32 thoughts on “Obama Abstains, Security Council Denounces Israeli Settlememts – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

      1. @Deir

        “We’re tired of your Barbarian Hasbara, you’re really a shitty troll. ”

        Well. I love you.
        All the best in the coming year.

    1. Tibet is Chinese territory, and recognised as such by the entire int’l community. And, furthermore, that unanimous int’l recognition stretches back centuries.

      The very definition of a “belligerent occupation” under int’l law makes it impossible for a sovereign to “occupy” its own territory.

      Impose martial law, yes.
      Violate human rights, sure.

      But “occupy”?

      No.

    2. @ Hasba-Neil: First, comment rules state that comments must be on-topic. Directly related to the post. Your isn’t. Second, hasbara diversion doesn’t work here & is against the rules. We’re not going to be diverted by references to 1,000 other matters the hasbarafia says we must solve or protest before we say a word about Israel.

      We’re watching you, bud. Follow the rules or, as your pal Donald used to say: “You’re fired!”

  1. Although I share your satisfaction at the passing of the UNSC resolution, I must note your approach to the Middle East is overly simplistic.
    Are al-Nusra fighters “the same Islamist terrorists the rest of the world is fighting against”? Hardly so. “The rest of the world” is heavily divided on whom to support in Syria, and while all the foreign powers claim to fight the IS, what they do on the ground is quite different, and the IS is not the same as al-Nusra. The Syrian conflict is a bloodbath in which there are no “good guys” around. There is simply no point in playing the blame game on that field. On the other hand, treating the wounded is a worthy humanitarian effort, whoever the wounded are.
    Is the Western Wall occupied territory? Technically, yes. But it is not occupied Jordanian territory, unless you go back in a time machine to 1987 or earlier, and accept Jordanian claims to the West Bank which almost nobody in the international community had ever accepted (and Jordan itself renounced them in 1988). One of the reasons why the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is so complicated is that there is no internationally recognized boundary between Israel and the Palestinian territories, and the very existence of Palestinian territories in a legal sense can be disputed. Probably the most important part of the UNSC resolution is the stress on the existence of the Palestinian territories in this sense, and the approval of the June 4, 1967, ceasefire lines as the de facto borders of those territories, It is important, but not self-evident.
    Will the Republicans suffer an electoral debacle in four years? God only knows. There is a growing dissatisfaction with Israel among the young people in the West, and in the US in particular (although the US is lagging behind in this process). But it will take a lot of time for this dissatisfaction to bear political fruits. It is not a matter of four, or even eight, years. More like the span of a generation or two. It is absolutely not certain that by the time this happens, the two-state solution will still be viable. This solution appears to be the only opportunity of Israel to preserve itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Missing it will be the greatest fault of the Israeli governments, from the time of the Oslo accords onwards (whether the two-state solution was a viable option earlier is a different question). But it is naive to expect the world will do for Israel a service it refuses to do for itself.

    1. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory | ICJ – The Hague |

      The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has today rendered its Advisory Opinion in the case concerning the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (request for advisory opinion).

      In its Opinion, the Court finds unanimously that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the United Nations General Assembly and decides by fourteen votes to one to comply with that request.

      The Court responds to the question as follows:
      – “A. By fourteen votes to one,
      The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law”;
      – “B. By fourteen votes to one,
      Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion”;
      – “C. By fourteen votes to one,
      Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem”;
      – “D. By thirteen votes to two,
      All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention”;
      – “E. By fourteen votes to one,
      The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.

      1. Well, first of all, the ICJ ruling is explicitly presented as advisory, and second, it — or at least, the parts of it you cited — does not specifically mention the ceasefire lines effective on June 4, 1967. A territory without a border is a fuzzy concept. I have my reservations about the ceasefire lines as a potential final borders between Israel and Palestine, but in the current situation, a statement of principle on the borders is necessary, and the UNSC resolution has provided it.

    2. @ Meni: I assure you my “approach to the Middle East” is anything but simplistic.

