Middle East Post

Ziad,

This is cheap propaganda to my ears.

“These people were obliged to go and find another place to live in”

Obvioulsy not all “these people” were “obliged to find another place”. Israelh Arabs are about 20% of the population.

“The lands that the Israeli state was built on are lands that were taken from its owners.”

Most of the land was not privately owned but state land. State land passed from the Ottoman Empire to the British Mandate and finally to the State of Israel by right.

“What makes it difficult to be understood that the Jewish people did suffer through history and especially in Europe and under the Nazis, but is not paying attention to the suffering of the people that is living beside it.”

I can present you a list of Iraeli organisations trying to relieve Palestinian suffering. I do not know of any equivalent on the Palestinian side, do you?

“so would it be possible to give this people a chance to live in peace”

Who is actually forcing Hamas in the Gaza strip to perpetuate violence and fighting? And who forced Arafat to respond to the Camp David II summit with starting the so-called Al-Aksa intifada? These were choices made by Palestinian leades and supported for all I know by a Palestinian majority. Me thinks that Palestinian identity is based on feeling victimized while at the same time resorting to violence.

My association are the “honor killings”. The men who slaughter their daughters, sisters feel that they need to wash off the shame by blood. Palestinians seem to feel that they can wash away their humiliation when they did not succeed to prevent a Jewish state from coming into being by shedding Israeli blood.

Ruth

I consider the use of words as “cheap” not appropriate to my ears too. You may not agree with what I say and I respect that, but describing what I write in these words is not acceptable. It is also easy for me to say the same of what you write, but instead I chose to listen and give the chance for anyone to say what he or she thinks and believes.
I agree that 20% of the Israeli population is Arabs. These Arabs had to become Israeli Arabs because they had no other choice; however, what is important to mention that the others who are not a part of the 20% that had to go and live in other places such as Jordan, Lebanon, and other places became more because they gave birth to thousands and millions of Palestinians. When they left their lands they were 750 thousand Palestinians. I have no exact number but I think more than four million Palestinians live outside this land now and are considered as refugees.
I completely disagree with what you said about the lands: do you think the Ottoman Empire was better or the British Mandate? They were worse, they stole the lands and made the people pay taxes. My grandfather used to own fifty dunoms of land that now Maale Adumim is built on. We have papers that prove that as so many other Palestinians have papers that prove that lands from the 1948 occupation. So even if I go with your theory of state land, still there are other proofs that this was a Palestinian land. The least is that Palestinians used to live on it.
I am really happy that there are so many Israeli organizations that try to help Palestinians and I wish they will become more in the future, but let me tell you one important thing, the Palestinian case does not only need aid, care, money, and pity. The Palestinian case is a case of occupation, refugees, rights, and land that was occupied. I hope that a day will come with an Israeli Political leadership that will be able to understand this.
Considering what you said about Arafat and the Aqsa Intifada, I have to tell you that you are right that the people support him and will support any other leader that will take such a decision. Ariel Sharon thought that he can go and walk in one of the holiest Islamic Places and that he was to be welcomed their with roses and an Israeli Flag. Ihud Baraq thought that Arafat will agree in Camp David to share the Aqsa mosque with him. I think that until today and hopefully in the future there will be no Palestinian that will agree to give Jerusalem, the refuges case, and the 1967 lands for free…still we don’t have a KARAZY Palestinian.
The Palestinians including Hamas said several times that they are ready to accept an Israeli state that lives in the 1948 side by side with a free, independent, protected Palestinian state that is not a theatre for the Israeli army that can go into it whenever it want.
Since you mentioned humiliation, I think that the Israeli or the Jewish people do their best and ready to kill and shed blood as much as it is needed to feel that they won’t go through what they went before in the Past. This is a mental illness that they may have because of the fear of what they went through…I feel sorry for that.

Ziad,

I use the word “cheap” not because I do not respect you, but because you claim as facts statements that can easily be disproved. I expect from you that you check your facts and write accordingly.

