+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

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

Ya'alon's jab at Kerry proves Israel isn't in the peace-making business

The message couldn’t be any clearer. Not only is the political echelon of Israel’s military establishment squarely opposed to the U.S. peace initiative, it actually feels such efforts are wickedly detrimental to Jewish citizens.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is welcomed by Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon in Jerusalem on May 23, 2013. (State Dept Photo)

Moshe Ya’alon, the man charged with defending the State of Israel, was quoted by a major Israeli newspaper calling U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry “obsessive and messianic” on Tuesday.

He followed that statement up by telling a group of high schoolers: “they say time is working against us. We should not be alarmed by all kinds of fear mongering,” the “they” apparently referring to Washington and the “fear mongering” to “the peace process” that Kerry is so damn obsessed with.

Read +972 Magazine’s full coverage of the diplomatic process

Ya’alon put the cherry on top: “The only thing that can ‘save us’ is for John Kerry to win a Nobel Prize and leave us in peace.”

This of course created a mini diplomatic and media storm, with U.S. State Department spokesperson reprimanding Ya’alon, calling his comments, “offensive and inappropriate, especially given all that the U.S. is doing to support Israel’s security needs.”

Netanyahu was obligated to do something to fix the disaster that one of his top ministers and closest party members caused. But his statement did not actually include any kind of apology, condemnation or really any remorse at all: “the US is our largest partner and the partnership is founded on shared values and interests,” Netanyahu said.

“Even when there are disagreements between us, they are always substantive and not personal. We work in full co-operation with Vice President [Joe] Biden and Secretary of State Kerry to advance peace and security in the region. We stand firm regarding our own interests, while promoting the important connection between our two countries.”

The prime minister basically chalked it up to “a disagreement” and one that is “not personal.”

The defense minister then issued an apology, except it didn’t come from him personally, but from his ministry: “The defense minister had no intention of causing any offense to the secretary, and he apologizes if the secretary was offended by words attributed to the minister,” the Defense Ministry statement read.

Not very convincing diplomatic damage control. But to top it off, after all that, Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon got on his Facebook page and wrote: “Kerry will be arriving in Israel this week, I’ve already stopped counting the number of times, in order to continue to force an agreement on us. But there will be no compromises.”

I don’t think the message could be any more clear. Not only is the political echelon of Israel’s military establishment squarely opposed to Kerry, to the U.S. initiative and to the notion of altering the status quo of its military occupation, it actually feels such efforts are wickedly detrimental to Jewish citizens.

Ya’alon’s choice of words is also quite ironic, considering that “obsessive and messianic” are two words that could (and do) easily describe Israeli policy and its most formative politicians. In fact, “messianic” is precisely the term characterizing the core of the settlement movement that has garnered enormous strength since 1967 and is now a force to be reckoned with in the Knesset. And “obsessive” is probably one of the most appropriate adjectives to describe the lengths Israel’s entire ecosystem – legal, military, political, civilian, educational, environmental, archaeological, etc. –  has gone to over the years to ensure a well-oiled system of control over the Palestinian population and of segregation between Jews and everyone else, while somehow still claiming to be an “enlightened democracy.”

If facts on the ground in the West Bank and Gaza weren’t enough proof (i.e. regular destruction of Palestinian homes, preventing access to water, expanding settlements, enabling settler violence, etc.) Israel’s top defense officials are spelling it out for you: ISRAEL IS NOT IN THE PEACE-MAKING BUSINESS. The U.S. should take notice once and for all.

Bibi has surrounded himself with opponents of the two-state solution
U.S. ‘security plan’: Another decisive cave-in to Netanyahu
The only two-state solution that might work 

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

    * Required


    1. Rehmat

      In another comment, media ignored to mention, Ya’alon said that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas “lives and dies by our sword.”

      Ya’alon demands from John Kerry and Mahmoud Abbas reminds me the analogy made by Egyptian scholar and diplomat Abdullah Al-Ashaal, of John Kerry’s efforts to legitimize Zionist occupation of Palestine.

