jewish properties and assets whom they kicked out of Arab countries and most of whom ended up in Israel which gave them a new life.

            GUSTAV: “But if so, the 1 million Jews who were forced to flee from Arab lands are entitled to compensation too.”

            WHATSHISFACE:”And, again, I quite agree.

            A Yemeni Jew is perfectly entitled to seek restitution…. from Yemen.

            A Libyan Jew is perfectly entitled to seek restitution… from Libya.

            That proposition is perfectly reasonable to me.”

            Good, then it’s settled. Instead of compensating the Jewish refugees, those Arab countries should be compelled to give the poor Palestinian Refugees a new life and allow them to become citizens in their countries.

            GUSTAV: “Did they get compensation? NO!!!!”

            WHATSHISFACE:”Have they sought restitution? No.”

            Yes they did but no one wanted to listen to them. Go figure … after all they are just pesky whiny Jooos aren’t they?

            The rest of your post is just your usual one sided melodramatic boringly repetitive diatribe, WHATSHISFACE and I addressed it already above.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Me: “Annnnnnd, I’ll remind him once again that fleeing from a warzone does not change their “place of residence”.”

            Gustav: “Ohhh yes it does.”

            You really do have a considerable amount of homework reading to do, because we can now add the “Convention relating to the Status of Refugees” to your reading list.

            Because in it you will see that fleeing a war zone makes you a “refugee”, and so “where you are now” is merely your “refuge”, it is not their “place of residence”.

            And according to that Convention all that remains true until that “refugee” is granted asylum, at which point they cease to be a refugee.

            But *these* refugees want to return home, and as long as they express that willingness to go home then as far as that Convention is concerned “their home” remains exactly what it always was i.e. the place that they wish to return to.

            Honestly, do you know **anything**?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Poor old WHATSHISFACE, you are projecting again. Looks like you are the one who needs to update your reading material. Read the following Haaretz article about a forthcoming UN campaign to reduce the number of stateless people worldwide. This is what it says about Palestinian refugees …

            http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.624539

            “The report does not take the Palestinians into account, since the UN General Assembly has recognized Palestine as a state, Guterres said, adding that this “very specific situation” required a “political solution,” according to AFP.”

            Do you understand what political solution means, WHATSHISFACE? It means they have not got an automatic “right of return” to live in Israel proper. And why would they? Most of them were not even born there. They are just descendants of people who may or may not have been born there (each and every case requires investigating). Moreover, they have a potential designated state, namely Fakestan … Oops err … sorry … a slip of the tongue … I meant to say Palestine … where they could become citizens. Get it, WHATSHISFACE?

            Honestly, don’t you know anything?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Nothing happens in Israel without the ‘say so’ of the voters. And guess what, the majority of the voters think like me with regards to Zoabi and Tibi.”

            The nub of the issue, right there.

            The Jews of Israel insist that Israel belongs to the Jews, that it is “the state for the Jews”.

            The Arabs of Israel do not agree.

            They insist that Israel should be “the state for the Israelis”.

            They argue that no Israeli should have a privileged position in Israel for any reason other than “They are an Israeli”.

            They are perfectly entitled to hold that opinion, and they are perfectly entitled to speak their mind, and THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM DOING SO.

            You say the majority disagree with the likes of Zoabi and Tibi, and that is, indeed, true: the ruling regime elevates the majority to lord over the minority, and that majority quite likes this privileged position.

            I now invite all the Americans who read these articles to mull exactly what Gustav is saying, and then consider it the next time a Zionist apologist talks about the “shared values” between the USA and Israel.

            You know, things like: “all men are created equal, only Jews are more equal than others”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “They insist that Israel should be “the state for the Israelis”.

            No, that’s where you are wrong WHATSHISFACE. The Arabs think that Israel should be the state for the Arabs too.

            That’s why this 100 year has been going on silly. The Arabs never wanted Jews in the Middle East. Their war against us started even before Israel existed.

            Reminder, the 1929 massacre of Jews in Hebron. Why was that? (I can’t wait for his Wacco explanation. It should be a doozy. It always IS and it is always worth a laugh).

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “No, that’s where you are wrong WHATSHISFACE. The Arabs think that Israel should be the state for the Arabs”

            As in: Israel should become just ANOTHER Arab state instead of a Jewish state.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “No, that’s where you are wrong WHATSHISFACE. The Arabs think that Israel should be the state for the Arabs too.”

            And I’m struggling to see what is actually wrong with that line of thinking….

            Gustav: “As in: Israel should become just ANOTHER Arab state instead of a Jewish state.”

            *chortle*

            My argumentative little friend obviously just realized the enormity of that lunatic comment of his, and is now trying to backpedal as furiously as possible.

            Revealing. Very, very revealing.

            I think we’re just about done here, because Gustav’s own words have done him in.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “My argumentative little friend obviously just realized the enormity of that lunatic comment of his, and is now trying to backpedal as furiously as possible.”

            Indeed. I constructed one clumsy sentence which I realized would give an idiot like you a chance to chortle and I quickly clarified my meaning before you even had the chance to sound off about it. But alas, that did not stop your triumphant crowing. the idiot in you chortled, how predictable you are. Ok, I don’t begrudge you a little consolation prize. Enjoy it while you can, you self congratulatory little school-boy.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            I have to admit it’s always damned amusing whenever someone Doubles Down On Dumb.

            But, really, Gustav, I’m trying to help you out here with a bit o’ heartfelt advice: it’s well past time you stopped digging that hole you find yourself in….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “But, really, Gustav, I’m trying to help you out here with a bit o’ heartfelt advice: it’s well past time you stopped digging that hole you find yourself in….”

            While you are trying to help me (chortle) who is helping you to sell your figurative dead parrot, WHATSHISFACE?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Keep digging that hole for yourself, Gustav.

            After all, digging itself into a hole appears to be the most pressing policy objective of this clown-car of a ruling regime.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yawn.

            You are a childish schoolboy, WHATSHISFACE.

            But don’t be frustrated for not being able to sell your dead parrot. It does not diminish you as a person. The only thing which diminishes it is your continuing attempt to try to sell it, you silly boy.