You realize how phony it sounds if you say that the Arabs who stayed in what was to become Israel had no other option and that the Arabs who left also had no other option?! Obviously, as you yourselves admit, there were at least these two options. Your attempt to denying that there was even a minimal range of options for the and therefore responsiblity of the Arabs is nont intellectually honest.

You also unearth the myth that Sharon’s visit on the Temple Mount (which is incicently not just a holy Muslim place but the most holy Jewish place) caused the Intifada. You must know by now that this is quite simply not true.

Either you have no respect at all for historical integrity od you are an extremely superficial student. I cannot think of a third explanation, can you?

Funny that people don’t notice the coincidence of the anniversaries. Two things were created exactly 60 years ago, by the same institution: the United Nations. Israel, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, based on the principle that all men should have equal rights and dignity, and that the law should not favour one ethnic or religious group over anothr.

The whole Middle East refused this Declaration, because many articles were against Shari’ah (art. 1, 2, 12, 13, 16, 18…). And Israel… What is Aliyah if not a direct contradiction with universality ?

And another one who check his “facts”. The UN was founded in 1945 not in 1948. And obviously Shari’a can not accept universal human rights because they are defined as rights of the individual while Shari’a is based on the collective.

“The whole Middle East” seems to state that no non-muslim is even counted…

I guess the “Jew” in the pseudonym is another lie.

Ruth

Maybe you should read without being angry once everyone says something that you disagree with. The guy said that two decisions were made before 60 years and not that the United Nations was established 60 years ago.

I understand from what you say that the Palestinians had two choices at the time Jews came to occupy their lands: they had the option of staying or of leaving. It seems that you have no idea of the massacres that the Zionist gangs and movements did at the time they entered the lands. It was clear for them that they have to kill and butcher as many as they can in order to make the others fear staying and leave. This is the same strategy that Israel still believes in: Israel must be the strongest in the Middle East and all the others should keep on being afraid from it, so they won’t attack it.

Don’t tell me now that there were no massacres and Roses with a kiss were given to the Palestinians before they left their lands. Even one of Israel’s ministers Yuli Tameer said that the Nakbah should be discussed in school classes because although it is a victory day for Israel, it remains as a miserable memory for the Arabs. Now I predict that you will call her a left peace dreamer. If you can’t even admit that something wrong was made in the past, how could you even try to reach peace, if you even think of it as a choice..

You and everyone else know that what made Sharon visit the AQSA MOSQUE at that specific time was only to make things explode and go out of control. By the way no proof was found until now that says that the temple’s location is under the Aqsa mosque.
I can give you a third explanation: I do respect historical integrity and I am not a superficial student, but I don’t agree to be humiliated and sit down saying nothing. I respect every Jew’s right in praying in the Western Wall, but neither me nor any other Palestinian will agree to give you the Aqsa Mosque.

When really there will be an Israel Peace partner that is convinced of the Idea of having a Palestinian neighbor, there will be chance to figure out something that will satisfy both the Muslims and the Jews, but as long as you think that a day will come that you will destroy this Mosque and built on it the Temple, the result will be more violence and wars for our both peoples.
I am not a hypocrite and trust me I am the best you can ever find concerning Peace seekers, because there won’t be an ISRAELI Palestinian partner that would agree completely on everything that Israel wants. Both Palestinians and Israelis should agree to receive a little less than what they want if they really want peace.

Hi Ruth,

First off, no, I’m not a lie. I really am a Jew. “Palestinian” because, like many Jews, I am anti-Zionist and I support the struggle of the Palestinian people.

Second, read again: two things were created in 1948, BY the UN: #1: Israel, #2: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You read me right: I mean the whole Middle East, all states, even the non-muslim state of Israel, are basically not aplying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Articles 1&2: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

I could simply go on with other articles, but to take these two: there is no freedom of circulation over the State of Israel for Palestinians. If I have no connection whatsoever with Israel, know no one there, don’t speak hebrew, I am still entitled to immediate nationality, based on my “race”, because I’m jewish, while a palestinian will not enjoy this right.