      “A burglar cannot enter a house, steal everything inside, and then instead of being held accountable in some way, expect negotiations with the homeowner that result in the burglar returning only some of the items, in what is described as a “concession”, while the homeowner is forced to make another kind of “concession” altogether by agreeing to allow the burglar to keep some of the stolen goods. The homeowner ends up surrendering some rightful claims to win others, whereas the burglar concedes only what he or she acquired unjustly,” says Al-Ashaal.


      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        As usual, classical Arab-logic: out of context, grotesque and incomprehensible. Israel provides the security under which Abbas rules in Judea and Samaria (West Bank Of The Jordan River). If Israel leaves Judea and Samaria, Hamas will throw Abbas and the gang of thugs around him down from the windows of high rise buildings in Ramallah – as happened in Gaza. That’s whatYa’alon meant by “Abbas lives and dies by our Sward”. You know that but are more interested in inciting and spreading lies. The “occupation” is LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED under international law. If you disagree, pls. make coherent legal arguments (and “occupation” is a legal term) to support your claim(s). Jews are the rightful owners of The Land Of Israel. The destruction and expulsion of the Jews from the land of their forefathers by the Romans did not and could not remove that right – regardless of the duration of the exile. Just like no amount of force or duration of exile will turn Hindus in India-, Zulus in South Africa-, Germans in Germany, etc. into foreigners in the land of their forefathers, so are Jews more than at home in the Land of Israel. Ever since the return of her rightful owners, the Land of Israel has again started flourishing, blossoming and booming again. The Jews Are Back And At Home. Get over it!

        Reply to Comment
        • Jonny

          And yet Israel frequently fails to uphold the duties of the occupying power as stipulated in the “1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law”

          Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Jonny, (1) which SPECIFIC Rules of Customary International Humanitarian Law does Israel violate, (b) which SPECIFIC acts of Israel violate such law and how, (c) on what basis do you accord ‘opinio juris’ to the SPECIFIC practice(s) that you qualify as Customary International Humanitarian law? (Based on how you worded and formulated your statement, one would reasonably assume you have some background in International Public Law and as such would be able to answer the question. I eagerly await your answer. Pls. do ignore my question if the assumption is false).

            Reply to Comment
          • jonny

            1) Ruleb130 which as you probably know prohibits the transfer of population into the area occupied – very similar to Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention.

            Er b) Really?
            and c) the wording of both in the above is very clear. You said this was a ‘legal’ occupation.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Oh Jonny, Jonny, I am sure it isn’t wise to engage in legal discussions with you because, (a) you can’t make simple arguments. How do you argue your case by just stating “really”?; (b) you can’t cite the law property. You referred to “the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56)”. In all likelihood, you meant ‘Articles 42-52 Of The Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land.’ This convention does not have the power of ‘opnio juris’ and may therefore not qualify as ‘International Customary Law’ (regardless of what any pseudo legal website claims!). The mere fact that the Convention in question contains the word “customs” does not transform it into ‘International Customary Law’ (dumb ass). Furthermore, and this is very serious, the Articles you cited (i.e. “the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56)” say wholly NOTHING about transfer of populations. You just make things up! (c) you confuse the legality of an “occupation” with the conduct of the “occupier” during the “occupation”. While a territory may be legally occupied in a defensive war, the practices of the occupier during the course of the occupation which may infringe on the customs of war, does not render the occupation illegal. Occupations are legal or illegal based on the reasons that led to it and its continuation, NOT based on the practices of the occupier during the occupation (which may or may not violate International Humanitarian Laws); (d) you claim that Israel violates “Ruleb130”. HOWEVER “Ruleb130” does NOT exist; Article 130 of the Convention does NOT exist and Article 30 of the Convention says wholly NOTHING about transfer of populations; (e) you assume that Israel is occupying Judea and Samaria, but you are unable to make a coherent argument as to HOW the presence of the IDF and Israeli civilians in Judea and Samaria even mount to “occupation” within the meaning of the Convention, etc.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Jonny, you claim: “And yet Israel frequently fails to uphold the duties of the occupying power as stipulated in the “1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78)”.
            My question to you is this: How?
            It is not enough to make accusations. You must argue your case so that others are able to judge the truth or falsity of your accusation. Welcome to the debate!

