By Ted Belman (first published Dec 10/14)
Two days ago I posted an article by Joel Pollak entitled Israel’s secular elite commit treason with “Palestine” letter. It was originally published by Breitbart’s and garnered considerable interest there from both the lovers and haters of Israel.
I exchanged comments with Justin and thought they should be posted here.
Justin • a day ago
Israel is playing with fire and its American apologists like Joel Pollak are stupidly fanning the flames.
The demographics are changing – the non-European Jews are having way more babies than their European counterparts while American Jews are increasingly embarrassed by Israeli politics and actions in the West Bank & Gaza. Support for Israel isn’t going to disappear overnight, but I think the Israelis overestimate American public support. Our support is not unconditional, nor should it be.
At some point it is fair to question whether the Israeli public wants peace more than it wants expansion, and I think we are well beyond that point. If Israel wants to act in a way that even Vladimir Putin wouldn’t condone, that’s Israel’s business, but Americans shouldn’t have to foot the bill.
Justin freedomfrind • a day ago
I will check it out, and I’ve seen some of the crap that the PA calls educational material, etc. There’s no equivalence in culture and civility between the two sides.
However, I must ask, regardless of Palestinian rhetoric, why does Israel continue to push settlements? What function does this serve? I am really curious to understand, because this is what troubles people like me who support Israel but feel it is undermining the process unnecessarily.
Ted Belman, Israpundit Justin • a day ago
Israel pushes settlements because Israel has the legal right to build in the territories and has never given up that right. Remember, the land is not occupied nor is it Palestinian and never was.
Secondly it is important to build so that the Arabs know time is not on their side. So long as they are not willing to compromise to find a solution the settlements will continue to grow. The moment Israel stops building the Arabs will have no incentive to settle as they alone will be able to build and they can wait 100 years. while they take advantage of the situation. Remember it is not their land and never was.
If you want to be informed of the law, facts and reasoning, on a daily basis, sign up for Israpundit’s Daily Digest. at israpundit.org
I wrote this article a few years ago but it answers your question.
The Truth About ‘The Occupation’ and ‘The Settlements’lJustin Ted Belman, Israpundit • 9 hours ago
I read your article but I don’t quite follow what you think Israel and the US ought to seek to achieve.You seem to argue that the settlements are not illegal because the territories they encroach are not “Palestinian” territories. You do mention Resolution 242 but argue it doesn’t apply because there is no occupied power… yet.
The US (including the Bush admin) and most of the Western world has supported a two-state settlement for some time. It is taken for granted that any peace accord would result in an eventual Palestinian state. But if that is the case, Israel would have very little incentive to sign such an agreement, because it is a small country that would like to get as much of the useful land in the West Bank and even Gaza as it can muster. The moment a Palestinian state comes into existence, new settlement activity would necessarily cease.
Meanwhile, the Palestinians claim that the settlements are a great source of anger. They clash with the settlers and often it results in a greater and escalating display of force from both sides. Finally, when the violence ceases, Israel says “well see? This is why they cannot have a state!”
I must admit that I am biased towards the Israelis and against the Palestinians because I admire Israel’s culture and despise Islamist culture. Americans like myself perceive Israel to be full of basically European Jews who have basically built an entire developed country in about 75 years under the daily threat of violence.
But then when I think about it critically, I do think about the downsides. The main one being, of course, the enormous animosity that Israeli policy creates against Americans – even “moderate” Arabs generally dislike the US and hate Israel.
Now, regardless of whether their hate of Israel is justified, it is there nonetheless. And I think most Americans want Israel to do well and prosper. But the relationship must be a give and take. Israel can thrive without new settlements. It has all the capability in the world to do so. Unilaterally ending its settlement activity would generate goodwill in the short term and a little trust in the long term. It might be a first step toward peace. But Israeli politicians like Netanyahu clearly think otherwise – which leads me to conclude that either they are not interested in peace or they think they can get away with it indefinitely because the US will always support their policies.
Ted Belman, Israpundit Justin • 8 hours ago
The Mandate for Palestine gave Jews the right to settle Judea and Samaria. That right has never been cancelled nor can it be cancelled legally. Secondly R242 says nothing about settlements and says that Israel can remain in all the conquered territories until such time as they had secure and recognized borders.. That means until it has arrived at an agreement. But 242 never required Israel to withdraw from all the territories. Israel has already withdrawn from 90% of them (Sinai and Gaza). Some in Israel say that’s enough and no more withdrawal. The US and Britain can think and want what they want but it is Israel’s rights that are being denied and Israel’s neck that is at risk.If you had a tiger by the tail, so to speak, you would never let go as the tiger would turn on you and eat you. Similarly Israel doesn’t want to relinquish Judea and Samaria because that would put them at great risk and that is totally aside from their rights to the land. Israel has the legal right to this land and the world ignores that,.but why should Israel.
The world demands that Israel agree to a Palestinian state, not because the facts and the law support it but because the Arabs demand it.. In this regard, the world keeps saying that international law says Israel should do this and that but International law says no such thing.
The Palestinians don’t want a state and don’t want to sign a peace agreement with Israel. What they want is for Israel to disappear. You know “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” That’s their chant and it is in the Charters of Fatah and Hamas. Hamas’ Charter goes further and calls for the killing of all the Jews. Look it up.So what if our settlements anger them. They want what they have no right to.
It is wrong to talk of force on both sides. Israel is under attack and must defend itself. The arab force is aggressive and the Israeli force is defensive. there is no cycle of violence or any equivalency.
It will surprise you to learn that until the Russian Jews came in the eighties, half the country’s Jews came from the Arab world. In 1950 or so the Arab countries expelled about 900,000 Jews and confiscated their wealth. Most of them came to Israel and helped build the country.
You keep forgetting its Israel’s land. Why should she give it up. But the crux of the problem is that no amount of land is enough to achieve peace. The Arabs don’t want peace they want us dead.
May I suggest you visit Israpundit daily and sign up for its newsletter. You will soon learn the truth.Justin
Let me first say that I will sign up for the newsletter as I do like to hear different perspectives on issues. Even though the conflict is widely reported and editorialized, there is a strange uniformity which is limited to two or maybe three views.
There are two pillars of your response. You imply that Israel is the legal sovereign of at least the West Bank, and maybe Gaza, and you note that the Palestinians are not capable at this time of acting in good faith based on their behaviors and attitudes toward Jews and Israel. It follows that any concessions from Israel in a peace deal would be just that – concessions, not legal obligations – and that it is unreasonable to expect Israel to make concessions when they are likely to lead to more violence against Israel by Palestinians.
It wasn’t that long ago that I graduated from university and contrary to what you may believe, many students are aware of the Hamas charter, the Islamist character of Gaza in general, the ugliness of the Palestinian media, and so on. Perhaps the American media blacks this out, but I think that people learn one way or another about the anti-Semitic extremism of Arab “politics.” Of course when juxtaposed with Israeli culture it looks downright savage.
So I used to think, okay, the Israelis are just doing the best they can do put up with these aggressors in a humane way without compromising internal security. I wouldn’t want to worry about getting blown up at Sbarros – I would demand my politicians make sure that cannot happen.
Over here, I notice vastly fewer suicide bombings in Israel. I hear about the withdrawal from Gaza and the detente with Saudi Arabia. Things seem to be going well.Then, I read that Israel is secretly planning – well in advance – which chunks of the West Bank to allocate toward future settlements in A and B. They don’t deny this.
Now I am left with the impression that Israel is obviously not basing its policy strictly on security needs as we know that the settlements incite the Arabs and are a hotspot for violence. The Israeli planners know this as well, thereby trading some security for territorial expansion, at least in the sense of “changing the facts on the ground.”
