‘Take not heed unto all words that are spoken,” the wise old preacher Ecclesiastes wrote. You might find to your grief that people don’t always say what they mean — or worse, that they do.
In that spirit, here’s a quick primer to some common sayings in circulation these days and what they really mean.
Myth No. 1: Israeli settlements in the territories aren’t the problem preventing peace. The problem is Arab refusal to accept Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state.
Actually, the Arabs have formally accepted Israel’s legitimacy. The Palestine Liberation Organization accepted it in September 1988, when it endorsed the 1947 United Nations Partition Resolution dividing Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. The PLO decision was endorsed unanimously by the Arab League in February 2002.
In both cases, Arab acceptance of Israel’s right to statehood was made conditional on Israeli acceptance of a Palestinian right to statehood in the territories alongside Israel.
Many Palestinians, however, don’t believe Israel honestly accepts their right to statehood. They see continued Israeli construction in the heart of their anticipated state as a sign of bad faith at best, and at worst as a deliberate Israeli attempt to turn the future Palestine into Swiss cheese. Indeed, the Jewish radicals who have set up shop in the heart of the West Bank settled there not for the view but to make territorial compromise impossible.
Israel itself agreed to a complete freeze on settlement, including “natural growth,” plus the dismantling of settlement outposts, when it accepted President Bush’s road map to peace in 2003. The Palestinians, in return, agreed to tough action against terrorism. Six years later, the Palestinians have made considerable progress against violence, Israeli and Western intelligence agencies agree. Israel, for its part, hasn’t dismantled the outposts. And now it has rolled out its new policy of a partial, time-limited construction freeze as though it were a major new concession for which Israel should be compensated, rather than a late, grudging fulfillment of an old commitment.
No, settlements aren’t the only major impediment to peace, but they make it a lot harder.
As for Arab acceptance of Israel “as a Jewish state,” this is a red herring. Nations don’t recognize each others’ internal self-definitions; rather, nations recognize other nations’ sovereign right to define themselves without outside interference, positive or negative. The United States doesn’t recognize Great Britain as a monarchy, nor China as a communist state; it simply recognizes them as sovereign and free to arrange themselves as they choose. Israel doesn’t really want Egypt or the future Palestine to tell it what kind of nation it should be. The whole idea was introduced last spring by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a stalling tactic.
Myth No. 2: Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and other territories it captured in 1967 is illegal.
The Israeli occupation might be called many things, but “illegal” isn’t one of them. The multilateral treaty known as the Fourth Geneva Convention is the body of international law governing military occupation of territories captured in war, detailing what an occupying power can and can’t legally do. The underlying presumption is that the occupation itself is legal; otherwise the entire discussion of how to conduct the occupation would be moot.
It is true that certain Israeli actions as an occupying power — including settling its citizens in occupied territories and detaining security prisoners on Israel’s own sovereign territory — are explicitly banned in the fourth convention, presumably meaning they violate international law. Israel interprets the language of the convention differently, and no international tribunal has ruled on who is right. But the underlying fact of occupation remains unassailably legal until such time as the territories’ final disposition is determined in a peace agreement, may it come speedily.
Myth No. 3: Jews don’t expel other Jews.
If this statement is taken to mean that expelling families from their homes is a human rights violation, as it’s undoubtedly supposed to sound to the unwary ear, it’s patently untrue. Governments around the world routinely expel families to make way for highways, dams and other projects deemed in the public interest. Israel itself evicted scores of Arab families to create an open plaza alongside the Western Wall, hundreds more to clear a security zone through Rafah in southern Gaza and thousands over the years because a close relative was involved in terrorism.
If the intent is specifically that Jews should respect the sanctity of other Jews’ homes at any expense, it’s still untrue. Thousands of Israeli Jews have been expelled from their homes over the years to make way for urban renewal in the Mamilla district of downtown Jerusalem or the Ayalon Highway into downtown Tel Aviv or simply for nonpayment of rent or mortgage. Expelling families from their homes is standard practice in every culture. It’s called “real estate.”
What they really mean is something completely different: Jews shouldn’t prevent other Jews who are more devout from staking land claims, based on their own reading of the Bible, in order to dictate Israel’s foreign and defense policies.
Myth No. 4: Israel is the only country in the world that is not allowed to build in its own capital.