            Reply to Comment
    2. Joel

      “Ya’alon’s jab at Kerry proves Israel isn’t in the peace-making business”.

      It proves no such thing. It only proves that Ya’alon is a schmuck.


      Your ‘burglar’ was invited by the landlord to return to his ancestral home.

      Reply to Comment
      • Average American

        In your analogy, who is the landlord? who are the ancestors? how is it determined that the home belongs only and exclusively to the burglar?

        Reply to Comment
    3. Danny

      “The U.S. should take notice once and for all.”

      Do you think they haven’t? Do you imagine Obama’s and Kerry’s opinions of Netanyahu and the Israel he leads to be anything other than complete and utter disgust?

      Luckily for Israel, it has the most well-oiled lobby machine in U.S. history (even the NRA doesn’t have so many U.S. representatives and senators in its back pocket). If not for AIPAC and its offshoots, the U.S. would have long ago severed all ties with Israel.

      But the machine is starting to show rust stains (13 Democrats deciding to align themselves with Obama over their AIPAC masters vis-a-vis new Iran sanctions is a new thing). Let’s hope the rust continues to spread until the entire machine starts to break down. When that happens – oh boy, Israel will be in some deep doo doo.

      Reply to Comment
      • Average American

        John Kerry is a long-time self-admitted Zionist. Zionism is an expansionist political movement created and backed by the Rothschild inter-generational banking dynasty. Zionism operates at a much higher level than mere nations, and certainly at a much higher level than the self-important mouthpiece house-boy John Kerry. (House-boy is a reference to slavery times in USA where a young black would work in, and affect the airs of, the Big House where the White People lived, as though he were thereby different and better than his own people.)

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          Zionism is the movement for Jewish Self-determination in a Jewish Homeland. Nothing more. Nothing less. Stop spreading neo-Nazi propaganda.

          Reply to Comment
          • Average American

            What are the final borders of this Jewish Homeland? Are they the Zionist-declared borders that include Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, half of Iraq (to the Euphrates), and Sinai (to the River of Egypt)? Do you suppose those folks will embrace your invasion? Further, this has to do with the Jews nothing to do with the Nazis, so stop spreading neo-Zionist propaganda.

            Reply to Comment
          • jjj

            @average american.

            1948-1967 borders would have been enough. But Arabs wanted the whole pack.
            Still, Israel returned Sinai (twice), signed with Jordan, Lebanon (before the president was assassinated), and would have with Syria and Palestinians…
            So your argument of expansive zionism is, to the very least, utterly false.

            Reply to Comment
    4. ‘“obsessive and messianic” are two words that could (and do) easily describe Israeli policy and its most formative politicians. In fact, “messianic” is precisely the term characterizing the core of the settlement movement that has garnered enormous strength since 1967 and is now a force to be reckoned with in the Knesset. And “obsessive” is probably one of the most appropriate adjectives to describe the lengths Israel’s entire ecosystem – legal, military, political, civilian, educational, environmental, archaeological, etc. – has gone to over the years to ensure a well-oiled system of control over the Palestinian population and of segregation between Jews and everyone else, while somehow still claiming to be an “enlightened democracy.”’

      I quote this at length because it seems exactly right. I don’t think this is “a well-oiled system” in a Machiavellian sense. It just shows how far a few simple ideological statements, repeated continuously, punishing deviation, can go. The Bedouin, African Refugees, and perhaps opposition to Lieberman’s Arab transfer logic, all attempt to surmount this ideology–which is why they are defended with such indignation. Defending Israel should be about stopping human hurt, not racial advance. It seems this dichotomy began after 67 with the settlement program, embraced back then by just about all politicos.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Richard Witty

      The current Israeli government isn’t in the peace-making business.

      Who thought otherwise?

      What would make an Israeli government in the peace-making business, committed electoral efforts to form and articulate sensible policies, and running on them.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        Why would the current Israeli (conservative) government succeed where (leberal leftist) Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert failed sooo miserably? Why is Israel blamed ad infinitum and ad nauseam – for EVERYTHING?

