Where did I call him an anti-Semite? I wrote that the article that he cited, which conveniently ignores the Holocaust, is blatantly anti-Semitic. 

SQ, good, thank you, please don't. He is not anti Semitic. Sub- are you diarrheatic or anti Islam or both?

Thanks, Orhan.  But I'm not sure how posting a screen capture of a Hamas video is anti-Islam.

Serious Question: I'm being totally serious -- do you want ... Eradication of Jews from the region?

Someone who asks that question without being given no indication whatsoever that this is was within the realm of the topic or within my rhetoric throughout (since the question was posed to me) is seriously bordering on the verge of driving from a stance that pits me as an "anti-Semite"

You also accuse me of this in one of your posts, right after stating that the article, according to you, is anti-Semitic :You're losing credibility and showing your true colors. 

Since you're operating at the level of deriving suggestions from the article and should be conscious that you yourself are making suggestions of your own, what else is anyone meant to read this "true colors" accusation except as one meant to "out" me as an anti-Semite? Please, be consistent and serious. Now you're recalibrating your position after , yes indeed, making suggestions that I was being anti-Semitic.

As to the article and your observation, it poses interesting questions. , I would not go as far as calling the author of the article cited  "ant-Semitic". In fact, if you look right besides the article, you will see that there is a letter from a south African Jewish community - why would she or he do that if she or he so hated the jews (ie "anti-Semitic")? This is yet a sign of something else, one that you didn't compute. You factored in one element and ran away with the easy answer.

Yes, Serious Question had a very valid point in bringing up a concern with one of the author points ...and Serious Question might or might not be right in assuming that the author denies the Holocaust - to my mind, there is not enough evidence to jump to the second conclusion, and there are two: one possible near : that the author's avoidance of bringing up the Holocaust might mean she or he denies it. And the other conclusion, to my mind, is much further away -given that there is no sign or expression of jewish hatred- that this makes her or him an anti-Semitic. Don't misunderstand me, I think denial of Holocaust is used by anti-jewish people...but so is its justification (which means there are anti-jewish people who might well believe that the Holocaust happened and was justified). And don't get me wrong, denying the Holocaust is wrong and is used to misrepresent reality - as is denying the Palestinian Nakba and claiming that Israel just happened like a blooming flower in a desert without causing and still causing major catastrophe to the lives of the long existing residents and owners of the land. However, the accusation that this immediately implies a hatred towards Jews is insufficiently validated, therefore not really validated. An anti-Semite is not, be definition, one who denies the Holocaust but one who hates the Jewish people for being Jewish. Again, as a tool, denying the Holocaust is morally reprehensible and used by many (not all) anti-Semites but it can equally be a mark of ignorance rather than hatred.

This is not to defend the author of the article apropos that all-too-easy accusation but rather in order to be careful with accusations, as Orhan states. By not bringing up the Holocaust, the suggestion is  that this was not a factor in driving some Jews away from Europe to the arms of the well funded Zionist establishment. It is a questionable suggestion (there are also the matter of the Russian pogroms and general European ant-jewish discrimination) but does this suffice as evidence of anti-Semitic hatred? I personally know some people who - sick and tired of how the Holocaust has been turned into a industry of generating support for Israel and demonizing Palestinians and not as a historical catastrophe- inch towards denying it...and yet there is not one single bone in their body that has hatred towards anyone, let alone Jews. So, I would not jump on that bandwagon so quickly.

I think this is also a pathological aftereffect of Zionism (building up certain assumptions from an anti-Zionist viewpoint - trying to discredit it by attacking a point central to it, which just happens to actually be true and genuine, only abused by Zionism...such as the existence of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust) . Zionism is itself a pathological aftereffect of European anti-Jewish racism; the oppression and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians also being a pathological aftereffect of Zionism. . All these injustices are linked, one injustice breeding the other. The state of anti-Jewry in Europe is now a grave concern. This is yet another contemporary link in this chain of racism and hatred. Yes, there are anti-Semites (or anti-Jewish bigots) who also use the anti-Israel cause parasitically. This is equally condemnable.

But for the clear minded, for the person who has no prejudices, overt or hidden, one does not excuse one evil because of another, one cannot absolve Europe of its sins by exterminating another people somewhere else, and one cannot avoid confronting the truth that Zionists stole other people's lands, kicked the larger percentage of its residents and owners, applied an apartheid system targeted to benefit their own colonization of the land.

