Obama’s rockin’ first world tour– and call for action

100 thoughts on “Obama’s rockin’ first world tour– and call for action”

1. Why ought one give anything to the Gazans if they plan to keep shooting rockets into Israel? Why ought Israel open borders if Gazans plan to keep shooting rockets into Israel? Etc.,etc.
   I cannot imagine that International law is the suicide pact you describe. I think that where belligerency exists, then there is a right to take any and all reasonable steps to halt the belligerency.
   It is certainly unreasonable for Israel to help Gazans by supplying them with the materials they need to maintain their fight against Israel. And, if that is not what International provides, then there is a serious flaw that needs to be reconciled more than the Israelis need to make it easier to kill Israelis.
   The aim of the law is surely not to preserve the Gazans’ ability to make war or to protect those who hide military facilities in urban neighborhoods or shoot rockets intended specifically to massacre civilians. In short, the law is surely not designed to protect the Hamas MO but, rather, to preclude that MO as being illegitimate and illegal.

2. Your post works even better, N. Friedman, if one merely transposes the words “Israel” and “Gaza”.
   I’d like an arms embargo on both sides, though that doesn’t go nearly far enough, as Israel can no doubt continue to make what weapons it needs to kill Gazan civilians whenever they want.
   And if the blockade on Gaza is just, then let’s see one for Israel as well. Except I don’t really support that–the one on Gaza is a crime and I don’t think one crime is cancelled out by another

3. Nobody is talking about “giving” anything to the people of Gaza. I was talking about Israel allowing the passage of humanitarian and reconstruction goods, the cost of providing which has been amply provided by international donors; and Israel allowing free passage of normal trade goods. Blockading an entire territory, occupied or not, in which 1.5 million people live, the vast majority of them civilians, is completely illegal. If applied to a non-occupied territory it is an act of war.
   Hamas has shown itself completely ready to agree to a Gaza-Israel ceasefire– provided the blockade is lifted. During last year’s six-month ceasefire, Hamas did very well (though not perfectly well) in stopping firing against Israel. Israel proved not so good at adhering to the military parts of the ceasefire (especially with the Nov. 4th raid.) It proved completely unwilling to lift the blockade during last year’s ceasefire.
   I am puzzled how anyone in the modern world can support the imposition of collective punishment against an entire population. I thought the vogue for that expired completely in 1945?

4. Donald Johnson,
   I see where your post is heading.
   There is always the temptation to think that arms embargoes on all involved are good ideas. That is certainly one response.
   My understanding of the dispute differs from yours. Each side in the dispute has different aims. And, those aims dictate policy. This becomes apparent when one notes the obvious, namely, were Hamas and the other Palestinian forces in Gaza to cease all fighting, Israel would not kill any Palestinian Arabs in Gaza. Which is to say, Israel already largely has what it needs vis a vis Gaza. The Palestinian Arabs want something different than the current arrangement in Gaza.
   So, the Gazan side is, by and large, the protagonist. One might say that the Israelis want to expand their boundaries permanently by populating the West Bank with Israeli civilians. However, that is not the case with Gaza, which is the issue at hand. Even then, absent violence, the Israeli can do as they want in the West Bank and the only deterrence is violence.
   In the case of Gazan and given the circumstances of the territory, their war cannot possibly be fought by legitimate, legal means. Which is to say, pretty much every act of war from Gaza amounts to a serious war crime. That is not the case for the Israelis although, no doubt, the Israelis may also be committing war crimes. Helena thinks they should be investigated to find out. In the case of the Gazans, their war strategy is beyond doubt illegal so an investigation is pointless.
   Now, were the Gazans simply to give up, their situation would improve dramatically. Living standards, educational standards, life expectancy, etc. would improve dramatically, if Hamas would allow it. They would not have freedom but their lives would be better than they are now. And, they would likely be better off than most other Arabs. Such was the circumstance pre-Oslo, where living standards, etc., were all improving.
   Were the Israelis to give up, by contrast, they would have to move somewhere else or face being massacred. In this regard, I think one should take the Hamas covenant seriously.
   I do not intend to suggest that Israeli rule over Palestinian Arabs in Gaza or the WB is fine. That is not my view. My point is merely to note that your strategy, rather than helping the situation, would, were it to be implemented, increase, not abate, the fighting. My view is to take step to abate the fighting and to hope that Palestinian Arabs decide to adopt a legal strategy that is good for all involved so that the Israelis can cede land without concern that such event will be bad for Israel. I do not see your strategy doing anything of the sort.

5. This hazbara attack by Noah F. on this blog is just so annoying, so much like the jamming of BBC and RFE by the good old USSR apparatschiks. Is there a way to ‘filter’ these comments out? Do we have to endure this?

6. Helena,
   I guess we judge both the law and Hamas by a different formula.
   I have nothing against food supplies entering Gaza. Then again, I do have something about building supplies and anything else that can be fashioned into a weapon entering Gaza.
   My objection is that Hamas will use such materials in order fashion them into weapons to massacre Israeli civilians. And, unlike you, I do not think that assurances by Hamas that it will honor its commitments mean anything at all. Thus far, Hamas has not honored its commitments, which is why you attempt to cover such fact over with rationalizing words like “Hamas did very well,” as if even one rocket fired during the lull is somehow acceptable. No, Helena, it is not evidence of doing well. Doing well would mean honoring agreements.
   Moreover, Israel is not blockading the entire territory. It does not control all of Gaza’s borders, as you know full well. And, Egypt is lax in its control of its border, as you also know.
   In any event, there was a complete blockade in Europe called the Iron Curtain. No one called that an act of war by the Soviet Bloc. And, if Israel wants to end its ties with Gaza, that ought be perfectly fine, if you really support a two state solution. Which is to say, in such a solution, Gaza could trade with Egypt.

7. Unfortunately, even Helena falls for the gambit of trying to logically answer the Hasbara nonsense in the guise of reasonable argument. One can make very rational appearing arguments if one can get others to allow one to start from a totally nonsense position as N (not Noah) does. N’s goal is obviously merely to deflect this site from serious and rational debate by seeking to provoke responses to the nonsensical drivel N puts out. N is obviously an honors graduate of the Hasbara Academy seeking to polish skills before moving up to the MSM. One might consider N as simply a Hasbara sourced computer virus.Perhaps simply ignoring N is the best strategy.

8. “Then again, I do have something about building supplies and anything else that can be fashioned into a weapon entering Gaza.”
   That’s advocacy for collective punishment, pure and simple. No building supplies for Gaza. Unbelievable, except of course that the government of Israel shares this belief.
   As for Egypt, it’s interesting how defenders of Israel drag Egypt into the picture. I doubt Egypt would be blockading Gaza on its own, though certainly the Egyptian government has no love for Hamas and would like to see them go away. But go ahead and blame Egypt –it’s funny that anyone would think “But Egypt does it too” is a defense against a war crimes accusation.

9. Baraka: Fatah insistence on abiding by the quartet’s terms an obstacle to dialog
   (The Palestinian Information Center, 06/04/2009)
   http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bcOd87MDI46m9rUxJEpMO%2bi1s7t8rPax6kGO%2bQAxTTRGTy3oWoS1O30McP12k0HebDz%2bHXJskpoTOezix%2bqqUSDA4NMyNEUwoH36AomLqChHt9%2fsmbd%2boqyhwLKOHAlcz2%2b5U%3d
   “With regard to the position of Hamas on the agenda of the next government,Baraka emphasized his Movement’s rejection of giving confidence to a government recognizing the Israeli occupation because it is a breach of the national constants and rights.”
   Logic. First and foremost, Israel has to withdraw from the occupied territories.
   This is indeed the first step to peace process.

10. It really isn’t all that difficult to ignore N., particularly given that the author of a comment is given at the top of the comment and not the bottom. You see his name, just skip that comment and move on. And given how prolific he is, it saves enormous amounts of time.

11. This whole discussion doesn’t seem to have much poin. Why?
    No mention of the Arab League summit fizzling out; and almost immediately the Hamas/PA unity talks breaking down over the Hamas refusal to meet the Quarter’s conditions. No unity government recognising Israel means no Quartet reconstruction funds for Gaza and no border openings. So you can argue til the cows come home!
    Salam Fayyad produces the first ever PA budget in surplus. Keith Dayton continues to turn out newly trained/equipped the Palestinian security forces in the West Bank to ensure Hamas does not get a foothold there.
    George Mitchell has not been seen or heard of since how long? And Obama’s first comments on the issue are a perfunctory at best.
    What’s the betting Palestine has already been put on the backburner by Washington. While Hamas refuses to recognise Israel, Obama has no leverage whatsoever to use on the new Israeli govt re the settlements.
    He won’t do what Helena wants for no other reason than the Democrats are far, far, far more beholden to the American jewish lobby than the Republicans are. Congress won’t be voting funds for Hamas in a hurry!
    The west bank has a competent, uncorrupt govt of technocrats and increasingly competent security forces; Gazans courtesy of UNRWA aren’t starving. So who has an interst in changing the status quo? Certainly not the PA.
    In the past, Hamas has always been able to destroy Palestinian economic development by provoking Israeli military responses. Unless it can do so again FROM THE WEST BANK then in about a years time WBank economic development will be powering ahead and the Gazans will be increasingly forgotten. The Bangla Desh of Palestine.

12. It’s pretty easy to ignore bb’s nonsensical drivel, too, once you put your mind to it.

13. Shirin and Jack,
    It is always a lot easier to have a debate where everyone agrees on your position. The hard thing to do is address those who disagree with you.
    I reiterate my view that there is no imaginable reason, moral or otherwise, for the Israelis to allow materials into Gaza that will be used in attempts to massacre Israelis. No country on Earth would do such a thing and the Israelis are not morons.
    If you want to call that collective punishment, call it what you like. International law is not a suicide pact. And, if Hamas, which claims to rule Gaza, wants to shoot rockets willy nilly into Israel, that is also a form of collective punishment. So, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

14. Shirin is right. I have no common ground with someone who casually defends collective punishment and it’s a waste of time talking with people like that. There are a few on the left who defend suicide bombing as a legitimate resistance tactic–there’s not much to say to them either. Maybe the advocates of targeting civilians on both sides can find common ground in their mutual moral cluelessness.

15. N’s goal is obviously merely to deflect this site from serious and rational debate by seeking to provoke responses to the nonsensical drivel N puts out.
    Far be it from me to speak for N., but I think that his goal is to try and introduce some “serious and rational” debate into this site. Jack, and the other shills here, attempt to stifle that debate; not because they want to deflect it, in my opinion, but because they are trying to convince themselves that their views are truly popular. That’s pathetic.

16. bb,
    Excellent post in response to Helena’s original posting!

17. He’s terrifyingly– and actually, quite unrealistically– warlike in his policies in Afghanistan.
    I wonder: Does that qualify him as a “chicken hawk”?

18. He is not an embarrassment – definitely an improvement.
    His wife is not a Stepford with a pasted-on smile – absolutely an improvement.
    He is an impressive speaker and says the right things – certainly a huge improvement.
    But what about actions? As they say, actions speak louder than words, and so far, I am not excited, especially on the foreign policy front.