And I do not even include the non-respect of Geneva Conventions, especially the 4th, and the fact that as an occupying power, Israel is juridically held responsible for the Palestinian territories (International Law 101)

I won’t even speak of the fact that Israel is the most recurrent violator of UN resolutions, even despite the fact that the US vetoed 50 resolutions against Israel. Etc

I suggest you attend Law School, or history classes, read Ilan Pappe, Haaretz, Hava Keller, people from Yesh Gvul, meet guys from “Rabbis for Human Rights”, Jeff Halper, Israeli Human Rights group, Israeli Peace Group, Fellowship of Reconciliation, etc, who are ALL JEWS, and they will maybe tell you a different story than “A land without a people for a people without a land”.

That, by the way, was the lie.

Palestinian Jew,

I will not wast my time with you. If you need this approach for your happiness, go ahead. But spare me your need to missionize.

For the record I have a M.A. in history and attended probably a lot more law school than you. Pappe is not respecteable as an intelectual, neither is Jeff Halper. I never denied that there are Jews who are either tremendously naive or screwed up. There always were and in Kenneth Levin: The Oslo Syndrome I found some plausible explanations why this might be the case.

The lie actually is that “a land without a people for a people without a land” was ever a Zionist slogan or approach. It was created by a Scottish, Christian pro-Zionist.

Ziad,

You are right, that I reacted with anger. You are wrong if you feel that I get angry as soon as somebody does not agree with me.

I get angry when somebody does not adhere to the basics of honest discussions and intellectual integrity.

Claiming a disprovable falsehood as fact may happen from time to time and could be an innocent mistake. With you I am convinced that it is not a mistake and not innocent. If you do not accept the basics of discussion, I am wasting my time with you and I feel that I am being used by you. This makes me angry and I think my anger is completely justified.

Another small example for your style of discussion which I am not willing to accept. You wrote:

“You and everyone else know that what made Sharon visit the AQSA MOSQUE at that specific time was only to make things explode and go out of control.”

This is not acceptable. You have no way of knowing what “everyone knows” and even Sharon’s intentions cannot be deducted with absolute certainty. My interpretation and I can give verse and chapter to what I base it on ist that Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount was part of inner-Israeli politics. After all, it was already clear that there would be new elections after Sharansky pulled his party out of the coaltion: “Barak is dividing Jerusalem” was on election posters over all Israel and Sharon’s stroll on the Temple Mount should create the television footage that he would be the guy not to give up any of Jerusalem. Arafat who had been looking for a good excuse for starting violence jumped on the occassion.

If Israel had wanted to take back the Temple Mount and to raze the Mosques it would have done so right after the 67 war. As history shows the few voices asking for this were not heeded and instead the control of the Temple Mount was given to the Waqf.

I have never written anything which would implicate that I would favour destroying the Al Asqua and the Dome of the Rock and your suggesting that I do so is another example of dishonesty.

I also never claimed that Israel is or was perfect. I read Beny Morris and I am aware of atrocities. However, they cannot be understood without the context which was an existencial war for Israel and the Jews.

And yes, I think deterrence is a vital strategy especially in the Middle East. I don’t think that you want to deny that?

Ruth

Let us agree that since I don’t have the right to know what everyone knows, you don’t have the right to judge and say “Claiming a disprovable falsehood as fact may happen from time to time and could be an innocent mistake. With you I am convinced that it is not a mistake and not innocent.”

You aint a judge and neither Israel is the judge of the world. I have my right to say what I think is the truth and you have your right to say what is the truth, but I don’t have the right to say that you are a hypocrite and you don’t have the right to say that Palestinian moderates are hypocrites.
Ruth I started to feel that your problem is that you are angry to find a Palestinian that knows how to talk and discuss things with you, it was always easy for you to say that a Palestinian is a terrorist because of the way he or she talks.

Let me make it clear for you THIS IS ME, if you feel you are wasting time with me or used by me, then you have the choice of not talking with me, but don’t you think that I will change. You need to change and accept everyone else as he or she is not as you or your background wants them to be.

Ruth I find you as important as every other thing I do, your time is important, and my time is filled with important things and people. I am not wasting time with you, but if you keep on saying what you and describe me as a waste of time because of the fear that you may be convinced with some of what I said, so you felt you are used, then it is better not to talk.