      I never said that ISIS & al Nusra are “the same.” They aren’t. But al-Nusra is affiliated with Al Qaeda and the world IS at war with al Qaeda. Hence, it is at war with al Nusra as well unless it explicitly renounces it’s affiliation, which it hasn’t (it has softened the bond, but not renounced it).

      As for treating wounded, I assure you Israel is not doing this as a humanitarian gesture. It is a matter of naked self interest. It needs those al Nusra fighters to go back & kill Hezbollah fighters. It’s as plain & simple as that.

      As for the Haram al Sharif, I think your portrayal is a bit simplistic. While Jordan has renounced formal territorial claims, it still maintains a connection via the Waqf, which supervises the Haram and is affiliated with Jordan.

      As for my claim that things may change in four years with a new president: of course things won’t change overnight. But a new president in the mold of Bernie Sanders could very well change things for the better. He (or she) could afford to be bolder & more assertive than Obama has been. This is a gradual process. But with resolutions like this, it will provide cover to future presidents who wish to go that route.

      I don’t believe the world will do Israel any “service.” But I do believe the world may impose conditions on Israel if things get bad enough or if there’s enough international will–perhaps not now or immediately, but in the near-term.

      1. I would be wary of saying “the world” is at war with anyone. Large parts of the world are populated by countries which would in principle condemn Al-Qaeda but which did nothing to fight it, and have no reason to do so (China, the South American nations, large parts of the Sub-Saharan Africa, even a good number of Arab countries).
        Israel can kill Hezobllah fighters on its own. It doesn’t need al-Nusra to do the job. On the other hand, killing Hezbollah fighters as such is of little use for Israel; they will always recruit new fighters. Of course, there are few purely humanitarian actions in this shitty world, and Israel does have a measure of self-interest in treating whoever is brought to its military outposts in the Golan for medical treatment. Help them, and they will have an interest to keep the armies separation lines in the Golan quiet. But nobody on the Israeli side checks whether the wounded brought here are members of al-Nusra or any other group, or, at least, if such checks are done, they are not a condition for treatment or absence thereof.
        Connections via the Waqf — of course. Israel maintains connections with Jewish communities around the world as a matter of routine. But this has nothing to do with any territory being occupied or not.
        And no, Bernie Sanders is not the president. He will not be. I would prefer to see him in the Oval Office, but that wasn’t possible. Moreover, even if he, or someone like him, gets there, a US president will have a lot of things to care about in the US and in those parts of the world where more vital US interests are involved. The Israeli lobby in the US is strong, and either its power will have to diminish, or there will have to be a stronger incentive for a US president to call Israel to order. For either thing to happen, at least one generation will have to change.

        1. @ Meni: You’re right. By “the world” I mean that portion of the world which Al Qaeda has targeted for attack, which includes virtually all of the west. That’s a good portion of the world, but not all of it, as you note. China does have good reason to fight Al Qaeda & is fighting what it considers its version of it, the Uighurs. Eventually, if they haven’t already done so, I’m sure there will be alliances made between the Uighurs & external Islamist forces in nearby countries like some of the former Soviet Muslim republics.

          As for Israel’s relations with Hezbollah, there is something important you are missing: Israel does kill Hezbollah, Hamas & similar enemies. But it is equally important to Israel that Muslims and Arabs kill other Muslims and Arabs in frontline Arab states like Syria. Israel’s history is the same as colonial Britain’s: to exploit tribal and religious divisions and sow discord. To ally itself with the minority so it will fight against the majority, thus weakening both so it may rule (in England’s case) or pursue its own interets unchallenged (in Israel’s). So yes, it’s very important that Israel have its own Islamists (al Nusra) killing its own Islamist enemies (Hezbollah).

          If you think Israel doesn’t know everything about those it offers aid to (medical & otherwise), and that it doesn’t pick carefully who it helps based on the benefit it offers Israeli interests–you simply don’t know Israel. Of course Israel knows precisely whom it’s helping. Assuming that Israel offers medical aid or any other humanitarian assistance for anything other than its own self-interest is naive in the extreme, on your part.

