Netanyahu: Today’s BDS Enemies Are Like Those Who Accused Us of Drinking Blood of Little Children
You’d think that Israel’s victory in the FIFA battle against Palestine would make Bibi Netanyahu sit back on his laurels and bask in the thrill of international victory. Instead it’s done just the opposite. Instead of victory, from his response at today’s weekly cabinet meeting, you’d think that Israel was about to be overrun by hordes of anti-Semitic Cossacks and scimitar-wielding ISIS killers.
Instead of engaging with criticism or grappling with the arguments of opponents of Israeli apartheid, he once again resorts to the lachrymose theory of Jewish history propounded by his father, the Jewish historian, Ben Zion Netanyahu: They hate us. They all hate us. It doesn’t matter what we do. They don’t care about that. They hate our very existence. And that’s why we will defeat them by merely continuing to exist.
This isn’t politics, this is ultra-nationalism as religion. And the one thing about religion that makes it far more dangerous than politics is that with the latter there’s always a way to compromise, since you’re fighting about ideas and ideology. But religion is an entirely different matter. There you’re fighting over much deeper matters: good and evil, the divine, the ineffable. Once the nation is wrapped in the mantle of God, all things are possible: racism, mass murder. The normal taboos against violence and the strictures that prevent us from reverting to our atavistic past are removed. A higher order commands us to break such taboos in the name of the Divine.
Here are some passages from Netanyahu’s remarks to the cabinet (Hebrew):
We are at the height of a great struggle waged against the State of Israel, an international campaign to blacken its reputation. It has nothing to do with our deeds. It is tied to our very existence. It doesn’t matter what we do. The only thing that matters [to our enemies] is what we symbolize and that we exist. Now, this phenomenon we’ve come to recognize from our people’s history–what haven’t they said about the Jewish people? They accused us of being the source of the world’s evil, they said we poison the wells of humanity, that we drink the blood of little children. All these things are said about us today as well. It wasn’t true then and it’s not true now…
It’s important to understand that it’s not a matter of our being nicer or more generous. We are very generous. We’ve made many proposals and concessions–it hasn’t changed a thing. Because what’s involved in this international de-legitimization campaign against Israel is bound up in something much deeper that…seeks to negate our right to live here.
…There is no justification for the international campaign of delegitimization against Israel, which tries to suspend it from international bodies. The last thing we should do is bow our heads and ask what we did wrong…we’ve done nothing wrong. We are not a perfect nation. We don’t pretend to be so. But they set standards for us that are twisted and higher than for any other nation, any other democracy. And there is no other democracy as challenged the State of Israel. No other which protects human rights, upholds pluralism and humanism, even in the most trying times of war, even when they fire thousands of rockets at our cities. That’s why we don’t deal in justifications, we speak the truth.
This week we had to fight off a great international effort to expel us from FIFA. I’m happy that we succeeded in this. This will be part of a continuing effort [against us]. I won’t pretend that these efforts will end soon. We will have to act against them on many fronts. But the main thing that must fortify us is the truth, and the inner pride that we know who we are, what we are, and what we represent. We will not surrender to libels.
Jodi Rudoren tried to grapple with all this in an article in the NY Times today. She broadened Bibi’s remarks to deal with the subject of BDS, which he hadn’t addressed directly. But as usual, she stumbles:
The founding document of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement includes a reference to Palestinian refugees’ right to return to their homes inside Israel proper, and some of its leaders call for a single state between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. Most Israeli Jews, as well as many outside experts, see either such a one-state solution or the return of all refugees and their descendants as a demographic death warrant for Israel as a Jewish state, which is how it was founded in 1948.
Rudoren quotes the BDS platform correctly when she notes it calls for the Right of Return, though she unnecessarily dramatizes things when she adds “to their homes inside Israel proper.” There is no specific statement saying Palestinians shall return to their former homes. Indeed, this is largely impossible because 400 Palestinian villages were either razed or abandoned during the Nakba. Though of course if their homes do still exist, BDS does believe in general that refugees should have a right to return to them.
But her next sentence is problematic. The founder of BDS, Omar Barghouti does indeed believe in a one-state solution. But both he and the BDS founding principles make crystal clear that these are his personal views and not those of the BDS movement. BDS has never said it supports one-state.
In the next sentence, Rudoren really comes a-cropper. She claims that most Israelis and all the smart people in the world (you know, those anonymous “many outside experts”), see one-state as “a demographic death warrant for Israel…” When criticized for writing this, she points out that she added the phrase, “Jewish state.” But she omits one crucial phrase from the Declaration of Independence, Israel’s founding document: a Jewish democratic state. She omitted the word because it would’ve muddied her argument. Indeed, ROR isn’t a death warrant for Israel as a democratic state. In fact, ROR is a realization of Israel as a truly just and democratic state.
What does ROR threaten? It threatens Israel as an ethnocracy with superior rights for Jews over non-Jews. As many Israeli Jews and even a few of Rudoren’s “many outside experts” agree–there is a fatal contradiction between the notion of Israel as a state privileging Jews over non-Jews and Israel as a democracy. In short, you have to choose. BDS makes a choice. Rudoren and liberal Zionists refuse.
Interestingly, as her article proceeds she tries to turn BDS into a movement that embraces the views of liberal Zionists. I suppose when liberals begin trying to co-opt a radical movement it means they’re afraid it’s going to win. Here’s the passage in question:
…The boycott movement is a broad umbrella that includes initiatives singling out only institutions and companies operating in West Bank settlements, with many advocates who support Israel as a Jewish state but call for an end to the occupation. Some Israeli opposition politicians, and American Jewish leaders, have expressed concern that broad-brush dismissal of the intensifying calls for sanctions against Israel leaves it defenseless against substantive critiques of its policies.