            Reply to Comment
    18. Victor Arajs

      Nur al-Din Abu Hashiyeh is a hero for his heroic actions in Tel Aviv. Instead of arguiung, you should be raising money for his legal defence fund

      Reply to Comment
      • Ben Zakkai

        How about if we raise money for your enema instead? It might help you think more clearly.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          “How about if we raise money for your enema instead? It might help you think more clearly.”

          Good response to this Latvian Nazi Benny.

          Yet you don’t seem to be upset about Zoabi saying much the same thing as Victor. One has to wonder, why?

          I think that underneath it all, you do agree with me about Zoabi’s and Tibi’s aims. But I accept that you’ll never openly admit to it to a hated right winger like me.

          Never mind.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ben Zakkai

            No, I don’t have a problem saying what I think. It’s just that none of Tibi’s/Zoabi’s statements that I’ve seen, including Zoabi’s most controversial remarks during Protective Edge, made a hero out of a Hamasnik murderer like Victor Arajs just did. (But please don’t reply that saying X is really the same as saying Y, because you know by now that I don’t think so.) And Arajs, not being Palestinian, can’t even attribute his warped sentiments to past suffering and present resistance to Occupation. As for Zoabi’s/Tibi’s overt aims, yeah they want a state-of-all-its-citizens rather than a Jewish state, although I can’t say I blame them, because I’d probably feel the same way in their place; heck, look at how many American Jews go ballistic and file court cases to prevent town halls from putting up nativity scenes and forbid public schools from having Christmas pageants. Do Tibi/Zoabi also want all us Israeli Jews to sleep with the fishes, or at least to disappear? I haven’t a clue. This conflict gives rise to many harsh feelings; I know many Jews who wish all Palestinians would die or disappear. But as long as people don’t act out their baser feelings, we’re okay.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Again, Zoabi and Tibi call for the right of return of millions of Arabs.

            That is equivalent to calling for the destruction of Israel.

            You want an Israel like that? Then you want Israel’s destruction too. Unless of course you will resort to WHATSHISFACE’s word games.

            Read his posts. He is pretending that Israel would still exist even if millions of Arabs would be allowed to “return”. Do you agree with that snake oil merchant?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben Zakkai

            Gustav, I’ve already stated that I favor Israeli acknowledgement of the Naqba and payment of compensation therefor, but that I oppose the PROR. Are you seriously worried about the PROR actually becoming a reality? How could that happen? Israel won’t agree to it, and the world won’t force Israel to do so. While there is a strong, solid international consensus that Israel’s Occupation is illegal and wrong, there is no such consensus in favor of PROR, UN resolutions notwithstanding. I could write a book, or at least a long article, on the legal, political, psychological and practical aspects of the PROR, but this isn’t the place or time. For now I’ll just say that the only way the PROR could be realized, as far as I can see, is if Israel continues ruling the West Bank and Gaza until we are forced, quite justly, to grant Palestinians citizenship and the vote. Then they could democratically enact the PROR into Israel-Palestine’s immigration law. Which is one more reason to end this damned Occupation.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Look, again, we were not talking about you. We were talking about Zoabi and Tibi remember? I said, they are advocating Israel’s destruction you disagreed. Remember?

            But ok, I get it. You just want to go around in circles. Never mind …

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben Zakkai

            Gustav, our present discussion may have reached or passed the point of diminishing returns, but nonetheless I’ll make two more points.

            First, although I don’t think realization of the PROR is wise or practical, I recognize the moral force of the claim: people were kicked out of their homes and barred from returning, they lost and suffered a great deal, and many of their descendants still live cramped lives in refugee camps in Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and elsewhere. You define support for the PROR as a desire to destroy Israel; I don’t. If person A says he supports the PROR, I’ll respect his view, assume his good faith (at least initially) and be happy to talk with him; whereas if he says, “I want to destroy Israel,” I, as an Israeli, will take that as a threat. Choice of words is crucially important here.

            Second, regarding your dispute with Yeah, Right above: I cannot understand how you or others can maintain that Palestinian Arabs can find a home in any Arab state. (And even if they could, why should they be required to do so? Palestine is their home, where their homes, jobs, families and communities are located.) Despite my American origin, I am most certainly not entitled to citizenship on demand in any English-speaking, Protestant nation; nor is a citizen of Uruguay entitled to citizenship in any Spanish-speaking, Catholic country; and so on. Why would you think that any Palestinian Arab could or should just pick up his bags and become Egyptian, Tunisian or Qatari? You need look no farther than Lebanon to see an Arab nation that denies Palestinians, including those born on Lebanese soil, full citizenship and equal rights under the law.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Whatever Ben

            The Palestinians are not the first, nor unfortunately will they be the last refugees. Nor were they as a people entirely blameless for what happened. And there are lots of descendants of Jewish refugees too in Israel, refugees from Arab countries.

            So, if you want to have a guilt trip about the Palestinian Arab refugees, that is entirely your business. But you or Zoabi or Tibi will not force solutions on us which may lead to further suffering on our side and consequently inevitably on their side too. Nor does their intent matter. If your solution puts Israel in danger, we will not have a bar of it.

            I would be happy with practical and equitable solutions which won’t put us in danger. You (since you seem to want to be their spokesman) and they either find it, and we will be a party to it. But we won’t be a party to taking stupid risks just to appease your guilt feelings and their unrepentant one sided accusations which don’t recognize their own role in everybody’s ongoing misfortune in this 100 year conflict.

            And I still say that what Zoabi and Tibi propose would mean our destruction if we would be silly enough to go along with it. You too have said the same even if you want to deny it.

            This discussion is therefore over if you want it to be over. Of course, if you don’t want to be over, then keep talking about it and I WILL respond.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Ok Ben, the refugees …

            Firstly, we had refugees from Arab countries too. At least as many as their refugees.

            Secondly, irrespective of that, we will not be a party to any solution which would subvert the rationale of our state which is for it to remain the nation state of the Jewish people, in other words, that it should remain a majority Jewish state.