Even if I accept your premise that Israel is sovereign over all of the West Bank, it doesn’t change the reality that the West Bank is currently an Arab-majority area with millions of angry residents. Their leaders, feckless as they may be, privately told them that they shouldn’t be violent so that Israel would freeze its settlement activity in the view of a future negotiation.
Now, those leaders look like Mohammad Chamberlains to the Arabs in the West Bank, or so they are told by the hardliners who are quicker to actually call for violence. I can imagine the extremism simmering in Gaza, where the population is more radicalized, and as you mention you really don’t even have to imagine it, it’s there.
Both Bush and now Obama have publicly pleaded for Israel to stop the settlement activity. Bush actually went a little further in condemning it, but in practice, both have not dramatically altered US policy by ceasing diplomatic cover, military aid, and so on. This doesn’t go unnoticed by the larger Arab world, putting an even larger target on the back of the United States.
So I am back where I started. You are surely aware of all of this, and further aware that most of the international legal community (even those in Western Europe) believe the settlements are in violation of international law. Even if they were not, they are seen as a major provocation, like when Sharon visited the Temple Mount, and the settlement activity is obviously more consequential than Sharon’s personal travels. Given that Israel knows all this, and yet still refuses to even halt settlement activity, it is hard for me to believe that they are not substantially compromising their security – especially that of the often newly-arrived settlers – in return for more internationally-recognized land and a better negotiating position.
Ted Belman
What is widely reported is lies and misinformation. This is what has informed public opinion just as it did in the thirties leading up to the holocaust. Listen to Amb Prosor’s speech at the UN.. Read The Jew of Nations: The Global Demonization of Israel . There are many more such articles. In short, the media is lying to its readers..Things are not going well. We withdrew from Gaza and uprooted 8,000 Jews from their homes that had been there for two generations. As a result we had to fight two wars with Hamas and endure over 10,000 rockets and over 100 casualties. So why would we withdraw from Judea and Samaria?
Bush and Obama say only that settlements are illegitimate, whatever that means, and an obstacle to peace. Yes they are an obstacle to the peace that Obama envisages. But we never agreed to that vision. They are trying to curry favour with the Arabs and don’t care about our rights or the law or the danger to Israel etc. Why should we listen to them?
Israel has no plans to build in A and B whatsoever so you have that totally wrong. Netanyahu has imposed a construction freeze even on C and in Jerusalem. The few housing approvals he has allowed that got so much attention are in Jerusalem and have yet to be built.
The Arab hatred of America is not due to her support of Israel. Remember America to them is the great Satan and Israel is the little Satan. They hate what America stands for.
As for your last paragraph, assume you bought your house and paid for it and the whole world wants to kick you out or not and to burn it down and cites that international law mandates it, would you fight them with all your strength. Of course you would and so does Israel.
I am going to post this exchange on Israpundit and my readers will comment on it. Your comments are also welcomed but first you also have to register.
I have taken the time with you because your heart is in the right place.
JUstin
Feel free to publish it; it’s always good to be able to access more dialog.
I skimmed over both the links you provided (they both have an errant parenthesis at the end) but I don’t see how they demonstrate an anti-Israel bias in the US media, The speech is made to the UN, which the US media consistently depicts as an inept dictators’ club in the few instances they do cover it. The only way I learn of the HRC’s activities is from reading lambasting editorials and television coverage pointing out the hypocrisy of its membership. The speech’s content is strictly an appe al to the UN leadership to recognize the moral superiority of Israel over the Palestinians, or at least their leadership. Again, that is taken for granted in the US media. Some pundits pointed out the media access granted to Israeli officials and the lack thereof to Hamas or the PA during the latest Israeli action in Gaza, but this is not an opinion – it’s a simple fact. Again, I would argue that it is appropriate to give much more weight to the Israeli officials than to violent fundamentalists and their “moderate” apologists in the West Bank, but I would not argue that there was a shred of evidence that any major US media outlet did not outrightedly favor Israel covering Protective Edge.
You seem to disparage the withdrawal from Gaza. I think it was a good move that the Israeli government completely squandered in its public opinion value. Most people in the US don’t even understand what it was or that it was a unilateral and publicly unconditional action. They also don’t know about the resettlement of the Israelis, and I don’t know the details. You have a point in that the media discussion of Gaza today often omits any recognition of the brave Israeli action. More importantly, to me, the US media uses the term “Hamas takeover” instead of “Hamas election” in almost every circumstance, giving false credence to the idea that the Gazans don’t support Hamas. Obviously, they do, and that is inconvenient for Palestinian apologists.
If you want to judge the withdrawal solely by the violence since the withdrawal, you must compare it to the violence prior to the withdrawal. Otherwise, it’s a false comparison. To my knowledge, the attacks on Israelis were much more frequent prior to the withdrawal, and thus on those grounds could be argued a success. But more importantly, what about the other criteria of success? What about long-term strategic goals? What about influencing Arab and world opinion? The Palestinians supported the withdrawal of course, but it must have changed at least a few hearts and minds. I do think that all people, even the Gazans, have both.
When you say that Bush and Obama favor a different vision of peace, I don’t know what that means. I know they do not favor dead Israelis if for no other reason than to avoid the wrath of the Israeli lobby and its impact on their electibility. You’ll have to be m ore explicit on this point, but I’m just saying that I don’t feel that Bush or even Obama want to harm the Israeli people.
When I referred to A and B, it was in the context of the planners and not the current policy. See http://www.haaretz.com/news/di… .
As to whether the Arabs hate America for its support of Israel or for its freedom, I would answ er “both.” I have watched many Salafist propaganda videos, including those by Anwar al-Alwaki, to see how they appeal to new recruits. The content of the political discussion is exclusively limited to US foreign policy, not the fact that we allow alcohol or have women in bikinis or don’t pray five times a day. On the other hand, I do think that jealousy is a factor, but it is economic jealousy. They have a perception that the US supports Arab tyrants to ensure access to energy resources, a perception that is more or less accurate. The Saudi government in particular is so contemptible that it is a humiliation that America continues to support it.
I would also mention that I don’t think Arabs hate Israelis and Americans for the same reasons. There is a religious aspect to th e hatred whose particular zeal only dates back a few hundred years, when reactionary Muslims were angry about colonialism. The Quarranic hatred of Jews is well-documented but Jews were treated poorly everywhere on Earth following the diaspora, not just in the Muslim states, and you can make a case that they were treated better in Muslim states at certain points in history.Moreover, I have noticed that Lebanese Christians and even the irreligious are very critical of Israel on the pretenses you ascribe to the European hard left. I would argue it is a cultural spillover and not a foreign import.
Finally, of course I would hate to be in Israel’s position. In fact I have often wondered why the Israelis don’t consider another plan, one in which an Israeli colony might be purchased somewhere far away from the Middle East as an insurance policy for a Jewish state. I guess that’s a big part of the problem – I can’t imagine myself in the shoes of, say, a settler, because I cannot imagine putting those shoes on.
In my view, the early Zionists picked just about the worst neighborhood on Earth to establish a tiny country with indefensible borders and no natural regional allies. I cannot imagine why someone would want to move to Israel today from, say, Europe or America, at such considerable risk and with the constant demonization you mention. Maybe you can help me understand this.
Ted Belman
To your last question, be advised that I moved here from Canada where I was born. I came because I love Israel and believe in her and the Jewish people’s right to self determination. I am participating in a glorious reconstitution of our ancient homeland. It is very exciting. Nowhere else will do. This is our home. It never was the home of the fake Palestinians who just came into existence 40 years ago. Jews have had a continuous presence in Israel for over 3000 years and their own kingdom there for 1000 years.
I have changed my opinion of you. I am not so sure your heart is in the right place,. You think Pollak is poisonous. I think he is a stalwart friend of Israel. You appear to hate right wingers of which I am one.
