Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support.

Click here to help us keep going

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

Netanyahu's status quo strategy: Thwarting a Palestinian state

The Americans got it wrong. By seemingly doing nothing but trying to preserve his seat in power, the Israeli prime minister is in fact advancing a process that makes a Palestinian state an impossibility.

By David Zonsheine

In his Atlantic article on the growing crisis between Jerusalem and Washington, Jeffrey Goldberg quoted American officials slamming Netanyahu, one now-famously called him “chickenshit.” The substance of the criticism was that he lacks the “guts” to strike Iran and is only interested in “protecting himself from political defeat.”

Beyond the damage Netanyahu and his government are causing Israel in the international community – hurting ties crucial for a small country with limited resources in a complicated region – I disagree with the American diagnosis. In Netanyahu’s case, preserving his rule without any apparent progress towards a clear goal is part and parcel of his plan to deepen the deeply-ingrained process of preventing a Palestinian state in the West Bank and splintering the Palestinian people. Even if Netanyahu did not start these steps, he is propelling them with pristine efficiency.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Ammunition Hill in Jerusalem. (Photo by Haim Zach / GPO)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Ammunition Hill in Jerusalem. (Photo by Haim Zach / GPO)

Every day that Netanyahu tries to maintain his seat is another day of settlement construction in the West Bank, another day of Palestinian displacement, of destroying Palestinian assets and other grave human rights violations; another day in which Netanyahu’s strategic goals are being achieved.

Unlike the objective of peace and ending occupation, Netanyahu’s objectives don’t have a big fan base in the international arena. He knows this all too well, and this is why he cunningly operates to maintain the status quo. Ostensibly this means doing nothing; in practice it means rapidly changing facts on the ground in the West Bank.

His declaration of support for the two-state solution at Bar Ilan University and the negotiations led by Kerry were conducted in parallel to government actions on the ground – constituting an integral part of his strategy.

Netanyahu surely must have taken the Americans’ criticism as a complement. They thought they were insulting him but in fact they were praising him. They revealed that they do not understand Netanyahu’s strategy – mistaking his effective methods for fear and lack of political vision. They also positioned him perfectly in his battle for right-wing voters. He is simultaneously standing tall in front of the Administration while winking to his benefactors and allies in the Republican Party ahead of Senate elections. At the same time, he is not “giving in” to Bennett, who perfectly fills the role of the settler youth who makes the prime minister appear like the experienced, rational centrist.

A trip to the West Bank and a perusal of reports by human rights organizations, like the recent B’Tselem report on the Burqah village, can attest to these processes. While Netanyahu’s rhetoric focuses on Iran, ISIS, the war in Gaza and the high cost of living, the West Bank continues to undergo significant changes and the Palestinian people continued to be divided and conquered.

Netanyahu is the victor in Goldberg’s Atlantic story. And he continues to be the leading candidate for Israeli prime minister, precisely because of his ability to sell his de facto strategy of change as a status quo strategy.

David Zonsheine is the chairman of B’Tselem.  

Related:
‘Chickengate:’ In the confrontation between Bibi and Obama, Palestinians are only a sideshow
How the very concept of human rights has failed Palestinians
Replacing the peace process with a civil rights struggle

Newsletter banner 5 - 540

Before you go...

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

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

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

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

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Bruce Gould

      What does the Likud charter say about the possibility of a Palestinian state?

      Reply to Comment
      • Weiss

        The ‘Peace & Security’ chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform rejects a Palestinian state.
        “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs.”

        Reply to Comment
    2. Ginger Eis

      It seems, does it not, that +972mag has run out of ideas, imagination and creativity. The theme and content of this article and most article of recent weeks and months are either (a) a repetition- or (b) a recycled version- or (c) a recycle of a recycled version of what +972mag has been writing for years now. There is absolutely nothing new on +972mag and the creativity of the columnists is ZERO! +972mag is thus getting extremely boring and not worthy of the time of any serious fellow. This looks like the beginning of The End of +972mag.

      Reply to Comment
      • Matthias Einmal

        I disagree. The topics repeat themselves because the situtation is unchanged. I believe that the status quo analysis put forward in this article is 100 % accurate.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          I think reasonable people can disagree on this point. I will ponder what you said and come back to you on this tomorrow (it might be late when I reply).

          Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          But you see Mathias, even if we assume (and I mean assume) that the status-quo analysis/opinion put forward in this article is 100% accurate (as you put it), it does not change the fact that it is either (a) a repetition- or (b) a recycled version- or (c) a recycle of a recycled version of the same analysis/opinion +972mag has been putting forward for years now (as I claimed). The fact that the situation on the ground has not changed (as you put it) does not make it any different, (because we are talking about an ‘opinions’ here not ‘news’. Unlike ‘news’, ‘opinions’ do not depend on the facts on the ground). So, we both do in fact agree with each other.

          You also stated/implied, Mathias (and correct me if I misinterpret you), that ‘as long as the situation on the ground does not change, there will be nothing new on +972mag. In so doing, you inadvertently agree(d) with me that there is absolutely nothing new on +972mag since the situation on the ground has not changed, and that the creativity of the columnists is ZERO! Again, we both do not disagree.

          Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          IMHO, the reason why +972mag (seems to have- or) has run out of ideas, imagination and creativity, is not because its columnists/opinionists are dumb, but because +972mag sold its birthright (i.e. freedom of thought and expression) and shackled itself with its own ideological chains. +972mag must represent Palestinian views and interests as interpreted by the PA. +972mag dare not articulate and print anything that might anger the Palestinians. As a result, +972mag may not think outside the box it caged itself in. That’s absolutely +972mag’s right to do so, but the costs of that limitation are severe: +972mag is free, but everywhere in chains; +972mag is severely limited in its reach. This has led to lack of new ideas, stagnant imaginative faculty and dying creativity. Thus, +972mag repeats itself, recycles itself and repeats its recycled self over and over again. To save itself from impending disaster, +972mag MUST free itself and unleash the power of imagination of its columnists/ opinionists. “Die Gedanken sind frei”! Lass die Gedanken frei! Don’t be afraid that you might discover the truth and become “right wing” if you liberate your mind, exercise your power of thought and let the mind go wherever it may – regardless of whose ox is gored!

          Reply to Comment
      • It seems, does it not, that Ginger Eis has run out of ideas, imagination and creativity. The theme and content of this comment and most comments of recent weeks and months are either (a) a repetition- or (b) a recycled version- or (c) a recycle of a recycled version of what Ginger Eis has been writing for years now. There is absolutely nothing new and the creativity of the Ginger Eis is ZERO! Ginger Eis is thus getting extremely boring and not worthy of the time of any serious fellow. This looks like the beginning of The End of Ginger Eis.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          I see you just sneaked back in here yet again, Mr. Pollock, and ran away as you always do. What kind of a man walks on his toes sneaking in and out of places like you do, Mr. Pollock?

          Reply to Comment
      • Lo

        You bemoan +972’s repeated coverage of Netanyahu’s intransigence, but could it be that they are simply reporting the news? If Netanyahu remains as obdurate as he has ever been, how can you fault +972 for telling it like it is?

        Reply to Comment
    3. Brian

      Zonsheine is correct: Netanyahu is a true believer in grabbing it all by a strategy of endless conflict management and bullshit. No way is he simply “fearful.” Fearful like a fox. It is quite true that the Americans misapprehend things: their insults are compliments or at least a help and a confirmation to Netanyahu. Look, it is quite clear that only truly serious sanctions will work. The Israelis that matter care absolutely nothing about anything else–they can not be reasoned with and are amoral–and the lobby still has its bizarre grip on American foreign policy.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Phil

      It seems, does it not, that Ginger has run out of ideas, imagination and creativity. The theme and content of his/her/its’ posts and most posts of recent weeks and months are either (a) a repetition- or (b) a recycled version- or (c) a recycle of a recycled version of what Ginger has been writing for years now. There is absolutely nothing new from Ginger and the creativity of his/her/its’ hasbara is ZERO

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        HA! It is interesting that you and Mr. Greg Pollock just gave the SAME reply. Hmmm, kinda perplexing ….. still don’t know what to make of it. But I will continue to monitor the situation.

        Reply to Comment
    5. Yeah, right

      This author has it wrong.

      The Americans are not stupid, they know that Israel has zero interest in a two-state-solution.

      They understand that Israel has devoted itself to the creation on-the-ground of a single state between the river and the sea, and they are OK with that.

      It’s just that the USA can’t publically say that they are OK with that, and so they have invested a huge amount of effort into what is nothing more than a Kabuki dance that they call the “US-mediated peace process”.

      While that dance continues then the USA can play pretendies.

      If the dance stops then the USA is left exposed as a charlatan.

      The Obama administration is so pissed with Netanyahu because he won’t play his part in this farce.

      Netanyahu doesn’t care, because the Kabuki dance isn’t being done for *his* benefit.

      Or, put another way: as far as the USA is concerned Netanyahu is an ungrateful ingrate who won’t lift a finger to help the USA cover its arse.

      Netanyahu needs them to run interference for him. And they are willing to do that. And all they ask in return it that he plays his part in the farce called the “peace process”.

      He refuses, and the reason why the Americans are so very angry with him is because he continues to insist on the USA’s help even as he refuses to return the favour.

      Reply to Comment
      • Weiss

        Not THIS American Jew …

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, right

          And that’s fine, Weiss.

          But you don’t represent the US Administration (though, obviously, it claims to represent you).

          This is a fact: not a single US Administration has ever made the slightest attempt to force Israel to stop the colonization of the West Bank.

          Not. One.
          Not. Ever.