Here she muddies things considerably. What she’s describing is the position of liberal Zionists like Peter Beinart and Meretz. Many BDS campaigners call this BDS-lite. It sheds the Right of Return and replaces it with a call for a boycott of settlements. This is not the position of BDS. Nor does BDS or anyone who embraces its real principles “support Israel as a Jewish state.” If BDS is a whole loaf, those who support this formulation of it are willing to accept half a loaf.
Ronnie Barkan tweeted (and Noa Shaindlinger originated) an amazing front page of today’s Yediot Achronot. On it, the paper proudly trumpeted its enlistment in the national struggle against BDS. It has answered the prime minister’s call to arms. This is not journalism. This is journalism disguised as jingoism-boosterism. Journalism subjugated to national hysteria.
The lede headline and sub-headlines blare:
Fighting the Boycott:
Yediot joins the fight against international sanctions with a series of report. Israeli new front: organizations in dozens of western countries proposing sanctions against Israeli policy in the Territories. How to fight against this expanding and sharpening threat.
Who is against us: see a map of of the world boycott.
One of the two lead articles is by far-right columnist Ben Dror Yemini. It’s titled: “The Threat Against the Right to Exist.” This is the sub-lede:
Make no mistake: This is not a campaign against settlements. It’s a war on the legitimacy of the Jewish state. All reasonable forces, from right and left, must act against the economic, academic, and cultural boycott which has become a strategic threat. Yedioth Ahronoth is enlisting in the fight back.
Keep in mind, Yediot is not the worst or most extremist Israeli newspaper. Not by a long-shot. It’s a populist broadsheet with center-right political orientation. So this is unprecedented. Even frightening.
67 thoughts on “Netanyahu: Today’s BDS Enemies Are Like Those Who Accused Us of Drinking Blood of Little Children – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم”
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
” In fact, ROR is a realization of Israel as a truly just and democratic state. ”
ROR for who? The original 1948 and 1967 refugees? Fine with me.
ROR for original refugees and their millions of descendents?
Over my dead body.
Oh. BTW, what about those pesky 500,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries?
Where’s there payback?
Walt. Interesting. “return” for Jews who were not in that land for thousands of years is not only okay, but it is subsidized by millions of OUR tax dollars a year. Return for Christian and Muslim Palestinians and their children…over your bigoted dead body!
You are also pulling the old trick of tying the right thing to do, with an entirely disconnected and unrelated action…calling for Jews who were encouraged to leave by pro-Israelis, tO get their ROR. This is no different than tying peace with Palestinians, to a universal recognition and peace with ALL M-E countries.
I am all for ROR for Jews and in fact, Jews ARE enjoying ROR and compensation from European countries…most of the money goes to Israel and not the survivors though. But doing the RIGHT thing, should not be conditional on someone else doing the right thing as well.
” Interesting. “return” for Jews who were not in that land for thousands of years is not only okay, ”
The League of Nations thought it was okay, so what’s the beef?
@ Walt: Oh please. Even if what you claim is true (which is debatable) the League of Nations hasn’t existed for 100 yrs.!
In words made famous by Ronald Raegan, “There you go again”.
You Blind supporters of Israel are super-fast to quote from resolutions and statements of bodies when it comes to supporting Israel, but when Israel is criticised by the same world bodies, you are just as fast to accuse them of the old saw, “Anti-Semitism”. Balfour declaration is trotted out whenever the leaglity of Israel is called in question, but the next part of the statement confirming equal rights for Palestinians, is never spoken of.
You can “return” to Israel after thousands of years…assuming your forebears were actually from Jews who left Israel…after they came there from outside and killed off most of the original inhabitants (we can go one as to who the “original inhabitants were and who deserves to “return), but people who may be only one generation away from having been expelled by “returning” Jews at the point of a gun, may only return “over your (bigoted) dead body”.
I am sorry to say this but people with views like yours are the reason why today’s israel is so universally hated and please don’t flatter yourself by saying Israel is hated because of Jews; it is hated by what some Jews are DOING.
“it is hated by what some Jews are DOING.”
Hoy..hoy! Jaffar! You’ve done it. You’ve lurched into the truth.
The thing that the Jews are DOING is SURVIVING.
The Jews have been, and continue to be, hated because we’ve survived for thousands of years.
We watched the Persians fall, the Greeks, the Romans, the Ottoman and British empires,,etc., and we’re still here and that makes people angry and makes them want to smash the cockroaches.
Why have we survived?
Because our many enemies have made us smarter, faster, saner, and more sober.
Deal with it.
@Walt: You’ve violated the comment rules by again being far off-topic. Second, you’ve confused “Jews” with “Israelis” which is what the hasbara class does deliberately.
Israel is hated for what it does, not for what it is. Jews & Israelis are not the same and most of the world doesn’t confuse the 2. The only ones who do are hasbaraniks like you and confused Islamist killers. I wonder why you both do this?
So for those comment violations you’re moderated. If you write future comments that follow the rules your comments will be published. If not…
Walt. Cute but no prizes. You manageed to take a crucial word out of my statement and twist it into serving you thus deluding nobody but yourself. The word is “some” and it is attached to “Jews”.
Lots of groups are surviving and most are in much worse predicaments than Jews. Certainly nobody can say Jews in Israel are “surviving” they are prospering, thanks to the Billions of dollars they receive from all over the world. Of course, they could have made Israel the real land of promise, instead, they have chosen to make it an example of how genocide can be perfected without the starkness of death camps.
Thought processes like yours only serve to support those who would promote hate against Israel and indeed, against all Jews.
‘Israelis’. ‘Some Jews’.
And what were ‘some Jews’ doing for thousands of years to earn them the ‘nations’ hate for two thousand years? The ghetto’s the holocaust. Dhimmidtude.
I know ‘It’s complicated’. Spare me the bullshit.
No spare us the bullshit. You’re now moderated. Only comments respecting the rules will be published.
“Dhimmidtude???” [sic] I mean really. Did you expect you wouldn’t be nailed for this Islamophobic shit?? You can’t even spell the word right!