          As for Bernie Sanders, read me more carefully: I did not say Bernie Sanders would run or become president in four years. He might. I said a ‘Bernie Sanders-like’ candidate will run & win. That could be any number of similar Democratic candidates (Elizabeth Warren is one). And no, this will not take one generation. Israel’s power & hegemony is diminishing. Not rapidly enough. But these things will happen much like the Berlin Wall fell. It was there and powerful one day–it was gone the next. THe forces weakening it were at work for years. But it happened suddenly and quickly. That will happen with Israel too. It is an extremely brittle power it & the Lobby holds.

          1. The Uyghurs are a population of over 10 million persons. Presenting “the Uyghurs” as the Chinese version of Al Qaeda is something not even the PRC propaganda would do. Actually, many of the Uyghurs have their grievances against the PRC regime, and many of those grievances are justified. Some Uyghur activists are what one would call Islamists. Not all of them are terrorists, and even those who are prone to terrorism are less murderous than the PRC regime. Life is complicated.
            The same goes for Israel’s policy toward its neighbors. It’s not always a matter of supporting a minority against a majority (the Shi’ites are still a minority in Lebanon, so?). It’s not a matter of fostering conflict in the neighboring countries (Israel has more to lose than to gain from such conflicts). It’s a matter of trying to get along with those who live nearby, as long as Israel doesn’t want their land (which, in all cases except the Palestinians and the Golan, it doesn’t), through some give-and-take with people many of whom would rather prefer the Jews disappearing in the sea. It’s not nice but it can be done, and some humanitarian actions are part of that (no, not all the Syrian wounded treated by Israel are al-Nusra fighters; some are women and children). Unfortunately, with the Palestinians Israel prefers take-and-take to give-and-take.
            The Berlin wall fell after four years of political change in the Soviet Union, and after months when USSR made clear it would not intervene to save its puppet regimes in Eastern Europe (Poland and Hungary, at that stage). Israel is not anyone’s puppet regime, and it will take more than benign neglect to force it to make concessions to the Palestinians. (It will also require the Palestinians to make some concessions in their demands, among other things.) By the way, I think Warren is non-electable, a repetition of the John Kerry scenario, and the Democratic party leadership should be smart enough to understand that. But it’s your politics, not mine, so I prefer to be a side observer.

          2. @ Meni: I’m growing quite weary of this. I didn’t say the Uighurs were the ‘Chinese version of Al Qaeda.’ You did (or at least you wrote the words). That is a complete distortion of what I wrote. In my last comment to you I told you you were mischaracterizing my views and asked you not to do so & to be more careful. You apparently ignored my request because now you’ve done the same thing again. I refuse to permit anyone, whether right or left, to exaggerate or distort what I write. So don’t do that again.

            I said that the Uighurs were likely at some point to develop relationships or alliances with Islamists outside China. Indeed, that has already happened. Here’s a second source on this subject:

            In a 2013 paper for Strategic Studies Quarterly, expert Philip Potter writes that “China’s ongoing security crackdown in Xinjiang has forced the most militant Uyghur separatists into volatile neighboring countries, such as Pakistan, where they are forging strategic alliances with, and even leading, jihadist factions affiliated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban.”

            I made no judgment on the validity of the Uighur cause to which I’m actually quite sympathetic based on what I know of it (which isn’t more than what I read in the newspapers). Nor did I say “they were all terrorists” as you seem to infer.

            It’s not always a matter of supporting a minority against a majority (the Shi’ites are still a minority in Lebanon, so?)

            Israel made an alliance with the Lebanese Phalangists who were Christian & a minority. They currently have an alliance with al-Nusra which is also an insurgent group fighting the ruling regime. Israel made an alliance with Hamas against Fatah in the 1980s. All were or are either minorities or the less powerful entity fighting against the majority or the ruling power. Israel seeks any force that can cause dysfunction or dissension in a frontline state so as to weaken it & render it less able to oppose Israeli interests or power.

            It’s not a matter of fostering conflict in the neighboring countries (Israel has more to lose than to gain from such conflicts)

            Absolutely false. Israel has always sought to foster conflict in frontline states. The only exceptions have been Jordan and Egypt, with which it observes a very cold peace. Nor has even that stopped Israel from assassinating residents of these countries on their own soil: so much for “not fostering conflict.”