        Reply to Comment
        • Richard Witty

          I don’t blame Israel for everything in the slightest.

          I do blame likud and its sadly majority Israeli supporters for failure to construct a peace negotiation with a willing partner.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            But would you kindly explain to me why you think Likud should/must succeed where leftist Labor and more leftist Kadima have failed. Should Likud give away what even the Israeli Left would not give away? If no, why blame Likud? Is it possible that Likud is not the problem? I am sure Abbas is not a terrorist and does not condone terrorism. But is there really any other substantive difference between Abbas and Arafat?

            Reply to Comment
          • Richard Witty

            I don’t think the chance of success is beyond nil with the present Israeli coalition.

            The only hope for a peace agreement, and then for the permanence of Israel (nothing is permanent), is an electoral effort in Israel that yeilds a centrist coalition, willing to realize peace, but with clear needs fulfilled.

            NOT positions, needs.

            Olmert was reportedly two months away from an agreement to submit to legislators and populace. The tangible issues are not that irreconcilable.

            The winds of either/or politics are difficult. The fanatics and ideologically driven on both sides have exercised their ability to screw up everything, to the point that they are the norm.

            We NEED an exception, not more of the norm. Not more far left, not more far right.


            Reply to Comment
    6. Ginger Eis

      Irish American support Ireland (and supported and lobbied for the IRA); Arab Americans support Arab countries, Muslim interest and lobby for them as well. Cuban-Americans, etc. do the same. As such, it is more than fitting that Jews lobby for Jewish interests. The Eternity Of The State Of Israel In The Land Of Israel and the continued Survival Of Jewish People on earth are the most important Jewish interests. We Jew are/form part of the backbone of the United States Of America and the US Federal Government may not compromise on any of the above mentioned interests. It is not a matter of choice for the US Fed. Gov. It is an obligation. Anyone who is hallucinating and salivating at the thought that the US will somehow dump Israel one day will be disappointed. Miserably.

      Reply to Comment
    7. Vadim

      Abbas hugs and congratulates murderers – not an issue.

      Abbas applauds after minister calls for Jihad in Jerusalem – not an issue.

      Abbas Zaki, a member of Fatah’s central says a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders
      is only first stage in the PA’s program – not an issue.

      PA TV broadcasts children voicing the libel that Jews murdered Arafat for the 5th year in a row – nothing interesting here.

      But lo and behold – a single statement by a single Israeli politician is a proof that Israel does not wish peace.

      If Abbas would walk around with a neon sign saying – “I don’t wish peace with Israel, our goal is to destroy it” – some people will still blame Israel and claim we are the obstacle for peace.

      Reply to Comment
      • Joel

        You nailed it, Vadim.

        It’s the Left’s ‘soft bigotry of low expectations’ in action.

        Reply to Comment
      • I believe Lieberman made the same proposal about 4-5 years ago in a UN speech.

        There is actually a difference between the cases. Lieberman proposes the corporate stripping of citizenship based on race and convenient location. Citizenship of naturally born Israelis whose parents were granted citizenship by the Knesset many decades ago. These Arab citizens are not part of the Palestinian conflict as such, but he would make them so, for purely demographic, internal reasons.

        However, you are correct that neither side of this conflict is capable of reigning in its fringe. Something for you to be proud of.

        Reply to Comment
        • Vadim

          Greg, I was only referring to the incredible way in which events are displayed by certain bloggers on this site.

          No amount of spoken words or deeds (like the 10 or so rockets fired from Gaza yesterday) will challenge the faith that the other side wishes nothing but peace. Not only that, since nothing challenges the faith – there’s no reason to report anything.

          However when it comes to Israel, every insignificant word is over-analysed and proudly displayed as the ultimate proof that we do not wish peace.

          What Lieberman proposes is a complex issue, much more complex than what is shown here. We can discuss it – but it is completely irrelevant to this post.