This is a trick question. Indeed, Israel probably is the only country that is condemned for building in its own capital — or, more precisely, in the capital’s eastern portion.
On the other hand, Israel is also the only country in the world that has formally included within its capital city’s boundaries land that no other country in the world — not one — recognizes as being within its sovereign territory.
Contact J.J. Goldberg at goldberg@forward.com and follow his blog at blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Claims Conference Chief Knew of $57M Holocaust Fraud Probe Earlier 
Top Dog: Who Makes the Best Kosher Hot Dog in America?
Why Do Jews Intermarry at a Much Higher Rate Than Others?
End Orthodox Monopoly on Jewish Marriage in Israel
Boston Bombers Pal Slain in Florida Eyed in 'Jewish' Triple Murder
You've successfully signed up!
While I don't agree or disagree with these three above statements, I do see you have forgotten one major fact. And that is that Israel is suffocating the Palestinian population and committing dozens of human rights violations. Or did you forget about that?
Because it seems as if the Israeli government has forgotten that although their people were once were suffocated by the Nazis in ghettos, now that they are agglomerated in a strong state they can do the same to a group that is weaker to them. While Israel might have the right to their own state, that fact that they must achieve it in this fashion is clearly despicable.
"Israel interprets the language of the convention differently, and no international tribunal has ruled on who is right."
Not true. The International Court of Justice, in its advisory ruling on the Security Fence, directly addressed Israel's interpretation of the 4th Geneva Convention, and ruled that it was wrong. (See http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf?PHPSESSID=57749c8636b74ac9c5bcea552ff44881 at paras. 90-101 and para. 120.) Settlements are directly in violation of the Convention.
Interestingly, even the one judge who dissented from the main body of the ruling, Judge Thomas Buergenthal from the USA, wrote in his dissent that he accepted the position of the majority on this particular issue: that Israeli settlements are in violation of the Geneva Convention. (See http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1687.pdf?PHPSESSID=57749c8636b74ac9c5bcea552ff44881 at para. 9.) On that matter the International Court of Justice was unanimous.
J.J. Goldberg - You could argue that the the Arab League and the PLO have recognized Israel. I would debate this with you, but at least I can understand your train of thought. But your argument that they have recognized Israel's LEGITIMACY is absurd. No one in the Arab world has gone beyond recognizing the fact that there is a state called Israel and that its government has the right to represent it in negotiations - none has recognized its legitimacy.
Moreover, the two latest wars in the Arab-Israeli dispute were wars in which the Arab side (Hizbullah and Hamas) were movements that are very clear about their aspiration to destroy Israel - not to recognize its existence or its legitimacy. So the issue of recognition is not a myth, and it's quite strange that you would think that this problem has be resolved.
J.J. Goldberg - You could argue that the the Arab League and the PLO have recognized Israel. I would debate this with you, but at least I can understand your train of thought. But your argument that they have recognized Israel's LEGITIMACY is absurd. No one in the Arab world has gone beyond recognizing the fact that there is a state called Israel and that its government has the right to represent it in negotiations - none has recognized its legitimacy.
Moreover, the two latest wars in the Arab-Israeli dispute were wars in which the Arab side (Hizbullah and Hamas) were movements that are very clear about their aspiration to destroy Israel - not to recognize its existence or its legitimacy. So the issue of recognition is not a myth, and it's quite strange that you would think that this problem has be resolved.
The demand that the Arabs recognize Israel as a Jewish state is not a "red herring". Perhaps it's true that "nations don’t recognize each others’ internal self-definitions"; however, our conflict with the Arabs is not a normal conflict. The uniqueness of the circumstances has given birth to a unique set of relations and demands. The Arabs reject the connection between the Jewish people and this country. November 2 (the Balfour Declaration) and May 15 (the founding of Israel) are official days of mourning on the Palestinian calendar. In other words, the recognition of Jewish aspirations in this country and the actual founding of a Jewish state are defined as an injustice that negates the very idea that they have recognized Israel's legitimacy. They haven't. The UN has established Nov 29 as a day of identification with the Palestinians. Why Nov 29? Oh, that was the day that the UN itself voted on partition. It would be hard to convince a critical person that the PLO has really accepted the Partition Plan. Its day of ratification is a day for Palestinian protest as well (under the sanction of the UN). In such an ideological reality wherein the Palestinians deny Jewish history ("there was never a Jewish Temple, and never an ancient Jewish kingdom"), deny Jewish peoplehood ("the Jews are just a religious community, citizens of various countries") and official political ideologies call for Israel's demise (the Hamas Charter) - in such an unusual and unique reality, an Israeli might find it relevant that the other side recognize the legitimacy of Jewish aspirations. I wouldn't ask that Belgium recognize Israel as a Jewish state, simply because such a recognition wouldn't have any political or ideological importance. Belgium hasn't dedicated its entire school system, mass media and national literature to denying the Jewish story. The Palestinians have.