To address your points in order:

Eradication of Jews from Israel - I asked it as a set of possible outcomes, because your rhetoric suggests that Israel has stolen lands and that the State has no right to exist.  It's not an outlandish question, given the nature of your posts.

"True Colors" - You've shown your true colors by using specious, racist articles to support your own points of view. In other words, you're showing your ass (you'll turn to any source to support your argument). Didn't call you an anti-Semite.

ISIS Article - The fact that the essay comparing ISIS to Israel glosses over the Holocaust is enough for me to conclude that it is, indeed, anti-Semitic. We can agree to disagree.  I don't care that it links to the South African Jewish community-- Holocaust negation is per se anti-Semitic and advances a disturbing revisionist account of history.  

Anti-Zionism vs Anti-Semitism (in earlier posts) - you say the two are mutually exclusive.  While they're distinct (I agree with you there), one can indeed be anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist.

I am critical of Israel and its actions, but I support its right to exist-- and that's where we differ.  This forum is a platform for you to share your views; expect to be challenged.  

Eradication of Jews from Israel - I asked it as a set of possible outcomes, because your rhetoric suggests that Israel has stolen lands and that the State has no right to exist.  It's not an outlandish question, given the nature of your posts.

Again, I have not made any indication that Israel does not have the right to exist = eradication of Jews from "Israel". More correctly would be the derivation:  the eradication of Israel from the Jews. Eradicating Israel does not imply that Jews should leave Palestine (not "ISrael" , a colonial name standing for the eradication of Palestine AND Palestinians).

"True Colors" - You've shown your true colors by using specious, racist articles to support your own points of view. In other words, you're showing your ass (you'll turn to any source to support your argument). Didn't call you an anti-Semite

I said you suggested it, not that you called me it. Be accurate please and stop this trivial attempt of misrepresentation. Furthermore, refer to my previous post on whether one can call the cite article "racist" - while I also object to it (that is not bringing in European anti-Semitism and the Holocaust as a very important element in driving people away from Europe), I think its more indicative of your wishful thinking that you would want to jump to the far conclusion that the author was racist. There is absolutely no sign of racial hatred in what she or he said. Again, refer to my previous post. You're ignoring a great deal deliberately targeting your far fetched accusation.

ISIS Article - The fact that the essay comparing ISIS to Israel glosses over the Holocaust is enough for me to conclude that it is, indeed, anti-Semitic. We can agree to disagree.

Its your business to disagree or agree with yourself, don't speak for me. Its an objective fact that Jewish terrorist bandits used to murder villagers in order to scare residents of neighbouring villages away and this was a very effective ploy used around 1948. ISIS does the same. This has been noted not just by this author (indeed, he may be deriving from Arabic sources) but its being mentioned many times by observers within the region. Furthermore, you can't just "agree to disagree". There were several points of similarilty made by the author, none of which you tackle. You are disagreeing on the basis of the lack of discursiveness and on the basis of belief. I don't agree that we should disagree on such a basis. Its not serious. You believe that they're not similar...that's something else. I can't argue with a belief, fundemtally irrational and irrationalized.

Anti-Zionism vs Anti-Semitism (in earlier posts) - you say the two are mutually exclusive.  While they're distinct (I agree with you there), one can indeed be anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist.

Absolutely. Didn't you just read my post? I said that already , so we are in agreement here. But I'm an anti-anti-Semite Semite anti-Zionist and for reasons that have nothing to do with Judaism or Islam. And I believe the right of Israel to exist = the right to abolish the Palestinians, and that anyone who stands for the right for Israel to exist stands for the right of another people to be exterminated in order for Israel to exist, on stolen lands, corpses and forcibly absented people.

is forum is a platform for you to share your views; expect to be challenged.

Did I say anywhere that I wasn't expect to be challenged? Or that I didn't want to be challenged?  why do you state the obvious? I mean, I don't particularly care what you do really. So please don't try to teach me what the forum is about or what to expect. Just do you thing without obnoxiously condescending notices.