            It’s a matter of trying to get along with those who live nearby,

            Really? Israel is trying to get along with those who live nearby? Like Turkey, whose citizens it killed in 2010 on the Mavi Marmara. Or like Khaled Meshal, who it almost assassinated in Jordan?

            (no, not all the Syrian wounded treated by Israel are al-Nusra fighters; some are women and children).

            ALL of those treated by Israel are treated because they are related to its military allies. A woman or child may be part of a family in which men are al-Nusra fighters or living in Syrian Golan villages liaising with Israel.

            Israel is not anyone’s puppet regime, and it will take more than benign neglect to force it to make concessions to the Palestinians.

            It certainly is a puppet regime of the U.S. Without our aid & support Israel could not last a month in an all-out war, even with a force as relatively weak as Hezbollah.

            Nor did I say “benign neglect” would bring Israel to its senses. That’s precisely why I welcomed a progressive Democratic president who would follow up on this resolution & take much firmer action than Obama has managed. Not to mention EU or UN action that might lead toward imposing a solution on Israel.

            I think Warren is non-electable, a repetition of the John Kerry scenario

            Frankly, the tripe you’ve written here in these few comments makes me not give a good goddamn what you think. Your opinion is about as well-informed as the MSM’s when it pooh-poohed Bernie Sanders candidacy after it first began. They were left in the dust of his success as no doubt you will be. I don’t know what sort of candidate Warren will be in four years. But given what I’ve seen of her so far, she will be formidable. And even if she isn’t, there are others watching and learning from Sanders’ success who will emulate him if he doesn’t run again.

            I find this interchange disheartening. I didn’t realize after years of hearing from you here that we disagreed so strongly. And that you could be so careless and thoughtless is mischaracterizing my views. Do not comment further in this thread.

  2. “Israel recalled its ambassadors from New Zealand and Cameroon”
    Minor correction: it was Senegal, and not Cameroon which is one of a few States in Africa (Malawi is another) which hasn’t recognized the State of Palestine (cf. map on International Recognition of Palestine’, wiki), Cameroon also has military collaboration with Israel, remember that high-ranking Israeli military person who got killed in a plane crash in Cameroun some years back.

    Trump tweeted just after the vote “As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th.”
    Maybe he’s hinting to that other statement of his: that his son-in-law would settle the conflict ….

  3. I believe that Netanyahu richly deserves this treat that he got from Obama. How could have Obama decided otherwise, given Bibi’s lack of cooperation at every step of the way, sticking a finger in Obama’s eye, and pandering to his right flank?
    While there will be no immediate consequences, the resolution sets the stage for future practical action against the settlements, and this will cause Israelis to throw the right wing out of power. Bibi is worried about his seat more than anything else and that is why he is so angry.

    1. @ Yehuda: I was with you up to the last sentence or two. The resolution’s passage will not drive the right from power. The right (not necessarily led by Bibi, who could be driven from leadership at some point soon) will be in power for a long time to come. And even if the so-called left comes to power it will be little different from the right.

  4. So Jews in the Jewish Quarter are illegal now? Does that make sense to you, that Jewish families living in the Jewish Quarter of Israel’s capital city and Judaism’s holiest should be brought to international court of justice? Do you not see how absurd and ridiculous this is

    1. @ John F: The absurdity is yours alone. I’m certain if Israel negotiated a good faith settlement those Jews living in occupied territory could remain there if they accepted Palestinian national sovereignty (just as Palestinian Israelis now live under the sovereignty of the “Jewish state”). Or, if you prefer, there could be a democratic unitary state and Jews would be welcome to live wherever they wished–eventually under the Palestinian majority rule. So, no they wouldn’t have to be ‘illegal.’ But they might very well be in the minority. You wouldn’t have any problem with that, would you?

  5. Whatever Israel did or did not do in Syria does not change the simple fact that the international community, and particularly the Security Council failed to reach and implement actions that will put an end to the tragedy there. It’s easier to unite against Israel, as it’s easier for Netanyahu to “punish” Senegal rather than Russia. Again, instead of dealing with the most important natter, the UN is dealing with the matter that is easiest to deal with. Same as the boy that looks for his lost coin where there is light and not in the dark corner where he dropped it.