            So what is the answer? The idea of the population exchange jumps immediately to mind. That is what happened in other similar conflicts which resulted in large numbers of refugees. Namely in India/Pakistan in 1948 and in Greece/Turkey at the turn of the twentieth century. Don’t forget too that the majority of the Palestinian refugees are not actually refugees but are descendants of refugees who actually were born and grew up in those Arab countries from where Jews had to flee. Those who can’t or won’t stay there, could return to the proposed Palestinian state in the WB or Gaza. One thing is for sure though, they will never be allowed to live in Israel proper. That is simply not negotiable.

            You want to include compensation into the deal? Ok then, you better make sure that the Jewish refugees and their descendants who had to flee from Arab lands too will be compensated for their lost properties and assets and often their lives too …

            Reply to Comment
    19. David T

      Of course it was totally ok to Bibi Longstocking that unitary Palestine was ‘destroyed’ in 1948, politically and physically. Maybe because half of the Jews in Palestine had not even acquired citizenship and any right to decide the future of Palestine.

      Until today Israel has no internal legitimation since it was never the outcome of a referendum of the real citizens in this area. And even today the outcome would be rigged, because a pro Zionist majority can only be reached by keeping the real majority expelled who not only according to partition resolution should have automatically acquired Israeli citizenship. But we know that it took Israel four years and more than 20 drafts to denationalize them and keep them from voting. The (voting) result is called a “Jewish” democracy. No surprise.

      Reply to Comment
    20. Victor Arajs

      And Arajs, not being Palestinian, can’t even attribute his warped sentiments to past suffering and present resistance to Occupation…I want absolute justice. That is why Hashiyeh is an absolute hero. As this is why you, Ben Zakkai are no different from Barookh Golstein, because if you cannot understand the actions of Hashiyeh yet you talk about occupation, then you are a deceitful zionist. Note that Mairav didnt chastise me, I am just saying what everyone here feels

      Reply to Comment
      • Ben Zakkai

        Absolute justice? You sick, nasty, hateful fraud. You think everyone here agrees that Hashiyeh is an absolute hero? Then let’s take a poll and find out if you’re full of shit. Mairav, Marnie, Brian, Yeah Right? Anybody else want to comment? Oh, but I shouldn’t be doing your work for you, Victor darling; let’s see you appeal to the folks here and prove that everyone agrees with you, as you said. I’ll be watching.

        Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          Arajs is a troll Ben. Best ignored. No point in getting sucked into obvious nonsense. (He’s the mirror image of Tomer. Fascists are fascists.)

          Reply to Comment
          • Ben Zakkai

            Thank you, Brian, I will take that into account.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Actually, with the latest comment ‘Arajs’ posted one has to wonder if this is a right winger’s “false flag” operation. With intent to slander. Remember, whoever this is is the mirror image. Would anyone think some of these characters here incapable of it? All the more reason to strictly ignore him or her whoever he/she is.

            Reply to Comment
    21. Victor Arajs

      A full 24 hours has past since I made my last post. None of your friends have rebutted my position declaring Hashiyeh a hero. Do you know why that is? Because they agree with me. And beneath the bluster, both Ben zakkai and Brian agree with me. I am not a troll, but represent the conscience of many 972 bloggers. I say what you feel

      Reply to Comment
      • “I am not a troll, but represent the conscience of many 972 bloggers.”
        You represent Victor Arajs. You no more speak for “many 972 bloggers” than Gustav speaks for the Jews of Israel, though you both have this all powerful wizard of Oz vibe. Maybe you two can solve the whole Israel/Palestine problem over some Nescafe and burekhas?

        Reply to Comment
    22. Gustav

      And who do you represent, Manic?

      The fact is that Victor has a point. To date, Ben (to his credit) and me are the only ones who told this character what to do with himself in no uncertain terms.

      Identifying him as a troll but not disagreeing with what he says about TERRORISTS is not good enough. It shows that essentially, most posters on this site don’t disagree with his comments about terrorists. Maybe not quite agreeing with him (since you call him a troll) but not entirely disagreeing with him either.

      Me? I am dead set against ALL terrorists no matter what their shape color or size is. I on’t prevaricate. But then again, we already had this discussion on another site where commenters such as yourself, Manic were even more benign about terrorism against Israelis.

      Reply to Comment
    23. I represent myself. “The fact is that Victor has a point. To date, Ben (to his credit) and me are the only ones who told this character what to do with himself in no uncertain terms.”

      We’re all different. I don’t care how quick or slow anyone was to provide a retort to Victor. How predictable and petty of you. I only speak for myself. I’m not trying to make you happy Gustav, that job belongs to you. “But then again, we already had this discussion on another site where commenters such as yourself, Manic were even more benign about terrorism against Israelis.” With the exception of Victor, I don’t recall anyone else outside of you and your posse that merits responses. Trying to make you feel good about being a tool for the fanatical far right fearmongers and upholders of apartheid state of israel is not my or anyone else’s job and I’m pretty sure there’s nothing any antizionist Jew or non-Jew could say that would put you at ease. You’re paranoid. The right-wing nut jobs have commercialized the holocaust and its Jewish victims (as there were plenty of non-Jewish victims) to create a diversion, have a smoke screen, and always the dreaded label of antisemite to throw at anyone who doesn’t pretend that everything is just fine. There is no shortage of supporters for your cause. You can browbeat and castigate the live long day, but the only thing you’are doing is making yourself look like a demanding, self-absorbed, self-centered, delusional crybaby with an overinflated sense of importance and influence, much like your boy Victor.

      Victor said he represented other people here, which required a response.

      You’ve proven again and again you’re inability to understand anything at all said by us lefties, you’re only programmed for confrontations and false accusations and like I said elsewhere, you’re obtuse, which is the zionist prerequisite. No other skills necessary. You, Victor, Ginger, Pedro, Richard and all the other trolls are exactly alike.

      Reply to Comment
      • “Identifying him as a troll but not disagreeing with what he says about TERRORISTS is not good enough. It shows that essentially, most posters on this site don’t disagree with his comments about terrorists. Maybe not quite agreeing with him (since you call him a troll) but not entirely disagreeing with him either.”