I agree with your political explanation for Sharon’s visit and I include that he is still as worse as any other terrorist because his mind is filled of ideas of how to create massacres with Palestinian people. Israel did give the Aqsa to the Waqf because it knows that messing with the Mosque, will result in declaring an opened war with Arabs with no end, that’s why it was not changed until today and not because Israel is generous.

You wrote that Sharon was visiting the TEMPLE MOUNT, it is not the Temple Mount, Now it is the AQSA Mosque with respect to your beliefs, so Sharon has no right to go inside it smiling and teasing people their. Arafat is not a lover or a dreamer of violence, Israel gave him no other choice, Baraq wanted to rule under the Mosque and devide the Old City, keep the big settlements, and blames Arafat for missing a chance of peace.

Arafat was Israel’s best chance for making peace and Israel is the one who missed it now. There is a great post written by Akiva Eldar in the Ha’aretz newspaper on last Monday called “Let him stay home” maybe you should read it. People like this one and Dani Rubenstein, and so many other Israelis have my respect, because they ask for Israel’s right and also are ready to confess when Israel did mistakes and may do mistakes.

If you and the Israeli leadership will keep of thinking about the deterrence strategy in the Middle East, you will give a bigger chance for Iran, Hamas, Syria, and Hezballah to gain more supporter of the “FORCE Brings what was taken” strategy, do you wish this to happen? Then we will ask ourselves why did they follow Iran, because Israel holds such strategies…

Ziad,

Obviously you can and will stay who you are. And so will I.

The Temple Mount is still the Temple Mount although it is at the same time tha Al Sharif. Since Temple Mount is the older description and the one more relevatn to my personal worldview I am using this. You are welcome to use whatever description you feel most comfortable with.

“Israel did give the Aqsa to the Waqf because it knows that messing with the Mosque, will result in declaring an opened war with Arabs with no end, that’s why it was not changed until today and not because Israel is generous.”

This an example of deterrence. You obviously have no problem if Arabs and Arab states use threats of war and violence against Israel. Still you somehow complain that Israel reacts in kind.

Appeasement has sometime worked in history. However, when it backfired as in Munich, the consequences were fatal. Therefore appeasement should not be tried only with a lot of circumspection.

I am convince that it would be the wrong strategy versus the Iranian axis. You may disagree. I wonder on what grounds? Which legitimate interests of Iran Israel could cede and thereby gain a secure peace?

I am quite used to discussing middle eastern politics and I have never assumed that all Palestinians are terrorists (this asssumption is another dishonest slight of hand by you). As yoy have noted I have not called you terrorist but I begin to wonder if you are really interested in a honest exchange. Since you claim you are while your way of agruing does not comply, this makes you either a hypocrite or someone who does not know the rules for honest discussions.

“I include that he is still as worse as any other terrorist because his mind is filled of ideas of how to create massacres with Palestinian people”

Your above remark on Sharon is another one which I have to mark in red. You claim to know the inside of Sharon’s mind and suggest that he is planning or dreaming about massacres. You have not arguments to support your opinion while on the other hand we have the published statements of Hamas people etc. who declare that they plan masscres of Jews. This you disregard and deny completely if you call Sharon worse than any terrorist.

Such a style is not acceptable in any discussion. Don’t you understand my point?

You repeat your denial of responsibility. This time it is Arafat whom you can only see as a puppet devoid of any possible choices. Spare me, you are not serious and/or a hypocrite.

Ruth I started to feel that your problem is that you are angry to find a Palestinian that knows how to talk and discuss things with you, it was always easy for you to say that a Palestinian is a terrorist because of the way he or she talk

Palestinian Jew,

As Ziad pointed out to me, I have misread you.

However, your statement that the UN created Israel and the Declaration of Human Rights “exactly 60 years ago” is still factually wrong.

The UN vote about the creating of a Jewish and an Arab state in the former British Mandate for Palestine was in November 1947 while Human Rights were declared in December 1948, more than a year later.