    This is all because Russia is more concerned with keeping Assad in power than in bringing peace and justice to the Syrian people. Thus, cynically, they viciously attack in Syria whoever is against Assad, ISIS or not. And we are talking about Assad, not a legitimate elected ruler of his country but a dictator that no one knows how many of his subjects actually want him in power. But why should Russia care?

    And does the international community do anything to stop Russia or punish it? Not in a long shot. No one wants to really risk it going against Putin.

    So, Netanyahu is absolutely right condemning the irrational priorities of the UN. He is wrong about everything else, and he had this resolution coming given his actions but about this particular issue he is right.

    Is Israel involved in Syria? on a very small scale. Nothing that can be compared to the involvement of Russia, the USA, Turkey, Iran, the Hezbollah etc. And for a good reason: All sides are bad for Israel. No one talks about it but the Assad regime was actually very comfortable for Israel. For more than 40 years Syria kept the border in the Golam heights very calm, not imitation any attacks and not allowing any organization to act from there against Israel.
    An Islamist entity is a very poor and dangerous substitute to that.
    From what I understand, the involvement of Israel is mostly in order to prevent attacks from within Syria, and taking some wounded fighters is part of the “deal”. However, a significant proportion of the injured and ill that enter Israel are children.
    As for taking in refugees, what makes you think they want to go to Israel of all places? To a country that was in a state of war with them for more than 60 years? It is much more reasonable to go to neighboring Jordan.

    1. @ Amico: “It’s easier to unite against Israel (….). Again, instead of dealing with the most important matter, the UN is dealing with the matter that is easiest to deal with.”
      This is total BS ! Are you another Israeli playing the victim card ? The 2334 is the first UNSC resolution (which is not against Israel but merely asking former UNSC resolutions to be respected) concerning Israeli occupation of Palestinian land that has not been vetoed by the US since 1979 (if I recall correctly).
      The Palestine question has been present since the UN was created, the present tragedy in Syria started in 2011 and UN has dealt with it frequently, unfortunately Russia (and China) plays the same role as the US concerning Israel in the UN, and the conflict IS more complicated !

      1. [Comment deleted: I’ve warned you that comments must be on topic and directly related to the post. Arguing the UN should deal with other issues before Israel is a classic hasbara diversionary tactic. Not kosher here.

        Nor are questions about the historical record of Deir Yassin relevant or on topic.]

  6. @Richard: Are you sure a Palestinian national sovereignty will work better than those of Syria, Lebanon or Egypt?
    Actually, Israel can and should negotiate a good-faith settlement with the Palestinians whereby the Jewish quarter and the Western Wall will be part of Israeli territory. The point is Israel should give something in return, instead of assuming it can add to its territory whatever it damn pleases and get away with it.

    1. @ Meni: Really? You think the Palestinians will cede the Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem to Israel? You think the Palestinians will agree to make the Kotel part of “Israeli territory?” Are you mad?

      They certainly may agree that those living in the Jewish Quarter can be Israeli citizens. But they would never give the actual physical territory to Israel. Let’s think of an analogy. Jews have lived in Paris for many centuries. Why not ask for the Jewish Quarter of Paris to be part of Israel? Or to bring it closer to home–why not demand the former Jewish Quarters of Damascus, Istanbul or Beirut be made part of Israel?

      You’ve monopolized this thread enough already. Please move on.

      1. That is quite an odd response. I mean, if someone wrote something along the lines of “Really? You think the Jews will cede the Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem to the Palestinian state? You think the Palestinians will agree to make the Kotel part of “Palestinian territory?” Are you mad?” your response would not have been positive, to say the least.

        If one believes that the Palestinians have no advantage over the Jews in terms of having historical and religious rights over certain parts of Jerusalem than why wouldn’t the Palestinians be willing (if that’s what the solution depends on) to give up the Jewish quarter and the Kotel if the Jews will give up everything else including the Temple mountain? The fact that the Jordanians managed to conquer the old city of Jerusalem in 1948 doesn’t give the Palestinians any extra rights over this place. Before 1948 the Jewish quarter was mainly Jewish (under Turkish and than British rule) and the UN partition resolution of 1947 did not gave Jerusalem to the Arabs or the Jews but rather to international mandate, which both the Arab side and the Jewish side rejected (and I personally thinks would have been the best thing for everyone).