        So predictable. It’s never enough with you folks, absolutely never. Why isn’t there peace in the middle east – because the people who “claim” they want it are always making new conditions, adding codicils, demanding their egos to be stroked yet again. Of course the masks are off now, as the events of the last few weeks have plainly proven. Hell, there’s no desire for peace at all. Fuck that – there’s no need for democracy either – all we need is a standing army of little blue and white shirts to be ready to call out anyone who disagrees as a traitor – to take away the citizenship of those we perceive as a threat, which could be even an “Ayrab” who dares to look one of the “chosen people” in the eyes without fear or maybe just fill those prisons to overflowing then, who needs to fill up prisons; summary executions are in order, so fast, so satisfying.

        Can an entire country be psychotic? It’s starting to look that way.

        Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          Eloquent statements. Thanks. Gustav, with a massive conventional army and occupying dominant state behind him is against “all terrorists no matter what” but he of course does not regard what the Israeli state and it’s proxy settlers and it’s brutal machinery of control and coercion do to the Palestinians as “terror” in any way shape or form. Such a convenient form of indignation, of occupier’s logic.

          Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            And of course the Israeli state defines any and all asymmetric resistance whatsoever as “terror.” Even Abu Mazen is guilty of “diplomatic terror,” LoL.

            Reply to Comment
          • “diplomatic terror” LOL!

            Reply to Comment
    24. Gustav

      Thank you Manic and Brian. You proved Victor’s point.

      Ben, there was a reason why Brian didn’t want you to engage Victor. He knew that if you would, it would highlight the fact that Brian, Manic and others here are not all that different from Victor.

      Reply to Comment
      • You’re out of your mind.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          No, dearie, I am not. but people like you cannot stand hearing the truth about yourselves.

          Never mind. That’s why I am here. To keep on reminding you who you really are! You are haters, simple garden variety H-A-T-E-R-S.

          Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          Marnie you’re too kind. He does not qualify for the insanity defense. He knows full well what he does. These comment boards are interesting case studies.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Brian, Marnie

            Wanna know the difference between you two and Victor?

            No? Well, I’ll tell you anyways …

            Victor hates us for no reason. He hates all Jews.

            You two? You two laboriously and selectively accumulate reasons to hate us and along the way you pointedly ignore all other relevant facts. You hate us for ideological reasons you have come to believe in your own simplistic propaganda to justify your hatred for us.

            Just sayin’ hey it isn’t a problem for us. We have learnt how to deal with haters. You two are just small fry …

            Reply to Comment
          • “You hate us for ideological reasons you have come to believe in your own simplistic propaganda to justify your hatred for us.”

            Who’s us? I’m only responding to you. Or is your name Legion?

            What a marroon!!!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Who is us …?”

            I-S-R-A-E-L-I-S.

            99.9% of us are Zionists.

            And not just Israelis but most Jews are Zionists too.

            What was it you said about Zionists, Manic?

            Go on say it again ….

            Reply to Comment
          • “Us?” Are you implying that you speak for 99.9% of israelis? I’d think there are plenty of non-Jewish israelis who’d disagree with you, and plenty of Jews who disagree, it’s just more convenient to pretend they don’t exist. I’d have some respect for you if you actually spoke for yourself alone, and not the whole, but I finally understand the utility of always speaking in terms of “us” –
            – insulting you is insulting “us”.
            – disagreeing with you is disagreeing with “us”.
            – disliking you is disliking “us”.

            1 people, 1 vote, 1 leader? That didn’t work out at all. It’s not going to work for israel either.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            99.9% of Israeli Jews are Zionists. Wanna know why? Because all of us favor the existence of the state of Israel.

            Don’t like it Marnie? Tough titties.

            Reply to Comment
          • I said I hate zionists and I really meant it. You said you hated fucking bitches like me and extended your hate to my parents for having me. You also called me a nazi bitch. Okay. I’m forced to do something very difficult. I can’t hate and I can’t hate you. I’ve spent enough time trying to talk to you, for sure, and it’s lead to some very harsh banter. I’m no Martin Luther King or Mother Terese. I have a short fuse and don’t have good governance of my mouth. That being said, I think you put a lot of energy into wanting people like myself or Brian to hate you (he clearly stated he does not). It serves a purpose to think you’re hated. You can say – Look – everybody hates us, they want to kill us, they want us to be unhappy, etc. Here’s the deal though, liking or loving you does not give you a free pass. I don’t have to agree, love or like your opinions or what you stand for. I can disagree with everything you say. Everything You Say. I believe you’re wrong. Dead wrong. About everything. This path you’re taking, I believe, is going to bring about a calamity of epic, even biblical proportions. You risk losing everything you hold dear. You aren’t going to be able to say you didn’t know, you didn’t understand or why didn’t anybody tell me? I’m sorry I resorted to name calling and I hope I will listen to my “better angels” and not to resort to that again. I won’t be badgered by anyone here. I won’t be pressured into answering anybody here.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Okay. I’m forced to do something very difficult. I can’t hate and I can’t hate you”

            You never said you hated me personally. You said you hate Zionists and I am sure you have not come to a moment of epiphany and stopped hating Zionists.

            But guess what, Marnie, I am a Zionist so nothing changed.

            As far as your admonition that we risk losing everything, your concern for us is touching. But I happen to think that we would be virtually assured of losing everything if we would heed the advice of the likes of you and Brian.

            But if we don’t? Do we stand to lose everything anyways? Not bloody likely but if we would, then watch out. There would be hell to pay …

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            You’re verbal behavior is hateful here today but we don’t hate you. We’re amused by you (sometimes). We’re just not that into you. And we both care a lot about Israel and the future Palestine and all that and find the subject interesting. That’s why we’re here. That’s hard for you to believe. I know. It’s OK. We’re used to that and are comfortable with ourselves and have learnt how to deal with hater-accusation-flingers.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I hate to break this to you Brian dear but the majority of Israelis agree with me not the likes of you.

            But all you are trying to do is trying to ride rough shod over us and it will not work. That is what I am trying to demonstrate to you by showing you what “nudniks” we can be.