You came to the conclusion that it is dangerous for Israelis to cede any land then you go on to demand that we do. You understand that the Arabs want us dead yet you still want us to capitulate.
@ bernard ross:
Description for you a bit harsh but: You have no audience for the plethora of comments their length and the historical and technical context however correct as presented in piecemeal comments….. Easier to link to pertinent data on line. I know the material and it’s difficult for me to follow all of your and others comments on the subject.
Your intended recipient I doubt will have read them and checked for verification if he had, so if for him it’s a waste of time.
I was Harsh but it’s just I believe too much, you are all and myself included beating a dead horse.
yamit82 Said:
🙁
@ bernard ross:
Most Israelis especially Sabras have never experienced direct or personal antisemitism. 😉
You feeding the troll who isn’t here and and isn’t eating if he is, you are all blowing hot air and smoke in the the ether. You have no audience for the exorbitant amt of bandwidth you are using up.
Time to quit bloviating and move on….
@ Justin:
another civilized nation calling Jews illegitimate
you want us to take their advice?
Israeli Tourist Stunned by Anti-Semitic Street Display in Heart of Amsterdam (VIDEO)
http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/12/16/israeli-tourist-stunned-by-anti-semitic-street-display-in-heart-of-amsterdam-video/
@ Justin:
http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/12/16/kerry-recycles-discredited-claim-that-west-bank-mosque-fire-was-indefensible-price-tag-attack/
more lies
@ Justin:
When have the French ever claimed that Alsace was the birthplace of the French people and their home (w/ or w/o sovereignty) for three thousand years? — when have the Russians ever claimed that Crimea was the birthplace of the Russian people?
In any case, it is apparent that you have yet to read the Charter of the Mandate for Palestine. May I suggest that you do so? It shouldn’t take long — six minutes perhaps (eight, if you’re slow, like me).
What you’ll discover (inter alia) is that it was precisely on the basis of the Jewish people’s recognized long-standing historical connection w/ the Land of Israel (all the land from River to Sea) that the then-recent GreatWar’s victorious Principal Allied Powers (which created both the Mandate system and the League of Nations) elected to use the Palestine Mandate for the express purpose of restoring the Jewish National Home — to substance, and ultimately to sovereignty.
Nowhere does the Charter ever cite any other purpose for that particular Mandate.
If you read over its Preamble and its 28 articles you will find mention of the Jews, the Jewish People, the Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency, etc — at least 15 direct references to the Jews.
References to “Arabs,” “Palestinians,” and all other real and/or purported nationalities-ethnicities — COMBINED — come to . . .a grand total of
. . .exactly. . .zero.
Not four or five; not one or two.
— Zero.
If you think that was an accident, then I’ve got some choice Arizona beachfront property for sale, that I’ve been waiting to offer to just the right buyer
— and if you really believe the conspicuous omission of any non-Jewish ethnicity from mention in the Mandate Charter represented nothing but an inadvertent oversight, then you may just have the right qualifications for consideration to buy that wonderful AZ beachfront real estate.
Well, every member of the League of Nations accepted it. League membership required endorsement of all the post-GreatWar mandates.
Of course, America never joined the League.
Yet she went out of her way to endorse the Mandate for Palestine (specifically) ANYWAY — via the 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine, ratified by the US Senate, then signed into domestic law by the President.
You like international treaties? That‘s an international treaty. Never abrogated. Never repudiated. Never superceded.
Even the present US administration — by no stretch of the imagination a ‘friend’ to the Jewish state — has never presumed to characterize the settlements as ‘illegal.’ Instead, it systematically & quite conspicuously substitutes the word “illegitimate” in place of “illegal” each-&-every time the subject arises in international forums.
They may wish an observer to THINK ‘illegal’ when they say “illegitimate” but they never actually SAY “illegal.” Never. They never talk about the Anglo-American Convention OR about the Palestine Mandate. But you can bet the mortgage that they have read BOTH.
Now, if some (indeed many) of those other Mandate state-signatories have subsequently RENEGED on their acceptance of (among others) the Palestine Mandate
— and, so doing, reneged as well on the therein-stated obligations to the Jewish people (incl an Art. Six duty to EXPEDITE dense settlement of Jews on all the land from River to Sea, as well as an Art. Five duty to see to it that none of the land shall be ceded or leased or in any way placed under control of any foreign power)
— obligations which ALL those nations freely assumed in their acceptances
— then that says something terrible about THEM — not a blessed thing about Israel.
Granted; it should. On that point we are fully agreed. (I doubt that you’ll get much quarrel in that regard from anybody who posts regularly on this board.)
But understand that what Israeli officials say (or decline to say) in that regard isn’t aimed so much at the Arabs or soi-disant “Palestinians” as at those “major” states to which you refer.
The latter have their own agendas and chart their own courses — and small boats like Israel feel (justly or otherwise) that they must tack with the winds from those quarters to keep from being swamped in their wake. This can make for a maddeningly zig-zagging course.
@ Justin
The Prime Minister, only agreed to a Palestinian State if all of Israels conditions were met. Security to be determined by Israel, no divided Jerusalem, recognition of the Jewish State of Israel by the Palestinians and agreement that the conflict is over. The last meaning NO Palestinians would have so-called right of return to Israel. Also the Palestinian State would have to be demilitarized and all outstanding issues resolved. This is what the Prime Minister has said he would agree to and nothing less.
I do not believe he thought the Palestinians would agree to this. He only agreed to this based on coercion by Obama. The Palestinians have said they will never agree to a Jewish State. So there can not be a Palestinian State.
@ Justin:
here are your associates and partners in crime up to their old habits
http://www.meforum.org/4912/europeans-fund-anti-israel-libels
http://www.meforum.org/4912/europeans-fund-anti-israel-libels
yamit82 Said:
Because Ted gave him a page, took him seriously to be genuine, and so did others.
What’s your excuse? 😛
@ Justin:
Former AP Reporter: Media Does Not “Tolerate the Truth” About Israel
http://www.thetower.org/1398-former-ap-reporter-media-does-not-tolerate-the-truth-about-israel/
@ bernard ross:
He is a troll so why are you wasting your time????
I thought that over 50 comments ago.
Justin Said:
so how is that concept working out for them?
Justin Said:
If the goi was invoking international law then YS would be already settled as directed by international law, which I already cited to you. What law do you refer to, can you cite any law invoked?
Justin Said:
thats teds personal view but settlements are needed because it is legally prescribed and is a right of Jews.
Ted Belman Said:
A common BDS troll purpose on blogs is to tie up Jews in non jewish concerns like: the pals, the euros, the americans, the UN, etc. I have not heard one word from this so called self proclaimed Israel supporter about how to serve the interests of Israel and the Jewish people. Trolls often say they support Israel, some claim to be holocaust descendants and use false Jewish names.
Ted Belman Said:
I have not read of this as an official state policy? I have seen it as a concept to consider.
Ted Belman Said:
can you provide evidence of this “we have agreed”, I know of no such agreement? I do not believe that Oslo specified 2 “states” and the validity of Oslo still being in force is highly questionable as it is not being observed by both parties. I know of no 2 state AGREEMENT! “there is many a slip between cup and lip” …. a lawyer told me that!
Justin Said:
can you provide any evidence for this assertion?
Justin Said to Ted:
you can not be open and honest with those who renege on their agreements as obama did on the bush letter.
Justin Said:
rubbish….the american people, as opposed to you, are unequivocally clear about their relationship as expressed through congress and its unwavering support evidenced by facts. Only the obama admin is hostile and that admin has a lower rating of approval than dubya. Just one more of your false “facts”
Justin Said:
try for accuracy, I did not justify, I said I understand that when dealing with swindlers one might have those discrepancies; most nations have discrepancies between policy and action, so why do you pretend that this concerns you? are you aware of Obama’s discrepancies between his stated policies and his actions, look there first.