If the problem in myth 4 is that Israel added territory to the city limits of Jerusalem that no one else recognizes, then how is that an impediment to moving the embassy from Tel-Aviv to the part of Jerusalem that isn't contrversial (e.g. west Jerusalem)?
In today's editorial of the Jerusalem Post, there is the following message: "Responsible world leaders should now focus on persuading Abbas to reach out to the people of Israel by accepting Israel as a Jewish state (not to be flooded, that is, with millions of Palestinians)...." Interesting. Not a "red herring", not "a stalling tactic". In the eyes of the Jerusalem Post, the demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is quite serious. By the way, why are the Palestinians so adamant in their rejection of the demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state? They also understand that accepting the demand would obligate them to accept the fact that the conflict has come to its end.
Here's the Post editorial: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1260930882031&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Okay, David, no international tribunal with jurisdiction has ruled. Happy now?
J. J. - In regard to Myth No. 2: I may be confused on this, but isn't the occupation illegal under some interpretations of U.N. Resolution 242? Or do you consider the resolution irrelevant to this question?
Palestinian anti-Semitism has long been recognized as a vehicle of hatred. From academics teaching that Judaism permits murder and rape of non-Jews, to religious leaders teaching that Islam demands the extermination of Jews, Palestinian anti-Semitism is a compelling force driving hatred and terror.
The Palestinian Authority depicts Jews as the archetypal force of evil throughout history. Jews are said to be responsible for all the world's problems: wars, financial crises, even the spreading of AIDS. Jews are a danger to humanity.
Whereas this paradigm has been used before, the Palestinians take it a step further, turning demonization of Jews into the basis for Palestinian denial of Israel's right to exist and a central component of Palestinian national identity.
Because of Jews' evil nature, according to this Palestinian principle, nations of the world have been involved in continuous defensive actions to protect themselves. The anti-Semitic oppression, persecution and expulsions suffered by Jews throughout history are presented as the legitimate self-defense responses of nations.
Ibrahim Mudayris, a PA religious official, delineated this ideology: "The Jews are a virus similar to AIDS, from which the entire world is suffering. This has been proven in history... Ask Britain!... Ask France!... Ask Portugal... Ask czarist Russia - who invited the Jews and they plotted to murder the czar!... Don't ask Germany what it did to the Jews, since the Jews are the ones who provoked Nazism to fight the entire world" (PA TV, May 13, 2005).
The apex of this Palestinian ideology, and possibly its purpose, is to use this demonization of Jews as the basis for denying Israel legitimacy and to present Palestinians as the ultimate victims. According to this Palestinian model, the Jews, who are said to have no history in the land, would never have considered coming to "Palestine": Europeans created Zionism as the final act in the long series of self-defense measures, to rid themselves of the "burden" of the Jews.
Political commentator Fathi Buzia recently explained this on official PA television: "Europe, led by Britain, founded Israel... The Jews in the time of Herzl caused European societies to lose sleep. They wanted to be rid of them, and implanted them in Palestine" (PA TV, June 17). Dr Riad al-Astal, a history lecturer at Al Azhar University in Gaza, explained it this way: "In aiding Zionism, Britain's first aim was to be rid of the Jews, who were known to provoke disputes and disturbances and financial crises in Germany, France and other European states" (PA TV, December 28, 2003).
THIS DEMONIZATION of Jews as the reason for delegitimizing Israel has been an integral part of Palestinian ideology, voiced by political, academic and religious leaders since the establishment of the PA. Already in 1998 the official PA daily described both Hitler's attempt to exterminate the Jews and British support for Zionism as defensive measures: "Hitler did not have colonies to send the Jews so he destroyed them, whereas Balfour... [turned] Palestine into his colony and sent the Jews. Balfour is Hitler with colonies, while Hitler is Balfour without colonies. They both wanted to get rid of the Jews... Zionism was crucial to the defense of the West's interests in the region, [by] ridding Europe of the burden of its Jews" (Al-Hayat al-Jadida [Fatah], June 12, 1998).