            No, we won’t sacrifice ourselves on the altar of your crazy ideology. All you do is get our collective backs up and give false hope to your pets “the Palestinians” so you just complicate the peace process. This mess in the Middle East will only be solved if we too will go along with whatever the solution is. Nobody but nobody will dictate to us no matter what your collective illusions are about it …

            Then again, a thought just occurred to me as I am writing this. Perhaps that is exactly what you want?

            The only thing I don’t understand is why?

            Reply to Comment
    25. Brian

      http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.626266

      Shattering a Jewish American myth: Jerusalem is no Disneyland
      Most American Jewish tour groups are shown a historical-religious theme park version of a nominally ‘united’ Jerusalem – in which the Arabic-speaking, Palestinian east of the city and its grievances is simply invisible.
      By Jo-Ann Mort | Nov. 13, 2014 | 2:25 PM

      Imagine this is your city.

      Imagine that one of its neighborhoods is Shuafat, a walled-off refugee camp with 80,000 people and no legal order or adequate city services, where zealots who recognize the rule of a Supreme Being not a Supreme Court judge, take actions that are daily heightening tensions in the city and new tenants take over the top floor of a home under the veil of darkness and proclaim that they are “Judaizing” the street of an overwhelmingly Arab neighborhood, throwing out the belongings of the family who is living there and camping on the top floor with their children, and their guns.

      Welcome to Jerusalem, yes, Jerusalem. But, this isn’t the Jerusalem that most tourists see. Because this reality is invisible, not least when it’s unseen, it’s difficult to understand the eruption of violence that has pervaded the city since the summer.

      For many American and other tourists, not least Jewish tourists, Jerusalem exists more like an historic theme park, which honestly isn’t fair to this majestic city, holy to all three of the monotheistic religions. For sure, there’s living history to be experienced when wandering through the Old City’s Jaffa Gate, at the Kotel or in the streets of Mea Shearim. But there is also the daily reality of Jerusalem for Jews and Arabs alike, which is too often missing from the tourist itinerary.

      That’s because hotels in West Jerusalem are filled with like-minded tourists that welcome missions from Jewish organizations with big signs across the entrance. In the “united” Jerusalem, most Jewish tourists don’t even consider staying in similarly well-appointed hotels in East Jerusalem, at hotels that are Palestinian-run or owned. Nor do Jewish organizations book there. It’s an implicit acknowledgement of an invisible border.

      Tourists eat and drink in restaurants near Emek Refa’im, with the lilt of English in their ears, thanks to the number of Anglos there, permanent residents or tourists, or linger in the pleasant new restaurants amassed in the renovated train station nearby. It’s a lovely and livable neighborhood, where familiarity radiates through the white Jerusalem stone.

      Indeed, it’s possible to spend days in the Western quarters of Jerusalem barely hearing Hebrew, while Arabic is nearly impossible to hear during the typical Jewish tourist itinerary – bar wandering into a restaurant kitchen, or strolling down the stone paths of the Muslim Quarter in the Old City.

      If you don’t travel east of Road 1, here’s what you miss. Palestinian neighborhoods overall comprise around 300,000 people without Israeli citizenship and no right to vote in any national election. While they can vote in the city elections, they choose not to, as a protest of their occupation. They do pay city taxes, yet are ill-served by the “united” municipality—though 38% of the city’s population, they receive only 12% of the budget for services like trash collection, road paving, street signs and education. They are rarely awarded permits to build new homes or additions.

      Part of the “sovereignty” campaign waged by successive Israel Jerusalem governments has been to disallow symbols of Palestinian culture or nationhood in East Jerusalem. This has strengthened the hand of extremists and religious clerics at the expense of moderates.

      Even the East Jerusalem Chamber of Commerce has had its doors on Saladin Street, the main street of the city’s Eastern portion, soldered shut by the IDF since 2001, in spite of past Israeli statements that they will reopen it. Yet, imagine instead of fighting for sovereignty, the business communities, both Jewish and Arab, could come together to create a shared city that thrives, not writhes, out of a history so precious to both peoples.

      For those of us who love this city, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, secular, it’s imperative to concentrate on the reality of the daily life for residents there, instead of perpetuating narratives and claims that are simply untrue and will never bring the calm desired all around. Jerusalem must be a shared city, home to two peoples, Israel and a future Palestine. That is the only way that it can maintain a unity, a unity of purpose and a potential for a truly livable city, not one that drowns in history, but rather that thrives in a future for all.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Jerusalem must be a shared city?

        Both Ehud Barak and Olmert’s offered to make Jerusalem a shared city but the Palestinian Arabs wanted more. That wasn’t enough for them.

        But you people just ignore that because you set yourselves up on autopilot to claim that so long as there is no “peace” it is Israel’s fault.

        Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          Thanks for my daily serving of hasbara. Like a steaming pile of “mystery meat” plopped down on my cafeteria tray. “Meat byproducts” served up as Grade A USDA Sirloin.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You are welcome Brian …

            I am here to remind you of reality no matter how much you insist on denying it and hiding in your “make belief world”.

            Everything that I said about the offer to share Jerusalem is verifiable by anyone who is interested in the truth. I know that does not include people like you Brian.

            Reply to Comment
      • Unreal. Thanks Brian.

        Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          The American right wing diaspora’s view is based on a kitsch Disneyland version of Israel and the situation. The American settler transplants tend to be the most fanatical and cruel. The Sabras know it is more complex. So the Sabras tend to be less naive and more cynical but no less ruthless when it come down to it.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You really don’t like Americans, do you Brian?

            We already know you don’t like Israelis either. Who else don’t you like?

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Gustav is a therapeutically-minded thinker. He embodies Phillip Rieff’s “Triumph of the Therapeutic.” He wants to know how I realty really feel, like a teenage girl. It’s an extension of demanding that the Palestinians deep, deep down swear and cross their hearts and hope to die that really they have warm feelings about Jews. Nothing else will do. Or get therapy until they do. Despite being exposed to daily ‘cognitive behavioral therapy’ (The Occupation) that would kill warm feelings in anyone. Arrangements that are verifiable and practical? Practical schmactical. “How do they really really FEEL about us.” “How does Brian really really FEEL about me?”