19. He is an impressive speaker and says the right things – certainly a huge improvement.
    Did he say the right things? I disagree.
    Some examples from his Prague speech:
    Obama on Nato:
    NATO’s mission in Afghanistan is fundamental to the safety of people on both sides of the Atlantic. We are targeting the same Al Qaeda terrorists who have struck from New York to London, and helping the Afghan people take responsibility for their future. We are demonstrating that free nations can make common cause on behalf of our common security.,
    (…)
    No alliance can afford to stand still. We must work together as NATO members so that we have contingency plans in place to deal with new threats, wherever they may come from. We must strengthen our cooperation with one another, and with other nations and institutions around the world, to confront dangers that recognize no borders.
    (comment: The words may differ, but he is saying the same as Bush. He doesn’t call it “war on terror”, but it’s the same thing: we are in perpetual war with a tremendously powerful and ruthless enemy, Al Qaeda, which can strike at us from anywhere in the world. We need our army, the most powerful in the history of mankind, and our 700 plus basis in the word, plus the armies of our good friends in Europe (Nato), to fight this monstrous Enemy, wherever it may hide, and with all means at our disposal; in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, or anywhere else if necessary.
    Though Nato should have been disbanded after the fall of the Soviet Union, it got a second lease of life as a kind of extended American intervention force, and as an alliance that is used to encircle Russia militarily, even though the Americans after the fall of the Berlin Wall promised Gorbachev never to expand Nato into Eastern Europe (in exchange for Gorbachev’s concession to let Eastern Germany join West Germany, a Nato member).
    on Iran:
    We want Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically. We will support Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections. That is a path that the Islamic Republic can take. Or the government can choose increased isolation, international pressure, and a potential nuclear arms race in the region that will increase insecurity for all.
    Again he talks about this potential nuclear arms race in the region the Iranians could provoke, which is nonsense, because only the first country with nukes in a region can provoke such a race, and that country is Israel.
    But let’s go on, with the most sinister part of his speech:
    Let me be clear: Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we intend to go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven.
    (comment: he will “go forward” with a missile shield “as long as the threat from Iran persists”. The threat from Iran will persist, of course, as long as the Americans decide it does. To the Russians building a missile shield in Eastern Europe is a hostile act (they know very well that such a shield is not meant to counter a non-existent Iranian threat). He announced negotiations with Russia to achieve a mutual reduction of the Russian and American nuclear arsenals, which is a good thing, but in the long term such negotiations can only succeed when both parties trust each other. The Russians will never trust a USA which places missile shields in Eastern Europe. Nuclear disarmament and missile shields don’t go together. So once again Obama’s rhetoric and his policies don’t match at all.)
    

20. Shirin, you should ask yourself why somebody as intelligent and thoughtful as Obama does not seem to share your prescriptions for Palestine? It might be worth rethinking your rejectionist views?
    JES – it might be that the Hamas coup in 2007 was a godsend to Abbas and the PA, allowing him to appoint a competent, technocratic, uncorrupt, non-Fateh government. There are also the new security forces being trained in Jordan and Egypt. They would be comprised mainly of 18-20 year olds, the first post Oslo generation. They are the first generation to grow up under a Palestinian government, not an Israeli government. Their prime loyalty and committment will be to the West Bank and the PA, not to Gaza. In fact, because of the closures forced by the 2nd intifada most if not all of them would never have even visited Gaza in their lives. Their outlook will be more towards Jordan and their attitude to the IDF will not be as “victims” and indeed they are likely to have pride in their uniforms and a sense of responsibility and worth.
    Hamas and Gaza are likely to become less and less relevant to the WB Palestinians as time goes on. This would be a tragedy for Gaza, but that’s the responsibility of Hamas and those who support it.

21. Apologists for Israel’s fascists and warmongers will repeat the same lies and distortions endlessly, just as W’s apologists will insist until the end of time that W didn’t lie about the war, etc.. Time to blow off their bullshit.
    Re. Obama: ok, I undertand the desire folks in the US and the world have to read tea leaves every time he scratches his nose, finding auguries of world peace. I voted for him myself, so I can relate. But what he’s doing is endlessly talking out both sides of his mouth. Even the analyses offered by his fervent supporters implicitly acknowledge this. And when policy hits the road, he always comes down on the side of the ‘establishment’, NO MATTER HOW ABYSMAL THE FAILURE OF THAT ESTABLISHMENT HAS BEEN. Look at the economy. Obama turns to the same wizards who pushed it over the cliff to save it. Look at health care. The same Biz, the Health Insurance Biz, that has utterly failed is now called upon to save the day . Foreign Policy: the same mages who have presided over a 40 year disaster continue to call the shots on US policy.
    Sure, it’s great that Obama isn’t the jerk that W was. But that’s not going to get us anywhere. We need to stop reading tea leaves and start building and applying pressure to make progressive policy inevitable in DC. Won’t happen otherwise.

22. Apologists for Israel’s fascists and warmongers will repeat the same lies and distortions endlessly, just as W’s apologists will insist until the end of time that W didn’t lie about the war, etc.. Time to blow off their bullshit.
    Re. Obama: ok, I undertand the desire folks in the US and the world have to read tea leaves every time he scratches his nose, finding auguries of world peace. I voted for him myself, so I can relate. But what he’s doing is endlessly talking out both sides of his mouth. Even the analyses offered by his fervent supporters implicitly acknowledge this. And when policy hits the road, he always comes down on the side of the ‘establishment’, NO MATTER HOW ABYSMAL THE FAILURE OF THAT ESTABLISHMENT HAS BEEN. Look at the economy. Obama turns to the same wizards who pushed it over the cliff to save it. Look at health care. The same Biz, the Health Insurance Biz, that has utterly failed is now called upon to save the day . Foreign Policy: the same mages who have presided over a 40 year disaster continue to call the shots on US policy.
    Sure, it’s great that Obama isn’t the jerk that W was. But that’s not going to get us anywhere. We need to stop reading tea leaves and start building and applying pressure to make progressive policy inevitable in DC. Won’t happen otherwise.

23. One wonders how much N. gets paid for /her/his services here. We’re all for free debate and exchange, etc. But she/he’s not into that. He states his/her mantra and then refuses to engage in any substantive exchange that gets her/him off his dogma. Nothing “fresh” about such “contributions.” Rather, this is intervention on behalf of a hired, and not-so-hidden hand.

24. the fact that Helena’s blog is so carefully monitored by the ‘not so hidden hand’ means how important her blog is for all fair-minded people of the world;

25. the fact that Helena’s blog is so carefully monitored by the ‘not so hidden hand’ means how important her blog is for all fair-minded people of the world
    LOOOOOOL!!!!! I almost fell off my seat laughing.

26. One wonders how much N. gets paid for /her/his services here. We’re all for free debate and exchange, etc. But she/he’s not into that. He states his/her mantra and then refuses to engage in any substantive exchange that gets her/him off his dogma. Nothing “fresh” about such “contributions.” Rather, this is intervention on behalf of a hired, and not-so-hidden hand.
    Tell me, “Picard”, are you and your fellow Hamas shills here so insecure in your own positions that you have to assume that the Israeli Government actually pays N. for their services?
    Helena must be real proud of you, “bysta”, Jack and the other assorted wingnuts that her site has attracted.

27. picard,
    Who have I refused to engage?
    So far as I can discern, I engage those who engage me.

28. It’s the Israeli propagandist’s gambit to focus on small symptoms, like the Palestinian rockets fired from Gaza, and ignore the larger context in which they take place – the enormous dispossession and repression of Palestinians taking place over decades, culminating in the settlements planted in defiance of international law on territory seized in 1967.
    Helena, thanks for presenting a broader view. Thanks for the post.

29. No Preference,
    There are no Israelis living in Gaza so your point does not address the facts at hand. The assertion that rockets, human kamikaze bombs and the like are minor irritants, symptoms or the like misses the point. They are a big deal to the Israelis and, hence, a big deal if you want the dispute to be resolved.
    If the goal is to resolve the dispute, it does not matter that you think the Israelis are in the wrong. And, it does not matter that I think the Israelis are largely in the right. In the end, it does not matter where the cosmic justice lies. In any event, anyone of modest intelligence can create a rationalization that makes either party wholly in the right or the wrong or both parties in the right or in the wrong, etc., etc.
    The issue is what the Israelis and Palestinian Arabs think, since it is they, not us, who will settle the dispute, if at all. And, the Israelis do not think that rockets, human kamikaze bombs, people who hatchet children to death (as occurred just recently), etc., etc., are mere symptoms. Rather, they are major reasons why the Israelis will not cede land.
    To you, the issue is dispossession and repression. Fine. How can those “symptoms” – to use your terminology – be remedied while protecting concerns of the Israelis (e.g. not having their children chopped up by lunatics who use hatchets, not having their cities bombed, not having rockets fired into elementary schools, not having lunatics walk into a pizza parlour and kill everyone, etc., etc.)? And, how can these
    “symptoms” be remedied while protecting legitimate interests of the Israelis?
    Consider… You may think that this is only about dispossession and repression and that the Israelis have no legitimate concerns or interests. The Israelis do not think that. And, many non-Israelis do not think that either. Many of us think that your view overlooks the causes of the dispute including the war by the Arab and greater Muslim regions against Israel that aims not only to dispossess Israel of Jews but to massacre Jews to the last man and woman. That, after all, is what the Hamas covenant states.
    Again, it does not matter what where we think the justice lies. What matters is what solves the dispute, since both sides have real issues.

30. No one is blameless – we all are shades of grey; some more than the others.
    First and foremost, any occupation is illegal and wrong by any sane and rational thinking. On the same lines, resistance to occupation is natural – its the latest fad to call ‘any and every’ enemy a ‘terrorist’ but resistance to occupation is not terrorism.
    I abhor and detest violence by all – be it IDF, Hamas, illegal settlers, Fateh…… everybody. It is wrong to kill for any cause or motive. And all the parties are guilty of this – again, some more than others.
    Everybody sees the world/reality/events through their ‘preferred prism of bias and preconceived notions’ and hence have differing opinions and views about the same event. I have some doubts about:
    1) ‘competent, technocratic, uncorrupt, non-Fateh government’ – really? I have consistently heard otherwise from the Palestinians residing in the West Bank and from Israelis.
    2) Hamas creating ‘weapons to massacre Israeli civilians’ – massacre? surely thats an exaggeration by any scale. Many many more Palestinians have been killed by Israeli acts of violence/aggression during both times of relative peace and attacks than by the Qassam rockets (This does not mean one can condone or ignore the Israeli deaths caused by these rockets!)
    3) ‘Gaza are likely to become less and less relevant to the WB Palestinians as time goes on’ – One who ever interacted with a Palestinian from West Bank would never believe this. Troubles and sufferings bring people together like nothing else and this seems to be an extremely scenario.
    4) ‘WBank economic development’ – huh? What economic development?? oh! the one the Bibi is talking about? 😛 isnt ‘economic development a sardonic joke considering the settlements, theft of natural resources, limitations on movements of people and goods, WB being a captive market for Israeli goods, taxation and monetary flow strictly in hands of Israel etc etc etc.
    Anyway all such numerous points of doubts and discussion are moot in face of the illegitimate occupation. The first step to any peace and stability is only and only the end of occupation!

31. Yagyaseni,
    You write:

    First and foremost, any occupation is illegal and wrong by any sane and rational thinking.