This is not merely incitement; this is the foundation of Palestinian ideology. Israel is denied legitimacy and Palestinian victimhood becomes the foundation upon which a Palestinian national identity is created. Therefore, the Palestinian anti-Semitism construct is so problematic and hard to dislodge. Since the aim of Palestinian anti-Semitism is not merely to promote hatred, but part of a systematic demonization of Jews to deny Israel's right to exist, proving that Jews are evil has become an element of the ongoing Palestinian narrative.
Indeed, even in the period of the Annapolis Conference, the PA has never stopped disseminating a steady diet of hatred of Jews and Israelis. It has accused Jews and Israel of spreading AIDS among Palestinians, causing drug addiction among youth, planning to destroy the Aksa Mosque, and murdering Yasser Arafat. Jews are said to have lived in ghettos not because of European hatred, but because they see themselves as superior and do not want to mix with non-Jews, while the Palestinian chief religious justice recently said that the Koran warns of the Jews' inherently evil traits. Zionists are said to have forced Palestinians to undergo "selections" during the War of Independence, whereby the fit were put in labor camps and the unfit killed - some even burned alive.
All this and much more, since the renewal of the peace process.
The tragic reality is that this Palestinian anti-Semitism and its conclusions may already be ingrained in Palestinian society. During a talk show for teens on official PA TV, a young girl explained the reason Jews live in Israel: "About the problem of the Jewish presence: You'd agree that the Jewish presence in the land of Palestine was nothing but the liberation of all the countries of the world from the source of evil. The evil that is found in the Jews has become a germ among us, which is a cancer that buried us and is still burying. And we are the ones who suffer from this cancer" (PA TV, June 23, 2002). The adult moderator did not correct her. And why should he? She was merely reiterating the basis of Palestinian national identity.
IN OTHER countries, anti-Semitism has been a tool to promote hatred for a variety of internal reasons. As such, when hatred was no longer necessary, anti-Semitism as a government policy could be eradicated, as in post-Nazi Germany.
But the goal of PA demonization of Jews transcends mere hatred. Anti-Semitism is its political tool to defame Zionism, deny Israel's right to exist and create victimhood as the glue that cements Palestinian national identity. Because this political goal will exist as long as Israel exists, Palestinian anti-Semitism will be much harder to uproot
Let's be precise about Myth No. 2. I don't know if the *occupation* violates international law. I know the *settlements* violate international law.
Theodor Meron, the Israeli foreign ministry's chief legal counsel in 1967, wrote a top-secret memo in which he wrote: "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/opinion/10gorenberg.html
Gershom Gorenberg, the Israeli historian, found the memo while he was doing research in the Israeli archives.
Gorenberg published the memo, and put it on his web site. There used to be an English translation on the Internet but I can't find one any more.
Meron, who now teaches international law at NYU, has repeatedly stated that he still believes the settlements are illegal. He was interviewed on CNN.
So Israel is clearly violating international law. Israel's own top international lawyers say so.
The conflict in the Middle East is political. The legal aspects are interesting, and they serve as part of the debate - but in the end, the political agreement between the sides will be the final arrangement. Norman brings (again) the legal opinion of Mr Meron as if it's the only opinion that has ever been brought to the attention of Israel's government. There are other opinions, obviously. So far, no other state was ever founded in the territory of the former Mandate besides Israel. Her claim to such territory is, therefore, no less significant than the claims of others.
But, in the final account, the issues are political. The Palestinians will found their state only when they reach an agreement with Israel which will include borders. Those settlements (within the agreed-upon borders) will be part of Israel, and the debate over their status will be over.
Many people, particularly Palestinians and anti-Israel activists in the west, are now claiming that there should be a one-state solution. Ironically, one of their major arguments is that the settlements are "irreversible" and, therefore, it is impossible to draw borders between the two national communities. I don't really believe them when they say "irreversible"; rather, their true agenda is the disestablishment of the Jewish state and its replacement with the new state. But, without their noticing, these people have noted that the settlements are a political issue - not a question of legality. If the settlements are the excuse for a one-state solution, the supporters of this solution have declared that the settlements are permanent and will not be removed (i.e. legitimate).