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Good old robotic Brian, he prefers to debate his “cartoon Gustav” than the real me. For the third time, this is what I said on this very thread …

            “And no Brian dear, just for the record, we are not looking for confessions of deep love for us from your Palestinians. Hey, we don’t love them either. But we are looking for a clear undertaking which might even go something like this:

            We hate you, you bloody Jews but we solemnly undertake to renounce our old undertaking to destroy you and to displace your state by ours. Instead we now accept your right to exist here as a Jewish state next to our Arab state and we won’t be doing anything ANYMORE to try to destroy your presence here.

            That is called a grudging acceptance of reality. That would do”

            Reply to Comment
          • I agree with you about americans. I believe a lot of them brought their racism with them, it has “made in america” all over it. Did you happen to see this: Teens dress as KKK members for Purim http://www.timesofisrael.com

            “The costume created an interesting and important discussion,” Rina Even-Tov said, according to Channel 2 News.

            “This act essentially created a platform for discussion, it is no different from a Nazi costume,” she concluded.

            This is bullshit from the get go. I’m pretty sure if students at her high school decided to go all out nazi regalia, complete with students in the striped uniforms of Jews, there would have been hell to pay if the principal hadn’t shut it down (I would hope) and she would have lost her job. There are a number of holocaust survivors living in israel and the offense would’ve been enormous. However, there aren’t so many African Americans living in israel, which made it very easy for this vulgar display of racism to occur.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            At least we have it in us to be self critical when we do something stupid.

            Get it? “The Times of Israel” wrote that article. And you people never stop quoting from Haaretz, another Israeli publication. There you are, free speech and democracy at work. Lot’s of self criticizm and soul searching.

            Where do we see that attitude manifested by extremist left wing ideological polemicists such as you, Marnie and Brian?

            All we hear from you is how eeeeevil WE are and how saintly the Palestinians are. How convincing can that be for us?

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Well, you’ve admitted you don’t even read Haaretz, an indispensable part of your national conversation, and you did not soul search for one nanosecond over Nehemiah Shtrasler’s viewpoint. The thing you DO do is to define the center left as extreme left and the extreme right as center.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Actually I have read and still do occasionally read Haaretz but I don’t consider it to be the source of all truth and wisdom.

            Nevertheless, I uphold their rights to say and advocate anything. Just about anything. Equally, I use that same feedom which I advocate for them to vigorously debate and oppose many things which they advocate. And yes, I also question their agenda.

            Is that opposing them and what they stand for? YES, an emphatic yes even. But I still uphold their rights to say what they say.

            How about you Brian? Do you uphold my rights and the rights of people like me to do what we do and say what we say? I coubt it …

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            To say what you say? Of course. When did anyone here say you had no right to post a comment here? To do what you do? That depends….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Actually, to the credit of the moderators, by and large they let me post most of my posts. Occasionally some of my posts don’t get published for seemingly no reason even though there is nothing rude in those posts.

            As far as the posters here? Many urged me to stop posting here. Including Marnie. I don’t remember whether you were amongst those who said that you want me to stop posting here so I won’t claim that you did.

            Reply to Comment
          • “To say what you say? Of course. When did anyone here say you had no right to post a comment here? To do what you do? That depends….”

            It was just me, at least I know you weren’t on the sidelines cheering so nope, it was me. I had suggested that maybe Gustav would be more comfortable in an atmosphere like Arutz Sheva, suggesting maybe he was uncomfortable here. Time has given me the impression that it would be impossible for Gustav to be uncomfortable anywhere. And then I proceeded to tell him he’d be missed here and to fuck off.

            Reply to Comment
          • “Actually I have read and still do occasionally read Haaretz but I don’t consider it to be the source of all truth and wisdom.”

            Nope, your source of all truth and wisdom is your Magic 8 ball! Just think of a question that can be answered “Yes” or “No”, concentrate very, very hard, and click on the “Ask” button. Then let Spike’s 8-Ball show you the way!

            Reply to Comment
          • At least we have it in us to be self critical when we do something stupid.

            Get it? “The Times of Israel” wrote that article.

            Yes, I know it was from “The Times of Israel” and was pleasantly surprised as I’d seen it somewhere else first. But “we” didn’t write that article, it was written by Times of Israel staff and it was great.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Time has given me the impression that it would be impossible for Gustav to be uncomfortable anywhere.”

            I am very comfortable in places where I can make anti Israel propagandists uncomfortable.

            Reply to Comment
          • “I am very comfortable in places where I can make anti Israel propagandists uncomfortable.”

            Is that what you think you do?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV:”“I am very comfortable in places where I can make anti Israel propagandists uncomfortable.”

            MARNIE:”Is that what you think you do?”

            Yes, but only to thinking lefties who have a brain and a real conscience. Not people like you and Brian who are pre-programmed automatons.

            Reply to Comment
          • Are you comfortable here?

            “Israeli settlers criticised for overnight move into hotly disputed East Jerusalem” Ben Lynfield –
            Jerusalem Monday 20 October 2014
            http://www.independent.co.uk/news

            how about here?

            “Jewish settlers occupy Palestinian homes in Old City’s shadow”
            Tuesday, 30 September 2014
            http://english.alarabiya.net/

            Maybe this is more your speed –

            “See: Israeli settlers walk into a Palestinian home and decide it belongs to them”

            March 11, 2014 by Sami Kishawi
            http://smpalestine.com/2014/03/11/

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I just looooooove your sources. Al Arabiya anyone? Pathetic …

            Would you believe me if I posted a reference from Arutz Sheva?

            Why do you expect me to believe your out of context stories from sites which I could not trust in a pink fit, mmmmmmm,, Marnie dear?

            Reply to Comment
          • I’m glad that the Independent is okay with you, they have excellent reporting.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “I’m glad that the Independent is okay with you.”

            You do like to jump to conclusions, don’t you?

            Jerusalem Post anyone? When that will be ok with you maybe I too will look at your sources.

            Reply to Comment
          • Forgot about smpalestine.com – Hey, 2 out of 3!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Let’s just say that you forgot about reason, logic, thinking for yourself and a willingness to be non biased.

            I could mention a few more things that you forgot, like REAL history which ends up giving you at best selective memory and selective listening.