          Reply to Comment
          • Vadim, I actually don’t think a full agreement is possible. You mention the Gaza rockets. Well, how can you swap land into Gaza (as previous maps suggest) when the ruling entity there isn’t playing? To even try seems silly.

            But I must disagree as to the impact of Lieberman’s plan. He’s Foreign Minister, not back bencher. And this is an overt attempt to remove Israeli citizens as such. The issue may indeed overall have complexity, but constitutional thought sometimes forces the complex into simplicity by fundamental principle. I think citizenship is such a principle. And I think your Foreign Minister, who is clearly trying to intervene in the talks, is doing Israel a great disservice.

            As to bashing Israel minutely: I think you totally correct on the PA child propaganda; I have seen some of the videos. And I think it shows a limit in Abbas’ power, for I really doubt he likes them much either, as a practical matter. But one can criticize one’s neighbor all one wants–yet change oneself. The Yesh Din reports are real, and no one seems to care about that. If I thought there was a real court system in the PA capable of changing administration policy I would be all over it; I do not. There MAY be in Israel. The African Refugee case will tell us.

            Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        Greg, the latest news is that Netanyahu and Livni are supporting the Lieberman-plan. The Americans now see the plan as more than logical. In order words, the plan is gaining steam. As I said before, the problem with the plan is its source, not its content. Arab-Israelis in the area that would be transferred to the Palestinian State who may – IF THEY CHOOSE TO – retain their Israeli citizenship and/or other social services and also acquire the Palestinian citizenship, with the Israeli citizenship automatically terminating at the moment death. Offsprings born of them after the handover of the territory would have Palestinian citizenship, but would NOT be eligible for Israeli citizenship. This arrangement will withstand the test of the Equal Protection Clause. This is just an example. I believe that when healthy, creative minds come together, a good solution will emerge that would take care of other legal objections you have correctly, consistently raised.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          correction: “Arab-Israelis in the area that would be transferred to the Palestinian State (who) may – IF THEY CHOOSE TO – …..”

          strike the word “who”.

          Reply to Comment
        • Ginger, I kind of doubt the US is all in favor of it; more, though, I really doubt that info, if real, has been leaked. Similarly, it would be a huge leak if it is now known Bibi and Livni support the idea. But I haven’t looked at the paper today.

          The proposal might survive a test of equal protection if these new dual citizens retain full travel and resident rights in Israel. If they do, and indeed decide to relocate within what remains Israel, then children born of them, in Israel proper while resident in Israel proper, should be Israeli citizens, as would be the case today. If, instead, they cannot reside in true Israel by moving, and their children born on Israeli territory would not be citizens of Israel, I think my critique of the plan stands. Actually, I think as well the State would have to enable them to relocate if they declare they want to remain on Israeli soil, including aid in finding a job. Otherwise the promise of the Declaration is abandoned.

          But underlying all this is the supposition that most living in these two areas would agree to the plan. If not, and if they actively protest as much, you will find many Americans loath to force the matter upon them. You may not realize how important the idea of natural born citizen is in the US, as well as the idea, affirmed by the US Supreme Court, that once citizenship is granted it may not be forcibly removed. So I rather imagine Kerry et al dumbfounded, especially as this idea has been introduced outside the venue of talks, apparently.