          Which means that this is axiomatic: the ongoing colonial expansionism by Israel doesn’t particularly worry them.

          But they can’t bring themselves to say that because it means admitting they are A-OK with ol’ fashioned 19th century colonialism.

          So they have to play a game of pretendies, and that game is called the “US-mediated peace process”.

          Now, don’t get me wrong: I think it’s grand that you don’t like that, because I don’t like it either.

          But I recognize that is the purpose of this elaborate Kabuki Dance i.e. to give the USA an excuse to protect Israel while the latter engages in something that the former can’t o.p.e.n.l.y. support.

          It’s not that US Administrations have been “fooled” by Israel.

          It’s not that US Administrations have “misjudged” Israel’s intentions.

          This is all very, very deliberate, and all very carefully conceived, and the reason why this current US Administration is so pissed off is because Netanyahu won’t play that game of pretendies.

          Nothing more.
          No less.

          Reply to Comment
    6. Netanyahu and Ya’alon should have been arrested and thrown in a cell together on Guantanamo Bay until they can be tried as war criminals. There time should be about up.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        “Netanyahu and Ya’alon should have been arrested and thrown in a cell together on Guantanamo Bay”

        Poor old Marnie. I bet you advocate the release of the current inmates of Gitmo because their human rights are being infringed. Isn’t that what extreme st lefties like you have been demanding for years?

        Reply to Comment
    7. Brian

      Whatever the psychological analysis of the Americans’ discernment and the Americans’ motives, the abiding fact is that the Americans are AFRAID to do anything, no matter what they discern, for the same old internal reasons. Hillary is already sucking up to the lobby big time. It’s not Bibi who is “afraid” to act, it is the Americans. All of the anger about who is not playing what role is on a deeper level anger about a US president with his hands tied, unable to simply act in America’s best interest. It’s anger about the tail wagging the dog.

      Reply to Comment
      • This US president and how many other past presidents?

        “As president, Truman initially opposed the creation of a Jewish state. Instead, he tried to promote an Arab-Jewish federation or binational state. He finally gave up in 1947 and endorsed the partition of Palestine into separate states, but he continued to express regret in private that he had not achieved his original objective, which he blamed most often on the “unwarranted interference” of American Zionists. After he had recognized the new state, he pressed the Israeli government to negotiate with the Arabs over borders and refugees; and expressed his disgust with “the manner in which the Jews are handling the refugee problem.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/01/opposed-religious-

        Reply to Comment
      • Lo

        I completely agree with you.

        The sourest taste in my mouth about Hillary Clinton walking into the Democratic nomination for 2016 came for me during her recitation of the same, tired hasbara lines we’ve heard for years when some reporter made the mistake of asking her what she thought about Israel’s latest assault against Gaza.

        What is hopeful is how the U.S. press covered this latest iteration of “mowing the lawn.” While it was still overwhelmingly rooted in the Israeli narrative, there were also real attempts to humanize the Palestinians. You can see evidence of cracks in the monolith in how OpenHillel has got off the ground. It’s not just random Muslim Student Association kids and earnest Jewish Voice for Peace activists; younger Americans (including our Jewish brothers and sisters) are starting to question the received narrative.

        Reply to Comment
      • Kiwi

        “Hillary is already sucking up to the lobby big time.”

        You mean the Arab lobby with the petro dollars in their pockets of course?

        Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          The Arabs offered Israel a genuine, straightforward, honest, and fair peace deal called the Arab Peace Initiative. Israel flatly rejected it without even considering it or counter-offering. Yet the narrative is “poor little Israel, hand outstretched in peace.” Hillary should take MORE of that Arab money and the Arabs should at long last develop an AAPAC with a ruthlessness to match AIPAC.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Oh yes, the much vaunted “Arab peace initiative”. Would you buy a bridge from that man?

            Have you looked at Israel’s 1967 boundaries? 15 kms wide at our greatest population centres. Do you remember what happened in 1973 during the first week after the sneak attack by Egypt and Syria? Israel nearly fell but it had time to recover because it had strategic depth. If Israel would go back to the 1967 boundaries, it would quickly be cut in half with such a sneak attack.

            And I won’t even mention the right of return demand which is part and parcel of the so called Arab peace initiative.

            Oh and one last thing. Despite the above problems, Israel did not reject the Arab “peace initiative” out of hand. We said, it was a good start but let’s discuss it further. The Arab response was their usual intransigent response. They said: “Take it or leave it”. You know what that amounts to, Brian? It amounts to dictating terms of surrender to us. And we are not the surrendering types.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Simply baloney. Israel has studiously ignored it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Simpler baloney. Israel has studiously ignored it”

            I love your usual bluster Brian. You make it so easy for me to feel negatively towards you. It really is very important for you to always present Israel as the villain isn’t it? And you were lecturing me about nuance?

            Now read What the then foreign minister of Israel, Peres, said about the initiative in 2002:

            “Israel views positively every initiative aimed at arriving at peace and normalization. In this respect, the Saudi step is an important one, but it is liable to founder if terrorism is not stopped. We cannot, of course, ignore the problematic aspects which arose at the Beirut Summit and the harsh and rejectionist [sic] language used by some of the speakers. It is also clear that the details of every peace plan must be discussed directly between Israel and the Palestinians, and to make this possible, the Palestinian Authority must put an end to terror, the horrifying expression of which we witnessed just last night in Netanya.[29”

            Those words were spoken by Peres at the height of the suicide bombing campaign by your Palestinian Arabs during the second intifada.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Israel to this day ignores the API. To assert otherwise is brazen falsehood.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            … yes and we will continue to ignore it till the Arabs agree to negotiate it’s details instead of trying to dictate and force it down our throat as is …

            No, we won’t accept the so called right of return which is part of the API, because we are NOT suicidal.

            No, we won’t return to the 1967 border which is only 15kms wide near our major population centres. Because we are not suicidal.

            But to claim that we are not interested to discuss a modified version of it is just a plain lie.

            Which bit of the above do you refuse to understand, Brian? I am willing to repeat it till you will have nightmares about it and will eat and sleep those facts. I know that you are not there yet, because it seems that you keep on wanting me to repeat what I already said, you clown.

            Reply to Comment
    8. “It’s not just random Muslim Student Association kids and earnest Jewish Voice for Peace activists; younger Americans (including our Jewish brothers and sisters) are starting to question the received narrative.” It sure isn’t, even mainstream Jewish institutions have found their voices. Taken from 10 reasons to support Open Hillel page:

      -Anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-Semitism.
      The Open Hillel movement does not call for allowing any person in to speak no matter what their views. It does not call for allowing in anti-Semitism, or racism, or violence, or hatred, or eugenics, or terrorism (as some have claimed). However, people can dramatically disagree about the politics of Israel-Palestine without being anti-Semitic. Open Hillel does not advocate for any particular political view, but we recognize that there are many young Jews who believe that their Jewish values bring them to criticize Israeli policies, or find boycotts to be an effective non-violent tool for achieving social change, or believe that there should be no Jewish state until the messiah comes, or oppose the idea of ethnic nation-states altogether. Although some of these views may be non-Zionist or anti-Zionist, none of them are anti-Semitic, and Jewish students who want to discuss and hold events about these ideas in a Jewish context should be welcome to do so.

      People in general are wide awake and a lot are very angry about what they’re finally seeing. The “mowing the lawn” remark, sounds just like the Hutu Power radio message to “cut the tall trees”. It’s absolutely chilling how both groups made statements regarding impending mass murder sound like landscape architecture.

      Reply to Comment
    9. Gustav

      … However, people can dramatically disagree about the politics of Israel-Palestine …”

      Ooooh, aaahhhh wonder of wonders ……………

      Is it ok to criticize the saintPalestinians too?

      Reply to Comment
      • Bruce Gould

        Every day when I open the newspaper I see criticisms of all that’s wrong with American society – it doesn’t mean the newspapers are ‘anti-American’. The Palestinians aren’t angels, the Israelis aren’t devils, but someone has gotten the short end of the stick and the situation needs to be rectified.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          “but someone has gotten the short end of the stick and the situation needs to be rectified”

          Yeah and the Palestinians just have to sit back, tell the Israelis to jump and Israel has to ask them how high do you want us to jump to fix things?

          Now get this: the situation is a mess. Both parties contributed to this mess. The Arabs at least as much (I am being kind to them). So BOTH sides have to fix the mess. That means, painful compromises for BOTH sides. Not just compromises by Israel.

          The problem is that the Palestinians don’t see it that way and unfortunately, their faithful puppy dog supporters on sites like these support the Palestinian Arab’s intransigence at every turn.

          Reply to Comment
          • Bruce Gould

            The Israelis have ALL the power and any kind of compromise will require them to give up some; people rarely give up power willingly. The Palestinians have been reduced to living in little bantustans.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I get it …

            So the people who successfully defended themselves from aggression and got the upper hand in the process, need to listen to the dictates of the ones who insisted on trying to resolve the conflict through violence and conflict because those people became the underdogs?

            Was that how it was done at the end of WW2? Did the allies have to listen and implement the dictates of the Germans who by then got reduced to being the underdogs?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “I get it …”

            Followed by a paragraph where Gustav shows very carefully that he doesn’t get it…

            Gustav: “So the people who successfully defended themselves from aggression and got the upper hand in the process, need to listen to the dictates of the ones who insisted on trying to resolve the conflict through violence and conflict because those people became the underdogs?”

            No, actually. It means that if two sides get in a fight and one side overwhelms the other side then the result is a Belligerent Occupation, and the winner must therefore follow the rules that pertain to a belligerent occupation.