Frank Bamberger - UNSC Resolution calls for the return of territories captured in the "recent" war (1967). The resolution also calls for the recognition of all states in the region to live in secured and recognized borders. So, the withdrawal from territories goes hand-in-hand with a negotiated end of conflict. That was the intention of the resolution which essentially rejected the Arab (and Soviet) demand that Israel be branded the "aggressor" that must unconditionally withdraw from the territories. No, the withdrawal is conditionalized on the end of conflict. Therefore, as noted by J.J Goldberg, "the underlying fact of occupation remains unassailably legal until such time as the territories’ final disposition is determined in a peace agreement".
No, Qol, there are no other serious legal opinions. Even the Israeli government accepted Meron's opinion. The leaders among the settlers knew this.
The significance is that Israel isn't asking for its rights. It's demanding that the Palestinians surrender and legitimatize theft.
Basically, the Israelis are saying, "We want it because might makes right" or "We want it and we don't care about anybody else."
That's not a persuasive argument for the rest of the world.
And the Palestinians would never accept that. They'll just vote in Hamas at the next election.
Norman - The Israeli government regards those settlements that were established with its approval to be legal. The High Court in the State of Israel also regards such settlements as legal. So, despite your self-confidence that there is only one serious opinion - there are apparently other opinions. All in all, as I'm sure you understand, the conflict is political, and legality will be defined by the final agreement.
No, Israel is not asking the Palestinians to surrender. We are asking them to negotiate an end of conflict. I should point out to you that Israel is the obviously stronger side in this war - and despite her strength, she is asking the weaker side to agree to a reasonable peace treaty that takes into account the aspirations of the Jewish people. She is not asking to force a treaty on the Palestinians. Ironically, it's the weaker side that does not recognize the interests of Israel, and defines "peace" as the ultimate defeat of Israel. That is the meaning of the Hamas Charter, for example. Hamas wants an Islamic state over the entire country (i.e. victory over Israel). Abba Eban noted in one of his brilliant UN speeches in the wake of Israel's victory in 1967 - that this is the only case in history wherein the victorious power is suing its defeated enemies for peace, but the defeated side is insisting on unconditional surrender!
Let's say, for argument's sake, that Israel would wish to force a surrender on the Palestinians. It's not the case, but we will assume it, nonetheless, in order to understand your view. Would this aim be an unprecedented policy of a society in conflict? Obviously not. It's quite common in history. Always, when listening to the arguments of the anti-Israel crowd, they seem to define the most normal things for any other country to be so immorally improper for Israel. In your case, the view seems to be even stranger: A normal ambition (victory in an armed conflict) is defined as abnormal (only) for Israel even if that is not her ambition.
Norman might find the following article of Commentary Magazine to be surprising: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-illegal-settlements-myth-15295
There are other views about the settlements. The world is not so simple as he thinks it is.
I was a bit taken back by Norman's "legitimatize theft" remark. It is amazing to read the comments of an American citizen, living in America, who refers to America in the first person ("we") - and then remarks about "land theft". We are debating about "myths" in the Middle East conflict, not even agreeing on what is "myth" and what is "fact". However, I couldn't imagine that there is any debate as to the American story (I've seen a few Hollywood films). Now, Norman holds no responsibility for the destruction of the civilization in America - but the immigration of his family to the USA during the 20th century is an expression of his "legitimatizing theft". Perhaps, a little humility would be in order - or perhaps, a milder method of conducting a debate. There is a conflict in the Middle East. The two sides are fighting for their perceived rights and interests. The name throwing is just a way of vilifying the one side (Israel).
The settlements are not preventing peace at all, the Israelis and Arabs are at war, no peace, no obligation, if fact the settlements are a strategic strength in a war that began and never has ended. What of the "right of return" what of Arab intransigence and its public hatred of Israel and the many thousands of terrorist attacks and thousands of attempts that have been thwarted. Anyone living outside of Israel especially one that is not fluent in hebrew, knows not enough to argue. In all your ignorance and smarminess JJ it all comes down to "which side are you on".