        The Analogy is particularly weird: “Jews have lived in Paris for many centuries. Why not ask for the Jewish Quarter of Paris to be part of Israel? Or to bring it closer to home–why not demand the former Jewish Quarters of Damascus, Istanbul or Beirut be made part of Israel?”
        Is Jerusalem for the Jews the same as Paris or Beirut? Why do you think the Arabs have rights over the old city of Jerusalem and the Jews don’t?

        1. @ Amico:

          why wouldn’t the Palestinians be willing (if that’s what the solution depends on) to give up the Jewish quarter and the Kotel if the Jews will give up everything else including the Temple mountain?

          Again, we’re talking “Israelis,” not “Jews.” This deliberate conflation annoys me more & more. Beware hasbarists. Keep doing this & I may add this to the comment rules.

          Further, what is Israel “giving up?” Since when is Israel offering to give up the TEmple Mount? I’ve heard nothing from any Israeli official saying that. Nor do I believe they ever would.

          The fact that the Jordanians managed to conquer the old city of Jerusalem in 1948 doesn’t give the Palestinians any extra rights over this place.

          Not only does it, but the fact that East Jerusalem contains vastly more Palestinian residents than Jews and has for centuries is another factor.

          Is Jerusalem for the Jews the same as Paris or Beirut?

          Sorry, but international law doesn’t award territory to peoples based on ancient texts, fables and myths. Even if we grant that the Jewish people has lived in this region in ancient times, that doesn’t automatically award the land to the successors of those Jews. Because 10,000 or 100,000 Jews in total may’ve lived at one time between the 135CE and the time of the first Aliyah doesn’t automatically grant rights of ownership to Israel’s current 7 million Jews. Especially when far more Palestinians and Arabs lived in this land in that interval. You can’t wipe out their rights by saying your were there first. If that were true then we should go back & find the peoples that preceded the Israelites and award the territory to them. If we did then we’d have to do DNA testing to find the remnants of the Moabites, Emorites & Amalekites which the Israelites exterminated in order to “inherit” the land.

          1. First of all, even if its upsets you, the conflict is between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. Second, is it your belief than that the connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is based on a myth or “ancient text”? This kind of denial of history is typical to some Anti-Zionists I know. I did not expect it from you but so be it.

            However, I would advise you to look into the history of the major Palestinian families in Israel. Most, if not all of them, immigrated to the land a couple of hundred years ago at the most. This does not make them “natives” more than it makes me a “native” as someone his family immigrated to the land 83 years ago.
            However, if the only thing that matters is who is currently the majority in the land (as you reject the “who was first” argument), than, in that case it is the Israelis that are the majority, at least writhing the 1967 borders and the Palestinian have no national claim on them.

            This always frustrates me. While I am willing to accept that the Palestinian Arabs have rights over the land, they (for the most part) and many of their supports refuse to accept that I also have similar rights.
            Its funny you call me a ” hasbarist” given that many of the views I express are very far from the mainstream Israeli line (such as supporting an international rule of Jerusalem”).

            Last, you may delete my posts every time you don’t like what I wrote but claiming that you do so because they are “off topic”…don’t think that whoever read the comments does not see that many comments are not deleted here though their entire content is a personal attack against another commenter….

          2. @ Amico:

            even if its upsets you, the conflict is between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs.

            First, as a Jew and progressive Zionist, I completely reject this claim. Second, if Israel rejects every reasonable compromise then it is no longer a fight between the two of you. It is a fight the world must address & demand a solution to.

            is it your belief than that the connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is based on a myth or “ancient text”?