            You know, things like…. the absolute prohibition on the colonization of occupied territory.

            Or things like… the occupier is not allowed to make permanent changes to the status of the territory that is under occupation.

            Or this…. the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible.

            You seize it, you occupy it, and For As Long As You Continue To Occupy It you must follow the international humanitarian laws that pertain to belligerent occupations.

            Israel refuses to do so, and that’s why Israel is becoming more of a pariah with every passing day.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “You know, things like…. the absolute prohibition on the colonization of occupied territory.”

            Which does not apply to civil wars. It applies only to wars between two sovereign nations which have defined and recognized borders.

            “Or things like… the occupier is not allowed to make permanent changes to the status of the territory that is under occupation.”

            Which does not apply to civil wars. It applies only to wars between two sovereign nations which have defined and recognized borders.

            “Or this…. the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible.”

            Which does not apply to civil wars. It applies only to wars between two sovereign nations which have defined and recognized borders.

            “You seize it, you occupy it, and For As Long As You Continue To Occupy It you must follow the international humanitarian laws that pertain to belligerent occupations.”

            Which does not apply to civil wars. It applies only to wars between two sovereign nations which have defined and recognized borders.

            “Israel refuses to do so, and that’s why Israel is becoming more of a pariah with every passing day.”

            I wouldn’t jump to conclusions about Israel’s pariah status unless you are talking about Arab/Muslim countries which always held Israel in contempt. Even before the so called occupation. The rest of the world? Not so much. They just humor the Arabs and laugh at them behind their backs.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Which does not apply to civil wars. It applies only to wars between two sovereign nations which have defined and recognized borders.”

            Here is an interesting official correspondence between the Provisional Government of Israel and the United Nations, dated May 22, 1948.

            UN: “Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at the present time?”
            GoI: “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.”

            Hmmm. Soooo, you were saying?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “Which does not apply to civil wars. It applies only to wars between two sovereign nations which have defined and recognized borders.”

            WHATSHISFACE:”Here is an interesting official correspondence between the Provisional Government of Israel and the United Nations, dated May 22, 1948.

            UN: “Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at the present time?”
            GoI: “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.”

            Hmmm. Soooo, you were saying?”

            I was saying that all those rules which you listed which Israel must SUPPOSEDLY adhere to, apply to wars between two sovereign nations each of which has recognized borders. If one of such parties ends up controlling part or all of the other party’s territory, it is legally prohibited from transferring it’s population to the land of the other or vice versa.

            The war between the Palestinian Arabs and the Jews of Palestine (renamed – Israelis) however was a civil war in 1947. Neither side has ever had recognized borders. We only had armistice lines (the 1967 boundaries). More over, the Arabs of the West Bank never had their own sovereign state. Therefore both sides have the legal right to live anywhere in historic Palestine till formal partitioning of the land takes place. Only after formal recognized borders will be negotiated would it be illegal for either side to settle it’s population inside the borders of the other party. In the meanwhile, the only thing that can stop or allow either party from settling anywhere in Palestine is their ability to control the land militarily.

            Your quote above is utterly irrelevant.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Your quote above is utterly irrelevant.”

            What part of “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” are you having problems with, Gustav?

            Is it the bit about those areas being outside the territory of Israel?

            Or the bit about how those areas came under Israeli MILITARY control?

            Or is it the bit about how those two facts make Israel subject to the international regulations that pertain to belligerent occupation?

            Which bit, exactly, is beyond your comprehension?

            Gustav: “I was saying that all those rules which you listed which Israel must SUPPOSEDLY adhere to, apply to wars between two sovereign nations each of which has recognized borders.”

            Hmmm, I can think of at least three occasions during WW2 where a state invaded and overran an Mandated Territory (the Syrian campaign is one), and in none of those cases did the invader claim that The Laws Of Occupation did not apply to it because the territory it had just seized was a “Mandated territory”, not the “territory of a state”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “Your quote above is utterly irrelevant.”

            WHATSHISFACE:”What part of “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” are you having problems with, Gustav?”

            Nope, I am not having problems with anything. Since 1947, Palestinian Arabs and Jews (Israelis) have been fighting a civil war with each other. We Israelis want a two state solution while the Palestinian Arabs have always been trying to prevent us from forming our own state. Like Assad of Syria who wants to rule over all the Syrians, the Arabs of Palestine have been trying to rule over all of Palestine. As the tides of war change, one side or the other in both places gains additional territories which was previously controlled by the other side. When that happens, it is ludicrous to claim that the winning party is an occupier of the new lands which they control. You would never describe any of the Syrians who fight in the Syrian civil war as occupiers. Because a Syrian cannot be labelled as an occupier of the land in which he was always entitled to live in. The same goes for the Jews of Palestine. We cannot be called occupiers of a land in which we too were always entitled to live in because we never stopped living in Palestine.

            WHATSHISFACE:”Is it the bit about those areas being outside the territory of Israel?”

            Excuse me? What do you mean? Israel never had recognized borders, thanks to the Arabs. At best, we had armistice lines. Armistice lines are NOT borders. Don’t you know anything?

            WHATSHISFACE:”Or the bit about how those areas came under Israeli MILITARY control?”

            What’s military control got to do with it?

            WHATSHISFACE:”Or is it the bit about how those two facts make Israel subject to the international regulations that pertain to belligerent occupation?

            Which bit, exactly, is beyond your comprehension?”

            The bits that render your points irrelevant. In a civil war, no party which gains additional land can be described as a belligerent occupier of that land. For obvious reasons which I stated above.

            GUSTAV: “I was saying that all those rules which you listed which Israel must SUPPOSEDLY adhere to, apply to wars between two sovereign nations each of which has recognized borders.”

            WHATSHISFACE:”Hmmm, I can think … ”

            I am beginning to think that thinking is beyond your capability and I have supporting evidence to that effect. Your own nonsensical repetitive posts which I am here to refute for as long as you are willing to post them.

            WHATSHISFACE:”… of at least three occasions during WW2 where a state invaded and overran an Mandated Territory (the Syrian campaign is one), and in none of those cases did the invader claim that The Laws Of Occupation did not apply to it because the territory it had just seized was a “Mandated territory”, not the “territory of a state”.

            So what? The invader was not one of the participants of a civil war. You may as well mention the phase of the moon as part of your evidence. That would be equally irrelevant as your above silly example.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            The French do not occupy the Rhineland. They do not send fanatic proxy settlers to do the state’s insidious dirty work that comfortable bourgeois blog frequenters in Nantes and Bordeaux and Strasbourg do not want to soil their hands with. Nor did they ever occupy Germany prior to WWII. Nor do they dream of Greater France, nor covet the Église Saint-Thomas and talk about the “civil rights” virtues of lunatic Frenchmen who either want to build a replica of a long destroyed French Catholic cathedral next to the Église Saint-Thomas or to blow it up altogether and start a religious war under the cover of which they plan to ethnically cleanse the Germans from the Rhineland.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yeah, Right, Brian …

            What land did the Jews of Palestine occupy in 1947 when the Palestinian Arabs attacked them following the declaration of the state of Israel?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “What land did the Jews of Palestine occupy in 1947 when the Palestinian Arabs attacked them following the declaration of the state of Israel?”

            A nonsensical question, as well as being chronologically-challenged.

            Israel declared itself in May 1948.

            Prior to May 1948 the Haganah was already well inside the territory that had been allocated to the “Arab state”, and had already ejected over half of all the Palestinian Arabs that would become refugees.

            So on the question of who was on the offensive pre-May 1948 there is no doubt regarding the answer: the Haganah was on the offensive, and the Haganah was seizing “Arab territory”.

            And in the post-May 1948 period when “Five! Count ’em, Five!” Arab armies intervened they did so inside the territory of the “Arab state”.

            Q: Why?
            A: Because that’s where the Haganah was.

            Q: And why was the Haganah there?
            A: The were invading, dude.

            Honestly, can you point to the “Jewish territory” that was seized by any arab forces, either pre-May or post-independence?

            Blink and you’d miss it….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yeah, Right …

            Your account of history is revisionist to say the least. Imagine if historians would narrate the history of WW2, the way you try to portray the Israeli Arab conflict:

            Prior to May 1945 the Allies were already well inside Germany, and had already burned Dresden to the ground after making millions of Germans homeless and causing them to flee the war zone.

            Spot the problem with your narrative, Whatshisface? You start the story not at the beginning with Hitler’s aggression. You cherry pick your story from the Middle or even at the end game after the aggressor ended up on the defensive and was facing defeat.

            Likewise, you conveniently skipped the reaction of the Palestinian Arabs to UN resolution 181 in 1947 which recommended the partitioning of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. The Jews celebrated the resolution while the Arabs spat their proverbial dummy, rioted and started butchering Palestinian Jews like there would be no tomorrow. Of course the Haganah reacted, turned the tide and went on the offensive. Anyone on their place would do likewise if they would have the means. You know what they call such a reaction? It is called SELF DEFENSE! And do you know what they call those who riot and start wars? They are called AGGRESSORS!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Prior to May 1945 the Allies were already well inside Germany, and had already burned Dresden to the ground after making millions of Germans homeless and causing them to flee the war zone.”

            OK, I’m going to stop you right there and point out that Germany had most definitely invaded almost all of Europe prior to the massive Allied counter-invasions of 1944-1945.

            Compare and contrast.

            Gustav, please, show me the “Arab invasions” of Israel that took place prior to the Haganah’s “Pre-emptive Counter-Invasion” that they called Plan Dalet.