Oh, & tell Hasbara Central after your flight departs they may approve permission for landing the next hasbara flight at Tikun Olam-Ben Gurion. It’s an old joke around here.
@ Walt: Ah so you’re graciously willing to accept the return of the few hundred (if that) original refugees who may remain alive from 1948?? How generous. BTW, who died & left you arbiter-boss on this matter?
Arab Jewish refugees is a red herring. We’ve been over this countless times here. So don’t open that can of worms. Israel literally expelled 1 million Palestinians from Israel. The history of Arab Jews leaving their home countries is far more complicated. I do NOT want to enter into this swamp. If you do, you will be moderated for being off topic & repeating arguments already argued here.
It is sad and scary, the paranoia and self centeredness of people like Walt. I’ve never seen this attitude expressed so clearly.
Can I point out that Bibi’s Big DummySpit(tm) is very good evidence that “Israel’s victory in the FIFA battle against Palestine” perhaps wasn’t quite as victorious as is being painted?
The Israeli football federation had to promise that the restriction on Palestinian player movements would be lifted, and Bibi is doing this dummy spit because he knows – as certain as he knows anything – that Israel will renege on that promise.
Israel will renege, because Israel just can’t resist humiliating the Palestinians.
Bibi knows that, which is why he knows that this “victory” is nothing more than the Israel football federation promising something it can’t deliver, and the consequences are that the only thing that Israel has “won” here is that it has kicked the can a little further down the road.
The next time a Palestinian footballer is detained, or arrested, or stopped at an Israeli border crossing – or beaten up and/or shot – then they will be back to FIFA, and when they do the Palestinians will be reminding Blatter that the last time Israel whispered in his ear they were telling him porkies.
RE: “Ronnie Barkan tweeted an amazing front page of today’s Yediot Achronot. On it, the paper proudly trumpeted its enlistment in the national struggle against BDS. It has answered the prime minister’s call to arms.” ~ R.S.
SEE: “Who Will Save Israel”, by Uri Avnery, zope.gush-shalom.org, 23 May 2015
ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1432296815/
Nethanyahu, “…It is tied to our very existence”. These dyed-in-wool, Blind Pro-Israelis never stop making an existential connection with anything that opposes what they do and what they do, continues to get ratcheted up. First it was the right of Israel to exist and now it is for the right of Israel to exist AS A JEWISH STATE!
It will probably not take long for Nethanyahu & Co to take this analogy further and equate BDS to those who stood guard as the cattle-cars were being loaded with Jews.
This screaming “Wolf!” gets old, the only people paying attention any more, are their fellow Blindly pro-Israeli Jews, the ultra-right-wing Christians and the politicians who have a lot to gain because of the powerful Israeli-lobbies.
I for one, wish “Israel as a Jewish state” would cease to exist, just as the “right of White South Africa, Rhodesia and S-W Africa. I wish for an Israel (with multiple names) to exist with equal representation, equal protection and equal rights for ALL faiths.
“I for one, wish “Israel as a Jewish state” would cease to exist ”
The problem is that peoples memories are too short.
The November 1947 UN Partition Plan, UN Resolution 181, mentions a ‘Jewish State’, 29 times.
Is 181 the one that demanded Israel allow refugees to return? The one Israel failed to implement? So if Israel can ignore multiple UN resolutions, you mean we have to honor your unproven claim that one such resolution recognizes Israel as a “Jewish state?”
I detest commenters who clearly are quoting the hasbara manual. That’s you. At any rate, this is your last warning. Off topic comments (and invocation of ancient UN resolutions is most definitely off topic) will cause you to be moderated or banned.]
Forgive me Richard, allow me one last comment on this.
Walt I went to check your quoted Un Resolution 181 and it made me laugh at the cynicism with which you used it to justify your non-existent claim for a “Jewish” state of Israel. Why don’t oyu take a few minutes to check out your own refernec to UN Res 181 and see how many of its conditions have N.E.V.E.R. been implemented by Israel? Check out how the Nehrus were offered bribes and threats, to get India’s “Yes” vote (it voted “nay”) and all the blah blah about preserving equal rights for Palestinians.
Are you really that deep in denial or do you really believ we cannot think for ourselves and will acceot whatever you toss at us?
“Check out how the Nehrus were offered bribes and threats,”
According to Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 56.
“Vijayalakshmi Pandit, Nehru’s sister, who headed the delegation, occasionally threw out hints that something might change. But Shertok was brought down to earth by historian Kavalam Panikkar, another member of the Indian delegation: “It is idle for you to try to convince us that the Jews have a case. . . . We know it. . . . But the point is simply this: For us to vote for the Jews means to vote against the Moslems. This is a conflict in which Islam is involved. . . . We have 13 million [sic] Moslems in our midst. . . . Therefore, we cannot do it.”
The Indian delegation sound like moral hypocrites.
Am I wrong to think that?
As we say among Muslims, “Perfection belongs to God”.
We are all moral hypocrites, some just stand out more…
@ Walt: Amidst all this “noise” I see you haven’t denied the Indians were bribed as Jafar says. Bribery seems to be an Israeli official policy for pursuing its interests. FIFA anyone?
“I see you haven’t denied the Indians were bribed as Jafar says.”
I don’t know if the Zionists made bribes or threats, but if they did, then they weren’t alone.
Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 61. Retrieved 13 July 2013. “”The Arabs had failed to understand the tremendous impact of the Holocaust on the international community—and, in any event, appear to have used the selfsame methods, but with poor results. Wasif Kamal, an AHC official, for example, offered one delegate—perhaps the Russian—a “huge, huge sum of money to vote for the Arabs” (the Russian declined, saying, “You want me to hang myself?”). But the Arabs’ main tactic, amounting to blackmail, was the promise or threat of war should the assembly endorse partition. As early as mid-August 1947, Fawzi al-Qawuqji—soon to be named the head of the Arab League’s volunteer army in Palestine, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA)—threatened that, should the vote go the wrong way, “we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish.” It would be a “holy war,” the Arabs suggested, which might even evolve into “World War III.” Cables to this effect poured in from Damascus, Beirut, Amman, and Baghdad during the Ad Hoc Committee deliberations, becoming “more lurid,” according to Zionist officials, as the General Assembly vote drew near. The Arab states generally made no bones about their intention to support the Palestinians with “men, money and arms,” and sometimes hinted at an eventual invasion by their armies. They also threatened the Western Powers, their traditional allies, with an oil embargo and/or abandonment and realignment with the Soviet Bloc””
Walt: “The November 1947 UN Partition Plan, UN Resolution 181, mentions a ‘Jewish State’, 29 times.”