ALL of "israel" is stolen, and ALL of it must be returned to its original owner. Just because the UN was bullied in 1948 to create a zionist colony in the Middle East doesnt mean its legitimate. You must choose "israel" or peace. Its that simple
Raed Kami - Your history is a bit confused. The UN did not establish the State of Israel in 1948. There was a very important General Assembly decision that was passed on Nov 29, 1947, calling for the partition of the country into two states - an Arab state and a Jewish state. It should be noted, however, that the UN did not decide to implement its decision by force. On the contrary - the Partition Plan was meant to be a compromise program that would prevent war. Furthermore, General Assembly decisions are not binding. The Arabs rejected the decision, and they went to war. It is a unique event in the annals of the UN that someone would go to war against a UN decision, but that's what happened. The UN, however, did not go to war to force its decision on its Arab opponents. Hence, the State of Israel was not founded by the UN. It was founded by the Jewish people whose determination and self-sacrifice fulfilled ancient dreams.
Although you don't know history, still, your philosophy is very clear. The entire idea of Jewish statehood, in your eyes, is illegitimate. You always volunteer to clarify that the conflict is about Israel's legitimacy - not just a dispute over the results of the 1967 war. "Peace" is define by you as another way of saying "the disestablishment of Israel and sending away its Jewish inhabitants". Well, if indeed you believe that the choice is "Israel or peace", then surely it is obvious to you that we are willing to shoulder the burdens of life in this land and our statehood.
I read the Commentary article by Phillips and it wasn't surprising. That's what I meant when I said that there are no "serious" opinions. Commentary can always find a law professor to write an advocacy piece defending Israel's settlements. That's what lawyers do.
I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to get into the details of the legal arguments. But Meron understands international law very well, he was the Israeli foreign affairs ministry's own legal advisor, and he decided that the settlements were illegal. Nowhere does Phillips respond to Meron's arguments.
Who do you believe -- Phillips, who was selected by Commentary to write a defense of the settlements, or Meron, who was writing candidly in a secret memo to Israel's top leaders? I believe Meron.
If you don't agree with Meron, then let's get an impartial party to decide -- take it to the World Court.
Who do you believe -- Phillips, who was selected by Commentary to write a defense of the settlements, or Meron, who was writing candidly in a secret memo to Israel's top leaders? I believe Meron.
I dont believe either Phillips or Meron. I believe Raed Kami. He is the only honest commentator here
Norman - The status of the settlements will be determined by the final peace treaty. International disputes are settled at the negotiation table. That means "give and take". The Palestinians will also have to reach an understanding with Israel through "give and take". That's part of growing up and facing the reality of a dispute. In many of your arguments, you seem to attach importance to legal proceedings as if the conflict will be settled in court. I think that you wish for the Palestinians to achieve their achievements without having to pay the political price thereof. Well, the status quo can continue as it is (a low-intensity armed confrontation) or a peace treaty can be negotiated in which both sides will have to compromise.
Yehuda, you are wrong. Disputes can only be settled by give and take when both parties are legitimate. However, when the dispute is between a thief and an owner, there is no give and take. All we have to do is wait, and a nuclear armed Iran, a European Union which has experienced 2 millenia of your machinations, and a weakened US will restore justice to us. Ultimately, you will have to leave stolen Palestine with your tail between your legs. Norman understands this
Raed - Actually, Norman has claimed in past arguments that Israel within the 1967 borders is legitmate, and he regularly pretends to believe that Hamas would accept her existence within those borders. So, officially, he doesn't understand your point of view that the Jews will have to leave the entire country. However, I would tend to agree with you that the real position of the anti-Israel crowd is probably very close to your position.
Very often people claim that anti-Zionism is a new version of historic antisemitism. When this claim is made, the anti-Israel people get very "insulted", and they complain that legitimate "criticism" of Israel is being stifled. Whether the claim is true or not would be a nice debate on another occasion. However, what is obvious about you, Raed, is that your anti-Israel is indeed an expression of antisemitism ("2 millenia of your machinations" assumes the veracity of the classic antisemitic argument of Jewish evil). Amazingly, the Hamas Charter assumes the truth of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and the evil instinct of the Jews. It's beyond me to understand why your efforts to fight a propaganda war against Israel's existence should be racist. It's also beyond me to understand why a Jewish intellectual could identify with you.
Raed, I believe the Jews should be allowed to stay within the 1967 borders.