            Really, I’m serious: drop the bluster and show me the territory that was seized FROM the Haganah prior to Israel “seizing it back again” following the Declaration of Indepence.

            Anywhere?

            As far as I can tell the only “invasion” of Israeli territory occurred when the Egyptian Army sent a column through the Negev to link up with Jordanian forces in the West Bank.

            But they didn’t even attempt to “occupy” the Negev, since they were just, you know, passing through….

            So that wasn’t so much an “invasion” as a “talking a short-cut”.

            Can you point to anywhere else?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “OK, I’m going to stop you right there”

            You can try and stop me but you do not dictate. I will start and stop wherever I like as long as it shows you up as the deceitful revisionist historian that you really are. You don’t like it? Tough titties …

            “and point out that Germany had most definitely invaded almost all of Europe prior to the massive Allied counter-invasions of 1944-1945.”

            Yep. They were very successful aggressors at the beginning.

            “Compare and contrast.”

            I will

            “Gustav, please, show me the “Arab invasions” of Israel that took place prior to the Haganah’s “Pre-emptive Counter-Invasion” that they called Plan Dalet.”

            I already showed you. Right after the announcement of UN Resolution 181 to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state, the Arabs of Palestine rioted and started butchering the Jews of Palestine. Every country has the equivalent plan to plan Dalet. Such plans outline how the country would defend itself against potential aggression. The Jews of Palestine were waiting to form their country. And we had our equivalent plan to the invasion of Normandy.

            The landing of Normandy would not have taken place had the Germans not committed aggression. In the same way, plan Dalet would not have been invoked had Arab aggression not taken place.

            “Really, I’m serious: drop the bluster and show me the territory that was seized FROM the Haganah prior to Israel “seizing it back again” following the Declaration of Indepence.”

            I don’t have to. The Palestinian Arabs were less successful at seizing territory than the Germans. But they were good at murdering Jews wherever they could find Jews. You don’t think that murdering Jewish Palestinians constituted aggression? Very revealing …

            “Anywhere?”

            Really? Anywhere? Actually as the war went on, after the neighbouring Arabs joined the war on the sides of the Palestinian Arabs, they seized all of East Jerusalem and expelled it’s Jewish population. They also overran places like Gush Etzion where they murdered Jewish prisoners of war whose hands were tied behind their backs. Sounds familiar? Doesn’t it remind you of how ISIS fights it’s war?

            “As far as I can tell the only “invasion” of Israeli territory occurred when the Egyptian Army sent a column through the Negev to link up with Jordanian forces in the West Bank.

            But they didn’t even attempt to “occupy” the Negev, since they were just, you know, passing through….”

            Yeah just passing through. Are you trying to be a comedian? Don’t give up your day job.

            “So that wasn’t so much an “invasion” as a “talking a short-cut”.

            Can you point to anywhere else?”

            What can one say. The Arabs sucked at what they were trying to do but they still managed to kill 1% of the Jewish population in their war of aggression between 1947 and 1949. That would be equivalent to 4 million Americans dying in a war today. How do you think the Yanks would react to such losses? Kiss the feet of the aggressors?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “they seized all of East Jerusalem and expelled it’s Jewish population”

            I asked for examples of territory belonging to the “Jewish state” being seized by Arab forces between 1947-49, and Gustav comes up with “East Jerusalem”.

            Ahem. Does anyone else want to point out to Gustav that Jerusalem was not allocated to the “Jewish state”?

            Gustav: “They also overran places like Gush Etzion”….

            ….oh dear, oh dear, I do believe that Gustav is having major difficulty understanding the core concept.

            One more time: can you name any territory belonging to the “Jewish state” that was seized by Arab forces 1947-49?

            Gustav: “Gush Etzion”

            Bzzzzzt. Incorrect, but thanks for playing.

            That territory was allocated to the “Arab state”, it was not allocated to the “Jewish state”.

            The seizure of that territory by Arab forces therefore can not have been an “invasion”, much less an “occupation”, precisely because That Was Their Territory.

            Honestly, do you know anything?

            Gustav: “Yeah just passing through. Are you trying to be a comedian?”

            No, but I’m quite certain I am far, far better read on this topic than you are.

            I have, for one thing, read the letter sent by the provisional govt of Israel to the UN (UN Document S/766) in answer to a series of questions.

            One question was: “Have Arab forces penetrated into the territory over which you claim to have authority?”

            The answer was, errr, umm, gosh!, ahhh, well, heck…. “Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias.”

            Not much of an “invasion”, is it?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You can Errr ummmm bzzzt … and golly gosh all you like BUT …

            You know what? Whatshisface?

            The topic was whether the Arabs initiated aggression in 1947 or not. You claimed that they didn’t sooooooo ….

            BZZZZZT … you are wrong!

            Facts:

            1. Jerusalem was not allocated to the Arabs either. Don’t you know anything?

            2. Palestinian Jews lived in East Jerusalem and the Arabs expelled those Jews from their homes. That is aggression.

            3. Gush Etzion was inhabited by Palestinian Jews who were expelled from there and Jewish POWs were murdered in cold blood. That is aggression.

            4. Moreover, for the fourth time, the butchery of Palestinian Jews commenced right after the announcement of UN resolution 181 while the Jews werd celebrating the vote by the UN to partition Palestine int two states, one Jewish, one Arab. And … get ready … Whatshisface … repeat after me … rioting … murder … violence was aggression. Arab aggression in particular. And what the Jews of Palestine did was a RESPONSE to that violence and aggression. Which bit of that don’t you understand????? Hmmmm????

            Last but not least. By the end of the war of the war of the Arab war of aggression, up to 1% of the Jewish population was killed in that war. Which bit of that does your THICK HEAD fail to grasp? That is equivalent to 4 million Americans being killed in a war.

            Again … for your thick head … Is that not a serious war of aggression for you, Whatshisface?

            You seem to like repeating yourself. But guess what, I am good at repetition too CLOWN!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “The topic was whether the Arabs initiated aggression in 1947 or not”

            My, my, I am seeing some revisionism, but it isn’t coming from me…..

            Because, ahem, the topic was started with this…

            Gustav: “What land did the Jews of Palestine occupy in 1947 when the Palestinian Arabs attacked them following the declaration of the state of Israel?”

            You, yourself, have now shouted the words “Gush Etzion!” like a mantra, and by doing so you have answered your very own question.

            As in: Gush Etzion was located on the territory of the “Arab state”. It was never, ever allocated to the “Jewish state”.

            Yet the Haganah would not withdraw from that territory: it insisted on staying there, thereby claiming that territory for the nascent “Jewish state”.

            Sooooo, back to the the very beginning…..

            Question: “What land did the Jews of Palestine occupy in 1947 when the Palestinian Arabs attacked them following the declaration of the state of Israel?”

            Answer: Gush Etzion springs to mind….

            Really, you are a boob, aren’t you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “The topic was whether the Arabs initiated aggression in 1947 or not”

            WHATSHISFACE:”My, my, I am seeing some revisionism, but it isn’t coming from me…..

            Because, ahem, the topic was started with this…

            GUSTAV: “What land did the Jews of Palestine occupy in 1947 when the Palestinian Arabs attacked them following the declaration of the state of Israel?”

            WHATSHISFACE:”You, yourself, have now shouted the words “Gush Etzion!” like a mantra, and by doing so you have answered your very own question.”

            Yes I shouted it in response to your question:

            WHATSHISFACE:”Really, I’m serious: drop the bluster and show me the territory that was seized FROM the Haganah prior to Israel “seizing it back again” following the Declaration of Indepence.”

            In other words, I answered your question. Gush Etzion was populated by Palestinian Jews. It was overrun by Arabs and the Palestinian Jewish POWs were executed with their hands tied behind their backs. Sounds familiar? ISIS must have learnt from how the Arabs fought their war against us in 1948.

            WHATSHISFACE:”As in: Gush Etzion was located on the territory of the “Arab state”. It was never, ever allocated to the “Jewish state”.

            Yet the Haganah would not withdraw from that territory: it insisted on staying there, thereby claiming that territory for the nascent “Jewish state”.

            Woooowwww … that’s terrible …. them dastardly Palestinian Jews again. Fancy that, the Palestinian Arabs rejected UN resolution 181 outright in 1947. And by 1948, the Jews still did not abide that same resolution. Them terrible Zionists … shouldn’t they be required to abide by UN resolutions which Arabs reject?

            … actually, no, they SHOULDN’T!!!! What do YOU think, WHATSHISFACE?

            WHATSHISFACE:”Sooooo, back to the the very beginning…..

            Question: “What land did the Jews of Palestine occupy in 1947 when the Palestinian Arabs attacked them following the declaration of the state of Israel?”

            Answer: Gush Etzion springs to mind….”

            … Yeah, Right, only in your bubble world. Do you understand that UN resolution 181 was a General Assembly Resolution. As such it was non mandatory. It was a recommendation only. So as soon as it was rejected by the Palestinian Arabs, which it WAS in 1947, it became null and void. Therefore the Haganah too was within it’s right to ignore the resolution.

            WHATSHISFACE:”Really, you are a boob, aren’t you?”

            Is being a boob better than being brain dead? I think it is. So I’ll accept being a boob if I can call you brain dead. And I will call you that.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Honestly, Gustav, are you for real?

            You clearly started this threat with this statement: “What land did the Jews of Palestine occupy in 1947 when the Palestinian Arabs attacked them following the declaration of the state of Israel?”

            My question to you must therefore be interpreted in that light, not in your manifestly absurd way.