It also mentions “Arab state” 22 times, so I would suggest that your memory is very selective.
Indeed, if you read UN GA Resolution 181 (you have read it, correct?) you’ll see that the phrase “Jewish state” and the phrase “Arab state” are treated equally in that resolution which, axiomatically, means that the resolution is not referring to “the state of the Jewish people” any more than it can possibly be referring to “the state of the Arab people” (for reasons that should be obvious).
So the phrase “Jewish state” is no more a definition that is the phrase “Arab state”.
Those phrases – both of them – are simply descriptive terms, since it would be incredibly tedious to read a document that kept referring to the “state within which borders you will find all the Jews of Palestine” and the “state within which borders you will find almost no Jews of Palestine”.
Because that’s what is being described i.e. it was possible to draw boundaries between the two states in such a way that **all** of the Jews would end up inside one of those two states.
(note that the corollary is not true i.e. it was impossible to draw boundaries so that one of the states contained **all** the Arabs of Palestine. They were far too widely spread out – unlike the Jewish demographic – and so even the “Jewish state” would have had a popln that was 40% Arab had not Ben Gurion other ideas.)
But, so sorry, the “Jewish state” as described in UNGA181 bears no resemblance whatsoever to the self-proclaimed definition of the “State of the Jewish people”.
It also mentions “Arab state” 22 times, so I would suggest that your memory is very selective.
What you neglected to mention is that the ‘arabs’ rejected the resolution and it’s borders. By rejecting it I mean de facto starting a war. So, since they lost that war they now want things to be has they were before it.
As the kids say – ‘no backsies’.
A ‘jewish state’ was referred to not only the ‘state where the majority of the jews of Palestine reside’, but also where the jewish leaders of the state decide it’s immigration program among other matters of the state. We have every right to selectively choose who gets our citizenship. Once you are a citizen then your rights should be equal regardless of race, religion etc.
“Bribery seems to be an Israeli official policy for pursuing its interests. FIFA anyone?”
It’s funny that Qatar bribed (allegedly – right?) it’s way to get the WC, which of course supports the Pals (and has lots more money), what makes you think they didn’t try it again? And yet you suggest that Israel bribed the committee members?!
@ yonathan: First, this is off-topic. Second, dredging up ancient Zio history (& misstating it) is a comment rule violation. If you do this again you risk being moderated.
Rejecting partition does not “de facto” start a war. No one can force another state to recognize a new nation.
Conducting Israeli policy by the rules of children’s games. That’s very edifying for the Jewish state.
No, you don’t. You have no right to expel 1-million people living within the territory of this new state. Nor do you have the right to deny these refugees citizenship in your state since they were indigneous to its territory before statehood.
Regarding bribery, you oughta watch that since South Africa bribed FIFA as well. THis wasnt just an Arab preoccupation.
Typical tactic. First oyu take a tangent from what Israel is doing, to how Israel was “given” the land (by God or by the UN), when that tack fails, you switch it to how the “Arabs” lost their right to a land because they would not accept Israel taking their land in the first place. Next, you will probably dredge up other tangential arguments until the topic is so far off from where it began that nobody recalls the original argument to begin with.
End the discussion and forget the point….good work!
yonathan: “What you neglected to mention is that the ‘arabs’ rejected the resolution and it’s borders.”
And that would be an excellent argument… if.
As in: that would be an excellent argument if the Partition Plan was an offer that was presented to the Arabs of Palestine as a “take it or leave it”.
But it wasn’t. It wasn’t offered to the Arabs of Palestine, any more than it was offered to the Jews of Palestine.
It was imposed upon them from the outside, which means that any “rejection” or “acceptance” is irrelevant, precisely because they weren’t doin’ the decidin’.
The UN was, in partnership with the Mandatory Power.
Yonathan: “By rejecting it I mean de facto starting a war.”
No. Starting a war is, “de facto”, starting a war.
As in: warfare.
And you can spin it as much as you like, but prior to May 1948 there is no doubt whatsoever that it was the Haganah that was laying down the warfare on the Arabs of Palestine, who were all but defenceless against that onslaught.
Which is precisely why May 1948 found those Arab Armies taking on the Haganah i.e. because those Jewish Paramilitaries weren’t hunkered down inside the territory of that “Jewish state”, they were already deep, deep inside the territory that had been allocated to that “Arab state”.
Territory that those Jewish militia’s had absolutely no business being in.
yonathan: “So, since they lost that war they now want things to be has they were before it.”
No, because the status quo ante would have been a single pluralist state from the river to the sea.
A state in which the Arab popln would have composed 70%+ of the popln.
yonathan: “As the kids say – ‘no backsies’. ”
Kindergarden rules do not apply in international law, dude.
The old Mandate was a trust fund, with both the Arabs of Palestine and the Jews of Palestine being the beneficiaries, and the Mandated Territory being the assets held under trust.
The trustee (i.e. the Mandatory) decided to end that trust by apportioning the assets (the territory) between the two beneficiaries, with *this* bit going to *you* and *that* bit going to *him*.
However unfair or however unwise that decision might have been, it was a decision that was LEGALLY arrived at and, therefore, is LEGALLY binding.
It therefore doesn’t matter if *that* beneficiary is outraged and starts a fist-fight.
It therefore doesn’t matter if *this* beneficiary seizes all the assets at the point of a gun.