          I warn you: if race trumps citizenship in any forcible manner, you will find more Americans turning away in disbelief. If you can convince this Arab citizenry to go–well, that is different.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            I do not agree. I will give two expiations in two posts. The firs is this one. A discriminatory Act of a government is not a-priori discriminatory within the meaning of relevant provisions of International Law. Indeed, exchange of populations agreed upon in a Treaty and geared towards peaceful resolution of regional conflicts is a generally accepted practice within the International Community. As such, this practice acquired the necessary element of what in International Public Law is referred to as ‘Opinio Juris’ and becomes by virtue of such acquisition an applicable Norm Of International Customary Law, (International Customary Law is a source of law under International law). Thus, exchanging the Arab-Israeli populations of the so-called Triangle region with Jewish Israelis in Judea and Samaria would be in accordance with International Law. This is good news for the proponents of the Lieberman-plan.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            However, Israeli law may in this case provide more protection of the individual than International law(it may not provide for less). As such, an Arab-Israeli who suddenly loses her/his Israeli citizenship and automatically acquires Palestinian citizenship or who retains his Israeli citizenship, automatically acquires Palestinian citizenship BUT may NOT transfer her/his Israeli citizenship to her/his daughters/sons, may appeal to the Israeli Court and ask for the reinstatement of her/his citizenship or claim that her/his citizenship rights has been violated. The Israeli Court must determine:
            a. Whether there was a difference in treatment on grounds of race/ethnicity;
            b. Whether the difference in treatment is “based on the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others” and
            c. Whether the difference in treatment is proportionate to the aim pursued.
            If these criteria are met, the plaintiff would lose the case. Forbidden discrimination is not determined by applying a mathematical 1:1-ratio principle (with regard to the different treatments), but by examining whether or not specific criteria laid down in the (case) law have been met.

            Reply to Comment
          • International law need have no role here, although worrying about that is a bit strange given the State’s cavalier attitude towards the Refugee Convention.

            As to Israeli law, of course the courts would have to determine whether the plan you detail violates equal protection. Stripping citizenship for the new born (one does not “transfer” one’s citizenship to a child; law bestows it), is a class action on race. The claim then is that this race must be expunged irregardless of personal act, for a newborn’s only personal act is existing. Excluding race in the equal protection of law excludes the badge you are asserting. The claim that “national security” mandates this exclusion is a National Socialist one. Your Declaration proclaims full equality in political and social rights, and reproduction is a social right. Israeli Jews have children in full expectation they will be citizens; so too Arab Israeli citizens must enjoy this expectation. You are removing the reproduction of Arabs solely because they are reproducing. Demographic war was part of the National Socialist canon.

            Nor is mandatory transfer necessary for removal of territory. You may transfer the land, even provide your citizenship plan as an option, but those who refuse it must be allowed to reside in Israel proper as full citizens, with compensation for a taking under eminent domain. There is nothing in national right rhetoric suggesting this would happen, nor in recent Knesset passed laws; rather, the reverse.

            You said earlier that these newly dual nationals now residing in the State of Palestine would remain for their lives Israeli citizens. With full rights of travel therein? With full rights to relocate therein? Treated, exactly like an Israeli (let alone Jewish Israeli) in economic transactions within Israel? The very attitude underlying Lieberman’s plan says no. If these “dual citizens” cannot live within New Israel, then race itself becomes a threat to the public, to national security. A breathing Arab (or Palestinian, more letters to type) become a threat to the nation.

            The National Socialists argued similarly. For the nation, we must do this; all will be better off with segregation, as like lives with like. The same attitude that some particular view of race trumps law is strikingly evident in the State’s attitude toward African refugees. The law is to become an extension of race. This your founding document, your Declaration, proclaimed only a few years after the defeat of Nazi Germany, explicitly forbids.

            Clearly the full ethnic purging which States have enjoyed throughout history is being denied to Israel. You are at the wrong point in history, but here you are. I have for decades thought that Israel has not been allowed to do what, say, the US did over 150 years. Even the promise of the 13th-15th Amendments was denied for 100 years. The US had it easy. But Israel does not. And I will not accept a National Socialist contorting of law to change that truth.

            Let’s consider the proposed corporate stripping of citizenship via reproduction, violating equality in social right to have a family, under your quoted (from where?) part b:

            national security: have bombers come from the triangle? Are there any now? Any terrorism from there at all? NO

            public safety: riots? significant disruptions to the social economy? NO

            the economic well-being of the country: are there poor there? are there poor elsewhere in Israel? YES. Is a race to be expunged for the corporate well-being of another race? YES. Is a race to be expunged to allow another race to continue a political monopoly? YES.

            the prevention of disorder or crime: what disorder? The disorder of being Arab? Can a race be purged because it is asserted the nexus of disorder and crime? IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE.

            the protection of health or morals: is there evidence of epidemic? Is there less morality than within the governing elites? NO. NO. But perhaps the dominant race seeks to preserve its purity. IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE.

            the protection of the rights and freedoms of others: what freedom? The freedom to enjoy an electoral monopoly indefinitely? What rights? Exactly how does a Jew elsewhere in Israel enjoy rights now burdened upon this expulsion?