            As in…

            Gustav: “Yes I shouted it in response to your question: [Really, I’m serious:]…”

            Ahem, I will now invite you to revisit the paragraph BEFORE that, where I had said this: “Gustav, please, show me the ‘Arab invasions’ of Israel that took place prior to the Haganah’s ‘Pre-emptive Counter-Invasion’ that they called Plan Dalet.”

            So I was clearly asking for examples of Arab forces stealing territory from the Haganah IN ISRAEL.

            To claim otherwise is manifestly absurd.

            Now, again, one more time: is Gush Etzion an example of Arab forces “invading” Israel to wrest territory from the Haganah?

            Nooooo, it isn’t.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “So I was clearly asking for examples of Arab forces stealing territory from the Haganah IN ISRAEL.

            To claim otherwise is manifestly absurd.”

            Why is it absurd? Only Jews lived in Gush Etzion. The Arabs overran Gush Etzion, committed atrocities and took over it. That is by anybody’s standards stealing territory from Jews.

            Unless of course you are one of those people who condones stealing from Jews?

            “Now, again, one more time: is Gush Etzion an example of Arab forces “invading” Israel to wrest territory from the Haganah?

            Nooooo, it isn’t.”

            Yes it is. Read my previous post and stop trying to have your cake and eat it too.

            Gush Etzion was owned by Jews and since the Arabs rejected non mandatory UN resolution 181, they clearly cannot use that same rejected resolution to justify that Gush Etzion was on lands allocated to them.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Was that how it was done at the end of WW2?”

            No, actually, an international tribunal ruled that Germany was guilty of a war of aggression and therefore would lose territory by way of wartime reparations.

            Compare and contrast.

            Gustav: “Did the allies have to listen and implement the dictates of the Germans who by then got reduced to being the underdogs?”

            No, because the German Govt signed an unconditional surrender in 1945.

            You might want to mull the implications of the word “unconditional” in the phrase “unconditional surrender”.

            And, again, compare and contrast.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “Was that how it was done at the end of WW2?”

            WHATSHISFACE:”No, actually, an international tribunal ruled that Germany was guilty of a war of aggression and therefore would lose territory by way of wartime reparations.”

            Yeah, Right and who made up the International Tribunal? ANSWER: It was stacked by the allies. In other words, the rules were made up by the victors. What a surprise …

            WHATSHISFACE:”Compare and contrast.”

            Yep, after WW2, the victors who defeated the aggressors dictated the outcome. With the Arab Israeli conflict, the aggressors who lost all the wars are trying to dictate the outcome. Thanks for highlighting the point which I was making.

            GUSTAV: “Did the allies have to listen and implement the dictates of the Germans who by then got reduced to being the underdogs?”

            WHATSHISFACE:”No, because the German Govt signed an unconditional surrender in 1945.”

            Yep and again you are emphasising the point that I made to Bruce. Just because the Germans became the underdogs at the end of the war, they did not get an automatic right to dictate terms. While Mr Gould tried to use the ‘underdog’ status of the Palestinian Arabs as a right to dictate terms. Compare and contrast the double standards.

            WHATSHISFACE:”You might want to mull the implications of the word “unconditional” in the phrase “unconditional surrender”.

            Then again, I might not! But you too take care lest your buddy, BRIAN will jump down your throat and accuse you of trying to force the Palestinians to surrender unconditionally, which of course Israel could do if it would want to be as harsh as the allies were in subduing Germany in WW2. But of course if we would do that, then hypocrites like you and BRIAN would wax lyrical and whine about our lack of humanity in fact, good old BRIAN already whined and accused me of advocating that even though all I did was teach him a bit of history about WW2 because I felt he sorely needed a bit of education.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Thanks for highlighting the point which I was making.”

            No, you clearly don’t understand the point I am making.

            There are formal procedures under int’l law for taking war reparations from an “aggressor” and using them to compensate those who were the victims of that aggression.

            In 1945 the victorious Allies did, indeed, follow the rules and procedures, and as a result a PROPERLY CONSTITUTED int’l tribunal found that
            (a) Germany was the aggressor and
            (b) the loss of territory was the proper reparations for that aggression.

            Compare. And. Contrast.

            Gustav: “Just because the Germans became the underdogs at the end of the war, they did not get an automatic right to dictate terms.”

            Oh, fer’ crin’ out loud!

            No, Gustav, you don’t know what you are talking about.

            The German’s lost the “right to argue terms” when they signed a document that said: We U.N.C.O.N.D.I.T.I.O.N.A.L.L.Y. Surrender.

            That you continue this oh-so-tedious argument proving nothing more than that you do now know the meaning of the word U.N.C.O.N.D.I.T.I.O.N.A.L.L.Y.

            Get a dictionary. You might actually learn something.

            That’d make a nice change….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “No, you clearly don’t understand the point I am making.”

            No, you clearly don’t understand the point that I made.

            In 1967, the Arabs of the West Bank too surrendered. But instead of then going on to sign a peace deal with Israel, they began an asymmetric warfare which has still not ended but it ebbs and flows. And now people like Bruce and you come along and try to claim that the Arabs consequently have a right to dictate terms of surrender to Israel because they are the underdogs. That’s what Bruce all but said before you butted in.

            W-E-L-L then, read our collective lips. N-O! Spells NO! No they can’t and NO they won’t!

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            World class nudnik.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You just cannot stand it can you Brian? You cannot stand anyone standing up for Israel and exposing your and your buddiee’s lies.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “In 1967, the Arabs of the West Bank too surrendered.”

            No, they didn’t.

            Jordan agreed to a “ceasefire” with Israel, they did not agree to “surrender” to Israel.

            Those two concepts are not at all the same thing.

            And about this nonsense about “the Arabs of the West Bank”.

            They didn’t agree to anything, precisely because they weren’t involved in that fight.

            Honestly, you really don’t have any idea what you are talking about.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “In 1967, the Arabs of the West Bank too surrendered.”

            WHATSHISFACE:”No, they didn’t.”

            Well, they sure laid down their arms, put their hands up and stopped fighting. You don’t want to call that surrender? Ok Dokey. Call it what you want but that wasn’t the topic of discussion before you butted in to the exchange between me and Bruce Gould. You know what it was? I am glad you asked …

            I said to Bruce that just because the West Bank Arabs are the underdogs, they don’t get to dictate Israel’s terms of surrender. If you disagree with me, then argue about that. Not who surrendered or didn’t surrender.

            “Jordan agreed to a “ceasefire” with Israel, they did not agree to “surrender” to Israel.”

            ZZZZZ …. yaaaaaawwwwnnnn … Their soldiers sure did seem to surrender.

            “Those two concepts are not at all the same thing.”

            ZZZZZZ ….. yaaaaaaawwwwwn

            “And about this nonsense about “the Arabs of the West Bank”.

            They didn’t agree to anything, precisely because they weren’t involved in that fight.”

            Ooooookey doooookey and your point is …. drum roll ….

            … that Israel agreed to have terms dictated to it? Of course it didn’t.

            “Honestly, you really don’t have any idea what you are talking about.”

            Oh? If you say so …

            But I’ll tell you what. YOU sure know how to hijack a discussion and argue for argument’s sake. But repeat after me … the real topic is: should Israel agree to being dictated terms of surrender by the aggressors who started the war (the Arabs) and who also were the losers militarily? Or can Israel make demands too which the Arabs must meet before some of the Arab demands be addressed too? THAT WAS and STILL IS THE TOPIC! You wanna argue for or against it? Please do. I am willing to discuss THAT topic. Get it?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Well, they sure laid down their arms, put their hands up and stopped fighting.”

            No, actually. They agreed to stop fighting. As did Israel. But at no time did they lay down their arms or put their hands in the air.

            Gustav: “You don’t want to call that surrender?”

            No, I call what they did a “ceasefire”.

            Mind you, I’m not alone: Jordan called it a ceasefire, as did Israel. And the UN, who mediated that ceasefire. Plus the USA, and the USSR.

            Indeed, as did everyone else except, apparently, Gustav.

            Gustav: “Ok Dokey.”

            I do so love that hasbarah trick of plucking a name out of their nether regions and then insisting that this is the correct word to describe something when… it isn’t the correct word to describe something.

            How wonderfully Humpty-Dumpty of you….

            Humpty-Dumpty: “When I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean, neither more nor less”.

            Gustav: “You don’t want to call that surrender?”

            Sunshine, you can call it a “pickled herring” for all I care, but you would be equally wrong.

            The Six Day War ended with a “ceasefire”, but nobody “surrendered” to anyone.

            If you want to argue to the contrary, be my guest, because all you will be doing is a fantastic impersonation of Humpty-Dumpty.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “Well, they sure laid down their arms, put their hands up and stopped fighting.”

            WHATSHISFACE:”No, actually. They agreed to stop fighting. As did Israel. But at no time did they lay down their arms or put their hands in the air.”

            GUSTAV: “You don’t want to call that surrender?”

            WHATSHISFACE:”No, I call what they did a “ceasefire”.

            Funny that, this is how the BBC reported on the events:

            “Soon afterwards, Jordan’s governor in Jerusalem, Anwar al-Hattib signs an official surrender. Israel’s Defence Minister Moshe Dayan and Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin arrive in the city to celebrate Israeli control of the area containing the holy site. Thousands of Jews also flock to the Western Wall.”

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/457000/457035/html/nn3page1.stm

            WHATSHISFACE:”Mind you, I’m not alone: Jordan called it a ceasefire, as did Israel. And the UN, who mediated that ceasefire. Plus the USA, and the USSR.

            Indeed, as did everyone else except, apparently, Gustav.”