    That is not so. International law distinguishes legal and illegal occupations. The Israeli occupation is not per se illegal; rather, certain actions taken by the Israelis during its legal occupation have been described as being illegal. Hence, the ICJ opined that Israel’s barrier is unlawful and that building villages in occupied land is unlawful. But note: the court did not assert that the occupation itself is illegal. Why? Because the argument makes no sense, since UN 242 does not describe the occupation as illegal.
    By way of another example, the US occupied Germany and Japan at the end of WWII. There is still, in a sense, an occupation army in both countries. Do you think that the US occupation of Germany and Japan was illegal? Of course not.
    You claim that Hamas does not build weapons to massacre Israelis. Between 2000 and 2005, around 1,000 Israelis were killed by Palestinian Arabs, a great many of those killed being killed in massacres. Have you ever seen a bus destroyed by Hamas? Do you recall the massacre in Netanya of elderly people celebrating the Passover holiday? That more Palestinian Arabs have died does not mean that Palestinian Arabs do not commit massacres. That Palestinian Arab rockets have thus far not killed too many Israelis does not mean that they are not shot into Israel for purposes of committing massacres.
    As I said above, the Israelis benefit from the status quo; the Arab side wants to change the status quo. That means that the use of violence is, by definition, driven by the side that wants to change the status quo. So, if your goal is to end the violence, you need to scream not only at the Israelis but also at the Arabs. Otherwise, your going to be met – as now is the case – by bemused Israelis who think you are a hypocrite.
    Now, you want the Israelis to end their occupation. The issue is, in reply, what the Israelis expect in return. They have made themselves pretty clear. First and foremost, they expect that the end of the occupation means the end of the war to destroy Israel. If that does not occur, no Israeli government will cede any more land – most especially because ceding Gaza brought the Israelis more violence, suggesting that ceding the West Bank will bring even more violence, thus destroying Israel’s Peace Now bloc. And, if Israel’s concern about violence is not adequately addressed, nothing will be accomplished, no matter which of the important Israeli parties rules Israel.

32. Hmmmmmmmmmm. Israel and UN have a strange relationship – UN created Israel and gave a means of recognizing and legitimizing Israel. Yet Israel has routinely, consistently and constantly ignored UN and related organization’s decision of its actions calling it biased. And yet again, Israel wants to prove the legality of its occupation using UN 242? Is this a case of selectively using UN (and related organization)?
    Each cases are different and unique thus making comparisons lop-sided. We can discuss America’s actions (vis-a-vis Germany and Japan and many other nations) on a separate basis without attaching it to Israel’s.
    Yes I have seen (and been affected indirectly) the violence and destruction wreaked by Palestinians and as in my first comment, condemn violence from one and all (you can still call me a hypocrite if you wish) My only stand about this is : sure, I will agree that Palestinians massacred Israelis if you agree that agree that Israelis have massacred Palestinians on a greater scale.
    Sure I agree end of the occupation and ‘end of war to destroy Israel’ go hand in hand. But we differ in what you see as ‘end of war to destroy Israel’ and I see as resistance to occupation and fight for independence and freedom.
    Yes the statement in Hamas’s charter is regrettable and foolish but I don’t find it resonating in their actions or in their words. On the same lines, don’t we have Israelis who are absolute dead-set on denying existence of Palestine and Palestinians?
    Israel has more than adequate might and powerful friends to ensure that Israel is not destroyed even in the presence of a fully militarily equipped and independent and free Palestinian country. Trust me, the whole world would be out in arms if ever that scenario came true! And the Palestinians are very aware of it.
    Again continuing on the same lines, sure Israel deserves security (in return for ending the occupation) but not at the cost of security of the Palestinians. They deserve their freedom and full independence – not half baked state with no rights over their movement, borders, education, population, monetary system, economic rights, military rights, airports, harbours etc. ie they deserve a ‘normal’ country without unfair and unbalanced ‘rules and regulations’ from another country!
    And at the cost of reiteration, considering the military might and powerful allies, this should not be an undue excuse used by Israel to do otherwise.

33. “Israel wants to prove the legality of its occupation using UN 242?”
    Ummmmmm – both the plain language and the intent of 242 make it clear that it is a demand that Israel end the occupation of territories it invaded and occupied in 1967. It’s not “selective” use when Israeli propagandists try to use 242 to justify continuing the occupation, it is an effort to turn 242 on its head.

34. Yes you are right, Shirin.
    UN 242 says
    ” Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
    (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
    (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

35. “…half baked state with no rights over their movement, borders, education, population, monetary system, economic rights, military rights, airports, harbours etc.”
    The ability to control those items plus a few more is part of what defines a state. Any entity that does not control the above listed items plus a few more, is not a state.

36. Yagyaseni,
    One. I refer to UN 242 because it is the primary document relating to Israel’s occupation of the land in question. Note that UN 242 does not state that the occupation is illegal. It sets forth two principles for resolving the dispute. Moreover, one of the noted principles involves Israel obtaining secure and recognized boundaries. That means, by implication, that the pre-June 1967 boundaries were neither secure nor recognized. That, by itself, means that Israel has a claim to the land it captured, to the extent necessary to obtain a boundary that is secure and recognized. And, please note: the USSR objected to UN 242 on the floor of the UN on the stated ground that UN 242 legalized Israel’s control of the land it had occupied.
    Two. You have a selective memory of massacres. I recall the Hadassah medical convoy massacre (79 Jews killed). I also recall the 129 persons killed at Kfar Etzion. I also recall the Ben Yehuda Street massacre of 52 Jewish civilians. So, there have been plenty of massacres – and by both sides. The above, of course, are a while back. We could also go back to the work of Amin al-Husseini, who instigated wide scale massacres of Jews in Iraq and in Europe. The massacres in Europe involve more people than all the Arabs killed in all the wars between Israel and Arabs. So far as Israelis killed in the fighting since 2000, nearly all of the Israelis killed were killed in massacres. So, please do not lecture about massacres. There are plenty to go around.
    Three. Israel was not created by the UN. The UN merely recommended and legalized partition. Arab militias and later Arab armies sought to prevent Israel’s creation, in defiance of the UN. Israel won that war. The Arab side then prevented the creation of a Palestinian Arab state.
    Four. You claim that the Hamas covenant does not represent Arab thinking on the dispute. Yet, when interviewed, Hamas officials repeat what appears in the covenant, including assertions that Jews should all be killed. In fact, such was reported – with quotes – by The New York Times.
    Five. As I said, Israel will cede land if that means the end of the war. Note that Hamas offers a truce. That is something different from an end to the war. The US previously proposed, Israel accepted but Arafat refused the very state you claim Israel must offer to end the dispute. That occurred at the end of December of 2000. According to Saudi Prince Bandar, Arafat lied about what had been offered. That is also President Clinton’s view. In fact, the exact terms proposed can be found on the Internet and they support what President Clinton claims.

37. Yagyaseni, the preamble to 242 tells us what the driving principle is behind the Resolution, that is, the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. Therefore, everything in 242 must be interpreted within that framework.
    The Zionist arguments on 242 are so lacking in merit, and so worn out and threadbare that it is difficult to believe they still drag them out. On the other hand, nothing that N. drags out of wherever s/he pulls things out of should surprise us. Fact, logic, and rational thought are irrelevant to people like this.
    I think their goal is simply to take up space and bandwidth. Helena calls it hogging the discourse. I, for one, find it pointless to try to engage with them, so mostly I just skip their comments altogether. Let them talk to themselves and each other. They’re not going to convince anyone else, anyway.

38. Shirin,
    You say that UN 242 is to be read with reference to its preamble. I agree entirely. But, that preamble does not make Israel’s occupation illegal. It says nothing of the sort.
    Moreover, courts take the view that resolutions and other legal documents must be interpreted in their entirety. That means that all parts, not just the preamble, must be considered. No part can be ignored.
    In fact, the text of the document provides pretty explicitly that Israel is entitled to secure and recognized boundaries, which also is part of UN 242 and, as such, must be considered in interpreting the document as a whole. So, we have a document which says not one word that could be interpreted to make Israel’s occupation illegal and we have, on the contrary, explicit language by which Israel is entitled to return only to secure and recognized boundaries.

39. I will leave UN 242 to the experts and insist that this occupation must end if Israel ever wishes for an iota of peace and security.
    Yes there have been massacres and on both the sides (isnt the Deir Yassin Day just two days away?) Oh, now are we blaming Amin al-Husseini for the ‘wide scale massacres of Jews in Europe’? (and hence claiming that it is right to take lands of the Palestinians for this??) Come on, Zionism started way before WW-1 and WW-2.
    Btw, INA of India (then under British rule) too tried to collaborate with Germany (enemy of my enemy is my friend). And hence they are responsible for ”wide scale massacres of Jews in Europe’ too?
    Of course Israel is the child of UN (in your own words – merely recommended and legalized partition) How else can a brand-new country be created from nothing and nowhere?
    And do you blame the Palestinians for rejecting the 1948 partition? Would anybody accept to give away half of their house to strangers?
    I have read many media reports of Zionists not accepting the existence, history and rights of Palestine and Palestinians, of Zionists dancing while Gazans were being killed, of Zionists calling for extermination of Palestinians, of Israeli goal of getting the Palestinian lands sans the Palestinians, of Israelis (particularly settlers) referring to Palestinians in derogatory and racist terms. but if I will hear and focus only on these, I will lock the hatred and resentment in my heart and never take a step towards peace and security.
    Well well well, there are umpteen different versions of what really happened at Camp David – only people present there know what truly tranpired and what is propaganda. Dont we say actions speak louder than words?
    1) PLO recognized Israel and got no recognition for Palestine or Palestinians in return – Hamas surely fears suffering the same fate if it ‘recognizes’ Israel (btw which Israel? based on 1948 borders? or 1967? or Israel+Palestine???)
    2) Israel continues to build settlements at rapid rate and using non-renewable resources of West Bank
    Both of these actions don’t speak volumes of Israeli desire to have a settlement and an end to this conflict.

40. Israel and UN have a strange relationship – UN created Israel and gave a means of recognizing and legitimizing Israel.
    Wonder how many UN resolutions that Israel NOT obeyed “rejected”?
    Are they 99 UN resultions or more?
    Now “legal Occupation” according one buff and UN !!!
    So quite rant here by a buff….
    Reads from your book our buff…
    “1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering
    to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites,
    Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites,
    seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your
    God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then
    you must destroy them totally. [a] Make no treaty with them, and show
    them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your
    daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for
    they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods,
    and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy
    you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars,
    smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles [b] and burn
    their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your
    God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the
    face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.”
    “1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering
    to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites,
    Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites,
    seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your
    God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then
    you must destroy them totally. [a] Make no treaty with them, and show
    them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your
    daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for
    they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods,
    and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy
    you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars,
    smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles [b] and burn
    their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your
    God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the
    face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.”