Neither act can change the LEGAL nature of the apportionment i.e. legally *you* are only entitled to *this* bit, and legally *they* are only entitled to *that* bit, and no amount of BIFF! or BASH! or WHAMMO! can change that.
That’s all news to you, is it?
You’re still stuck in the kindergarden play-pen, are you?
If Richard will indulge this discussion:
I have been saying (further from what you say) that borders of ’48 and after the war,are legal as accepted by the UN when it accepted Israel as a member state in May of ’49. Those new borders also seem to represent an acquisition of territory through war which is forbidden under the UN Charter (!) and I believe elsewhere–I may need some correcting here. But still I think this stands as the one exception that the UN has made to this principle or law in accepting Israel as a legitimate state and with these new borders, not the partition borders. This act of acceptance also has implications it seems to me- which I cannot get into here firstly because I am not a scholar or authority. But I agree with your points ( which I think you are saying) that this partition was shoved down the Arabs throats. Therefore there was war, and it has taken a long long time to get to their current acceptance or willingness to accept if there is justice in the bargain. Arguers here and elsewhere keep going backwards and re-arguing in a slanted way what is over and done with.
“I for one, wish “Israel as a Jewish state” would cease to exist, just as the “right of White South Africa, Rhodesia and S-W Africa. I wish for an Israel (with multiple names) to exist with equal representation, equal protection and equal rights for ALL faiths.”
You aren’t alone Jafar, and anyone with a heart, soul and functioning mind that hasn’t been zionized will gladly see the rebirth of a new nation that welcomes all and I hope it’s name will rightfully return to Palestine, but the nature of the nation is more important that the name. Here’s hoping!
I hold hope. If Switzerland can survive and prosper after decades of brutal interecine warfare, then so can Israel. If Switzerland can have different names for the same places (even for the country) then so can Israel/Palestine/Canaan or whatever.
Sadly, peace only has a chance when those in power are willing to accomodate those who are disenfranchised thus, Israel will only live in peace when its Jews decide to live together with the Christians and Muslims in one land. Until then, it will continue to be a slow genocidal bleed of the Palestinians with Israelis claiming to live in fear od annihilation while they annihilate Palestinians.
“Make no mistake: This is not a campaign against settlements. It’s a war on the legitimacy of the Jewish state”
Nonsense. All this horseshit is another attempt at conflating an extortionist holocaust revenge industry, greed and profiteering on the part of real estate developers and the local security industry, an interest free mortgage and subsidized utilities built on land that no one had to pay for, with the security of Jews in general and Israel in particular. The idea being that if other people object to these Kahanist douchebags and their windfall, they’ll be labeled anti-Semites if their Gentiles and excommunicated if their Jews by the simple device of labeling them self-hating Jews.
[Comment deleted: if you keep trying to publish crap like this you’ll be banned.]
[Comment deleted–You’re toast, asshole]
The oppressor claiming the role of victim. This mixture of self pity and self praise is disgusting. Netanyahu is no spring chicken (he turns 66 this year). He must know that Israel was once popular in quarters where one can now find support for BDS. How does he rhyme that with his thesis that these and other people just pick on Israel because there happen to be a lot of Jews living there? If his Dad, to whom he is supposed to owe most of his ideological baggage, showed the same disregard for facts I am not surprised that they never wanted to give him a chair at Hebrew University.
Yes disgusting. The (formerly or perennially) oppressed hang on to their victimhood, even comfortably, and from a position of power, oppress in return. In the process they revisit, reenact their own repression. Complicated; sort of collective post trauma. Denial, not seeing that they themselves oppress is part of it. It’s sad that Netanyahu feeds and has an audience for these self-destructive sentiments. This is the source of his power. He has to use every occasion shamelessly to nurture this dysfunction. Yet can it be said that he even holds the line against worse sentiments? I wonder where is everyone else in Israel? Sleeping? Hiding? Does “global Israel” see any future?
The NYTimes had an opinion piece yesterday by the director of B’Tselem:
Israel’s Charade of Democracy
Bye, bye Sepp Blatter … he’s a goner!
From that web site:
“And here’s one of the key questions:
Where does this leave the planned World Cups of 2018 and 2022 in Russia and Qatar?”
That’s what this is allllllllll about.
The USA couldn’t care less about corruption in a sport that it doesn’t know how to play, and if you thought otherwise then, honestly, what planet did you just come down from?
But the USA does care about sticking it right up Vladimir Putin, and if it has to break FIFA into tiny little bits Just So It Can Take The World Cup Tournament From Those Damn Russians then the USA will do it without the slightest hesitation.
After all, who cares if FIFA gets broken in the process?
That’d just be “collateral damage”, and the USA is indeed a world-class at THAT little contact-sport.
The USA is as shameful as the zionist state it helped legitimize. The waning power and sphere of influence the USA had is parallel to the practically universal loathing of the zionist state. Hmmm, what a coincidence.
The 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia won’t be moved … perhaps some Anglo-Saxon countries may boycott the games by not participating. Some US sponsors may come under political pressure. The foolish Qatar games in 2022 may suffer if extensive bribery can be proven. Both FIFA and Qatar have donated funds to the Clinton Foundation … some compensation for swiping the games from the USA with Bill Clinton as big cheerleader.
Yeah but it looks like Platini will succeed Blatter and Platini is the man Israelis were so happy with over this latest FIFA fiasco, that they were pushing for him to get some sort of Israeli medal.
Oh, no doubt at all that Platini is angling for that top job.
And equally little doubt that the Americans want him in there as their pet poodle.
But none of this really has anything to do with the Palestinian attempt to kick Israel out of FIFA – this is all about the USA putting a toady in charge of FIFA so that they can stick it to the Russians.
The word ‘democratic’ does not appear in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.
By the way, it is not called ‘Declaration of Independence’. The British Mandate over Palestine ended at midnight on May 14, 1948. At that point all of Palestine became independent of Britain. Israel’s Declaration came into effect 1 minute later. The one minute gap emphasizes that Israel was not declaring independence from Britain, it was a new state being created in a part of the territory of Palestine, against the wishes of the majority population of Palestine.