The declaration of the state of Israel happened in May 1948, however the UN was not involved at this stage.

I do not expect that you will appreciate accuracy. This is only for the record. Sloppy and factually wrong statements are used to make propaganda points but have not place in an intellectually honest discourse.

Ruth,

Very well… Let us not get into personal background. I congratulate you very much for your MA in history, I’m duly impressed.

But you do not answer on the facts. Your silence is very loud, on the opposition I made between Israel and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What about this specific point ?

And what about the very obvious problem of Israel not complying with the law and even the frontier that was given in 1948 ?

Keeping a critical mind on your country means you care for it.

I do not wish Israel off the map. I wish for a BETTER Israel. I wish that people like you, who get angry everytime problems are pointed out, don’t say “this is not true”. It’s a better, loving approach to face the problems and make Israel, finally, a democracy for all, respectful of International Law and UN resolution, at the very least. Israel is not home yet.

Yes, there are suicide bombings and rocket attacks, on one side. But why do you systematically refuse to see and aknowledge the other side ? This is the basis of dialogue.

Also I think you should not just dismiss Jews who tackle these issues as “naive or screwed up”, this is a tad disrespectful.

To simply dismiss Pappe and Halper as “not respectable”, and stop your reflexion there, is too easy and not a very strong case for you. Especially when they have years of rather serious research, and books behind them They’re listened to in very respectable universities and institutions, and for one to say “Idisagree”, one has to be able to attack their research and their logic. It’s tedious, hard work, not simply dismissal.

I was a zionist once, I know it’s hard for you to understand that some people actually evolve through their life and change their opinions through meetings, research, travelling and digging. I did believe in “a land without a people for a people without a land”, and many other Jews were taught the same. If you don’t believe me, there are plenty of testimonies available, of Jews saying that they were taught that way. I just saw a documentary about Jews testifying this fact. Try to see beyond your contempt, hold your breath for 2hours and watch it (’occupation 101′).

Extensive travelling is very interesting too, and if you have the opportunity to sit and talk and interview people from Ramallah and Gaza, or even better, to go there, to see for yourself, form your own opinion, it’s great field work.

This gives one a very solid, strong legitimacy to talk on issues, one way or the other. Maybe you did it, too, although I have the feeling that not, because you would not say things like “you’re naive and screwed up”. You would respect your opposing debater and counter his arguments.

Years of field work would give your that strength and conviction. And believe me, it’s difficult, and you would not say that our love for Israel is “naive and screwed up”. We actually look hard for the best solution for peace, in the best interest of Israel.

The policies of settlement and demolitions, the Wall, etc, are NOT in the best interest of Israel, as recent years have proved. And in the long term, they are extremely destructive on so many levels.

I really wish for an adult dialogue on facts and logic, rather than to face someone who is obviously not ready to tackle the simple, specific points I raise, and who simply says I’m “naive or screwed up”.

Ruth,

I think we were writing at the same time, I had not read your short answer.

What you are saying is, the creation of Israel was decided by the UN a few months before the Declaration of Human Rights, so it’s ok that Israel does not comply with it ?

You’re missing the point, the irony. Let me rephrase it, with more “accuracy”:

it is ironic, funny even, that within a few months, the UN gave birth to two contradictory creations: 1. A State based on ethnic preference and 2. a Declaration that condemns ethnic preference.

Is that accurate enough for you to see the irony ?

Palestinian Jew,

There really is not way for me discussing with you.

Even your corrected statement is factually false. The UN plan for Palestine included two states based on ethnic preference. Human Rights do not cover the mechanism for setting up states. States are collectives, human rights deal with individual rights.

It is not dicrimination (as covered by Human Rights) if states do not give out citizenships for the asking. Why I could see the US for not giving me a green card!

You have no understanding, no intellectual integrity, just some feelings in your belly which I am not interested in. I am not a psychologist and the explanations given by Kenneth Levin are good enough for me.

Fare well.

Make that I could sue the US…

There were no borders defined in 1948, oh well…

I see. You do not like irony, you’re a first-degree person, that’s fine. I will stick to first degree and let irony aside. It just struck me because there are celebrations of both anniversaries this year.