41. Yagyaseni,
    I apologize for the length of this post.
    I pointed out that massacres had occurred on both sides, with Jews getting the worst of it. That was not used to justify anything. It merely responded to your argument.
    The UN general assembly does not create states. It does not have that authority. So, your argument on the subject is wrong.
    Again, if Israel cedes land but the Arab side does not call the dispute over, then the fight continues. So, your argument is a half way one, akin to the argument adopted by former PM Sharon, who said that ceding Gaza would be a model for ending the dispute. Note that substantial investments were made, before Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, in infrastructure, premised on the idea that peace in Gaza might lead to peaceful relations related to the West Bank. The entire investment was trashed by the Palestinian Arabs – on day one. It did not have to be that way.
    You claim that the Arabs were right to oppose a state for people who were supposedly strangers to the land. Maybe (e.g. in a universe where justice has no shades of gray). In the real world, the result of that violent episode was a catastrophe for Palestinian Arabs. So, in retrospect, it was a pretty bone headed idea.
    In this regard, I do raise the specter of al-Husseini because he worked tirelessly against peace. He, in fact, was the leader of the Palestinian Arabs (i.e. according to Edward Said). Moreover, al-Husseini, acting on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs, did work tirelessly to prevent Jews seeking to escape Europe during WWII and, in fact, had notable successes.
    And, al-Husseini did make an agreement on behalf of Palestine’s Arab with the Nazis to exterminate all of the Jews in historic Palestine and that agreement was, in fact, implemented. An extermination squad was attached to the Nazi army and was tasked to work with Arabs – by agreement – to massacre Jews, as uncovered by German scholars Klaus-Michael Mallman and Martin Cüppers. What stopped the plan was the defeat of the Germany army in second Battle of El Alamein.
    And, al-Husseini along with Muslim Brotherhood people worked to incite hatred against Jews, based on both Islamic and Nazi themes, during WWII, as shown by University of Maryland historian Jeffrey Herf. And, such themes continue to be used, to this day, by Islamists and by Hamas.
    Scholar Hillel Cohen has shown that about 20% of Palestine’s Arabs were willing, before Israel’s creation, to live with a Jewish state in the region. That, notwithstanding the fact that al-Husseini’s clique committed massacres against and intimidated those Arabs who were for accommodation. So it was a political decision – not one that was inevitable – by the Arab side leadership to refuse compromise. And, it was a pretty bad decision, given what has occurred since.
    You claim the PLO obtained nothing for recognizing Israel. That is not true. Arafat, as Prince Bandar stated, essentially refused an offer which met his redline for settling the dispute. As Bandar said, Arafat lied about what had been offered to the Palestinian Arabs and the bloodshed since is on his head. According to President Clinton, the Palestinian Arabs were offered 97% of the territory they sought including portions of Jerusalem and, on top of that, a land bridge connecting Gaza and the West Bank and, on top of that, $30 Billion Dollars in compensation for those displaced in the wars. He could have said yes to the proposal. He did not. Instead, he made up a story.

42. N. Friedman, please try to be a little more careful of your facts. I’d say that 80% of what you’ve posted here is very distorted and/or very questionably sourced; 10% outright lies, and only about 10% worthy of a serious response. It’s hardly worth the time to try to have a discussion with you.

43. There have been innumerable massacres and there will continue to be! I am sorry but I do not believe that the Jews have got the worst of it – I feel terribly sad abt the Holocaust but its by far not the worst.
    And I am not using massacres to justify anything – just to conclude that everyone is guilty of violence and exaggerations like Israeli massacres by Palestinians do not quite ring true (infact they lead one to doubt everything else one may write even if it is true!)
    Yes, the UN general assembly does not create states but it did in case of Israel. Which other country has been born out of nothing? This makes Israel-Palestine issue different from all others (COIN, seccessions, multiple claims over same territority etc)
    I think Israel fears that ‘if Israel cedes land but the Arab side does not call the dispute over’ but one’s fear are not necessarily a reality!
    Well about Gaza : its not a disengagement or end of occupation or any other commonly used fancy term. Israel removed the settlers and locked all the Gazans in with full control over its borders.
    Israelis cry foul when the Gazans shattered the greenhouses they left behind but why do they conveniently forget that
    1) they were paid about USD 14 million for the greenhouses
    2) Israelis turned off the water supplies and electricity to these greenhouses after they left. What should the Gazans do with the greenhouses without water and electricity?
    I read reports that Israel ‘de-occupied’ (is that a word?) from Gaza to
    1) remove the growing proportion of Palestinians from its total population to preserve the ‘Jewishness’ of Israel
    2) to generate positive publicity about Israel’s desire for settlement while actually holding onto West Bank forever
    3) Gaza has comparatively little resources as compared to West Bank
    Whatever be the true motive, the cost-benefit analysis surely works out exceddingly well for Israel.
    Yes in retrospect it was a boneheaded idea, I agree. But wish we all had the ability to accurately forsee the future! But on the rational basis, one is disinlcined to give away half of one’s home (and this is true for us all), isnt it?
    Well, any Palestinian leader at that time would work all he can to avoid ‘foreigners’ coming into his ‘house’, wont he? (Zionism started in late 18th century after all and not during or after either World Wars) Again, any leader would! but that does not mean he is responsible for the massacres of Jews in Europe!
    I dont mean to say he was awfully good and nice and what not, but sure its a rational move – enemy of my enemy is my friend and one who tries to forcefully (even if he is being persecuted elsewhere) my home is my enemy!
    I am sorry but I refuse to believe what Clinton or anyone for that matter have to claim about generous offers made and all. Fact is settlements are growing and more than half million Israelis reside in West Bank and East Jerusalem illegally and that does in no way indicate even an atom of desire for willingness to give up occupation!

44. No Preference,
    If I have made any errors, show me I am wrong. Absent that, I take your argument as being bluster, since you make no effort to investigate my facts.
    By the way, the facts regarding al-Husseini are well established. So are Hillel Cohen’s facts. So are the rest of my facts, including the views of President Clinton and Prince Bandar.
    Again, check them out. You will see that I am correct.
    Yagyaseni,
    Please tell me what massacres were worse than occurred during WWII against Jews. The only ones I know of that are close were committed by Muslims against Indians – many centuries ago – and Chinese against themselves. Arabs have, by contrast, had it rather lucky in the massacre field.
    You say Israel was created out of nothing. In fact, pretty much all of the nations of the Middle East, save Egypt, were created in the period from the end of WWI to sometime after WWII – and few of these nations have any precedent. And, all of the nations in the Americas were created, as you say, out of nothing. So, I think you need to do some more research.
    The Jews obtained a state because they acted to build one, not because the UN gave anything. In fact, the UN merely recommended partition. It neither tried nor had the authority to create any state.

45. Well there are numerous in the history but just to name a few offhand:
    1) Arabs massacred by Mongols
    2) Koreans by Japanese
    3) Armenians by Turks
    4) Roma and other gypsy people in various countries in Europe
    5) Tibetans by Chinese
    6) South American (Aztecs, Mayans, Incas etc) by Spanish
    7) East Timorans by Indonesians
    9) Japanese by Americans – Hiroshima and Nagasaki
    10) Indians massacred by Mongols and by British
    11) Chinese by Japanese
    12) Cambodians by Khmer Rouge
    13) Tamils in Sri Lanka
    14) countless others in the African continent (in the past, in the present and doubtlessly in the future)
    I dont mean to lessen the injustice and wrong done to the Jews during the WW-2 but there have been numerous massacres in history of mankind. And one must also remember that there were other victims besides Jews – ethnic Poles, the Romani, Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, the disabled, homosexual men and political and religious opponents. Sympathy and empathy for Jews must not blind one of justice and fairness!
    The Arab countries were not made out of nothing. The Ottoman Empire, after its defeat, was broken up into 22 (is the number right?) Arab countries.
    Yes America has yet a different story to its birth (Its story has similarity in terms of taking land from the Native Americans v/s taking land from the Palestinians).
    Israel was not quite created out of nothing (that would defy the law of conservatism). Israel was created out of Palestine by taking the Palestinian lands, houses and resources and giving them to Jews.
    Yes, since late 1800s Zionists ‘acted to build one’ through money power and violence (need I mention Haganah and Irgun?) and then after WW-2, the Allies (through UN) gave the creation of Israel a stamp of legality and recognition.
    Anyway, why argue about the history? Israel is a reality and I fully support its existence (as a democratic and secular country). But I oppose its occupation of Palestine and support the existence and independence of the Occupied Territories. Sadly, today, despite all the lip movement, one does not see any desire from Israel to reach a settlement and to end the occupation.
    Must the Palestinians continue to suffer as ‘victims of the victims’ till eternity?? Must they give up their land, houses, farms, freedom, security, mental stability, life, joy, family in order to ensure a safe homeland for the Jews? If Jews deserve a country, why not the Palestinians?
    Sayonara till tomorrow!

46. @N
    You are doing a beautiful job! Kept your cool and gave rational answers. And they can’t handle it!!! All they know are boilerplate cliches. They have heard that “zionists danced in the streets”? They have read this or that. They have heard that Israel is a racistbrutalaparteidstate. And you are a hasbara troll if you have a different opionion. Such lemmings.

47. @N
    You are doing a beautiful job! Kept your cool and gave rational answers. And they can’t handle it!!! All they know are boilerplate cliches. They have heard that “zionists danced in the streets”? They have read this or that. They have heard that Israel is a racistbrutalaparteidstate. And you are a hasbara troll if you have a different opionion. Such lemmings.

48. @N
    You are doing a beautiful job! Kept your cool and gave rational answers. And they can’t handle it!!! All they know are boilerplate cliches. They have heard that “zionists danced in the streets”? They have read this or that. They have heard that Israel is a racistbrutalaparteidstate. And you are a hasbara troll if you have a different opionion. Such lemmings.

49. Yagyaseni,
    I would have prefered not to address depressing topics of world massacres. However, you leave me no choice, given that you confuse massacres – even of genocidal character – with what the Nazis attempted, which is something quite different.
    None of the other massacres you mention is of the same kind as the Nazi massacre of Jews. In all cases other than the massacre in WWII of Jews, the massacres were circumstantial, meaning that the goal was not to eliminate the target of the massacre without regard to place of residence. Instead, all related to some specific location and specific circumstance(s).
    For example, in the case of the Armenians, the immediate issue was alleged cooperation with Russia for purposes of creating an independent Armenia – which supposedly led to terrorism against the Empire while the Empire was engaged in WWI. Similar allegations were involved when massacres occurred under the Sultan Abdul Hamid II and under the first Young Turk government. However, Armenians who fled the Ottoman Empire were, with very few exceptions, never targeted by – and were not the target of – the Ottoman regime.
    In the case of Jews, the Nazis aimed to eliminate Jews without regard to where they lived, what they did, what they thought and fleeing did not change a thing. In fact, Nazis chased Jews wherever they could find them. Amin al-Husseini – and I must remind you that he was a full participant in the Nazi plan to destroy world Jewry -, explained the matter by stating that Germany is “the only country in the world that has not merely fought the Jews at home but have declared war on the entirety of world Jewry; in this war against world Jewry, the Arabs feel profoundly connected to Germany.” Such, in fact, states perfectly the view taken up by the Nazis and their Arab collaborators.
    As for the stealing a country canard, what you write is untrue. Jews migrated to the land and bought property, at great expense. Most Jews, at the time, were rather poor, although there were some with considerable funds who, in fact, helped finance the purchases.
    So far as I know, purchasing tracts of land is not the same thing as stealing a country. In any event, as I noted, had the Arabs not confused Jewish efforts to buy land in order to build a country – where none had existed since ancient times -, with stealing a country that did not, at the time, exist, Jews were prepared to share power with Arabs – as equals.
    And, in fact, many Arabs worked with Jews with the aim of building the country together, as Hillel Cohen shows. Arabs, in fact, worked as propagandists in the Zionist cause. Some were paid but many did so out of pure conviction – even without pay. And, the land was sold, with few exceptions, voluntarily. And, many Arabs were active in efforts to sell land to Jews – and for a variety of reasons including making money, improving the country, positive views of Zionism, etc., etc.
    So, I think your view is based on incorrect information.
    Further, if one looks at the Arab position today, the fact is that there is, at this point and due to the vile propaganda which is the norm in the region, an absence on the Arab side of those who think, as many Israelis think, that peace ultimately requires acceptance of an Arab state along side Israel. The Arab position is, for the most part, that any Palestinian state along side Israel is a interim arrangement until such time as the Arabs are able to eliminate Israel.
    Which is to say, Arabs generally reject the idea that Israel can be allowed to be a permanent presence in the region (i.e. they view Israel as illegitimate). In the words of the recently killed Hamas leader Nizzar Rayyan, “Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God.” I suggest to you that he speaks for a wide segment of Arabs and Palestinian Arabs. And, his reasons are reasons why Israel will not cede land – since he is telling Israelis that to cede land is suicidally stupid because the ceded land will be used to destroy Israel.