@ dgfincham: So I guess the following statement from the Declaration does not constitute a claim of being a democratic state?
“…It will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations…”
BTW, if your claim that the Declaration does not call for Israel to be a democracy is correct, then what do you propose to call it? An ethnocracy? Theocracy? Authoritarian? Judean state? Davidic kingdom? Just curious.
Apologies for my seeming pedantry. You referred to the phrase ‘Jewish democratic state’ in the Declaration. I was merely pointing out that there is no such phrase. I did not claim that the Declaration “does not call for Israel to be a democracy”. I agree that the rest of the Declaration IMPLIES a democratic Israel, particularly in the assigning of political rights to all inhabitants. I do not know if there is any significance in the omission by the drafters of the word ‘democracy’. What is true is that although all inhabitants of Israel have a vote, on only one occasion has the electoral system produced a government with a non-Jewish member (or so I am told).
I do feel that it is important in this kind of discussion to use words precisely; to not misquote (or misname) important documents; or to read things into other peoples’ statements which are not there. Otherwise we give ammunition to our opponents.
@dfincham: I apologize if I misunderstood your motive or intension. You are right. The word isn’t there. There has never been a non-Jewish party represented in a governing coalition. Though there have been Druze (Labor) ministers in past Labor-led coalitions.
I don’t believe “all residents of Israel have a vote”, only those who live in pre-’67 borders. The rest have votes even if they live in Occupied Territories that have been annexed by Israel…but only if they are Jews.
Even among those who do have voting rights, the manner in which they elect representatives is so rigged that Palestinians can only get in if they are from heavily non-Jewish areas, which is why the Knesset has only 10% instead of the 20%+ Palestinian representation (3 out of the 15 Arab members are Druze). Note that the 20% Arab population of Israel does not include Arabs from annexed areas and it certainly does not include Arabs in the non-annexed, post ’67 areas.
“I don’t believe “all residents of Israel have a vote” “..but only if they are Jews. ”
The answer is, yes and no.
(Annexed) East Jerusalem Arabs can maintain permanent residence status, and vote in local elections, or, they can apply for Israeli citizenship, and with that, earn the right to vote in all elections.
Easy with your Israeli passions and imaginations Growler. Muslim and Christian Palestinians live in Jerusalem at kife-edge. they have to get their permits to live in Jerusalem every year and the process is almost as twisted as the games of the Queen of Herats in Alices Wonderland; every Jewish bureaucrat gets to decids what rules he wants to impose on the re-applying Palestinians.
Then, if a Christian or Muslim resident of Jerusalem marries a non-Jerusalem resident the spouse cannot live in Jerusalem (a thinly-veiled ploy to ethnically-cleanse out “The Promised Land”).
Palestinians do not get permits to build on their properties and if they do, the Caterpillaer D-10s show up (another thinly-veiled ploy to ethnically-cleanse out “The Promised Land”).
Finally, if Jews want some Jerusalem land to build on, all they have to do is take it and start construction, with or without permit and they will be allowed to build on it. Then Jews get to live in or use those buildings to the exclusion of Christians and Muslims and suddenly, there rae less Palestinians and more Jews in the geographically- and demographically-changing Jerusalem.
Like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Israel has a face that is presented to the world and then a personality that ravages the Palestinians. The great tragedy is how many Israeli and other gullible Jews seem to be anxious to believe that the benevolent Dr. Jekyll is the real Israel.
UK National Union of Students supports BDS, condemns Israel but not ISIS.
Anything else need to be said?
Apparently they did pass another decision that they ‘stand with the Iraqis, Kurds and Syrians in their struggle against ISIS’ http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/zarah-sultana/isis_b_6281960.html
Netanyahu is so blind to his own limitations that he insists to be the main representative of Israel in foreign affairs. In a way it is lucky that this obnoxious regime will be represented by a man who is personally obnoxious – and is regarded as such by many whose voice counts in these matters.
The other day I read that a leader of a different American ally, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, was clung to by Reagan until the very last because the President liked him personally and had a sense of loyalty towards him. Secretary Shultz had to urge Reagan to let go of him because he had become a liability to the US. Ultimately Reagan did but Shultz wrote that the matter caused something of a rift between him and the President.
It is unlikely that any US President or any other Western leader for that matter (always with the exception of that cretin Harper) will feel that way towards Netanyahu. Perhaps Secretary Gates’ reaction towards him is typical. He is quoted as saying in his memoirs “I was offended by his glibness and his criticism of U.S. policy – not to mention his arrogance and outlandish ambition – and I told national security adviser Brent Scowcroft that Bibi ought not be allowed back on White House grounds,”
And yet Israeli’s more than just tolerate him, they go for him; they buy his fear message.
@Dorothy June 5, 2015, 4:05 AM
“But still I think this stands as the one exception that the UN has made to this principle or law in accepting Israel as a legitimate state and with these new borders, not the partition borders.”
The admission of Israel to Membership of the UN did not involve recognition of its borders. The only ‘legal’ borders between two states are those that are arrived at by mutual agreement. Israel’s admission to the UN took place during the course of the peace conference in Lausanne, One of the goals of that conference was to agree borders. Both sides accepted that the PARTITION BORDERS should be the basis of discussion.
Israel’s only proposal was that they should keep all the territory alloted to them in the Partition Plan, PLUS all the territory that they had captured in the war; that is, all territory within the 1949 Armistice lines (Green Line). The Arab proposal was that they should keep all of the territory allocated to them in the Partition Plan, PLUS Eastern Galilee and the Negev, on the grounds that they needed additional territory to accommodate the refugees who would not be allowed to return to Israel. There was clearly no possibility of agreement and everyone went home.