            First, How is stating that the Zionist claim to the land of Israel is based on an ancient text “a denial of history?” Unless you think the claims Likudniks & settlers make using the Bible as supporting source is somehow denying history? Is that really your claim? Further, in the very next sentence I acknowledged there has been a small Jewish presence in Israel from the Roman era to the late 19th century. I said that DESPITE THIS, it does not support the Israeli denial of Palestinian rights. There is no denial of history in my comment at all. There is an acknowledgement of your Zionist claims, while stating that they do not trump Palestinian claims one iota.

            I have another comment rule: if you distort my views for your own convenience you will end up in the dog house. Be very careful to rephrase my views in precise ways that are true to them. If you diverge from them, do so at your own risk.

            I would advise you to look into the history of the major Palestinian families in Israel. Most, if not all of them, immigrated to the land a couple of hundred years ago at the most.

            First, this verges on Palestinian denialism. Comment rules reject denialism from both right & left. Be very careful. Second. It doesn’t matter to me whether Palestinians were in the land for two centuries, four or sixteen. There were more of them in Israel and longer than almost any Israeli family, excluding those who can prove a continuous presence going back to the Roman era.

            if the only thing that matters is who is currently the majority in the land…than, in that case it is the Israelis that are the majority

            Again, this is very far from what I wrote: I said, in fact, that there not only are more Palestinians in Israel-Palestine now than there are Israeli Jews, but there have been more of them than Jews going back to the Crusades and even earlier. As for your claim there are more Israeli Jews in Israel than Palestinians, I’m afraid that ship has sailed. We now must talk about the comparative numbers in all of Israel-Palestine, since Israel has created its own version of a one-state solution.

            While I am willing to accept that the Palestinian Arabs have rights over the land, they (for the most part) and many of their supports refuse to accept that I also have similar rights.

            Actually, untrue. Far more Palestinians are willing to compromise far more than almost any Israeli in what they’re willing to grant you. Most of them would, if they thought you were honest (which you aren’t since you won’t support the end of Occupation, return to 67 borders, shared Jerusalem, and return of refugees) gladly offer you rights to your own state. But your leaders repeatedly missing every opportunity to miss an opportunity has hardened them to the fact that there will never be an independent Palestinian state (as your prime minister so honestly noted). So there must be one state for Jews and all Palestinians from the river to the sea, in the telling words of the Revisionist anthem).

            many of the views I express are very far from the mainstream Israeli line

            You’re a real saint, you are. Willing to give up a smidgeon for peace and then brag about how unpopular you are back home among those who are out & out racist, fascists. You want a medal? Not from me, you won’t. Your views are right in line with the consensus of the ignorant and the brainwashed.

            you may delete my posts every time you don’t like what I wrote

            That’s not why or when I delete posts. I delete posts which violate the comment rules, which you seem to believe are advisory as far as you’re concerned. Trust me, they’re not. And when you break them, you get deleted or worse.

            many comments are not deleted here though their entire content is a personal attack against another commenter

            Another comment rule: I don’t give a fig what you or anyone says about how I edit or moderate the comment section. Don’t waste your or my breath on such subjects. It will elicit a bit shrug of the shoulders and only confirm that you don’t listen or read or respect the comment rules. They’re there for good reason and I demand they be honored.

  7. What a laugh, that snake Bibi says ‘friends don’t take friends to the Security Council’…he who has derided Obama and ‘stabbed him in the back’ more than once…that is so typical of the Israeli mindset/character (in the main of course) really…ranting, raving and accussing others (the Palestinians more often) even though their own actions are criminal/oppressive/mean and nasty on so many levels re: these native Palestinians…one of the better Yiddish words comes to mind ‘chutzpah’

  8. Meni…a one democratic Palestinian State can definitely work…a confederation comes to mind, with limited central government power/influence…a constitution making this possible, with protection for the rights of the individual and property, a ‘separation of state and church’ so to speak etc…oh, and of course the right of return of all Palestinian refugees and proper restitution made to them/those who had their land seized/stolen…basically a State with decency, justice and goodwill for all it’s citizens
    Not that I can see it ever happening…too many freaks/zealots/simpletons in this ‘little strip of land’

  9. Day of reckoning will come. But for now, the spontaneous applause erupting afterwards and the smirky surprise on the face of the chair says it all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link