50. …the preamble to 242 tells us what the driving principle is behind the Resolution, that is, the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. Therefore, everything in 242 must be interpreted within that framework.
    Shirin (not Sherry), I think that you should read UNSCR 242 again. The sentence in the preamble states in full:
    Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security

51. Yagyaseni, do not forget the virtual genocide of the native North American peoples by European colonists and their descendants! Several entire nations were completely wiped out.
    “If Jews deserve a country…”
    Whether any ethno-religious group deserves a country is highly debatable. Whether they have a right to immigrate from another continent in order to take over and claim as their country land that is inhabited by others is not debatable at all.
    As for the creation of the Arab states by dividing up the Ottoman empire, there is simply no way on earth to equate that to the creation of Israel. Those states were not created with the purpose of accommodating a group of European immigrant colonists at the expense of the existing population. The populations were maintained as they were at the time of creation.

52. Israelis cry foul when the Gazans shattered the greenhouses they left behind but why do they conveniently forget that
    1) they were paid about USD 14 million for the greenhouses
    2) Israelis turned off the water supplies and electricity to these greenhouses after they left. What should the Gazans do with the greenhouses without water and electricity?
    Yagyaseni, I suggest that you take a look at your facts – and particularly by placing them in chronological order. You appear to be justifying an event with events that only occured much later.
    Israeli withdrawal was completed on September 12, 2005. The greenhouses were completely trashed within a few days (under the idle supervision of PA forces).
    Talk of shutting off electricity and water supplies began only following Operation Summer Rain in June of 2006 – almost a year later. It remained only talk for another year until the Hamas coup and an upsurge in rockets fired into Israel, at which time there were partial cutoffs of electricity and water, although at no time were these cutoffs complete.

53. Nice of Ruth to show up and provide us with some comic relief, wasn’t it?

54. Whether they have a right to immigrate from another continent in order to take over and claim as their country land that is inhabited by others is not debatable at all.
    Shirin (not Sherry) – Of course it is! The entire history of mankind has been one of migrations over artificial land masses called “continents”. Why isn’t it debatable? Because you say so?
    Again, it is a fact that a significant portion of the Palestinian population immigrated only in the the 19th century from Africa (primarily from Egypt and Algeria), which is a different continent, as well as from the Balkans which, I will remind you are in Europe.
    And, while you may be correct about the Arab portion of the Ottoman Empire (although I don’t think it is accurate to say that the populations were maintained, in situ, as they were prior to the breakup), let’s not forget that there were significant population exchanges – accompanied by expulsions of entire populations – between Turkey and Greece.

55. I don’t know, Shirin (not Sherry). You seem to be providing us with comic relief all the time!

56. N. Friedman, your “facts” are obvious distortions on the face of it. To take just one example, Yagyaseni said above:
    I will agree that Palestinians massacred Israelis if you agree that agree that Israelis have massacred Palestinians on a greater scale.
    Looking at the history of Israel since the Zionist movement started, it’s very hard to argue with this and, indeed, Israeli historians have acknowledged it to be true.
    You responded by smoothly moving the goalposts by including the Nazi holocaust, which the Arabs had nothing to do with. You use that as the basis to say “massacres had occurred on both sides, with Jews getting the worst of it”.
    Your posts are saturated with this style of argumentation. I don’t see the point in arguing with you. However, if there’s anyone here who’s not a partisan of one side who would like me to address any of N. Friedman’s points, I’ll try to do so.

57. No Preference,
    You write: “You responded by smoothly moving the goalposts by including the Nazi holocaust, which the Arabs had nothing to do with.”
    That statement is simply untrue. In fact, the Arabs – and, more particularly, Arabs of Palestine but also some from Egypt and Iraq and elsewhere – were intimately involved. More importantly, an agreement was reached between the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs and the Nazis to exterminate all of historic Palestine’s Jews. That is a fact. That makes the Arab involvement a lot more than you believe.
    Further, the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs worked hard to preclude Jews from escaping the Nazis. The documentation on this point is overwhelming. So, this is another fact.
    Historical negationism by you does not change facts. I suggest you read:
    Halbmond und Hakenkreuz. Das “Dritte Reich”, die Araber und Palästina, (trans. “Crescent Moon and Swastika: The Third Reich, the Arabs, and Palestine”), by Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers.
    [According to these esteemed authors, a special ss commando unit was set up in 1942. It accompanied Rommel’s African Panzer Army. Its orders were essentially identical to those of the infamous Einsatzgruppen that accompanied the Wehrmacht in its invasion of the USSR (that were responsible for the murder of upwards of one million Soviet Jews). Such occurred by agreement by al-Husseini, on behalf of the Arabs, and the Nazis.]
    Der Mufti von Jerusalem und die Nationalsozialisten (trans. “The Mufti of Jerusalem and the National Socialists”), by Klaus Gensicke.
    [According to Gensicke, al-Husseini worked particularly hard in late June of 1943, appealing to both the Romanian and Hungarian Foreign Ministers with appeals similar to his successful appeal in May of that year (that undermined Bulgarian plans to allow some 4000 Jewish children, with 500 adults, to escape the Nazis). In fact, he urged the Romanians to send such people to Poland – and, he was, in fact, aware of what was going on in Poland. The Romanian government had planned to permit around 75,000 to 80,000 Jews to escape the Nazis.]
    Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11, by Matthias Küntzel.
    [According to Küntzel, the Islamist movement was in part financed by the Nazis. The Nazis were involved in preparing propaganda. And, Nazi themes remain embedded in Islamist propaganda (e.g. in the Hamas covenant) to this date. N.’s Note: In fact, all one needs to see this is so to read the approval by Hamas of the Nazi propaganda that Jews are behind all wars that have occurred over the centuries and are part of a plot as set forth in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as discussed in the Hamas covenant and in Hamas propaganda and in interviews of Hamas officials.]
    I also suggest you read, when it is released in the very near future, Jeffrey Herf’s book which will detail al-Husseini and others who worked tirelessly to inject anti-Jewish themes into Arab political and social discourse.
    Lastly, I remind you that the Nazis were the substantial funders for the Palestinian uprising in the 1930’s.
    So, please do not lecture me on this.

58. No Preference, I’d say that you made a very specific assertion in regard to N’s posts: that is that 80% was highly distorted or questionably sourced and that another 10% were outright lies. N. responded by asking you to substantiate your assertions – a very reasonable request, seeing as you are calling him a liar. You then responded with one “example”. Unfortunately, that’s not something that N. asserted as part of the argument you or Yagyaseni referred to which was (as you quoted, which may be the only accurate statement in your post):
    I will agree that Palestinians massacred Israelis if you agree that agree that Israelis have massacred Palestinians on a greater scale.
    Your (not very knowledgable) response to this is that:
    Looking at the history of Israel since the Zionist movement started, it’s very hard to argue with this and, indeed, Israeli historians have acknowledged it to be true.
    However, this is not true at all through 1948. Palestinian massacres of Jews were, from the rise of the modern Zionist enterprise at the end of the 19th century until the end of the Arab-Israeli War in 1949, pretty much equal.
    Your final paragraph is a complete cop-out, because you neither admit that you can’t substantiate your charges against N, nor do you agree to substantiate it in the future except if “there’s anyone here who’s not a partisan of one side.” Lots of luck and shame on you.

59. Yes massacres are depressing and makes one wonder at the depravity of us humans!
    I must disagree with you – not all but other massacres were committed with the purpose of ‘eliminate the target of the massacre’ and not circumstantial. Belittling crimes committed against others to inflate the horror of one is being unfair and even cruel to others. Zionism uses the the immense sufferings of the Jews to achieve political gains (by making Israel a Greater Israel) at the cost of inflicting sufferings to Palestinians.
    When I wrote “stealing a country” it referred to the partition of Palestine (by the Allies through UN) to create Israel and not to the purchases Zionists made since late 1800s. And contrary to the widespread inaccurate lie, Palestine and Palestinians did exist before the first aliyah. Palestine was not a land without people for people without land.
    Zionism chooses select few inaccurate myths and select few hate-speeches to persuade itself and others about its rightness. Zionists dancing while Gazans were dying is not lie- you can see the pictures in WSJ archives if you wish to ascertain the veracity. There will not be any solution if we focus on hate-speech on either side (there is no dearth of this from the Zionists too!).
    Jews of course were prepared to share everything they got from Palestinians but why would the Palestinians agree to give away half of theirs and share?
    Claiming that ‘an absence on the Arab side of those who think, as many Israelis think, that peace ultimately requires acceptance of an Arab state along side Israel.’ is not quite right – it maybe an Israeli fear but one’s fear is not necessarily a reality! No country in this world would even think of attacking Israel given its military might and powerful allies and even if anyone (however foolish and strong) dares to, the whole world will fight against it. It is irrational and cruel to reject Palestinian freedom and statehood by constantly feeding on one’s own fear and using this feeble excuse. This leads to Israelis living under constant self-generated trauma and feeling of perpetual victimhood while inflicting atrocities onto Palestinians.
    Israel rejected the 2002 Saudi proposal offered Israel recognition by the Arab countries, including into peace agreements and normalisation of relations if Israel would:
    – withdraw from all territories occupied by Israel since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war,
    – provide a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem, and
    – recognize the establishment of a sovereign and independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
    In the last (and for over twenty years) United Nations General Assembly vote on resolving the conflict, the vote for the Two-State Solution was 164 to 7: the whole world on one side saying the two-state settlement and the resolution of the refugee question — and the other side is the United States, Israel, and a few islands in the South Pacific.
    Do these actions (and the ever increasing settlements) indicate any desire for peace? to end the occupation? No, Israel wants to force its will on the Palestinians by denying them their elementary right to self-determination and statehood.
    No, I have mentioned the greenhouses thing after ascertaining the facts and have not got them backwards!
    More facts about the greenhouses:-
    1) Evidently Israel claims that the generous purchase of the greenhouses did not include water infrastructure which was razed by the IDF. So the first crop was destroyed by lack of water. Eventually Palestinians repaired the damage, replaced the razed water infrastructure and got the Greenhouses back in production. When the first crop was ready for market, Israel closed the border. Millions of dollars worth of produce ended up rotting in containers sitting at the border. Since then Israel has consistently closed the borders every time the greenhouse growers try to export their produce. As a result most operators have gone bankrupt.
    2) After months of intense negotiations recently culminating in a deal allowing for the transfer of Gaza’s greenhouses to the Palestinians, several former Jewish residents who briefly returned to their farms told WND they were shocked to find most of their produce has died because Israel turned off the water in the area. “I couldn’t believe it. Almost all of my crops are dead, and the rest is dying,” Anita Tucker, one of the pioneer farmers of Jewish Gaza told WND. “I hope the Palestinians aren’t expecting fresh produce. … A fortune in crops is now all gone.”