            But what’s the use? You are a lost cause …

            Reply to Comment
          • “But what’s the use? You are a lost cause …”

            Thank God!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            … too right, you can say that again, Marnie dear.

            We are much better off with you siding with the Palestinian Arabs. Wanna know why ….?

            Because you being with them, lowers the average IQ of the group of idiots who support them …

            Reply to Comment
    26. Brian

      I have thought this (below) for a long time about Netanyahu. The idea that deep, deep down he’s “really” pragmatic, “really” a peacemaker is false. It is the opposite of the truth. He is a true believer. I have also thought for some time now that the Right’s endgame is what Shtrasler outlines in the last paragraph below. There is no other way to make sense of the Right’s complacency about the gathering crises:

      http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.625724

      There is no one further right than Netanyahu

      By Nehemia Shtrasler

      Published 05:00 11.11.14

      …There are several other innocents who also believe Netanyahu is really a peace seeker who was unwillingly dragged in the wake of fellow Likud MKs like Tzipi Hotovely, Miri Regev, Zeev Elkin, Danny Danon and Moshe Feiglin, while Habayit Hayehudi ministers Naftali Bennett and Uri Ariel lurked in ambush from the sidelines. This, too, is nonsense. Netanyahu is Hotovely. He is Regev; he is Elkin; he is Danon and he is Feiglin; and he’s also Bennett and Ariel.

      There is no difference between him and them. He hasn’t been dragged along by the extremists; he’s a major extremist himself. He merely speaks a bit differently, a drop more moderately. After all, he is the prime minister. But in practice, he acts exactly like they do, because he, too, is a believer in Greater Israel, and all the rest is just talk and tactics, for the sake of buying time.

      In the context of these tactics, he can give a speech at Bar-Ilan University in favor of a two-state solution, conduct make-believe negotiations, freeze construction in the settlements for two or three months and even release a few prisoners (and then imprison them again). But these are mere deceptions. His plan is clear: another house and another tree, more roads and more settlers, so as to deepen Israel’s hold on the West Bank and thwart any possibility of an agreement and a withdrawal.

      That’s exactly how he acted during his first term, in 1996-1999. On the eve of the election, he announced that he accepted the Oslo Accords (a tactic). But the minute he attained power, he opened the Western Wall tunnel in Jerusalem, which caused a bloodbath and liquidated the Oslo Accords.

      Now he’s fighting Mahmoud Abbas by repeatedly declaring that Israel has “no partner” for peace, even though the Palestinian Authority president has said he’s ready for a peace deal that will recognize Israel and end the conflict with all the Arab states as well. That’s why Netanyahu hates him.

      There’s nothing that drives him crazier than Abbas’ insistence on not committing terror attacks. Netanyahu is interested in an extremism that encourages more extremism and closes off any possibility of any agreement. That’s why he’s doing everything he can to destroy this peace seeker and crown Hamas in his place — because then it will be clear to everyone that there really is no one to talk to.

      Every time things cool off a bit, he pours fuel on the fire by announcing more building in East Jerusalem — 2,600 apartments in the Givat Hamatos neighborhood or a few houses in Silwan. And he does nothing to stop Likud MKs from ascending the Temple Mount to inflame all the world’s Muslims against us.

      Their goal is clear: They want Armageddon to break out between Israel and the Muslims, and then, in the heat of battle, it will be possible to throw all the Arabs out of the country…

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        More BS about how Netanyahu is single handedly to blame for “world hunger”.

        What is the intent behind smearing him? It is to make it appear that if not for Netanyahu we would already enjoy peace and prosperity in the Middle East.

        But here is the bitter reality. Netanyahu may or may not be a bad leader but even without him we would not have peace because Hamas does not want peace with Israel and neither does Abbas. Abbas had the chance to make peace with us before Netanyahu gained control of the government in democratic elections. But what did Abbas do? He ignored Olmert’s 2008 peace offer for 6 months and turned his face towards the sky to thank Allah after Netanyahu won the elections in 2009.

        Ever since then, he and his faithful puppy like supporters like Brian, put their hands on their hearts and solemnly repeat the mantra … “It’s all Netanyahu’s fault” … “It’s all Netanyahu’s fault” …. “It’s all Netanyahu’s fault” ….

        Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        That article says nothing that I haven’t said.

        FACT: Abbas did not respond to Olmert’s offer for 6 months.

        He got the offer, he went into a trance I know he can make up excuses for it, anyone can make up excuses for anything. But Abbas knew full well what would be the consequences of his failure to respond to Olmert’s peace offer. He knew that the Israeli voters would get the message that if even such a far reaching peace offer is not good enough for Abbas, then there is no peace partner …

        As for making excuses for Netanyahu? BS, we don’t need to. With or without Netanyahu we have no peace partner. End of story. It is time for a major gesture from the so called Arab peace camp to get us to change our minds about that. I indicated a number of times already what that could be. I am not repeating it again unless someone expresses a specific interest in here to want to hear it again.

        Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          Did you say this? I missed that:

          “However, the real poignancy of this story has a background Issacharoff does not reveal, namely, that Olmert (so he told me) had been in several meetings with Abbas and Olmert’s predecessor, Ariel Sharon, in which Sharon treated Abbas so bullyingly that Olmert himself cringed but, alas, had to remain silent; that Olmert knew he would have to make a gesture to Abbas to prove he was not approaching things as his former boss did.

          Which brings me to the main point. There was, and is, no disagreement between Olmert and Abbas that American diplomacy might have picked up from where they had left off. They also agreed that it was Netanyahu who said “No way” as soon as he came into office in the spring of 2009. Tobin might consider why Netanyahu has repudiated what Abbas and Olmert achieved, not why Abbas did not just take a deal, on Israel’s political schedule, that he reasonably sought to improve.

          In fairness to Issacharoff, many of whose Haaretz pieces I admire, he needs no instruction from me about Netanyahu’s rejectionism or Olmert’s frustration with it. But he curiously chose to leave all of this out in reporting the interview.”

          Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            What Avishai is saying goes hand in hand with Shtrasler is saying, and its the whole current situation in a nutshell:

            “Now he’s fighting Mahmoud Abbas by repeatedly declaring that Israel has “no partner” for peace, even though the Palestinian Authority president has said he’s ready for a peace deal that will recognize Israel and end the conflict with all the Arab states as well. That’s why Netanyahu hates him. There’s nothing that drives him crazier than Abbas’ insistence on not committing terror attacks.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BS Brian …

            “…. Abbas hoped Obama would be elected …”

            That says it all. Even Olmert’s offer wasn’t good enough for Abbas. He wanted Obama to pressure Israel to make more concessions.

            We the Israeli voters got the message. We needed someone who would be willing and able to stand up to endless Palestinian demands for us to surrender for nothing in return. So Netanyahu was voted in. Of course that made Abbas happy because he now has a fig leaf to cover his own intransigence.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            This reveals what you think should have been “good enough” for Abbas: “Ariel, Maaleh Adumim, and Efrat—that is 5.9 percent of the West Bank—incorporated into Israel.” It reveals what an extremist you are. In your ideological fantasy world, a Palestinian leader who hoped to negotiate the “surrender” of Ariel from Israeli control is ungrateful and a maker of “incessant” demands. Just unbelievable. Ariel! And how dare that Palestinian leader hope for the democratic election of a U.S. presidential candidate! The nerve of him! AIPAC never does that! It remains true what Avishai writes about Netanyahu’s rejectionsism, and it remains true that, as Shtrasler so accurately writes:

            “Now he’s fighting Mahmoud Abbas by repeatedly declaring that Israel has “no partner” for peace, even though the Palestinian Authority president has said he’s ready for a peace deal that will recognize Israel and end the conflict with all the Arab states as well. That’s why Netanyahu hates him. There’s nothing that drives him crazier than Abbas’ insistence on not committing terror attacks.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            What this reveals is that even Olmert’s offer was not good enough for Abbas. And because it wasn’t, his faithful puppy dog supporters immediately justify his intransigence.

            But this is reality …

            Olmert offered land swaps for all the lands which he proposed to keep. Here, read the following Haaretz article which outlines what Olmert’s offer was:

            http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/haaretz-exclusive-olmert-s-plan-for-peace-with-the-palestinians-1.1970?v=EECFB4119FBE212B891326ACA8805DC6

            “Former prime minister Ehud Olmert proposed giving the Palestinians land from communities bordering the Gaza Strip and from the Judean Desert nature reserve in exchange for settlement blocs in the West Bank.
            According to the map proposed by Olmert, which is being made public here for the first time, the future border between Israel and the Gaza Strip would be adjacent to kibbutzim and moshavim such as Be’eri, Kissufim and Nir Oz, whose fields would be given to the Palestinians.

            Olmert also proposed giving land to a future Palestinian state in the Beit She’an Valley near Kibbutz Tirat Tzvi; in the Judean Hills near Nataf and Mevo Betar; and in the area of Lachish and of the Yatir Forest. Together, the areas would have involved the transfer of 327 square kilometers of territory from within the Green Line.

            Olmert presented his map to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in September of last year. Abbas did not respond, and negotiations ended. In an interview with Haaretz on Tuesday, Abbas said Olmert had presented several drafts of his map.

            The version being disclosed Thursday in Haaretz is based on sources who received detailed information about Olmert’s proposals.

            Olmert wanted to annex 6.3 percent of the West Bank to Israel, areas that are home to 75 percent of the Jewish population of the territories. His proposal would have also involved evacuation of dozens of settlements in the Jordan Valley, in the eastern Samarian hills and in the Hebron region. In return for the annexation to Israel of Ma’aleh Adumim, the Gush Etzion bloc of settlements, Ariel, Beit Aryeh and settlements adjacent to Jerusalem, Olmert proposed the transfer of territory to the Palestinians equivalent to 5.8 percent of the area of the West Bank as well as a safe-passage route from Hebron to the Gaza Strip via a highway that would remain part of the sovereign territory of Israel but where there would be no Israeli presence.

            Olmert gave Col. (res.) Danny Tirza, who had been the primary official involved in planning the route of the security fence, the task of developing the map that would provide the permanent border between Israel and the Palestinian state. Olmert’s proposed annexation to Israel of settlement blocs corresponds in large part to the route of the security fence. In his proposal for a territory swap, Olmert rejected suggestions previously raised involving the transfer to the Palestinians of the eastern Lachish hills, deciding instead to establish communities there for evacuees from the Gaza Strip. He also showed a preference for giving the Palestinians agricultural land over the transfer of the Halutza sands near the Egyptian border.

            The implementation of the Olmert plan would require the evacuation of tens of thousands of settlers and the removal of hallmarks of the West Bank settlement enterprise such as Ofra, Beit El, Elon Moreh and Kiryat Arba, as well as the Jewish community in Hebron itself.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            …Ariel, Maaleh Adumim, and Efrat…

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “…Ariel, Maaleh Adumim, and Efrat…”

            … read my previous post. Not interested? … Ok I am not interested in what you have to say either …

            Reply to Comment
    27. Gustav

      Oh and Abbas is on the record, saying that he will NEVER recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people which the UN specifically called the Jewish state.

      Abbas is going for broke. And he wants to give NOTHING in return.

      He can get fucked! And he will be …

      Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.625724

        There is no one further right than Netanyahu
        By Nehemia Shtrasler
        Published 05:00 11.11.14

        …Now he’s fighting Mahmoud Abbas by repeatedly declaring that Israel has “no partner” for peace, even though the Palestinian Authority president has said he’s ready for a peace deal that will recognize Israel and end the conflict with all the Arab states as well. That’s why Netanyahu hates him. There’s nothing that drives him crazier than Abbas’ insistence on not committing terror attacks…

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          First of all, who cares? I want Israel’s prime minister to make his priority to defend the future well being of Israelis. I vote for the one who I perceive will do it best. I don’t care whether he/she is a right winger or a left winger.

          Since the left let us down, I will vote for a right winger who hasn’t done a perfect job either but has done a better job than the appeasers. In any case, there is no perfection …

          Reply to Comment
    28. Click here to load previous comments

The stories that matter.
The missing context.
All in one weekly email.

Subscribe to +972's newsletter