Justin Said:
Who cares what they think? why should Israel care? Their leaders have their interests to maintain themselves in power and the Israel card relates primarily to that need. The fact is that covert cooperation goes on right now between the GCC and Israel however this is temporary congruence of geopolitical interests and unreliable in the long term. Get a real argument, your comment is irrelevant.
Justin Said:
those who are trying to fool Israel
Justin Said:
Israels settlement policy is duplicitous to the Jews in that it obstructs illegally, and morally, Jewish rights. However, Israel is under pressure from duplicitous swindlers like your pres and the Eu so, although I do not agree with it I understand the need to tiptoe around the insane supporters of the Jew killers narratives. I consider you to be one of them. There is not one legal or moral reason for you to tout anti Jewish settlement policies in any part of the land of israel. The just result will be that those who are trying to swindle the Jews are being consumed by their own proxies: witness arab spring, european honor killer termites, those getting their heads chopped.
@ bernard ross:
The best thing to do is challenge them with facts and revel in their humiliation when they are overwhelmed by those facts.
@ bernard ross:
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/63603012/comment-page-2#comment-63356000147194
@ yamit82:No.
Justin Said to Dweller:
then you once more demonstrate your ignorance. the claim is legal based on san remo, LON mandate and UN char.art 80 which recognized as their basis the Balfour Declaration which in turn recognised the historical connection of the Jewish people to “Palestine”(the euro term for Israel). You appear to be very uniformed as to facts and law and usually those that are as ignorant as you are not as arrogant as you by propagating their ignorance as fact.
Justin Said:
all the signatories and guarantors to the agreements I cited have accepted; this includes EU nations, US, Japan, UN etc. Perhaps you are surprised to learn of their corruption in libelously now claiming the opposite. read the documents and see the signatories.
Justin Said:
Why should you be concerned? I beleive that Israel should annex C maintain the status quo in a&b until the arabs are transferred. the Jews expelled from their homes in arab lands as a result of the same conflict(to which you never objected) have completed the Jewish side of the transfer. To avoid double standards those who initiated and maintained the conflict and refugee status of the arab side should pay for their relocation. either to the homes of the expelled Jews or to the 80% JEW FREE portion of the pal mandate territory current known as Jordan and ruled by an illegitimate foreign imported hashemite clan from Mecca. A self proclaimed touter of moral principles like yourself should seek to restore justice to the Jewish people expelled by the arabs in the same conflict AFTER the advent of the geneva conventions now claimed by you to suddenly have credibility.
Justin Said:
Please cite the official legally binding document which supports your assertion. Wrt the stating of intentions keep in mind, if those intentions are true they last as long as the current PM or gov. I believe this Knesset is the shortest in Israeli history.
Justin Said:
first, there is no “so deliberatively stated policy” which seeks a “pal state”. BB has state d his personal intentions to recognize a pal state under certain conditions which the pal have so far declared their refusal to accept. Do some reading. It is very clear that the prime goal of the offer is not a pal state but rather a state of peace. Legally, when an offer is made and rejected the offer becomes void. Secondly, the statement is false as states most often do not comply with their “deliberatively announced policies”…. E. G. the Bush letter which has been reneged upoon by Obama; the Bush letter was in writng and clear whereas BB’s intentions do not state a specific outcome.
Justin Said:
as I said, there is no two state “deal”or even a clear agreement or policy to reach a two state deal. Even if such a policy existed there would be no reason to end settlement until a deal is finalized. One does no pay a price without outcome. furthermore, even if such a deal existed to cease settlement in what areas would it apply when there is no agreement on the disputed areas, would it also apply to the pals? Even the Oslo agreement clearly did NOT have agreement to halt settlement. Furthermore, binding international law as cited prior to you, requires Israel, as the current entity in control of YS, to “..to facilitate immigration and settlement of the Jewish people in All the Palestine mandate territory” IMO the GOI is as criminal as the British mandate and the illegal Jordanian occupation in its obstruction of Jewish settlement as any nation in control of that territory has that legal obligation.
Justin Said:
means nothing to me. They serve their interests in arab oil and Israel serves its own. Its a completely illogical argument for justifying Israel to abandon their own interests. Most of those nations had no problem with the slaughter of the Jews by the europeans and your nation had no problem sending a shipload of children to german ovens. You advise the Jews to take the advice of such people? When you make such childish arguments it is difficult to show you respect.
Justin Said:
Then please explain why the UN, EU, US, Japan, etc does not comply with the MOST superior binding, relevant documents, agreements and treaties beginning with San Remo, LON Mandate, UN charter art 80? In the case of the US it is also enshrined in binding US domestic law. the relevant directive in law is “..to facilitate immigration and settlement of the Jewish people in All the Palestine mandate territory” If you are going to claim law then cite the specific laws which make your case; there is NO law more superior which is applicable to YS. If you were informed rather than relying on the parroted mantras of others you would have by now responded on this issue before this, but you ignored my posts of fact and instead make posts of your feelings and hearsay.
Justin Said:
Proving that “50 million frenchman CAN be wrong”. First, dont bother bring this argument again as the world agianst the Jews is nothing news. Any trial in any part of the world proves that experts are regularly bought for opposing sides of issues, its a meaningless argument. Second, if you read the Geneva Conventions which i assume you refer to but have not read because you cited nothing, those provisions do not apply to YS for many reasons. There is no land occupied which belonged to a “state”, the former state occupant Jordan rescinded its claim and the British mandate expired and before that the turkish caliphate..DUH?? Furthermore the land was specifically delineated in internationally binding agreements for the settlement of Jews….DUH??? Even if Israel were to withdraw and did not want the land the rights acquired under the agreements to the “Jewish people” are unexpired, unrescinded and uncancelled…. therefore any soveriegn in control are required to settle the jewish people in LAW!! In my view the damages caused by BRitish, Jordanian and Israeli obstruction of those rights should be mitigated and justice restored with an affirmative action mass settlement policy to settle Jews in their internationally, legally, recognized historical Jewish homeland(balfour dec., LON mandate, UN charter art 80)
Justin Said:
I have no idea what you mean by this
Justin Said:
most of your arguments are the same, everyone is agianst you so give them what they want. it is the same as the euros and the US giving the nazis their jews. You should be ashamed to try and convince an honest people to give up their rights to a hateful collective, as you said yourself, in order to make that collective happy and your life convenient. The US was against civil rights for blacks, did you advise them to give up their rights for that reason? The international diplomatic community supports the UNHRC which is a corrupt despicable organization of liars…do you support the UNHRC? Dont come here and insult us with these scandalous and ludicrous arguments unless you wish to be treated with derision, ridicule and humiliation. dont cite the beleifs of the corrupt, cite proven law and proven facts… legal and diplomatic opinions are meaningless and your citing of them merely demonstrates your ignorance of reality. the mafia is very consensus driven and democratic when they approve a hit just like the corrupt internationals. Do you deny the corruption? I do not wish to see a TSS, at the most an supervised autonomy with no sovereignty over the land. International condemnation has always been the Jews lot, what’s new…. when they agreed to slaughter and libel Jews in the past the jews were powerless …. the corrupt became acclimated to having their way.
Justin Said:
the same repeated silly childish argument. there will be no peace with two states, all evidence points away from that ludicrous assertion. Israel must control its homeland in order to survive what you have already named as a hateful collective.
Justin Said:
I have already told you and you ignore it. If you claim law then post the law you claim. Post evidence to support your assertions, forget the arguments which involve “everyone is against you”, “all legal experts say” for the reasons I have given more than once. Notice that you have not posted one actual fact, only opinions, feelings. your arguments revolve around the concept that everyone is against you so give up your rights and make it easier on everybody else.