60. Yag, No Pref:
    Feel any better now that you tried to talk sense to these insane psychotic jewish bigots? Every word and every sentence they write or say is a lie. Every historical fact has been perverted and turned into a lie. The entire creation of that ‘sh-tty little country’ was based on a lie and was a crime against innocents. One of their earlier insane leaders these sociopaths to act like a ‘rabid dog’ against their neighbours. Well you just got bit by the few that inhabit this board.

61. Yagyaseni,
    One. You assert that not all of the noted massacres were circumstantial. Please describe one that was not circumstantial.
    Two. I am not belittling anyone’s crimes and your argument that Jews use crimes of others as cover to inflict suffering is a lie. And, the “scholarship” that claims that has been shown to be fraudulent.
    Three. How could the partition of Palestine amount to stealing a country? That makes no sense. There were two populations which owned land legally but could not get along. When it was time to create a country for the first time, it was perfectly natural to divide the land on an ethnic basis so as to limit the dispute. But, in fact, such plan was never implemented and the UN had no authority and the allies had no army in place to divide the country. So, what you write is nonsense.
    Neither the Allies nor the UN did a thing to divide the country. They merely recommended. And, the one country with direct but declining influence in the area (and the world), the UK, did not vote in favor of partition at the UN and, in fact, opposed efforts to partition after WWII. In fact, the Arab Legion army was led in battle against the Jews of newly proclaimed Israel by a British general and British pilots flew Egyptian planes in the 1948 war.
    Four. I agree that the land was populated. So what? Migration is one of the norms of human history, with population shifts having occurred as the norm, not the exception. And, that is certainly true in historic Palestine, with substantial parts of the population claiming to be Palestinian not having any local roots. So, I think that is a nonsense argument.
    On the other hand, the population that lived in the area did not, prior to objection of Zionism, tend often, if at all, to define itself as Palestinian. The bulk of the population, up to the 19th Century and even into the 20th Century, thought of itself primarily as Muslim (or, for some, Christian and Jew) and, later, Arab and sometimes Syrian Arab. So, the identification of a people as Palestinian or, as I prefer, Palestinian Arabs has a short, not a long history. At this point, the Palestinian Arab identity is a real one and has to be addressed.
    Five. I did not say that Palestinian Arabs ought to wanted to share. I said that many thought that the Zionist project advanced the interest of Palestinian Arabs; hence, many favored Zionism or, for some, thought it compatible with the aims of such Arabs.
    Six. Why would the “world” fight to help Israel? That did not happen when Israel was invaded in 1973. In fact, most European countries worked to block even efforts by the US to re-supply Israel. In any event, military advantage is a fleeting thing. So, if it is really true that Israel’s army is invincible today, that is a temporary thing.
    Israel did not address the Saudi offer because it includes provision that Israel take in the children of refugees – which is not acceptable. It also requires Israel to return to the 1967 armistice line, which is also unacceptable. So, the plan was not accepted.

62. Zionists dancing while Gazans were dying is not lie- you can see the pictures in WSJ archives if you wish to ascertain the veracity.
    Gee Yagyaseni, do you think that that just might have had something to do with the fact that the photos were taken on December 28th, the last light of Hannukah?
    The crops that Ms. Tucker was talking about were ones that she planted. There is also no mention anywhere in the Worldnet Daily article about the electricity having been turned off. You might find this article from the CSM interesting:
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1025/p04s01-wome.html
    It quite explicitly states that the greenhouses were looted by Palestinians shortly after they were turned over to the PA.
    Perhaps you’re correct that no one, least of all the Palestinians, want to attack Israel. But then, the Palestinians and Arabs were foolish enough to do so before. What they got in return was the nakba. And Hamas has been reckless enough to endanger its population by firing rockets into Israel.
    Belittling crimes committed against others to inflate the horror of one is being unfair and even cruel to others.
    I must agree with you here as well. Comparing Gaza with the Warsaw ghetto or the killing of scores of Palestinians with the Holocaust, as is often done here, is definitely cruel to the memory of the six million Jews who died in WWII.

63. “Belittling crimes committed against others to inflate the horror of one is being unfair and even cruel to others.”
    Belittling crimes committed against others in order to shine an exclusive spotlight on the suffering of one’s own group is narcissistic.
    “Jews of course were prepared to share everything they got from Palestinians…”
    Actually, the historical record shows clearly that only a very few Zionists on the fringe were prepared to share what they got with anyone. Starting with Herzl they clearly recognized that the creation and maintenance of a Jewish state necessitated clearing the land of the non-Jewish indigenous population, and they considered and used a variety of means to accomplish this, including terrorism and mass expulsions. Major systematic ethnic cleansing efforts involving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians took place in 1948, and 1967 (including the most successful ethnic cleansing to date in the Golan Heights), and ethnic cleansing has been continuous on a slower and smaller scale inside Israel since 1948, and in occupied territories since 1967.
    “an absence on the Arab side of those who think, as many Israelis think, that peace ultimately requires acceptance of an Arab state along side Israel.”
    There is no such absence on the Arab side. The Palestinians have been ready to make peace with Israel since the ’80’s, and have made numerous good faith efforts in that direction, which have either been rebuffed by Israel, or used by Israel as a cover to continue its slow ethnic cleansing and establishment of facts on the ground intended to obviate the creation of a Palestinian state. Seven years ago the Arab League unanimously passed a peace initiative in which they offered to Israel everything it claims it wants – peace, recognition, and full diplomatic and economic relations. All that the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab states require of Israel is that it complies with international law and its agreement to UNSC 242 by withdrawing from territories it occupied in 1943, that it leave the Palestinians to form and maintain their own state in the 1967 occupied territoris, and that they address the issue of the Palestinian refugees, and negotiate an agreement to settle this issue. This offer has been on the table for seven years, and for seven years Israel has refused to even treat it as an encouraging sign, let alone as a basis for negotiation.
    The excuses offered by the Israeli side for giving the middle finger for seven years to the unanimous peace offer from the Arab League are bogus on their face. All one needs to do is thoughtfully read the text of the offer itself to understand that.
    It is true that there is no peace partner on the other side. Israel has consistently acted in bad faith and has consistently showed contempt for good faith efforts on the part of the Palestinians and the Arabs to settle the dispute. Israel was not even satisfied with the peace agreements it did reach with Jordan and Egypt, one of their complaints being that Egyptians and Jordanians still will not declare love for Israel, and Egyptian and Jordanian tourists have not flooded into Israel.

64. “you just got bit by the few that inhabit this board.”
    I haven’t seen any biting at all, just a lot of meaningless, and rather frantic, barking and yapping.
    No one here has been bitten.
    As for yourself, we do not need an anti-Semite here, and we need even less an anti-Semite using an alias clearly intended to give the impression that s/he is a Muslim.

65. Hmmmmmmmmmmm anything that does not suit you is false or fraudulent or nonsense?
    Israel was legalised by UN’s recommendation of partitioning Palestine to make a homeland for Jews from wherever they lived to Palestine – shall we call it a cesarean birth?
    In 1947, Palestine had 32% Jews (majority of them immigrants), 7% Christians and 60% Muslims (all figures from Wikipedia). All Muslims, Christians and small proportion of Jews were Arabs. UN (i.e. the Allies) disproportionately partitioned 56% of Palestine into Israel and remaining 44% into Palestine. The Jew immigrants had not ‘bought’ all (some yes but not much) this 56% of land from Arabs – it was a gift to the Zionist movement. Dispossessing the Palestinian Arabs of their lands and driving them out of their country provoked the inevitable reaction of a people attached to their land. Anyway creation or existence of Israel is not my point of contention, but its current occupation of Palestine is!!!
    The existence of Palestine and Palestinians was a rebuttal to someone else’s comment that it was empty. I do not agree with your claim that ‘substantial parts of the population claiming to be Palestinian not having any local roots.’
    The population that lived in Palestine may not have defined itself as Palestinian but it did identify itself strongly as Arabs (irrespective of their religion!). The Palestinian Arab identity naturally became strong after their rights to their lands and homes and their existence were in jeopardy!
    1973 War – oh you mean the one war where Israel failed to strike pre-emptively? Surely you cannot have forgotten that the US directly participated in the 1973 war, when Israel seemed to be threatened and this caused a drastic shift in the situation.
    Why the delay in US help? On commencement of hostilities, American leaders expected the tide of the war to quickly shift in favor of the better-equipped IDF and that Arab armies would be completely defeated within 72 to 96 hours. American supplies to Israel until then had consisted of ammunition, particularly AT and AA ammunition. It became clear however by October 9 that no such quick reversal would occur, and that IDF losses were unexpectedly high.
    I agree that ‘In any event, military advantage is a fleeting thing.’ but seriously doubt think that ‘Israel’s army is invincible today’. Considering that military might (and indeed everything in the long run) is fleeting, why make end the occupation and resolve this conflict now when Israel has an upper hand?
    Oh so you do state that Israel will not end its occupation and return to 1967 borders ever?
    As regards the right of return, Palestinian refugees and their children may agree to return to Palestinian state if they even were one! No, Israel wants entire Palestine sans the Palestinians.
    Muezzin, you maybe right but I guess its just a feeble attempt to clear the cobwebs of myths and lies. Anyway I tried my best and am off for now.

66. A star is born
    I saw President Obbama as a star in his european tour. He was emotionally speaking about an empty world of nuclear weapons. His dream of ” yes we can ” means we can make change sounds wonderful but it could be hard to realise.
    Anyway, I appreciate his feeling about two state solution to the Palestinian Israeli issue. I hope he will stick to this noble emotion and works hard to translate it into two real states living alongside each other. Until then, I can tell a President Obbama is born and merits a noble price and not the Oscar.
    Hafid

67. At the cost of reiteration “Evidently Israel claims that the generous purchase of the greenhouses did not include water infrastructure which was razed by the IDF. So the first crop was destroyed by lack of water.” It was sad that some greenhouses were looted by Palestinians but Israel is just as much to blame considering that they were not quite work-able due to aforementioned lack of water! I dint make up Anita Tucker and her comment; she referred to the destruction of the crops she had planted caused by lack of water.
    Nakba Day (Arabic: يوم النكبة yawm al-nakba — 15 May) meaning “day of the catastrophe” is an annual day of commemoration for the Palestinian people of the “anniversary of the creation of Israel” which marks the beginning of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. It is catastrophic for them and indeed would be for anyone to themselves kicked out of their land and houses.
    Yeah well I don’t see the point of the Qassam rockets given their inaccuracy. But why do you forget that it is resistance to occupation? and not an act of aggression like war and like occupation. End the occupation if you wish to get rid of the Qassams!
    Each suffering is unique in its way and not quite comparable! But perpetually spotlighting Jews’ sufferings while inflicting atrocities onto Palestinians reeks of hypocrisy.

68. “All Muslims, Christians…were Arabs.”
    That is not factually correct. There were significant communities of non-Arab Christians and other non-Arabs who were neither Muslim nor Christian, as was the case throughout the region, and as remains the case today in most of the region. Some of the Christian communities appear to have been descended from Jews who converted to Christianity. Many of these non-Arab communities pre-dated Arabs in Palestine. There were also some Muslims who were not Arab.
    What the Palestinians called themselves at any given time is irrelevant, as is whether or not they were all Arabs (they were not). What is relevant is that for centuries before the Zionist project began Palestine was legitimately inhabited by human communities most of which had lived continuously in Palestine for centuries and even millennia. Those communities were intentionally and systematically robbed of their property, their livelihood, their lives, and their rights in order to enable the creation by a group of Europeans of a Jewish State. What is relevant is that a huge injustice was and continues to be committed against the communities and individuals who legitimately inhabited Palestine.