Do you agree or don’t you, that Israel, today does not comply with the UDHR standards ?

Do you agree, or don’t you, that Israel does not comply with International Law (I will not list here all the resolutions) ?

I appreciate that you say you’ve read Benny Morris, as I’ve read Howard Zinn. Let’s push the US parallel.

You are right. You could not sue the US for not giving you a green Card. You could, however, and if you were a US citizen, criticize your own government if they were issuing automatic citizenship for white Anglo-Saxon Protestants from all over the world, and denying it to Native Americans who were forced out, along with freedom of circulation, in clear breach of UDHR standards.

It’s a healthy exercise to criticize those who govern us, don’t you think ?

One more thing: what do you mean by “there were no borders defined in 1948″ ?

You are right: the UN created not ONE but TWO racially-based states. Double irony. Like Pakistan and India (except that now, India has a Muslim president, and I don’t see that happening in Israel in the near future). Forgive my jewish sense of humour.

When u say “there were no borders defined in 1948″ I hope you don’t mean they were defined in 1947… because the point is:

“why didn’t they stick to what was decided in the first place ?”

Ruth

Lets take a break and see how our discussion is going. I have a suggestion why dont we talk about what we both agree on instead of talking about what we disagree about? The second thing stop calling me a hypocrite because you can consider me a Palestinian hypocrite and i can consider you a zionist hypocrite that it teached what only serves the Zionism benefit, So please stop saying that and try to listen to what i say even if you dont accept it. Do not look at what i write as only Ziad’s opinion, there may be another thousands and many Palestinians that think like me. If you cant stop using these words and you insist that only you and the laws you keep on mentioning are right and every one else is either naive or a hypocrite then i see no benefit from out discussion.

Ziad,

Are you willing to refrain from emotional, factually unfounded or false statements? Yes or no?

I do not think that you can show me an example where I have used arguments which were not based on data you could check and where I have immediately corrected when you could show me that I had made a mistake.

This is the only way I am willing to accept in discussions.

I missed a “not” in “where I have not immediately corrected”. Sorry for this and other the typos. Unfortunately I have no possibility to correct my texts once I have submitted them.

Dear Ziad and Ruth,

The title of the original post is about the 60 years anniversary of Israel and Nakba. I point out also the 60th anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights, that frontally condemns the basis of politics in Israel and in Arab States.

Ruth, you did not answer to two simple questions, unemotional and based on facts, that are at the root of the problem, and therefore of any further discussion regarding the Israel/Palestine peace process.

1. Do you agree or don’t you, that Israel, today does not comply with the UDHR standards of articles 1&2, therefore disqualifying it as a modern democracy ?

2. Do you agree, or don’t you, that Israel does not comply with International Law (I will not list here all the resolutions) ?

Your acceptance or refusal to answer these very factual, unemotional questions, determine whether you’re absolutely close-minded or determined to listen to the the grievances of the other side of the Wall.

… and I have a question for Ziad: what do you think of the one-State solution ? I am meeting quite a lot of Jews and Palestinian Arabs (Christian and Muslims) who see in this option a better way to achieve stability.

One secular state, with clear separation of religion and politics, under the protection of the UN and the US, that would protect and guarantee the rights of Jews and Arabs, equally, that would mix them in schools, develop poorest parts of the country (Gaza), like the reconciliation process in South Africa.

Like South Africa did 30 years ago, it seems impossible. Yet they did it.

And Ruth, for Jews, the one state would still provide refuge for persecuted Jews from the world, under the status of refugees (if they can prove they’re being persecuted).

Palestinian Jew,

1) Israel accepts the Human Rights in principle while sometimes violating them. This is similiar in all western democracies. Non-democratic societies do not accept Human Rights in principle and are much freer in violating them.

2) International Law is quite another issue. International laws are basically treaties between countries. So there are treaties that Israel choose not to sign. You probably have UN resolutions in mind, however only resolutions of the Security Council have legal status.