            Don’t you feel foolish now, WHATSHISFACE? It seems that you are the one who is alone, not me. Even the BBC agrees with me and the BBC is not exactly a Zionist organization, is it?

            GUSTAV: “You don’t want to call that surrender?”

            WHATSHISFACE:”Sunshine, you can call it a “pickled herring” for all I care, but you would be equally wrong.

            The Six Day War ended with a “ceasefire”, but nobody “surrendered” to anyone.

            If you want to argue to the contrary, be my guest, because all you will be doing is a fantastic impersonation of Humpty-Dumpty.”

            Yes, you just go on believing your own lies, sunshine. But don’t forget to refer to the above BBC article and go argue with them when you get reminded by them about how wrong you are. Don’t blame, me though, I am just the messenger of what seems are unpleasant facts for you. Never mind, keep trying, you might yet get some things right. Try harder, who knows …?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Oh, please, spare me.

            Yeah, a local functionary left stranded in Jerusalem as it is overrun by enemy forces is going to surrender the city.

            That happened in 1949 when the most senior Rabbi in the Old City surrendered to Jordanian forces.

            Sooooo, did that mean that in 1949 “Israel surrendered to Jordan”?

            No, obviously not.

            Roll forward to 1967 and Israeli forces return the favour, overrunning the Old City and, indeed, the most senior Jordanian official left in the city surrendered it to IDF forces.

            Soooo, did that mean that in 1967 “Jordan surrendered to Israel”?

            No, no more than Israel surrendered to Jordan in 1949.

            Honestly, Gustav, grow a brain: Jordan and Israel fought a war inside the West Bank both in 1949 and in 1967.

            Neither side “surrendered” to the other in 1949. Neither side “surrendered” to the other in 1967.

            And as for the “Arabs of the West Bank” they didn’t surrender to anyone in 1967.

            They didn’t need to, since they weren’t combatants.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Oh, please, spare me.”

            Spare yourself. Stop being such a repetitive thick-head.

            “Yeah, a local functionary left stranded in Jerusalem as it is overrun by enemy forces is going to surrender the city.

            That happened in 1949 when the most senior Rabbi in the Old City surrendered to Jordanian forces.”

            Did it really happen? If it did maybe you could tell us his name?

            “Sooooo, did that mean that in 1949 “Israel surrendered to Jordan”?”

            No. Nor did I claim that Jordan surrendered to Israel. I claimed that Jordanian soldiers in the West Bank surrendered and that the Jordanian Governor of East Jerusalem signed papers of surrender.

            “Roll forward to 1967 and Israeli forces return the favour, overrunning the Old City and, indeed, the most senior Jordanian official left in the city surrendered it to IDF forces.

            Soooo, did that mean that in 1967 “Jordan surrendered to Israel”?”

            Wow, you are repetitive. See my answer above.

            “No, no more than Israel surrendered to Jordan in 1949.”

            Booooooring

            “Honestly, Gustav, grow a brain: Jordan and Israel fought a war inside the West Bank both in 1949 and in 1967.

            Neither side “surrendered” to the other in 1949. Neither side “surrendered” to the other in 1967.”

            So the Jordanian army in the West Bank did not surrender in 1967?

            “And as for the “Arabs of the West Bank” they didn’t surrender to anyone in 1967.

            They didn’t need to, since they weren’t combatants.”

            But the Jordanian Governor who represented them DID surrender. Then, as time went on, after the initial shock of defeat wore off, they gradually started their terror campaign against Israeli civilians. Isn’t that what I said before? Are you comprehension challenged? Or do you just like to argue?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Ooooookey doooookey and your point is …. drum roll ….
            … that Israel agreed to have terms dictated to it? Of course it didn’t.”

            *sigh*

            The Palestinians are under a belligerent occupation.

            They have ended up under this belligerent occupation because of a war (the Six Day War) that they did not start and were not a participant in.

            Their rights flow from the protection afforded to them by the international humanitarian laws that pertain to belligerent occupation. And those rights and those protections are, indeed, considerable.

            When you claim that Israel is being “forced” to “agree to terms” that are being “dictated to it” by the Palestinians you are doing nothing more than displaying your contempt for – and ignorance of – international humanitarian law.

            The Palestinians are demanding nothing beyond this: that Israel acknowledge and respect their rights.

            And this is a simple truism that you will never accept: Israel can not take those rights from them, no matter how many guns the IDF points at them and no matter how unfair you claim that situation to be.

            Honestly, why is that so hard to comprehend?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “Ooooookey doooookey and your point is …. drum roll ….
            … that Israel agreed to have terms dictated to it? Of course it didn’t.”

            WHATSHISFACE:*sigh*

            Me too … I am sighing too …

            WHATSHISFACE:”The Palestinians are under a belligerent occupation.”

            As a people yes. I agree with you because the WeSt Bank Palestinian Arabs are not Israeli citizens but they are under Israeli military rule. So yes, on this fact we agree. But are the crown lands under occupation? No, not on your nelly. The crown lands are disputed lands. Disputed in a civil war which has not yet ended. A bit like the situation in Syria which is also in the midst of a civil war.

            WHATSHISFACE:”They have ended up under this belligerent occupation because of a war (the Six Day War) that they did not start and were not a participant in.”

            Actually, as a people, they WERE contributory participants not just to the Six Day war but to the ongoing war between the Palestinian Jews (Israelis) and the Arab peoples. First, because as discussed above, the Palestinian Arabs were the ones to start the war against the Jews of Palestine in 1947. Secondly, because not only did they start the war but they continued it right up to 1967 and indeed to this day. Just read up about the Fedayeen and how they raided Israel continually between 1949 and 1967. Thirdly, the PLO itself was at a formal state of war with Israel in 1967.

            WHATSHISFACE:”Their rights flow from the protection afforded to them by the international humanitarian laws that pertain to belligerent occupation. And those rights and those protections are, indeed, considerable.”

            Yes, we keep on hearing about THEIR rights. But what about THEIR obligations? It seems that according to you they ONLY have rights but no obligations to honor the rules of war … go figure …

            WHATSHISFACE:”When you claim that Israel is being “forced” to “agree to terms” that are being “dictated to it” by the Palestinians you are doing nothing more than displaying your contempt for – and ignorance of – international humanitarian law.”

            Actually, no. Not really. Because as I demonstrated to you above, those lists of obligations by Israel, that you keep on mentioning as a mantra, are not relevant for the type of conflict which has been ongoing between the Palestinian Arabs and the Palestinian Jews who have been fighting a civil war since 1947. Those obligations are relevant only in wars between two sovereign countries, each with recognized borders.

            WHATSHISFACE:”The Palestinians are demanding nothing beyond this: that Israel acknowledge and respect their rights.”

            Actually they do. Remember Hamas? They were elected in 2005 by a democratic vote and they now rule all of Gaza. They demand nothing less than Israel’s destruction. But even the PLO demands more than just the removal of the so called settlements. It demands the so called right of return too. Basically, they expect Israel to capitulate and they offer nothing in return. Not even a proper recognition of Israel. In other words, it’s recognition as a Jewish nation state.

            WHATSHISFACE:”And this is a simple truism that you will never accept: Israel can not take those rights from them, no matter how many guns the IDF points at them and no matter how unfair you claim that situation to be.”

            You are right. I will never accept the idea that Israel is obliged to unconditionally surrender to a people who committed aggression against us and who want to give nothing in return for what we have demonstrably offered to give them in the past. For example, Olmert’s peace offer.

            WHATSHISFACE:”Honestly, why is that so hard to comprehend?”

            Yeah, Right, why is it so hard to comprehend? That is my question to you too …

            Reply to Comment
          • Eliza

            Well, in a way the answer is Yes to your question ‘Did the allies have to listen and implement the dictates of the Germans who by then got reduced to underdogs’.

            The allies had already split, thus we had Germany divided into East and West. But German reconstruction was financed largely in part by the Marshall Plan and implementation was undertaken in conjunction with what remained of American/British occupied Germany. Reconstruction was undertaken to facilitate German recovery. You can say that German civil institutions didn’t dictate as such, but the needs of German civil institutions was the deciding factor.

            The ultimate success of that strategy is the success of a unified Germany today.

            The mistakes of the Treaty of Versailes was not repeated at the conclusion of WW11 where a winner take all attitude prevailed.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Actually, Germany was forced to give up lands to Poland and to the Soviets. Moreover, all ethnic Germans were expelled from those lands.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            This is what it always comes back to for Gustav. He wants those Arabs force marched east over the Jordanian border. He thinks it’s just perverse that (a) they won’t cooperate and “surrender,” and (b) the world, those anti-Semites, won’t let the Jews do it. No namby pamby Marshall Plan for him!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Idiot. Now he is putting words into my mouth which I did not say.

            ” … force marched etc…”

            That type of argument is called a straw man argument. In more plain language, it is called dishonesty. But one gets used to that from the likes of BRIAN. They haven’t got an honest bone in their bodies.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “… You can say that German civil institutions didn’t dictate as such,…”

            You bet I am arguing that. The Americans instituted the Marshal plan not for altruistic reasons. They needed the West Germans against the new communist enemy after the Nazi enemy was jointly defeated with the help of the Soviets.

            Not that there was anything wrong with the American strategy but it certainly was not motivated by altruism.

            As for helping Palestinian Arabs with a Marshal plan like package? I am not against it. As long as they agree to a peace deal and actually keep to it for a change. Because they never have in the past …

            Reply to Comment
    10. Matthias Einmal

      Interesting discussion here but sometimes people get unfriendly and impolite with each other. Is that really necessary?