@ Justin:
@ SHmuel HaLevi 2:
Everyone must watch this clip nothing more need be said afterward!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfRsBgNgSWs
Justin Said:
Stand your ground, sharpen your spear and buckup, boy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ yamit82:
The intent to elevate the fabricated “pilistines” has no connection to anything else but basic bias.
All other conflicts for true independence, most of which are terribly brutal, hardly make any mark in the “world community”, colleges, universities, parliaments, etc.
They fabricated a straw man akin to the PILTDOWN fabrication. Found a Roman label and attached to it and voila. A universal “cause” was aborted ubber allen.
The flagrant purpose of the fabricated entity, one without any past records of leadership before Arafat, no original institutions, no literature, no language, nothing, was and remains to sabotage the League of Nations recognized Jewish rights to all the Land of Israel.
Ted Belman:
Is every comment directed towards Justin and almost anyone else in moderation status??/
Just want to know????
Justin Said:
Why do you and you do believe the Palis are more deserving than hundreds of other ethnicity’s around the world who want sovereignty and are denied it?
Are not say Basques more deserving? Catalonia’s? Uighurs? Eskimos? Some American and Canadian Indians?
What makes Palis special for you???? For anyone else?
Seems to me to be irrational and illogical position.
@ yamit82:I have no quarrel with anything you have said.
Ted Belman Said:
Israel need ALL O Y&S to be MORE secure.
My comment #50 https://www.israpundit.org/archives/63603012/comment-page-1#comment-63356000147094
Some of us don’t want TSS based on any borders. Agreeing to any only means you agree with the enemies arguments and are only bargaining over the price.
So far it’s only we who are doing all the compromising, which is in fact conceding their rights and relinquishing ours. That does not seem like winning to to me. Looks where we were in June 12 1967 and look where we are today?
Looks like retreat and defeat to me.Ted Belman Said:
Duh!! Asked and answered
@ Justin:
One very realistic assumption is any land Israel would leave would turn into another Gaza run by either Hamas or ISIS. So would anyone in their right mind leave more land. With Gaza we have had three wars and counting. This by the way was predicted by many of us before we left Gaza. Another major Israeli mistake!
This is aside from our rights and connections to the land. In understanding the conflict as with understanding any issue of another people you must be able to try and see it how they do from their own history. Most people fail to do this.
@ Justin:
Seems you read incorrectly! You are putting words in my mouth and ascribing that which I never said.
My basic criticism is against the current and past Israeli governments who willingly put themselves into the American vice and made us a political vassal of the USA and made us into economic aid junkies. No American Admin ever helped Israel without some quid pro quo and that quid pro quo has always been in opposition to our national interest. When weighed in the balance and reduced to cold statistics we always came up with the short end of the stick. America never provides free lunches in the International sphere, Never!!!
Disagree all you want but with supported fact not popular myths as you seem prone to exhibit in all your comments.
You will find that I am in disagreement with most of the comments by regular commenters on may points as well but on a point on point debate on those points I can hold my own I believe successfully.
You avoid me because you can’t meet my challenge to you.
Then make your case and I will mine. If you can’t you lose by default.
Cut the BS and cut to the chase. Israel can have normal relations with America and any other country willing.
America never protected Israel or is protecting Israel today and a solid argument can me made conversely.
Your caveat is double speak. If there is disagreement then sanctions should not be used to pressure or bludgeon Israel into conforming with the American position. Three American Admin have aided and abetted the Iranian pursuit of Nukes, Israel as a Loyal ally and friend of America is critical. America ignored our concerns doing everything to prevent Israel from executing her own vested and perceived national interests. This will eventually force a break between us and you Americans.
Friends do not aid, arm, train, and support all of Israels existential enemies… I am not critical just stating the plain unadulterated facts.
“Morally unthinkable”
🙂 Supporting Iran’s pursuit of Nukes is? Trying to force a 2 State solution on us is? Maintaining and accelerating the ME arms race is? I understand perfectly well American need to buy influence with many countries including Israel and the American need to sell her military Industrial output to reduce unit costs and provide needed jobs for Americans but don’t put a moral argument forth in place of reality…
America invaded Irag to save Kuwait but never lifted a finger in any of Israels wars from 48 till today. America has intervened to prevent Israeli victories in all of our conflicts but never lifted a finger when it appeared we were losing. Pls drop moral arguments they don’t hold up under historical scrutiny.
@ Justin:
Palestinians never wanted true peace talks but were arm twisted by the US. The US could not get them what they wanted (which is being able to conquer Israel in stages). So they now will try the international arena to see if it works better (unilateral actions without Israeli consent)..
Israel would be wise to recognize officially that PA has violated the Oslo accords. Oslo accords said everything would be negotiated for final settlement between the parties. By the way Israel was entitled to control all building in Area C where all the Jewish Towns (settlements to some), so Israel even by written agreement had a right to build in Area C. This is on top of our legal and historical rights. We have not built in Areas A & B.
In light of this Israel should annex Area C where all the Jews in Judah and Samaria live (about 400,000) and only a small amount of Palestinians (estimates range from 40K to 70K or so). 95% of the Palestinians live in Area A / B. If they agree peacefully with security coordination they could continue to manage their own affairs (municipal level control) in Area A & B. Not a perfect solution but best for the time being.
@ Justin:1/2 That deal is not on offer so why talk about it. Israel needs most of Judea and Samaria to be secure. Tel Aviv is on the coast. The land rises up from there for the next 40 miles to the east. From there you could could send rockets mortars and missiles down on 80% of our population and all our major arteries. No thanks.
2/3/4 The Arabs don’t want a state they want to destroy us. If you think I am wrong on this, make your case. Read the charters of Fatah and Hamas.
5/6 We only mention international law because the international community keeps using it as a club to beat us with. But to do so it misrepresents the law. We have to correct them on this.
7/8/9 Totally wrong. The US wants us to agree to the TSS based on ’67 lines. We don’t want that.
10. It doesn’t matter. They can either compromise and so we win or they can say no and then we still win because we are putting facts on the ground. We win either way. Let us us not forget that we have legal title and possession. They have neither.
All you seem to do is try to get us to give in as opposed to fight for our rights as we see them. Explain how that makes you a friend of Israel.
@ Ted Belman:
On 1/2: I should have mentioned, maybe crucially, that such a solution would necessarily include certain preconditions or provisos to bolster Israel’s security, like territorial concessions to allow for defense of Tel Aviv and other narrow sections of Israeli territory, Palestinian de-militarization, recognition of Israel, and so on.
On 2/3/4: I didn’t say at this stage that Israel was out of compliance with its stated policy, but merely that states are expected to comply with stated policies. I understand the argument that the settlements “pressure” the Arabs to negotiate in a weaker position, but I wonder whether the settlements make negotiation less likely in the first place. It is rare that a policy is all roses – there are good and bad consequences. So, I see two general effects – settlements strengthen the “facts on the ground” but also increase the lengths to which the average Arab will go to defeat Israel.
On 5/6: I mention international law, whatever you accept of it, only to say that I have a specific group of critics in mind who might be defined outside of their opposition to Israel. Whenever I hear Israeli government apologists invoke international law it is through the lens of a sympathetic minority. More convincing to me is an outright rejection of said law. I think many Americans would agree,.
On 7/8/9: Nice analogy. I’d expand a bit. Israel has a deed for a house appraised at $100K, among others. They want $110K for it. The Palestinians are squatters who have had many kids and sympathizers over the years and want to buy the house for $20K on credit with nothing down. The US wants Israel to take a loss on the house to keep the squatters from egging on others and taking all the homes in the neighborhood. Israel doesn’t want to give in because they think taking a loss on the house will also attract more squatters. The Israelis wants the current squatters to stop the future squatters, the squatters want all they can take, and the US wants the litigation to end and for Israel to hold its nose and either deal with the squatters or take them to court and kick them out.