            Your plaintiff MIGHT lose a case against forced removal of equality of citizenship. After all, “separate but equal” was constitutional law in the US for over 50 years (separate, but hardly equal). But if that happens, what happens to the remnant Arabs, and to the Bedouin? We already see what is supposed to happen to the Africans. Elsewhere you asked if refugees had been able to apply for asylum; the answer is overwhelmingly not. Then you asked if the courts heard appeals; not a one. Law will become what you need it to become. All for “national security,” for “public safety or the economic well-being of the country.”

            The phrase “democratic for Jews” will become final. And you will have, next door, a non-State you declare a State, occupation still strong, now with a new batch of angry people, formerly called citizens. No one will believe you anymore.

            The proposed here logic is the same reified racial ontology of Germany in the 1920’s, proposed here by a sitting Foreign Minister. Shame. Shame in implicit use of the Shoah to defend this racial necessity. To claim that one race should be expelled for the good of another is abomination. Castrating them in law is expulsion in law.

            Long term, you fail. The question is when.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Greg, I appreciate your intense arguments in defense of the rights of the individual, which nontheless in this particular instances are, IMHO, awash with dangerous demagoguery , fallacious comparisons and false sentimental moral equivalence. I shall explain in several posts. FIRST there are 1.6 million Arab-Israelis living in Israel with same rights as their Jewish counterparts. The Arab-Israelis living in the Triangle region number about 300.000. The overwhelming majority of Arab-Israelis will continue to live in Israel with equal rights. SECOND ‘population-exchange’ geared towards resolving armed/violent regional conflict is TODAY (and I mean today as in CURRENTLY) ESTABLISHED, WELL-SETTLED ‘International Customary Law’, and I mean Law as in ‘LAW’. As such, the claims/suggestion of unequal protection, ‘ethnic purge/cleansing’ akin to National Socialistic practices is not justified. If you employ the law in determining ‘right and wrong’, fairness DEMANDS you to be CONSISTENT in the application of the law. You may not apply the law when it suits your purpose and throw it out the window when it does not – especially when Israel is involved. The law is what it is. And the law is on Israel’s side. Intellectual honesty demands that you respect that. …… to b continued ….

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            The Nazis did not engage in a peace Treaty with a Jewish State Of Israel on any of its German borders to exchange Jews living in Germany with Germans living in the Jewish State in an effort to resolve armed regional conflict involving the two States! My G-d, how TREMENDOUSLY HAPPY I/Jews would be if that is what happened. But that’s fantasy. What the Germans did do is to – based on the delusional doctrine of racial superiority – engage in a wholesale industrial extermination of their own Jewish population (that made up about 0.5% of the total population) and the Jewry as a People on this earth. This genocide was preceded by many other crimes against humanity against the German Jews in Germany. There is – to cut the story short – simply NO BASIS in the facts, in the law and intentions of Israel to EVEN REMOTELY support the kind of immoral comparisons you make and/or draw the kind of heavily uneducated, ill-informed conclusions you draw. Indeed, the Nazis also built autobahns and created jobs for millions of jobless Germans. Israel, Canada, the US, France, the U.A.E., etc. do the same. Following your thought-process, they are all Nazis. Please think very hard before throwing the Nazi-slur on anyone. You need to think in context, consider specific actions, the reason/intention underlying such actions, the aims/goals of such actions and the proportionality of the actions in relation to the goals pursued before placing Nazi-symbols on them. I accept that doing so is a very difficult mental exercise (and that’s what judges/jurist do daily), but that does not absolve you from you responsibility (especially when you have the Chutzpah to call others Nazis!). …… to b continued ….