The result was therefore that there was no agreement: the recognized border of Israel was still the one it had declared on 14 May 1948 and on which it was recognized by the US and other states, namely the partition border; but the Green Line became the de facto border of Israel, because its forces were in actual control of territory inside that line. As the Armistice Agreements themselves make clear, the Green Line is not a political or territorial border. Territory inside the Green Line was indeed acquired by war, in violation of a fundamental principle of international law.
For more on this topic please this article: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/11/documents-borders-palestine
@dgfincham and Growler,
I have not quite finished digesting the mondoweiss you link but it can be quite confusing because on both sides there are defacto’s and obsoletisms. This is not the place to go so off topic. There are interesting points made that have a lot of merit I think. But when the UN accepted Israel in it’s resolution to do that finally in May 1949, it did not indicate that the borders achieved through war were illegitimate. It accepted the state and it could be assumed the state as it defined itself in 1948, which is as it was then. So I say that was in violation of it’s charter, an exception, or it appears so. The admonition was that Israel live in peace with it’s neighbors. I am afraid that the truth here is the weakness or muddiness of international law, specifically that one, and that the old modus operandi of might making right has been (and still is) in operation. All very well to say that the partition lines are the ones accepted and the only legitimate ones, but changing this defacto is a stretch, quite uphill. That said I agree we should stop calling it the ’67 lines and call it the ’48 line. Oddly the UN which has been much maligned by Israeli (so-called supporters) has enabled Israel’s unlawful behavior. I have further argument or questions about the mondoweiss piece ( which I am grateful for) but I don’t want to take advantage of Richard’s indulgence. Thanks .
Just to clarify: the 1948 line was the partition line which Israel declared to be its border on 14 May 1948; the 1949 line was the armistice line which Israel said it wanted as its border in the peace negotiations. To avoid confusion, let’s explicitly them ‘partition line’ and ‘armistice line’ (or green line). The 1967 line is identical to the armistice line: the only thing that changed in 1967 was that Egypt and Jordan as occupying powers outside the line (in Gaza and the West Bank) were replaced by Israel.
If you wish to discuss my mondoweiss article further, let’s do it in the comments section there.
@dgfincham. I appreciate your Mondoweiss piece. I just do not get from it that the Epstein letter is definitive. Quote from yours:
In his memoirs he says that he helped Epstein compose the request for recognition, and that it was he who told Epstein “it was particularly important to claim nothing beyond the boundaries outlined in the UN Resolution”.
Hmmmmm……Wasn’t this a deception about intentions?
I have been avoiding registering on Mondoweiss to have some life to do other things. I have cut way back on arguing. But these points are interesting. You talk about what else is obsolete yet bring up partition lines. ( They were merely suggested and no question a starting point- I don’t think it is possible to press the reset button on that at all; hard enough to get back to ’48 armistice lines) You bring up the Montevideo criteria yet Israel was accepted at the UN without borders specified.To that point as well, the UN, you say, cannot create a state, only suggest and borders have to be by mutual agreement. There was no agreement on borders with re Palestine. So I am thinking that the UN accepted Israel in May of 49 with it’s 48 borders gained through war with no mention about returning the territory to the Palestine configuration of the partition. I would say that this adds to the feeling of Israel’s exceptionalism. Israel has been indulged a lot. You make many good points though and I am open to changing my mind about that.
Factual point – the armistices were in 1949, NOT 1948, hence my previous comment.
Yes, Israel was forced to define on the partition borders in order to gain recognition by USA and others. They had no intention of sticking to those borders, so it was indeed a deception. In order to hide that deception the hasbara has tried, very successfully, to make the world believe that “Israel has never defined its borders”.
The importance of that border definition is that in the subsequent war, the State of Israel was capturing territory outside its borders, in violation of international law. The State of Israel could and should be held accountable for that illegality. If the Zionist leadership hadn’t defined its borders and it had not been recognized as a state, then the 1948-49 war would not have been an international conflict, but an internal conflict between Jewish Palestinians and non-Jewish Palestinians, the latter assisted by forces from the neighboring Arab states.
The UN does not have the authority to recognize states or their borders, it can only admit peace-loving states to Membership. When Israel’s Membership was being discussed at the General Assembly, many speakers pointed out the folly of admitting Israel when it was still at war with Syria (that armistice agreement was signed later) and when it was clearly intent on keeping the territory it had captured and also refusing to allow the return of refugees. Nevertheless, the GA voted for admission. It was a very bad decision.
I do not suggest that Israel be forced back to the partition borders (much to the disgust of some of my friends on Mondoweiss) but I do suggest that Palestine be given territorial compensation for the territory stolen in 1948-49. What peace agreement Israel would be prepared to accept depends mainly on how much pressure the US is willing to apply, and that depends ultimately on the votes of the American people.
“The only ‘legal’ borders between two states are those that are arrived at by mutual agreement. ”
Correct. And two states, Israel and Jordan, agreed that the 1949 armistice line WAS NOT the legal, permanent border.
I am not sure what point you are making. The mutual borders between Mandatory Palestine and the neighboring states, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan were fixed in 1923, and the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan only made minor changes to these. The border which needs to be agreed in a peace settlement is that between Israel and Palestine. My view is that neither the partition line nor the 1949 armistice line makes a suitable border under present conditions, and that a new border needs to be established by means of a Boundary Commission, and this border should give Palestine much more territory than the West Bank and Gaza – see the article quoted in my previous post.
First you said that,“The only ‘legal’ borders between two states are those that are arrived at by mutual agreement. ”
Next, you say that,”…and that a new border needs to be established by means of a Boundary Commission, and this border should give Palestine much more territory than the West Bank and Gaza”.
Why would Israel consent to allow a Border Commission to lob off fat slices of territory and hand them over to Palestine (getting what in return)?
“Why would Israel consent to allow a Border Commission to lob off fat slices of territory and hand them over to Palestine (getting what in return)?”
Israel violated international law in 1948-49 by extending its territory in a war of conquest. It is the responsibility of the Security Council to enforce international law. The most appropriate remedy for that crime is for Palestine to receive territorial compensation from Israel, in my view.