On 10: Okay, so now we’re getting somewhere. You say that the settlements are needed to get the Palestinians to the negotiating table.
If that were a recognized means of achieving policy goals, Israel would just as well slaughter the Palestinians, for that would really get their attention – but they do not.
So, I gather that the settlements are perhaps the most effective “acceptable” (to whom?) means of improving negotiating position by Israeli government calculations.
Since you have made this claim, I’d like to see evidence for it – some evidence of how settlement activity led to concessions from the Arabs.
@ Justin:My numbered point s are in answer to your numbered questions.
1. Yes but that doesn’t mean we agree to the ’67 lines plus swaps as our border.
2.& 3. We are complying with it. But we didn’t agree not to build. We even said we will remove Jews who live on the east side of what is agreed to as a border. How are we not complying with our obligation?
4. True. So What? They want us to freeze the situation for 100 years or what ever it takes. Meanwhile they help the arabs to build. We think that we must build not to be passive. The Arabs can compromise any time they want to stop the building. Building puts pressure on them. Also all those countries you mention are pursuing their interests when they make demands on us. We are pursuing our interests when we build.
Justin Said:
I have no idea what you said. You know what they say about international law, its not international and its not law. In other words, there is no such thing. If you submit yourself to a tribunal to adjudicate that decision becomes law and all previous decisions are followed to determine what to do in the present case. Then there is customary law.. There is no law that says we can[‘t build. Turkey is building in Cypress and Britain is building in the Sahara, both occupied territories. I have never heard of the “directionality of an obligation”. Besides there is no obligation no matter how much the international community pressures us.
Justin Said:
They can agree till the cows come home but it doesn’t mean it is so. The dissenting opinions in my opinion are correct. The ICJ which is an arm of the UN issued an advisory opinion saying that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies and it prohibits transferring populations. It was wrong on both counts. They are trying to railroad us. The UN and its proxy have no power to make law. The ICJ is a biased court just as the UN is a biased organization when it comes to Israel do you not agree. Do you think we should listen to them or stand up to them.
Justin Said:
So, what’s wrong with that?
Justin Said:
True enough. So what. When the international community decides that we have to divide Jerusalem or accept ’67 lines plus swaps, They too are decreasing chances of a settlement are they not? Don’t forget that they have agreed that all issues are to be negotiated rather than dictated. If they want a two state solution let them make demands on the Arabs.
Justin Said:
Quite so. If we agree to offer a house for sale at $100,000 and they offer $5000, their will be no sale if they don’t up their price a lot. There is no obligation on us to sell the house for what they are offering.
Justin Said:
We have agreed to a TSS that is negotiated. Correct. So we are not dishonest. We believe that building settlements puts pressure on them to compromise and that not building settlements enables them to never compromise. We believe that agreeing to their terms means certain war, not peace. So we are for peace and they are for war. Chamberlain was for peace and got war. Get my drift.
Bottom line is you want us to knuckle under to the mob and therefore you don’t have our best interests at heart. If you believe that accepting their terms for “peace”, will achieve peace, make your case. If you believe that the Arabs will accept such a deal, make your case.
@ Bear Klein:
Bear, thank you for your reasoned and tempered response as well as your (evidently rare) implicit assumption of good faith on my part. It makes it much easier to engage.
Okay, so I can definitely appreciate that there is no easy solution.
If I had to summarize your argument, it would be:
1) The Palestinians are opposed in principle to abiding by any agreement that results in a lasting Jewish state of Israel and will use all available means and tactics to subvert Israel regardless of whether they have a state or not
2) Netanyahu only agreed to the two-state solution on the grounds of recognition and security considerations, both of which are impossible by (1)
3) The two-state solution is thus impossible in practice
4) What will really happen is presently being debated in Israel but will necessarily not involve a mass deportation of Arabs from the disputed territories
5) The Oslo accords were a tremendous Israeli blunder and were detrimental, rather than helpful, to Israeli security
Based on this line of reasoning, I get the impression that you categorically reject any Palestinian state and yet also categorically reject mass deportation of the Arabs in the disputed territories.
I find myself wondering – what do you suggest, if not a continuation of the existing state of affairs?
And, regardless of Netanyahu’s motives or rationale in formally supporting a two-state solution, what do you say to the majority of Israelis who support such a solution under the right circumstances? I’m not saying a majority support a pre-67 solution, but a majority clearly supports some sort of Palestinian state – I would guess almost certainly in Gaza.
bernard ross Said:
Okay, so I criticize the fact that Israeli policy doesn’t jive with Israeli actions, and you say that you agree that it doesn’t but that the discrepancy is justified because of historical and current anti-Semitism. You also go on to say that I am repeating anti-Semitic lies and that I support the honor killers instead of the truth.
I don’t understand how you justify the discrepancy. Do you think that any Arabs in the region are fooled by Israel’s supposed support for a two-state peace deal, or do you think that even if Israel bent over backwards for peace, the Arabs would still find a way to contort their position to blame Israel? It can only be one way or the other, and I know that you cannot support the former, so your defense of the discrepancy is one that acknowledges the fact that Israel is not fooling or consoling any substantial Arab population.
If that is the case, who exactly is Israel trying to fool?
To your point that I am somehow spewing the propaganda of anti-Semites, I will again point out that I have not once mentioned opposition to Israeli military activities in Gaza or elsewhere, nor have I criticized Israeli security policy in general, nor have I mentioned the treatment of Arabs in Israel, nor have I questioned the legitimacy of Israel. In fact, if you read what I have said, you’d see that I unambiguously support Israel and detest the Islamic fundamentalists – honor killings, female genital mutilation, Jew-hatred, suicide bombings, and all.
The only criticism I have leveled is against Netanyahu’s apologists for the duplicitous settlement policy.
@ Ted Belman:
Ted, thanks for the blog and allowing discussion. I don’t think ad hominem is off-limits, except of course in the case of blatant racism or other bigotry, but I try to avoid those kinds of attacks because they lead nowhere.
I have subscribed to your blog and read some of the new entries.
I think that it might be fair to think I’m an anti-Israel BDS’er based on my initial post on Breitbart. It was worded more strongly than I feel, I’ll give you that. But my basic argument remains the same – those who will not question a single Israeli government policy (like settlements) and defend the Israeli government without question seem to me like establishment Republicans in the US who go along with every Republican administration and Congress regardless of the facts or values involved. If they think Israel is doing the right thing, they ought to say that they oppose a two-state deal and that Netanyahu should do so as well. My American Jewish friends, and yes I really do have a few, are largely liberal Democrats who don’t oppose Netanyahu but think he is too “emotionally” attached to be the best guide of Israeli policy based on what happened to his brother. I have a single conservative Jewish friend who joined the USAF and served in the IDF. His views are largely similar to those expressed in these comments, but he at least says that Netanyahu is lying and that he ought to say what he really thinks.
Anyway, it is my opinion that US-Israeli relations would be improved if both sides were more open about what they really thought. Obviously you know that I feel that the Israeli government is not being honest about its true feelings vis a vis its territorial rights, and I also feel that Americans don’t really understand or put their cards on the table when discussing what kind of alliance the US and Israel ought to have, or why the US ought to support Israel. If you look at what the evangelicals really believe about Jews and Israel it is pretty appalling, racist, demeaning even, according to them Jews need to be “perfected,” and so on. I’m sure your readers are aware of these views, I guess they take the good with the bad, but I personally support Israel because I think it is a superior country to its regional foes, on all grounds. Even though I think their support is important and solid for now, I don’t think it is stable enough in the long run. That’s why I think debate is good, especially on secular terms.