69. Yagyaseni,
    Spotlight is focused on by me on Palestinian Arabs with reference to their contribution to what occurred to Jews in WWII. Your contention is that Arabs were innocent and, for that reason, should not have been forced to take in Jews. The facts are otherwise. The facts are that the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs significantly contributed to the effort to eradicate all Jews from the Earth. That means that Palestinian Arabs bear some moral responsibility for what occurred.
    The fact is that the Nazis lost WWII. Had it been the other way around, Jews in historic Palestine would most likely have all been exterminated, per the agreement reached between the Nazis and the al-Husseini, with support of his associates in historic Palestine and the surrounding area.
    And, al-Husseini was directly involved in making it impossible for Jews to find refuge during WII, which led to the deaths of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people.
    Again, the innocent Palestinian Arabs story is a myth. Rather, Palestinian Arabs bear greater responsibility than do some of the other powers allied with the Nazis.
    Now, that is not hyping on Jewish suffering. It is, instead, focusing on your arguments that are contrary to fact.
    As for the purchase of land… Before the Jews were attacked by Arabs in Israel’s war of Independence, the land possessed by Jews was purchased. You confuse the administration of law, which would have been run by Jews in some areas under partition, with the ownership of parcels of land, which is a private matter and does not depend on who rules. You also confuse the time before Israel’s creation and after, with the purchases occurring in the earlier period. [Note: this issue remains to this day, with the still ongoing threats of death to Arabs who sell land to Jews.]
    It is correct that Jews were awarded governance of a larger share of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. However, the additional land was mostly desert. So, your objection is that Jews obtained portions of the desert to administer. And, as I noted, one can be awarded rule over land but that does not determine who lives on any given parcel of land under that rule.
    Further, historic Palestine is not limited to the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. And, Jews were precluded from living in the portion of historic Palestine that was east of the Jordan River. So, your partition analysis is not factual.
    As for the rest of your comments, European countries precluded, for the most part, fly-over rights for American resupply efforts. Hence, your argument that the “world” – your words – would help Israel are untrue. The US helped Israel, which is true. The reasons are open to dispute.
    The argument about what percentage of the country was of what faith are irrelevant. What is relevant is that there was a dispute which could not be reconciled under one government. Hence, the idea of partition.
    I do not believe that Israel will ever cede all of the land obtained in 1967. I do not think that Israel should, in fact, cede all such land. Given the state of the Arab regions just now, I do not think, unless things change, that Israel should cede any more land and, in fact, I do not think they will cede any more land until things in the Arab regions change. They would be fools to cede land now.

70. Hafid, bro
    Don’t fall for this two state nonsense. There is only one state in Palestine – and it is an Arab state. Any talk of 2 states or jewish nation is defeatist by nature and legitimates that which is illegitimate since inception. European colonisation of Africa, Asia is a dead issue no matter how much the jews quote their holy books and other nonsense. These people cannot live with the other unless they have their jack boot on the other’s neck. It is a matter of time before they are kicked out and there won’t be any truth and reconciliation commissions so they can get their ill gotten gains out. The Friedmans and the JESs and the bbs can travel from thousands of miles away, get a house paid by someone else (mostly dumb Americans), have people who have lived there for thousands of years evicted, tortured and killed and their houses demolished, and they have ready justification for these nefarious activities. If you think Barack Hussein Osama is going to help, think again. All his money is stinking jewish money; do you think he is going to seriously do anything to upset these warmongering supremacist zio-anglo elite.

71. In 1947, Palestine had 32% Jews (majority of them immigrants), 7% Christians and 60% Muslims (all figures from Wikipedia). All Muslims, Christians and small proportion of Jews were Arabs.
    Not entirely the case, as Shirin (not Sherry) points out. But close enough.
    UN (i.e. the Allies) disproportionately partitioned 56% of Palestine into Israel and remaining 44% into Palestine.
    As N. has pointed out, the majority of the land allocated to the Jewish state was desert, and, yes, for the most part this was uninhabited.
    The Jew immigrants had not ‘bought’ all (some yes but not much) this 56% of land from Arabs – it was a gift to the Zionist movement.
    No. This is absolutely unfounded. Over the years, Jewish immigrants bought from the local inhabitants a fair portion of the freehold land (land available for purchase under the Ottoman (and later Mandatory) land reform law from 1858. Under this law, approximately 70% of all the land in Palestine was state land (a fact to which Hamas, for example, alludes in its Covenenant). Another approximately 20% was “freehold” land which could be bought and sold, and the remaining ~10% was classified as wasteland.
    As soon as the Mandatory Forces and Government left Palestine and the Zionists declared Israel as an independent state, the vast majority of the land – the State Lands – fell under their administration (just as it had under the Mandatory and the Ottomans before them).
    Dispossessing the Palestinian Arabs of their lands and driving them out of their country provoked the inevitable reaction of a people attached to their land.
    Again, Yagyaseni, you appear to have confused cause and effect. Pretty much by all accounts, the Palestinian Arabs were only “dispossessed” and “driven” from their lands after they, themselves had violently opposed the partition. In other words, to claim that violence is the “inevitable reaction” is simply to miss the point.
    Israeli historians, including most of the “New Historians”, don’t place the chronology in this order.
    While the main part of the Palestinian leadership did leave immediately after Partition (and the wealthiest left even before the UNGAR 181 came to a vote), the bulk of the population stayed, and their militias tried to drive the Jews out. (See E. Karsh.) The fact that they didn’t succeed can, perhaps, be attributed to the fact that they simply did not have any place to go.

72. Nakba Day (Arabic: يوم النكبة yawm al-nakba — 15 May) meaning “day of the catastrophe” is an annual day of commemoration for the Palestinian people of the “anniversary of the creation of Israel” which marks the beginning of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. It is catastrophic for them and indeed would be for anyone to themselves kicked out of their land and houses.
    Yes, Yagyaseni, I am well aware of what the term nakba means today. I am also well aware of the history of the term, which is credited to George Antonious in the late 1930s. Originally, this term meant the loss of Arab lands, without reference to the Palestinian people (whom the other Arabs held largely responsible for not having stayed to defend them). It was only in the 1970s that Yom en-Nakba took on its present meaning.
    Again, you seem to have things confused. It was mostly the violent opposition of the Palestinians – encouraged by their own leaders and the Arab Leage – that resulted in their being “kicked out of their land and houses”. For example, the Siege of Jerusalem which began on December 1, 1947, almost immediately after the UN vote for Partition, was aimed at starving the Jews out of the city in which they were a two-thirds majority. Heavy sniper and mortar fire on Tel Aviv from Jaffa (with the complicity of Yugoslavian Muslim volunteers – presumably trained by the Nazis as part of the Mufti’s forces) is another example.
    

73. Actually, the historical record shows clearly that only a very few Zionists on the fringe were prepared to share what they got with anyone. Starting with Herzl they clearly recognized that the creation and maintenance of a Jewish state necessitated clearing the land of the non-Jewish indigenous population,…
    Well, well Shirin (not Sherry). Could you please substantiate this? I suspect that what you are basing this on is a variety of snippets of personal musings from diaries and quotes taken out of context.
    I also find it interesting that you mention the Golan Heights here. First, because we’re talking about Palestine, and I’m sure that the Syrians, including the chinless Alawite ophthomologist, would be interested that this is, in fact, part of Greater Palestine and not the other way around.
    However, of more interest is the fact that the reason that vast majority of Golan refugees (from al-Quneitra and its environs) have not been repatriated to this day is directly the result of the Assads. The chinless eyedoctor’s father explicitly agreed in 1974 under the Separation of Forces Agreement that, upon Israeli withdrawal from al-Quneitra and its environs, all refugees would be allowed to return. It’s been 35 years, and only a small number have been allowed by the Government of Syria to return, with the town having been turned into a museum of Israeli perfidy.
    At any rate, I forgot to wish you a Happy Pesah! All the best.

74. This offer has been on the table for seven years, and for seven years Israel has refused to even treat it as an encouraging sign, let alone as a basis for negotiation.
    Not exactly Shirin (not Sherry). First, the Palestinian side initally rejected this offer out of hand because originally there was no mention of Palestinian refugees as originally submitted by Saudi Prince Abdullah to the Arab League for ratification. (And, for what it’s worth, is the Arab League really the right address? I mean I thought that not all Palestinians were Arabs.)
    Second, numerous parties in Israel – including the President and Prime Minister – have stated over the past seven years that this is both an encouraging sign and that it could form the basis for negotiation. The problem is, that it is the Arab League that has stated that this offer is a “take-it-or-leave-it” offer and not open to negotiation.

75. oh dear and goodness gracious.
    I have often read accounts by EU and US mediators over the years that when Palestinian and Israeli negotiators are brought together they immediately spend 20 minutes vitrolically re-fighting the zionist invasion of the early 20th century and the war of ’47 and ’48.
    Then, after 20 minutes of mutual abuse all about the rights and injustices of the first half of the last century, in the flash of an eye they suddenly proceed to tough but civilised negotiations about NOW. All without so much as drawing breath?
    Reminds me of comments threads like this one has turned into, except you lot never get down to the negotiation part.

76. the plethora of JES’s, bb’s, N’s, comments amounts to the access denial attack by the “you know who”….

77. Bysta, just don’t listen to the noise.

78. Gawlee Bysta, why don’t you explain to those of us who aren’t in the know, who the “you know who” are?

79. BTW Bysta, I don’t think that Helena has to worry about an access denial attack. LOL.

80. …except you lot never get down to the negotiation part.
    That’s probably because the majority of people here don’t really have any personal stake. When actual Israelis and Palestinians get together, both sides realize that they are going to have to live together (despite what some people argue here), and that means focusing on the future rather than on the past.

81. Gawlee Bysta, why don’t you explain to those of us who aren’t in the know, who the “you know who” are?
    Bysta & co. are so unglued from reality they actually think the “zio-anglo elite” would HIRE people to troll Helena’s wee corner of cyberspace.
    Keep it coming! “Access denial attack???” Hysterical.

82. The Jew immigrants had not ‘bought’ all (some yes but not much) this 56% of land from Arabs – it was a gift to the Zionist movement.
    JES could you state to us here clearly the sources of this gifted land came from?
    the majority of the land allocated to the Jewish state was desert, and, yes, for the most part this was uninhabited.
    According to this JES/NF theory then some religious/ community groups any where on this planet should they do same and make state for them?

83. Salah,
    My understanding is that Jews bought large tracts of land from both local owners and absentee owners. In fact, many Arabs were murdered by the those associated with the Husseini family for the crime of selling to Jews. Be that as it may, the issue involved does not turn on how much land was purchased but on the fact that the land was no longer going to be ruled by the British and, as such, new governance was needed in order to avoid a chaotic situation.
    As I see things, the fact of governance by this or that local group or party is a different issue from who gets to live on specific tracts of the land governed by this or that local group – whether that group is Jewish, Armenian, Arab, Turkish or Bosnian. So, I do not see the issue of land ownership percentages as being particularly important except that, for some reason, governance by Jews is considered a controversial matter to many Arabs.
    Perhaps, there were and remain strongly held prejudices held by Arabs regarding Jews, which led (and still leads) to violence aimed towards preventing Jews from participating in the country’s governance.