This is not a question of arbitrarily “lopping off” territory from Israel. The Boundary Commission will include experts from Israel and Palestine as well as independent members. Their job is to produce a proposal for the most appropriate borders taking into account all relevant factors such as demographics, infrastructure, security, and in particular the wishes of existing residents. If the government of Israel does not accept the proposal, then the SC can apply sanctions.
Israel is the criminal in this dispute. Why should it receive anything in return for being punished for its crimes? In fact, Israel will receive a great deal. It will have a peace treaty with Palestine and the Arab states and a secure and peaceful future. It will also cease to be a rogue state, a breaker of international law on a grand scale, despised around the world.
Good question. Ever consider why Palestinians would “allow a Border Commission to lop off fat slices of territory and hand them over to Palestine (getting what in return)?”?
@dgfincham June 6 6:22
Yes 1949, the armistice line, not 48. What I am saying and I see no evidence, linked by you or from other sources I have read, that Israel actually agreed, after the war of Independence, to start negotiations from the partition borders. It was and is “too bad we won, you lost” for many. And concurrently, while this was apparently clear, even to the US (Truman) at the time, the discussions about membership by many UN members were skeptical, not trusting, and against Israel becoming a member ( or not a member until…) for this reason. Faith in Israel to do the right thing somehow prevailed and the border issue was left unsettled. Israel (Ben Gurion) gave strong indications that the partition lines were obliterated by the war’s results. It was a deception, but not a very veiled one it seems.
Why is this important to this discussion? I think because Israel only has a right to it’s occupation and the awful things it does to maintain it ( if it has that right) if there are genuine security problems, genuine fears, a real case to be made still after so many years. This is so transparently off, that the only other conclusions one can draw, or that I draw, is that Israel’s has been indulged, given the benefit of the doubt by the prevailing international community from the beginning including with UN membership while having no agreed upon borders (contra Montevideo).
Netanyahu goes on in the vein ( the above by Richard ) that everyone against the Jews.
I will end mine here. Thanks.
“I see no evidence, linked by you or from other sources I have read, that Israel actually agreed, after the war of Independence, to start negotiations from the partition borders.”
See the Wikipedia page “Lausanne Conference of 1949” or the “Third Progress report of the Conciliation Commission”, paragraph 10:
I agree with everything you say in your post. Hasta luego!
Israeli Pesident Reuven Rivlin is right on the mark when he supports a one-state solution. It would take all the “lines’ out of the argument and there may actually be peace in that benighted country…that may not be good for a lot of hate-mongers (on both sides) but it would be great for all people in the land.
“dredging up ancient Zio history”
We are talking about the same time in history as the Nakba. Is that also some dredged up ancient history? It’s not, so why are the events leading up to it are not important?
“Rejecting partition does not “de facto” start a war. No one can force another state to recognize a new nation.”
To be clear – a series of aggressions started against the jews the day after the partition was announced in the UN, starting with an attack on an Egged bus killing 5. A civil war erupted, which only in 1948, with the Arab states attack, turned into the 1948 war.
“Conducting Israeli policy by the rules of children’s games. That’s very edifying for the Jewish state.”
Every kid learns sooner or later about actions and consequences. It’s amazing how the Pals and the Arab are exempt of any. They weren’t “happy” with the resolution, and decided to fight against it, thinking they could take the land by force . They failed! Today, nobody even talks about returning to the borders suggested by the resolution and rightly so, but to the pre-67 lines.
“You have no right to expel 1-million people living within the territory of this new state. Nor do you have the right to deny these refugees citizenship in your state since they were indigneous to its territory before statehood.”
The definition of who a refugee is, is at best debatable. Who, except the Pals, inherit that status? Is my girlfriend considered a refugee if her grandparents are refugees of the Holocaust? Bare in mind that many of Pals have already other citizenships.
“Regarding bribery, you oughta watch that since South Africa bribed FIFA as well. THis wasnt just an Arab preoccupation.”
So, arguably one of the most prominent citric of Israel outside the Arab world, with dominant BDS movement groups is also on the take (or on the giving). Yet, Israel was the one who is the immediate suspect? Ugh.
By the way, 3 rockets were fired on Israel for Gaza because of some internal conflict there. Funny to not read about it anywhere in your blog. Don’t say you didn’t know.
“And you can spin it as much as you like, but prior to May 1948 there is no doubt whatsoever that it was the Haganah that was laying down the warfare on the Arabs of Palestine, who were all but defenceless against that onslaught.”
Even though most of what you wrote is completely wrong, this really goes overboard – Defenceless? You’ve got to be kidding me. Were they defenceless when they massacred the jewish population of Hebron? Is the attack on the Egged bus the day after the resolution also a spin?
To answer all your other utter nonsense:
Yonathan your desperation and Blind support for Israel shows clearly.
It is absolutely no secret that the invading Jews of Irgun, Stern and Hagannah planned to get rid of Palestinians at all costs, they knew that allowing Palestinians to remain would present a “demographic problem” so all sorts of brutality and salughters were used to terrify Palestinians out of their lands. Some who moved just a few miles and were still within 1948 Israel, have still not been allowed to return to their villages that they can see from where they are, yet Jews are permitted to build settlements among the ruins of the old villages.
You then suggest that Palestinians who have citizenships in other countries should really not expect to live in Israel; that rule would remove over half of the Jews in Israel, would it not?
Rockets, such as they are, are used by Israel to indicate how terrified the entire population is, of being annihilated by these mindless, murderous hoardes. Hardly anyone is ever injured let alone killed, byt these rockets yet, Israel routinely fires tank shells, gunfire and bombs at Palestinians, taking a huge toll in lives and limbs…and remember these events are hardly ever recognized by international media.
clearly, oyur beliefs of Israel’s sordid history is completely fantasy-based so there is nothing anyone can do to change that.
You might learn to take the blinkers off and then, to open your eyes,,,just a little.