@ honeybee:
I’m not whining or being sensitive. I’m merely pointing out that if these comments are meant to be a forum for discussion, dissent should be welcomed rather than condemned.
@ dweller:
When I say “West Bank” I do not mean “Palestinian West Bank,” I mean “the widely-understood disputed territory as defined by the 1949 armistice line.” I make no judgment about its particular Jewish, Arab, British, or other character. So if you think that I am using the term to imply it is rightfully owed to the Arabs, you are mistaken. I use the term to identify a commonly-understood geographic (not political) area.
I don’t accept your claim that the Jewish people are somehow owed the territory by virtue of their tradition and ethnicity any more than I accept the claim that the French people are owed Alsace or that the Russian people are owed Crimea. I’m not saying it’s an illegitimate claim – maybe the majority of Jews feel it is legitimate – but I am saying that I don’t accept it at face value. We both know how much (little) my opinion is worth, though, so it is more useful to speak of what other states accept or reject. I cannot think of a single major state, other than Israel, that accepts that claim. Be that as it may, I still don’t reject your claim outright – I just reject it on the historical/religious grounds you provide.
My concern is what Israel (and the US) does about their convictions. If Israel really believes that the West Bank is Israeli territory, it should say so unambiguously and more importantly do things that support the claim, like seizing the populated parts of the West Bank, generously compensating Arabs for their land, and so on. At the very least, if this is really the belief of most Israelis, Israel should not proclaim its support for a “two-state” peace deal – if the West Bank is part of Israel, there’s not much left.
@ bernard ross:
Okay, so let’s put aside for a moment whether my views are representative of most Americans, whether those views influence American policy toward Israel, and whether that policy even matters very much. My (completely unimportant, uninformed, etc) line of reasoning is that:
1) (fact) Israel officially supports what is in principle a two-state peace deal
2) (widely-held principle) When states so deliberatively announce policy, they are expected to comply with it
3) (fact) Israel has not stopped settlement activity since announcing its support of a two-state deal
4) (fact) Almost every nation, including most of Israel’s allies, officially opposes new settlement activity on grounds that settlements are not conducive to a two-state peace deal
5) (widely-held principle) To the extent that “international law” exists, it is the weighted sum total of international obligations to which a nation is expected to comply. Weighting refers to the importance and directionality of an obligation rather than a specific judgment or opinion.
6) (fact) A supermajority of international legal experts agree that Israeli settlements are illegal, typically on grounds that a state may not settle its own or remove the opponent’s population because of unilateral territorial changes resulting from war.
7) (widely-held principle) A state that chooses to enact a policy that has obvious and foreseeable consequences is doing so in spite of those consequences
8) (application) If the international diplomatic community believes settlements are not conducive to a two-state peace and the international legal community believes settlements are illegal, the continuation of settlement activity is likely to decrease chances of a two-state settlement and increase chances of international condemnation.
9) (application) If Israel chooses to continue its settlements, it does so despite the foreseeable consequence of condemnation and a reduction in chances of a two-state peace.
10) (application) Therefore, Israel is either being dishonest in its stated policy, believes that settlements will be more conducive to a two-state peace, or values expansion (or territorial integrity) more than peace.
Before I go further, please let me know what is wrong or what needs to be supported with references. I will be happy to oblige.
@ dweller:
🙂 I like your soft touch memory call up to help Justin.
The label “west bank” is another attempt to erase the true names of our land in that region. Judea and Samaria, or in Hebrew phonetic Yehudah & Shomron, are the names of the two areas of our Land Justin and others labeled west bank to erase their real name.
Of course that will not work either.
Yehuda and Shomron it was and remains.
@ Justin:
In a heartbeat, eh?
Do you know how the ‘West Bank’ province of Judea got its name?
— Surely the moniker on that little parcel of real estate wasn’t just picked out on mail-order from the Sears-Roebuck Catalog, and then held onto for three thousand years. . . . on a whim — right?
Does it not seem strange to you that such a locale be made off-limits to Jews, of all people?
I mean, leave aside momentarily (for the sake of rhetorical simplicity) the question of ethnic cleansing ANYWHERE (and how well such a proposition would sit with American sensibilities generally), and instead — and just for starters — try visualizing the prospect of explicitly & systematically rendering Judea, of all places. . . . judenrein.
@ Justin:
No Whining Justin!! If you’re going to argue with a group of Jews you need to toughen up. No sensitive males here, Thank Goodness.
Justin Said:
leave your feelings out and start dealing in facts or be treated accordingly!!!!
Justin Said:
are you now a geopolitical strategist or just a moralizing pontificating parrot. what yardstick do you use to arrive at this ludicrous conclusion? this is the comment of a whiny little freshman in a collegiate bubble. whine whine… there is no factual link between achieving goals and stating them publicly… Perhaps you should revisit your church or enroll in a class in ethics and morals because in the world where YOU are represented in government by the greatest liars one would think you would have more practical common sense. This is not a church or an ethics class you whining morality is irrelevant.
Justin Said:
no evidence that your policy is efficacious in the geopolitical world, the contrary is evident. Informed americans is usually an oxymoron according to evidence. why should Israel want sympathy from the “most callous and hateful Arabs” You make no sense outside of your high school morality pageant.
Justin Said:
the international policy was to kill jews, if one wishes to avoid that outcome explicit terms are irrelevant. Your nation sent a shipload of Jewish children to nazi ovens. Grow up!
Justin Said:
But you provide no factual basis for your disagreement… only pontificating whining and your feelingsJustin Said:
rubbish… you shift from one losing argument to the next in the timeless tradition of BDS trolls. all nations have discrepancy between their policies and actions why should you care about those of Israel when there are much more pressing global pressing matters: another hallmark of BDS trolls…..think about the discrepancy between you pres calling Jewish settlement illegitimate and the US laws which says the opposite…. why not work on that if you care about discrepancies? baloney that’s why.
Justin Said:
I agree, but I understand that when dealing with liars, libelrs, swindlers and crooks one must act accordingly. Look at the lying UN cabal who persistently libels and lies about Israel thus bringing every Jew in the globe to danger. you reinforce their lies, libels and endangerment of Jews by spreading their lies as your own. the only argument you have is that others are upset with jews living in Israel outside of the ghetto you would like to delineate for them. Israel is the land of the Jews, yet you come to support a different outcome. why do you not support the Jews rights to their ancient homeland rather than support the honor killer narratives? Your history and the muslims history all accede to the fact that Israel is the land of the Jews. Stop the lying and swindling and instead support the truth.
Justin Said:
stop pretending to represent americans… its a bald faced lie!
Justin Said:
“disagreement” without providing any facts or support is meaningless and a waste of everyone’s time.
Justin Said:
You have provided not one shred of evidence for this mantra you keep repeating… you are not speaking now with your adoring acolytes in your collegiate bubble…. present evidence or be treated as a fool.
Justin Said:
You are intellectually bankrupt as the relationship is not governed by morality but by interests…. the US has a myriad of strong interests in maintainging the relationship for military and economic reasons. Read and learn… get out of your “academic” bubble….facts trump inaccurate thinking.
Justin Said:
overwhelming majority of Americans support Israeli actions in spite of your BDS fear mongering. this trend will increase as the facts unfold in spite of your efforts to obfuscate them.
Justin Said:
Jews are in a Stockholm Syndrome resulting from 2000 years of swindling, libeling, torturing and slaughtering by the euro christian collective and their physical and cultural descendants. Betrayals, reneging etc are the hallmark of the collective and Jews in the diaspora especially gear their behavior to appeasing this insane collective who are capable of spreading the most despcable lies about the Jews in the past AND the present.(apartheid, illegal, illegitimate, child killers, etc) when one deals with the insane one cannot always be straightforward becuase of the danger they present. Hence your whining about why dont they say this and that is irrelevant and meaningless. when people try to swindle and kill you, you must act accordingly… your lying buffoon of a president stated that Jews living in the land of Israel is illegitimate…. a lie and a swindle.