84. If Americans want apartheid zionists to have their very own “Jewish” state, then Americans should invite the Apartheid Zionist Entity to relocate to America and set up a New-Jersey-size “reservation” for any apartheid zionist who wishes to live there. Then, apartheid zionists can pay American taxes and serve in the American foreign legion in Iraq and Afghanistan — instead of leaching off the American taxpayers who, like the Palestinian Arabs, had nothing to do with German persecution of European Jews (and many tens of millions more non-Jews) in WWII. If Jews have a beef with Germany, they should take it up with Germany and leave Americans and Palestinian Arabs out of the argument. It doesn’t concern us.
    Those who argue in favor of the Apartheid Zioniist Entity’s “right” to “exist” argue nothing but that theft by apartheid zionists carries within itself the very definition of “legality.” Proponents of America-subsidized Apartheid Zionism do not — because they cannot — advance logical “reasons” to back up their simply avaricious assertions. They can only spew rationalizations for robbery. Since I do not subscribe to any form of Single Spook Animism nor the concept of a “master-race”/”chosen people” (chosen by themselves to take whatever they want from anyone else who has it) I therefore completely reject the animist/racist foundations of the Apartheid Zionist Entity. If any such abomination does actually “exist,” then it clearly shouldn’t.

85. Perhaps, there were and remain strongly held prejudices held by Arabs regarding Jews, which led (and still leads) to violence aimed towards preventing Jews from participating in the country’s governance.
    Its not “Perhaps”, both sides of the conflicts held their prejudices.
    Let me first correct your missleading tag of “prejudices held by Arabs regarding Jews” its not jews here NF, with due respect of your view Arab have humilated and lied upon them by British, fooled them when thier land was given to a group of a political iodyology that used the Torah and Judaism to made thier case for occupying land, have nothing to due what Jews suffered in Europe(East & West). They did used that suffering of Jews to support thier claims.
    Anyway, I know you’r answers and views but these are facts, however I did not claiming here Jews did not suffer under Islamic State but comparing with what Jews suffered out of that state is much worse and awful..
    Btw NF, While we appreciate your replay, my question was paused to JES not you, so we still waiting for JES to Answer it here…

86. Right Michael. I think we all understand your twaddle about the “A.Z.E.”, and I don’t think that anyone here is really impressed.
    The fact is that Israel was established 61 years ago. Most of it’s population was born there, and to implement your plan would cause additional pain and suffering for some 6.5 million people.
    For my part, I think that if you can’t really say anything truly constructive, then perhaps you should just shut up.

87. Btw NF, While we appreciate your replay, my question was paused to JES not you, so we still waiting for JES to Answer it here…
    I, quite frankly, do not understand your questions. But here goes:
    The first quote, which you misattributed to me, was actually from Yagyaseni’s attempt at argument. My detailed response (which you can see in detail in my post at April 19, 2009 02:37 AM) was that the majority of this land were state lands that had passed to the UN from the League of Nations as the Mandatory, and from the Ottomans to the League of Nations at the end of WWI. Addtionally, I added that this land had passed in the 16th century to the Ottoman Empire as part of the waqf lands from the original Arab conquest of Palestine.
    I know that it is often implied that because the Jews only actually owned 6% of the land of Palestine that the Arabs owned the remaining 94% This is absolutely untrue. Under the tanzimat reforms of 1858 the vast majority of lands were held by the state, and not as freehold.
    In answer to your second question is, fundamentally, “yes”. I don’t see why not.
    And now, I will go back to ignoring your rants.

88. And now, I will go back to ignoring your rants.
    humm… just cut and run …..Very obvious who post “Rant” here,each time you commenting here our posting bluff .
    You advice here ( at April 1, 2009 05:01 AM:)still valid to yourself is time to forgot your 2500 history argument each time when it comes to Arab and Jews on same land they lived together not your ilk Zionist who making their hoax version of the history….
    Btw, if “League of Nations” taken the land what authority for here taken land that state owned land?
    Even though should the land reserved to the original people who lived thousands of years on that land and should not given to gangs immigrated fro East Europe or other places calming they have religious rights to live on that land..
    Did “League of Nations” at any time did made any thing like what done.
    And btw, who are those in “League of Nations”? the new colonist looters who loots the nations in Africa ME, and other places around the world, isn’t JES?

89. Most of it’s population was born there,
    I don’t have figures but this looks untrue from the history of massive waves of immigrates brought from around the world and handed new settlements and government / Zionist grants to come and live in Israel.

90. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/981336.html
    69 percent of Israeli Jews native born – 2008 stats.

91. Btw, if “League of Nations” taken the land what authority for here taken land that state owned land?
    By the same authority that the Ottomans did 400 years earlier and by the same authority that the Arabs took it over some 900 years before that!
    …have humilated and lied upon them by British, fooled them when thier land was given to a group of a political iodyology that used the Torah and Judaism to made thier case for occupying land…
    I see. Why don’t you tell us about how the Arabs were “tricked” by the Allies out of their land by the wicked British and Jews? Or, perhaps the Arabs bear just some of the responsibility for the costs they have inflicted upon themselves?

92. Salah,
    Of course, JES is giving you the standard Zionist bogus argument that excuses ethnic cleansing which was not the intent of the League of Nations, or the UN, and if you want to go all the way back to Balfour, was explicitly not the intent there (but then, neither was a Jewish state the intent of Balfour).
    Also bogus is the “state land” claim, which ignores the fact that the land was legally and legitimately inhabited by non-Jewish Palestinians for many centuries, and that there was no legal or legitimate justification for what the Zionists did. In fact, if it had been legally justifiable for the Zionists to ethnically cleanse the land they were granted in UNGA 181, it would not have been necessary for them to use terrorism, massacres, and direct expulsion to accomplish the ethnic cleansing.
    And finally, of course, JES does not bother to offer any justification for the additional land grabs that Israel did in 1948-49, that were not exactly “gifts” to the Zionists by anyone. But I am sure he has some bogus justification for that as well.

93. Shirin, I see that my response went completely over your head. No one here even raised the issue of “ethnic cleansing”. Salah – mistaking (as usual) my citing of a quote by Yagyaseni – “requested” clarification. I gave it.
    Sure it was not the intent of the League of Nations, the UN or the Balfour Declaration that there should be “ethnic cleansing”, so why don’t you respond to my posting on this thread at explaining exactly how this “ethnic cleansing” was an integral part of mainstream Zionist ideology.
    I don’t deny, nor do I try to justify, the ethnic cleansing that occurred during 1948-49. However, this was a war of ethnic cleansing on both sides, and just because the Arab side lost, does not make their case any more just. (In fact, the pattern of “ethnic cleansing” exhibited by the Arab side would tend to present that side as being more systematic.)

94. vadim, Thank you I don’t trust Israeli sources or references.
    So I don’t believe in one letter they typed

95. …I don’t trust Israeli sources or references.
    Classic! LOL!!!

96. Looks I touch your nerves JES? That why brought you back to replay for my comment instead of ignoring them?
    I hope our friendly readers judging my guess here.
    It’s very surprising here we got two commentators JES & NF who claimed that they did not understand my questions or my sentences paused to them here, instead they said “go back to ignoring your rants” JES came back with more rant here.
    So the question is I believe it’s not my very poooooor English here, isn’t?
    IS he or are they honest by saying “I, quite frankly, do not understand your questions” or they “go back to ignoring your rants” So please our readers judge JES and help me here…
    Any way JES , I am not going to go further to correct historical facts and events here respecting first the owner of this space Helena Cobban, and also respecting our readers in regards to main post subject.
    But its very clear to me you dragging the comment further and further out of topics and I am not going to follow you in this simply you historical memory deformed or somehow out of the reality here.
    I believe our friends knew better than you what happen, 700 years of wars by crusade what western empires looking for in the region followed by WWI with Othman Empire collapse.
    ‘scrap of paper’ Balfour Declaration that changed history, Balfour Declaration led to the creation of the modern State of Israel as a land to which all Jews could return, if they wish.
    It’s not League of Nations as such JES.
    JES as one who born by an Arab family which have very close family relations and links of Jewish families and communities in Iraq on a very historic town “Babylon” and near by villages (Al-kifil and al-Massyab) no one can tell me more history than my history was, I can read it, I can small it and I breath the history of my land, it is all there on the land I borne on …..

97. I believe our friends knew better than you what happen, 700 years of wars by crusade what western empires looking for in the region followed by WWI with Othman Empire collapse.
    News Flash for Salah!
    Hey, the Muslims won the Crusades. They also won pretty much every encounter until 1683 when they lost the Battle of Vienna (which, BTW, I might remind you is deep within Central Europe). The Ottomans, before the outbreak of WWI, lost control of the Balkans (also in Europe), which they had controlled since the 16th century. They also lost control of their vassal state, Moldova (that’s where Lieberman comes from) to Russia. In other words, your argument about the Crusades and their aftermath for 700 years is pure whining. The Muslims never really gave up their agression until after WWI.
    Even in WWI, the Ottomans held out hope of recapturing their former empire by allying themselves with Germany and Austria. As the Karshes demonstrate, the Allies – and particularly Great Britain – did not have any real interest in a two-front war. However, the Young Turks declared a jihad against them anyway.
    As for the “Arab Revolt” who exactly “tricked” whom? The Sherif Hussein of the Hijaz lied about his influence in the Arab world and even about the numbers of Arabs who would join the revolt. (He never really managed to mobilize anyone except for the local Arabian tribes, and even they packed up and went home after it became clear there wouldn’t be anymore booty to loot.) And his son Faisal was constantly going behind British backs to seek a better deal from Constantinople. Hell, the Jewish Legion led by Trumpeldor and Jabotinsky was more loyal than the Arab “allies”!
    I’m really glad that you can “smell and breath” your history. But unless you are pushing 70, there’s no way that you have had contact with any more than a handful of Iraqi Jews. I, on the other hand, come into contact with them every day, and while they say some positive things about Iraq, they aren’t really anxious to go back. You see, Salah, they’ve gotten on with their lives rather than whining about having been tricked.

98. vadim, Thank you I don’t trust Israeli sources or references.
    that’s fascinating. what source of Israeli birth data would you trust that is not Israeli in origin??
    Leaving that aside, I’ve seen you quote Israeli sources many dozens of times. eg:
    https://vintage.justworldnews.org/archives/002276.html
    JES, read this from your local daily newspaper Haaretz, don’t forgot your Mossed running wiled in Iraq killing tens or hundreds of Iraqi JES…[sic]
    Not to mention the many incriminating soundbites you’ve compiled from Israeli politicians and statesmen. So when you tell us “I dont trust Israeli sources” it sounds a bit ridiculous. How then would you obtain ANY knowledge of Israel, if not from Israelis? Observation via satellite? ESP? Shirin’s internet pen pals?

99. JES, do not cry ‘murder’ sometime later in future, when the wheel of fortune turns again, and your ‘countrymen’ will be evicted from the ‘promised land’ by another more powerful “authority” — the US may not be there to stand by and save the day —think of that — just like 400 or 900 years ago the wheel of fortune turned, and you yourself have noticed that; sapienti sat

100. Hello. Zoo: An excellent place to study the habits of human beings.
     I am from Turkey and also now’m speaking English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Com search results – steelers wall clock.”
     Thank you so much for your future answers :P. Tyson.

Comments are closed.