Ruth

Maybe I don’t consider what I say a matter of emotions and false statements. Let me tell you again the center of my beliefs and ideas. Israel is occupying lands that are not a part of it. Me as a Palestinian see the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a peace agreement that includes the right of Israel to live in the 1948 lands and that after a Peace agreements both Arabs and Palestinians should and must prevent any attack of its security. From the other side Israel gives and declares the right of Palestinians to establish their own state that must be made on the 1967 boarders including East Jerusalem, the holy places, and a fair solution for the refugee’s case. This must also include the freedom of praying for anyone that Jerusalem is important for him or her, but the control on the Mosque should be in the Muslims hands.
Ruth I don’t write in order to prove who is right. Again I respect your opinions that are built on your background of laws and culture, but at the same time I have my own beliefs that are built on my background and culture.
Considering the Palestinian Jews question, I say that if such a state could be made including everyone without racism and justice and rights for everyone, then this could be one of a the strongest states that could be made, but the problem is that it is not only a conflict of land, for our bad luck it is a conflict of religion, beliefs, and culture. I wish to succeed to living in such a state.

1. Thank you for that, Ruth. Glad you’ve admitted that Israel “sometimes” violates the UDHR. Except for articles 1&2, which are not “sometimes”, but constantly violated, and denied in their principle, by the very laws of Israel, unlike in all western democracies.

2. Of course you’re right about the distinction between General Assembly non-binding resolutions (there are only 4 of them) and Security Council resolutions (more than 50 ). But obviously when people refer to resolutions in this context it means Security Council resolutions.

In fact, I’ll tell you what I have in mind in particular: the territories occupied after the Israel “preemptive agression” of 1967.

As you know, To regain any moral credibility, and be on the right side of Public International Law, Israel should simply give those territories back, and stop settlements ASAP.

You know that, and reluctance to admit the problem is just slowing down any progress.

“You know that, and reluctance to admit the problem is just slowing down any progress”

Palestinian Jews your sentence should be the headline of every day sentence that our leaders should remember.

Thanks Ziad.

Ruth, I just read the article you sent by Kenneth Levin on “Frontpagemagazine” (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F66256B6-688A-45AE-9252-CF9758750035)

I was not familiar with this american web-magazine, but a look at its “front page” titles unequivocally defines it as zionist right-wing hardline media.

M. Levin basically says there’s something clinically wrong with Israelis who were in favour of the Oslo peace process, and by extension with Israeli leftists: they suffer mental illness.

Now, if this type of discourse does not immediately ring a “DANGER” bell to a History major like you, Ruth, you should get your money back from your university.

This is typically what totalitarian regimes did: opponents are labelled as deranged by a doctor. The accusation of being mentally ill is one of the most classic ways to avoid debate and shut up opposition as has been done in the Stalinist era, and in Nazi Germany.

Just bone-chilling. Funny though: he forgot to mention the paranoia of right-wing Israelis as another pathology.

I was born in Palestine 1944 (I have my original birth certificate to prove it).
As a kid I lived in Hatavor st Tel Aviv (about half a mile from Hassan Beck mosque) my mother used to take me thru M anshieh to Bostrus street in Jaffa for shopping.I was a 4 year old kid at the time .After May 1948 I used to play on the ruins of Manshieh and the Mosque was deserted.I was told the Arabs of Jaffa escaped because of the war and the ruins of Manshieh are a result of the war.It took me 20 years to learn i was lied to.
Out 0f a population of 120000 arabs in Jaffa just 3600 were left and stuffed into a slum neighborhood called Ajami.The same procees applied to Lydda,Al Ramle,Acre,Majdal(now Ashkelon) altogether around 500 villages were destroyed by my own people and around 750000 native arab palestinians became refugees.
To make the issue short – The only way to peace is the One state Solutiion with more or less South Africa as a model.The Jews will have to abolish the racist “law of return” and adapt the “right of return ” for the palestinian refugees and their descendants – the Palestinian arabs will have to accept the fact that over 5 million jews live mtoday in Historic Palestine and will have to shre the land with them.
This is the only solution that can bring peace and prosperity to Palestine.
Until then we will have the memory of the Nakbah on may 15 every year.