Justin Said:
I am always hostile towards persons I consider dishonest. If you were not dishonest and were merely incredibly ignorant of facts you should approach this forum with humility and the willingness to learn. Instead you continue to parrot well known troll mantras of defamation without presenting a single fact. You also have still not answered to the facts I presented or the requests for support or evidence for your claims. You cannot produce them because there are none, you rely solely on the hearsay of other parrots for your libelous canards. this is not my opinion but rather a factual conclusion drawn from your statements and behavior.
Justin Said:
This is irrelevant to fact. You populate your comments with these gratuitous and irrelevant statements because they are the usual prelude of trolls to a defamation or lie. We are well familiar with this MO so don’t insult us by repeating it.
Justin Said:
I deal with your statements of fact and not with your professed intent. Its too bad that so far you show yourself unable to deal with facts such as legally binding treaties,disinformation, etc
Justin Said:
we deal in facts not compliments, your posts lack accurate facts, deal with those and leave out the pontificating, whiny, parroted rubbish.
Justin Said:
I believe you are lying, but if you are not there is no reason for you to state it. do you believe that Israelis and their government are not infinitely more aware of the actual facts than you and your pathetic government of squueeky kids fresh out of college.. are you seriously arriving with your peer invented foolishness preaching to the knowledgeable?
Justin Said:
do you have any support for this assumption and why is it relevant to settlements. Its only relevance is to show that settlements is not their problem but rather Jews… deal with facts and issue.
Justin Said:
I have quoted some of the relevant international legally binding treaties and you did not answer to them . Furthermore you offer no support for your ludicrous statement… you cite not one law or treaty…. you merely bask in the knowledge that most fools, like your peers at Mondoweiss, will accept your parroting of other parrots as truth. You say you attended college but I thought american colleges give basic freshman courses in critical thinking and acceptable standards of citation wrt to asserting facts. Citations, support, facts… we are not your parroting peers…
Justin Said:
I said that International law supports “the facilitation of immigration and the encouragement of close settlement of the jewish people in the palestine mandate territory” you obviously are completely ignorant of those facts, never read them but come here spreading lies of illegality based on your parroting and trust in……who? Furthermore, as recently discussed on this or another page on this forum it is especially written into american law at the time of the mandate and is still binding. The US admin who publishes notions of illegality or illegitimacy is breaking their own laws…. go and read the relevant laws and then talk. the lying euros are bound by the same treaties I cited.
Justin Said:
this is a spurious argument from a massively ignorant or massively dishonest individual. First, in any legal issue there are legal “experts” who tout their opinion; 2nd the argument that the numbers touting the issue determines the truth of the issue is illogical and fallacious by any standards of logical debate; 3rd it demonstrates your character in trying to cajole the Jews to give up their culture and land to a hateful extortionate scenario because the numbers are against them. the numbers have always been against the Jews. the same euro christian collective which swindled, libeled, tortured and slaughtered the Jews for 2000 years are continuing today by swindling and libeling the Jews just as you do here. They have not yet returned to the pogroms and genocide but they give moral and financial support to NGO’s with connections to Jew killing arab orgs. Furthermore, you nave no support or evidence that the majority of “experts in the field” have in fact a majority for the libelous canards. YOu have your feelings which is all you deal in. Most of you BDS delegitimizers beleive that israel is suffering from your defaming efforts but in fact Israel prospers like no other time.
Justin Said:
such a despicable, dishonest and extortionate argument. You are without shame.
Justin Said:
Again, you did not deal with facts…. I showed you that in spite of your BDS rubbish the US congress has increased aid to 3.7 billion in the overt budget. You have an interest in perpetuating the canard of US hostility. the only hostility is the obama admin and its meddling in the internal affairs of Israel trying to create election outcomes. Obama, you , the left and the BDS movement are FAR from being a majority of Americans. you are merely parroting BDS canards which are without fact. In fact, the pendulum is swinging the other way… govs are shifting away from the leftist canards through elections in europe and the US. they , unlike you, are beginning to get the facts from themselves rather than relying on those known for taqiyya.
Justin Said:
It is not hard… it is written in US law…. honest admins may quote their own laws to the delegitimizers AND the applicable international laws regarding the legitimacy of Jewish settlement in ALL of Israel. As long as you and the honor killers continue to spread these lies your efforts to swindle the Jews will prove futile. as long as YOU proclaim the illegality or illegitimacy of Jewish settlement in ANY part of the Jewish homeland of Israel then IMO you are a crooked libeling swindler.
Justin Said:
not ad hominem, I provided support and evidence for my facts and opinions whereas you merely parrot BDS parrots. Show evidence and stop whining… we do not need your childish whining, whinging and lies.
Justin Said:
your opposition is irrelevant…. you come here and spread lies and those lies endanger the Jewish people. You have failed to produce one shred of evidence for your libelous claims whereby you seek to promote that “Jewish settlement is either illegal or illegitimate” in any part of the jewish homeland of Israel.” Posters on this site have given reams of evidence and support against your claims and all you produce are pontificating, double standard, moralistic whines.
Ted Belman Said:
in a nutshell!
@ Justin:I gotta hand it to you for hanging in to very strong criticism and even ad hominem attacks.Which I try to suppress. You are often taken by surprise at the responses your comments engender. Perhaps its because you didn’t know the import of what you are saying. You think your remarks are OK and we violently disagree. Perhaps you should look at what you have said and get to understand how we interpret your words. Better still, if you spend a month reading our stuff including comments you will understand better what you say that irritates. You are too uninformed for my readers to pontificate. Ask questions. yes. Pontificate, no. You are here to learn not to pontificate, at least not for a month or two. I do hope you continue to read our stuff and hang around. Maybe you will see the light.
@ Justin: The Palestinians have two versions of a two State Solution neither one ends up with the Jewish State of Israel existing in the end. The Hamas version defeats Israel by terrorism. The Jews are killed or run away and they create an Islamic State in lieu of Israel.
The second version Abbas and his followers believe in, is the two stage solution. First all of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza become the first stage of the Palestinian State. Then they flood millions of so called Palestinians, most whom never lived in Israel into the pre 1967 lines. Then they start more terror attacks from within pre 1967, the West Bank and Gaza and then kill off the Jews.
The Palestinians do not agree to Jewish state in any size. This is the crux of the conflict and not settlements. From 1948 until 1967 there was not one settlement and they were still trying to kill off Israel. So this is a red herring.
Netanyahu was coerced by Obama to say he would agree to a two state solution. He said he would do so only with Israeli security in all strategic parts of the West Bank, Plus recognition of the Jewish State. This is needed to show that Palestinians agree to the end of the conflict plus agree that Israel does not have to take in more Arabs and the conflict was over. He probably does not believe they will ever agree to these conditions as they have said. So short term he fended off Obama but just pushed the issue downstream buying time, in order not to have a complete rift with the USA.
I and many others believe in what Bennett says, “that there can be no Palestinian State”.
Israel will NOT deport the Arabs in mass as you suggest. So the issue which has no easy solution is what happens with the Arabs. This is what is being discussed in Israel.
So to make concessions to them as under Oslo accords was a huge mistake. Israel ended up with over 1500 dead and 10,000 wounded due to agreeing to Oslo. The “Oslo Peace Accords” is a misnomer. It should be have been named “Oslo Reign of Terror” as it brought Arafat and his Terror Boys back from Tunisia to attack Israeli’s.
Agreement to a Palestinian State by Israel is a version of State Suicide or least a prelude to a new larger war in a much inferior position. So a new solution to Palestinian issue must be found that is not based on the Oslo Accords.