      Reply to Comment
    11. Bruce Gould

      Sweden just recognized a Palestinian state – hasn’t gotten in the news yet. Yesterday I heard an Israeli activist who made some interesting points: there are plenty of models for binational states (Swiss canton model, Brits/Wales/Scotland model, etc) – the Israelis could aim for that but won’t because it means the Jewish demographic will have to give up at least some power. He also said that the EU was Israels biggest trading partner and they were gearing up for economic sanctions.

      Reply to Comment
      • Lo

        This is what confuses me the most, even about liberal zionists.

        Maybe it’s because I grew up in a particularly diverse part of the U.S., but it’s just alien to me that any modern state would try to privilege one ethnic/religious group over another and that its citizens would claim this special treatment is the sine qua non of their nationalism.

        Reply to Comment
        • Kiwi

          You grew up in safety. There was noone around where where you grew up who said ALL white Anglo Saxon Protestants are evil and we need to exterminate them. Then followed that up by a pogrom in which some of your loved ones were murdered because they belonged to your ethnic group.

          So stop being smug. The Jews had to endure such a treatment in many places for a very long time. Yes, even in Arab countries. That is why they need their majority state. And by the way, the Jews of Israel are not the only ones who insist that they need to be in the majority. The predominant ethnic group in justt about every other country insists on maintaining their majority. Arabs too insist on it. Stop vilifying only the Jews for it!

          Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            The “safety” theme rings hollow by now. It’s a ruse.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            “The “safety” theme rings hollow by now. It’s a ruse.”

            Yep you are absolutely right Brian. What we are dealing here is Jewish paranoia, right?

            No matter how many times Israel experiences violence from Arabs, if they then worry that it might happen again, it is just purely Israeli paranoia.

            Grow up!

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Actually I did not say “paranoia” I said “ruse.” (Though paranoia can of course be exploited in the service of a ruse.)

            ruse
            ro͞oz,ro͞os/
            noun
            an action intended to deceive someone; a trick.
            “Eleanor tried to think of a ruse to get Paul out of the house”
            synonyms: ploy, stratagem, tactic, scheme, trick, gambit, cunning plan, dodge, subterfuge, machination, wile
            “his offer to help with my presentation was just a clever ruse”

            Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            I responded to Lo’s boast about where he grew up and how he thinks that Jews don’t need a majority state because in his opinion, they should be as tolerant as he believes himself to be.

            I contrasted the safety in which he grew up because noone targeted his ethnic group. As opposed to Jews who endured persecution in many places, including Arab lands, purely because they were Jews.

            You then saw it fit to butt in with your smart arse claim that all that is just a ruse? Can I remind you that Israel was created in 1948, right after the Holocaust?

            Was the Holocaust just a ruse, Brian?

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Excuse me you responded to me. Netanyahu uses “security” over and over and over as a ruse. Anyone with objectivity sees this. The Americans and the Europeans, endlessly patient and excusing of the Israelis, giving them a pass on things for 47 years, can not stand him. The Holocaust was not a ruse. To state the obvious.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kiwi

            “Excuse me you responded to me”

            Excuse me, I responded to Lo.

            Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          Lo,
          1. Self-determination is a Right of all Peoples under International law. The Right of the Jewish People to Self-determination is ingrained in the Jewish Law (regardless of what Int. law says). When Jews were already practicing law and exercising their Right of Self-determination, Europeans were still living in caves, wearing animal skins as cloths and surviving from hunting wild animals;
          2. In the United States, “Whites” of European extraction are the majority. Nothing will change that short of a war in which the United States is defeated and surrenders;
          3. In Germany, resp. France, rep. Denmark, resp. Sweden, resp. The Netherlands, etc. the Germans, resp. the French, resp. the Danes, resp. the Swedes, resp. the Dutch, etc. are the majority in the respective countries. Nothing will change that short of a war in which the majority ethnic population of respective countries is defeated and surrenders;
          4. In Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, Qatar, Kuwait, Libya, Egypt, etc. Arab-Muslims are the majority. Nothing will change that short of a war in which the majority Arab-Muslim population of the respective countries is defeated and surrenders;
          5. Jews are a People. Jews have a Right to Self-determination in their Ancestral Homeland and in accordance with their Religion, Law, Culture, Tradition and Values. What part of that is difficult to understand?
          6. Did you ever ask your parents (if you are still a juvenile or about my age) what it meant to be an ordinary Jew in the United States before 1967 (and I am not even talking yet about primitive Europe)? Do you know what will happen to you as an “American Jew” if there were no Israel tomorrow? Why the eff are you acting like someone with a hamburger-IQ?

          Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Eis: What the eff does that have to do with land theft in Bil’in?

            Reply to Comment
          • Oscar Shank

            The crop of babies born every year in the USA have been over 50% non-white for a few years now; and this trend shows no sign of ending.

            Reply to Comment
          • Bryan

            Ginger your post is so wrong in so many respects – ill-informed, ignorant and racist.
            (1) You claim “Self-determination is a Right of all Peoples under International law” but it is not; self-determination applies to populations within a defined territory; thus when Scottish Jews recently exercised that right in a recent vote on whether to leave the United Kingdom, they voted as Scottish citizens, not as Jews. If Britain had ever allowed self-determination in Palestine as they were obliged to under the Mandate this would have entailed a vote by the entire adult population as to the form of government they desired.
            (2) Your suggestion that “Europeans were still living in caves, wearing animal skins as cloths and surviving from hunting wild animals” while Jews were exercising the right of self-determination is ludicrous. There is no evidence of a distinctive Jewish culture in Canaan before 1300 BCE. The formation of primitive state entities came much later, and these were always dominated by the local superpowers of Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Greece and Rome. According to your bible when one of your chieftains decided it would be a good idea to build a temple you had to go to Phoenicia to acquire the architects, craftsmen and technology to build it. A second temple was built using Roman technology. The Hebrews only emerged from primitive subsistence agriculture under Assyrian sovereignty, when they began to participate in the international trade in olive oil, wine, grain and later spices. Before this, even in distant corners of northern Europe agriculture had emerged as evidenced by the early settlements like the Knap of Howar (3700 BCE) and Skara Brae (3100 BCE) in the Orkneys.
            (3) Your suggestion that “Nothing will change [European white domination] short of a war in which the United States is defeated and surrenders” is just crazy. Non-Hispanic whites are projected by the US Census Board to no longer form a majority of the population by 2042.
            (4) Your ranting about nothing changing the ethnic composition of European and Arab middle-eastern counties seems utterly irrelevant. You should have included Israel among the Middle Eastern states with Arab majorities – even within the 1967 “boundaries”. Over 50% of Israeli Jews have Middle Eastern, Asian and North African paternal origin, much as the Ashkenazi elite attempt to repress these peoples. Even without the occupation and even with the immigration of Russian and South American non-Jews “white” European domination is severely challenged.
            (5) You assert that “Jews have a Right to Self-determination in their Ancestral Homeland” without defining which ancestral homeland you are referring to: France, Britain, Germany, America, Argentina, South Africa, Australia, Greece, Turkey, Khazaria, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Morocco etc, etc. The right of self-determination does not authorise the right of colonisation in lands that putative forefathers might once have lived in centuries ago – that would be a recipe for international anarchy as Mexicans recolonized America, Greeks recolonized Turkey, Turks recolonised East Asia and the entire human race recolonized the African Rift Valley.
            (6) Your soliloquising on “Do you know what will happen to you as an “American Jew” if there were no Israel tomorrow?” presumably is the ritual attempt at fear-mongering absurdly suggesting that only Israel defends the Diaspora from pogroms. Without Israel, American Jews would experience a reduction of anti-Semitism (no longer a hatred of Jews, but increasingly a hatred by Israel), would be able to spend their tax-dollars on American interests, could have a far less corrupt politics, and could be at ease with their consciences instead of being torn by tribal loyalties.

            Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        I hear you, Bruce, and Israelis are more than willing to explore- and have in fact been exploring ALL possible options to achieve peace – short of suicide. As you know, nowhere on the planet is the extent and quality of political discuss better than in Israel (and the United States). Here is my problem though with you, Bruce, and your ilk incl. +972mag (!): ‘intellectual dishonesty’! Here are my reasons for accusing you of dishonesty: (1) you explore all options that will force either (a) a Unitary- or (b) a Confederate State between Israel on the one hand and on the other hand the Arabs in Gaza, Judea & Samaria, while (2) The Right of The Jewish People to Self-determination means outright nothing to you despite the well-known severe consequences of the lack thereof!). On the other hand you (and your ilk incl. +972mag) are NOT willing to- and in fact do not explore (3) all options that will force either (a) a Unitary- or (b) a Confederate State between Arabs in Gaza, Judea & Samaria and other Arab countries and (4) the right of the Arabs to Self-determination seems paramount for you. That’s inexplicable, begs for explanation, without which the accusation of anti-Semitism against you and +972mag et al. may be justified. That’s also what I call “intellectual dishonesty” and it really, really disgusts me and all honest people. Israelis are not stupid and if you think that the barbarians in Europe will- or are in position to force Jews back to where they (Jews) were between 70 CE and May of 1945, you must be seriously deranged! If you disagree with me, tell me then where I got you wrong.

        Reply to Comment
        • Bruce Gould

          It’s hard for me to talk about this stuff because I have a different experience: I’ve talked to Israeli soldiers about what goes on in the West Bank, I’ve talked to human rights workers who have spent time there, I’ve heard from Palestians about what living under occupation is like: the gratuitous cruelty – stuff that has nothing to do with security and everything to do with Eretz Israel – is astounding. Watch The Law In These Parts or Stone Cold Justice of Five Broken Cameras – people just can’t grasp what’s going on.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yes, and all of that gratuitous cruelty is perpetrated in a vacuum, by one side only?