The Palestinians who were driven out of their lands should be compensated, since the injustice to them was even greater than the injustice to the settlers in Gaza. The Gaza settlers got $100,000 to $300,000. I think $300,000 would be a fair cash compensation for most Palestinians for their land.
But most of all, Palestinians have said that they want respect from the Israelis. They want an apology for the injustices done to them.
I think a fair and just settlement, which most Palestinians would accept, would be compensation of up to $300,000 per family, and an apology from Israel for the injustices of the Nakhba.
In return the Palestinians would recognize Israel in whatever formula the Israelis want. Hamas wrote one Charter; they can write another Charter.
As Palestinian leaders have said, the Jews would be welcome to stay in their settlements if they agreed to abide by Palestinian law. But there wouldn't be any more Jewish-only roads.
Norman - Have you said that "the Jews would stay in their settlements" under the Palestinian law? You mean to say that the settlements are legal.
I am appalled that a supposedly Jewish publication would print such a farrago of anti-Israel myths and by the level of ignorance of the commentators. Mythbuster 1: The Arabs have NOT accepted Isreal's existence. They lied that they did and Israel bashers believe them. The PLO Charter has not been changed and still calls for the liberation of "Palestine" through "resistance". The option for the return to terror was endorsed just a few weeks ago at the PA congress. The 4th Geneva Convention is inapplicable as the territories are in dispute and "Palestine" is not a signatory to the convention. Further, Jewish settlers moved into Judea and Samaria voluntarily, so the Convention is not contravened. Mythbuster 2: Israel is not an occupier and its control of Judea and Samaria is legal. An occupation occurs when a sovereign state has been taken over by force. There never was a "Palestine", so there is a dispute about how much Israel in fighting a defensive should allocate to a hostile population living there. Mythbuster 3: Jews expel Jews on government demands both for political reasons, as in Gaza and in unauthorised settlements. Israel has not built any new settlement for 15 (!!) years. And it is silly to refer to moving people for legitimate government projects. It is not a matter of religion, the more so as the right of settlement was bestowed by the Arabs' three nos in 1967 in Khartoum: No negotiations, no recognition, no peace. Mytbuster 4: Isreal has decided to continue building in its eternal capital as is its sovereign right. The so-called eastern part is where 58 synagogues were destroyed by the Arabs. The international attitude is that what Israel had lost - part of Jerusalem, part of lake Kinneret shore line and Gush Etzion - has become Arab, while what Israel has gained or retaken is to be returned to the Arabs. Pure hypocrisy. Anti-Zionism masking antisemitism! Lastly, the fact that no nation recognises Israel's incorporation of that part of Jerusalem from which it expelled the Jordanian occupiers is supremely irrelevant. Israel holds the territory and no nation will force it out of there. Who in fact is concerned with recognition? Japan does not recognise Russia's possession of the Kuriles, Argentina does not recognise Britain's hold over the Falkland Islands and Cuba may have some legitimate complaint about the USA's outpost in Guantanamo. Eventually reality will take hold, just as it did with the recognition of China.
Paul,
Cool it. Everything that doesn't conform to your opinions is "anti-Israel." We've heard that line before. It gets old fast.
Its not anti-Israel to be anti-Israel
There are deeper myths being taken as fact.
Myth #1: Israel is occupying land. The only land Israel can be truly said to occupy is the Golan, the West Bank are Israeli land. The Palestinian claim is based on their rejection of partition which is like trying to tell a car dealership that you own a car you promised to buy but attempted to steal and then after if it was stolen by a third party and returned to its owner. Israel is the only post mandate government that has any claim national right to the West Bank. Arab claims are better sourced in the right to self determination, not illegal occupation.
Myth #2: Settlements deprive Palestinian Arabs of a state. This is simply not true, Arab claims should be based on self determination and if there happen to be Jews living on land that is granted to a Palestinian state they should be offered citizenship there.
Myth #3: East Jerusalem is separate from Jerusalem. The Return of Jerusalem from Jordanian occupation in 1967 is simply that. The fact that the world doesn't recognize the annexation of Jerusalem merely shows the political limitation of the UN in terms of being just and practical. Arabs living there would be in a far greater position to demand their rights in terms of land ownership and zoning if this question was settled. Israel (As the Mandate Client) gave up Jerusalem to be an "international city" as part of partition but the other parties violated this agreement and that makes it null and void and thus Israel's property.