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            The Lieberman-plan can only become reality in a peace Treaty. A Treaty is that part of International Law that binds the Signatories thereof. In hierarchical order, the Treaty is SUPERIOR to- and takes PRECEDENT over national laws. Any section of the national law that conflicts with the provisions of a Treaty are either set aside/not applicable or null and void. This is well settled Public law-/Constitutional & Administrative law legal doctrine in ALL Western legal systems (both the Civil- and the Common Law systems). IF and WHEN the Lieberman-plan makes it to a Treaty, becomes LAW and is presented to the Israeli Court for adjudication, the Court would have to determine if the Treaty was signed by the competent authority and ratified by the Knesset. If the answers are affirmative, the Court will explore the legitimate National Security Interest pursued by the Treaty, i.e. the existential threat to the State Of Israel arising from Armed Regional Conflict with Arab- and Muslim nations. The Court will further examine the aims and goals of the Treaty, i.e. resolution of said conflict, preservation of the Jewish State and achieving regional- and world peace. Lastly the Court will consider if the population-exchange/loss of Israeli citizenship by some Palestinians is proportionate to resolution of said regional armed conflict that has lasted for many decades, led to tens of thousands of deaths, brought untold heart wrenching misery to millions of peoples (Jews and Arabs), and continues to dangerously destabilize national, regional and world Security. The Court would have to carefully weigh which one outweighs the other. This – unlike just carelessly throwing Nazi-slurs around – would be an arduous balancing act to make. And the validity, applicability and enforceability of the Treaty will come out on top. …… to be continued ….

            Reply to Comment
          • It’s funny–you can be “talking” to someone on this blog and then find that both feel the other is delusional or crazy. I plead guilty to a kind of delusion. If I had been world successful, I wouldn’t be on this site at all; and as it is I spend too much time here. I think we want people to think our core beliefs are fundamentally not just right but good, make us good, let us feel good. We get satisfaction out of them and want others to as well. Then we hit the wall of refusal and anger and hyper focus comes. I plead guilty. As old as I am, I am still guilty.

            I am going to leave this. I will still make comments but go back to how I tried at the beginning. Make a point, walk off.

            You have put some effort into reply, so before walking off I will say a few things.

            The National Socialists of the 1920’s where not the Nazi exterminators. I don’t believe anyone of the first period could envision what would happen. What I see on the national right is a strong tendency to assert race as ontologically foundational; this the National Socialists of then did. And so did a lot of Americans, including one famous Supreme Court Justice, Holmes.

            The compulsion to expunge the citizenry of the Arab triangle escapes me, but I have never felt a “we” for myself. I believe in the argument I gave against it herein. If nothing else, it might be useful for you when constructing replies.

            I am foundationally convinced that the Lieberman proposal is fatally flawed law and politically vengeful. I also believe the present moment is a crucial test for the independence of the High Court.

            If I had more of a life I would not be here. I think, for you, your presence is much more for life lived. I don’t think I would like you. I cannot go where you go. And I think, obviously, my way is the necessary course. Nonetheless, you have on this page shown real effort to reason, which is a form of reaching out. This thread will probably leave the 972 front page before I can look thereon again. Maybe you will not even get to read this.

            May your Declaration of Independence provide a constitutional basis for an independent High Court. That is my slogan, and I don’t think someone truly anti-Israeli would make it.

            I am well aware of how limited I am; how my presence here makes no fundamental sense. So, when you say “delusional” elsewhere, I cannot say you wrong.

            Good bye.

            Reply to Comment
    8. Gideon Gitai

      Has Washington decided that its long-term interests are better served by stability than subversion? Had Obama forgotten what he told Israeli Students, in March this year??? 
”Political leaders will never take risks if the people do not push them to take some risks”.

      I assume the great orator does not realize that he provides ample proof of that by his own behaviour. Obama declares A and does B.
 He uses his orator’s skill to preach peace, but does little to support his statements.
      Obama continues to deliver 3,5 Milliard $ of free U.S. made weapons to Peace-Rejecting-Israel, to enforce its Occupation and foster more wars. Obama also continues to ban any UNSC resolution censoring Israel

      That is how Obama is defeating Obama

      Reply to Comment
    9. Click here to load previous comments