            I have a slightly different perspective. War brings out the worst in people. The Palestinians have done a lot of things to foster that hatred and they certainly were the party which historically resorted to war and violence to try to achieve their aims.

            Do I excuse acts of cruelty? No I don’t but I don’t just blame one party when it happens and absolve the other party completely from all responsibility for what happens.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            The deception in plain sight is that you frame this as a fight that were taking place between two suburban neighbors without any acknowledgment that one of the neighbors is occupying the other’s house outright. And has overwhelming power at his disposal.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Splistic claptrap which ignores how the occupation came about and why it still persists.

            And yea, you always find excuses for what Arabs do and never fail to blame Israel whatever happens.

            You are a bigotted hater Brian who is here to provoke extremism. And you had the hutzpah to lecture me about nuance?

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Of course! It never fails! I’m a “hater”! LoL!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Aren’t you.

            Of course you are. Admit it, the truth will set you free.

            Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          Appalling nonsense. Draw me the BORDERS. NOW. In 2014 CE. Very simple. Enough claptrap, utter claptrap, about “evil Europeans forcing Jews.” Show me the borders. Get a crayon. Start drawing!

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Olmert already drew the borders in 2008. But Abbas just ignored Olmert’s peace offer.

            Go on, give us your usual silly excuses for why Abbas ignored that offer for 6 months till Olmert lost the elections.

            Abbas then looked skywards and said, thank you Allah. You got me out of a tight spot.

            Reply to Comment
    12. ginger

      Totally wrong interpretation, David

      ‘The substance of the criticism was that he lacks the “guts” to strike Iran’ is foolishly incorrect. Obama is taunting him because he is too much of a coward to support a deal with Iran and too chickenshit to make peace with Palenstinians. Get it right – you botched the whole meaning

      Reply to Comment
      • Bruce Gould

        Ginger, tell us what you know about the house demolitions.

        Reply to Comment
    13. Gustav

      “Ginger, tell us what you know about the house demolitions.”

      Bruce, tell us about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or the fire bombing of Dresden.

      Or the massacre of the Fogel family in the middle of the night by Arab terrorists.

      Or the sniper shooting of Shalevet Paz, an Israeli baby, by another Arab terrorist.

      Or the lynching of two reservists who lost their way and drove into Ramallah in the early stages of the second Intifada.

      Or … I could go on and fill pages and pages of more of the same to show you that it isn’t a one sided story.

      And now, I will finish by asking you an innocent question: when are you going to stop beating your wife? Recognize this line of questioning? Of course you do. You employ it against us, while you studiously avoid context. Shame on you.

      Reply to Comment
      • Bruce Gould

        Very few Americans or even Israelis know about the house demolitions, but the two Palestinian guys who run the convenience store in my neighborhood know about it. Here’s how it works: the zoning in the West Bank is controlled by committees run by Israeli Jews; whenever a Jew wants to build a home there’s no problem – but very few construction permits are given to Palestinians. As their families grow they inevitably add rooms to their houses or build new houses, which is an invitation for the bulldozers – with no advance notice the soldiers and the tractors show up and give the residents 30 minutes to remove their belongings, and then it’s rubble. According to Jeff Halper (who I’ve talked to personally), since 67 around 28,000 homes have been demolished in the West Bank. All of this has nothing to do with terrorism, it’s collective punishment for being Palestinian. A conservative estimate of the number of people Israel has made homeless since 67 would be 150,000, tho it’s probably a lot more. What context justifies this? In what moral universe is this ok?

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          I don’t believe your statistics nor the story as you put it.

          As far as “moral universe”? Don’t make me laugh a bitter laughter.

          In what moral universe did the holocaust take place?

          In what moral universe did the Armenian genocide take place?

          In what moral universe is the Rwandan genocide take place?

          In what moral universe is the Cambodian genocide take place?

          In what moral universe are young Arabs flocking from all over the world to join thugs like ISIS who are in the midst of perpetrating genocide against anyone who is different to them?

          In what moral universe was Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden perpetrated?

          I tell you where: in a hypocritical universe which ignores what the big boys do and did and points the finger at people like us who have been defending ourselves from savages for the last 100 years who claim that we stole their lands which represents 0.5% of the land which they already own in the Middle East and North Africa. Lands from which they uprooted nearly a million Jews many of whom now live in Israel.

          I told you Bruce, we are by no means perfect. But we are amateurs when it comes to imperfection even compared to the Arabs for whom you are so much concerned.

          Yes, I know, I am just deflecting. But I could not help myself because it seems that people like you, Bruce, took it upon yourselves to try to make ONLY us perfect in this very imperfect universe which we live.

          Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            You’re denying AND deflecting. And you’re implicitly admitting that the only defense you can muster is that there are other bad or misguided people in this world too.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “,,, the only defense you can muster is that there are other bad or misguided people in this world too.”

            … who happen to be the very people who have been making war on us for the last 100 years. Your Palestinian Arabs.

            Have you got a problem with the idea of us fighting fire with fire? Because if you do, then you should object about the rest of humanity too since I don’t know any other people who turn the other cheek when they get attacked by implaccable enemies. Do you want to give me any reason why you think we should be different from the rest of humanity?

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            But your rebuttal just brings out the unspoken assumptions to which every right winger here seems oblivious. Evidently you think the settlements are not a kind of war, are not an implacable attack. This is the presumption you have. Clearly you presume the West Bank Pakestinians should just turn the other cheek when their land is invaded by an implacable enemy and seem put out that they behave like any other people on Earth.
            From whom did you inherit this presumption?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Evidently you think the settlements are not a kind of war, are not an implacable attack.”

            Even if I WOULD agree with you that it is a kind of war, I still dismiss the so called settlements as THE reason for this 100 year old war, for obvious reasons. Because the Arabs made war on Israel way before the so called settlements were built after 1967. They made war on Israel because they claimed that ALL of Israel is just a “settlement”.

            “This is the presumption you have.”

            My presumption about “the settlements”? Well then, for the umpteenth time, let’s test my presumption:

            1. You and your Arabs claim that Jews living in East Jerusalem are verboten and that if they do, then they are “illegal settlers”. By what legal system can you justify that? Prior to 1948, Jews always lived in East Jerusalem. For thousands of years. In 1948, your Arabs illegally kicked out the Jews of East Jerusalem from places like the JEWISH QUARTER (for Chrissake) and they kept us out for 19 years, till 1967. After 1967, we had the “temerity” to allow Jews to RETURN and that is illegal?! In your dreams Brian!

            2. Ditto, as above with Gush Etzion.

            3. As for other settlements. They are not illegal either even if people argue that they are unwise because they may be an obstacle to peace. But they are not illegal because neither the “Palestinian State” nor Israel has ever had defined borders. We only had armistice lines which were drawn up in 1949 and which at the insistence of the Arabs, contains text which specifically excludes the idea that the armistice lines represent final borders. Both Israel and the Arabs SIGNED the 1849 armistice agreement which are also known as the 1967 boundaries.

            “Clearly you presume the West Bank Pakestinians should just turn the other cheek when their land is invaded by an implacable enemy and seem put out that they behave like any other people on Earth.”

            Clearly I presume that they should negotiate in good faith and accept reasonable compromises such as land swaps which were offered to them and which even Arafat accepted in principle. That tells me that the so called “illegal settlements” are not really the obstacles to peace but rather other demands like for example the so called “right of return” of potentially millions of Arabs into Israel proper which the Palestinian Arabs never gave up and which Israel will continue to reject because that demand is just another way to say to Israel: “COMMIT SUICIDE”. And that we will never do. Go figure …

            “From whom did you inherit this presumption?”

            From whom did you inherit your stubborn blind insistence that Israel is at fault no matter what happens and that the SaintPalestinians can do no wrong, mmmmmmm Brian?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Oooops ….

            I meant:

            “Both Israel and the Arabs SIGNED the 1949 Armistice Agreement”.

            Reply to Comment
          • I thought Joan Rivers was dead? “THEY STARTED IT!”

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You mean the didn’t?

            Reply to Comment
    14. Peter Hindrup

      ‘in practice it means rapidly changing facts on the ground in the West Bank.’

      Facts on the ground!? What, a few scraggy buildings? Bulldozers, bombs, people with sledgehammers and your ‘facts on the ground’ disappear in a cloud of dust.

      The occupiers? they leave, or die, who cares? since when has the life of a thief been worth anything?

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Since when has the life of a hater been worth anything?

        Reply to Comment
    15. From Urban Dictionary

      HATER:
      An overused word that people like to use just because someone else expresses a dislike for a certain individual (I would also add thing, place, group)

      PERSON 1: I don’t like Beyonce’s new song.
      PERSON 2: You’re a hater!!!

      or –
      PERSON 1: I think the settlements are the biggest obstacles to peace and should be dismantled.
      PERSON 2: You’re a hater!!!
      or –
      PERSON 1: I think attaching a 20-year prison sentence to someone throwing stones is ridiculous and will only make matters worse.
      PERSON 2: You’re a hater!!!
      PERSON 3: You hate Israel!!!
      PERSON 4: Your’re antisemitic!!!
      PERSON 5: Arab lover!!!
      PERSON 6: Why don’t you just _____ (use your imagination) yourself!!!
      PERSON 7-700,000: You’re a hater!!!

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        … or someone who labels others as thieves and says:

        “who cares? since when has the life of a thief been worth anything?”

        One could call such a person a hater. Couldn’t one?

        Reply to Comment
    16. Click here to load previous comments