You posted this: "This is not so strange, because what one is talking about are in reality two entirely different forms of political philosophy with the same name — anti-Semitism. Contrary to received opinion, there is nothing in common between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Certainly the Zionist movement has deliberately confused the two, but the former is a form of anti-racism whereas the latter is a form of racism. There can be no blurring at the edges or overlap. One is either an anti-Semite or an anti-Zionist. One cannot be both."

I agree with that quote.And I said I am an anti-"anti-Semitic" anti-Zionist (who also happens to be, according to that silly nomenclature of race, Semitic). And I stated before that there were anti-Semites who use anti-Zionsim in a parasitical way...as a way of propagating racial hatred.

and, as Orhan has told as before, there are also Zionists who pose as anti-Semites posing as anti-Zionists. Yes, again, pathological is the word.

Let's look at what you wrote.

* * * 

Compare this:

Anti-Zionism vs Anti-Semitism (in earlier posts) - you say the two are mutually exclusive.  While they're distinct (I agree with you there), one can indeed be anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist.

Absolutely. Didn't you just read my post? I said that already , so we are in agreement here. But I'm an anti-anti-Semite Semite anti-Zionist and for reasons that have nothing to do with Judaism or Islam. And I believe the right of Israel to exist = the right to abolish the Palestinians, and that anyone who stands for the right for Israel to exist stands for the right of another people to be exterminated in order for Israel to exist, on stolen lands, corpses and forcibly absented people.

* * *  

With:

"This is not so strange, because what one is talking about are in reality two entirely different forms of political philosophy with the same name — anti-Semitism. Contrary to received opinion, there is nothing in common between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Certainly the Zionist movement has deliberately confused the two, but the former is a form of anti-racism whereas the latter is a form of racism. There can be no blurring at the edges or overlap. One is either an anti-Semite or an anti-Zionist. One cannot be both."

* * * 

Do you see how you're contradicting yourself?

no, there's no contradiction. not unless you wish to highlight a pedantic point that is rather wasteful really. Anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist can well be an anti-Semite donning on an anti-Zionist allure.

An anti-Semite might well be a Zionist.

An anti-Semite might also pretend to be an anti-Zionist. Is she or he talking about Judaism in a bad way and conflating it with Zionism? Must make distinctions.

Anti-Semitism, however, is not Anti-Zionism. They are disctinct.

And Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.

So, it depends where your thinking is coming from and where it wants to end up.

Do you want to end up in making a pedantic point? Or do you want to accept to see that being anti-Zionist does not mean being anti-Semitic, according to both arguments, that these are indeed two different philosophies and that an adherent of one might pretend to be an adherent of the other?

http://www.alternet.org/hannibal-directive-how-israels-secret-military-doctrine-deliberately-killed-soldiers-and-massacred AlterNet / By Max Blumenthal The Hannibal Directive: How Israel Killed Its Own Troops and Massacred Palestinians to Prevent Its Soldiers' Capture

Israel’s ‘land for lives’ is theft. Pure and simple

World View: Israel takes land, Palestine loses land; that’s the way it works

1 / 1

The land to be appropriated is in the Etzion settlement bloc near Bethlehem. Israel has declared it "state land, on the instructions of the political echelon"

So a bit more of Palestine has slidden down the plughole. A thousand more acres of Palestinian land stolen by the Israeli government – for “appropriation” is theft, is it not? – and the world has made the usual excuses. The Americans found it “counter-productive” to peace, which is probably a bit less forceful than its reaction would be if Mexico were to bite off a 1,000-acre chunk of Texas and decided to build homes there for its illegal immigrants in the US. But this is “Palestine” (inverted commas more necessary than ever) and Israel has been getting away with theft, albeit not on quite this scale – it is the biggest land heist in 30 years – ever since it signed up to the Oslo agreement in 1993.

The Rabin-Arafat handshake, the promises and handovers of territory and military withdrawals, and the determination to leave everything important (Jerusalem, refugees, the right of return) to the end, until everyone trusted each other so much that the whole thing would be a doddle – no wonder the world bestowed its financial generosity upon the pair. But this latest land-grab not only reduces “Palestine” but continues the circle of concrete around Jerusalem to cut Palestinians off from both the capital they are supposed to share with Israelis and from Bethlehem.

It was instructive to learn the Israeli-Jewish Etzion council regarded this larceny as punishment for the murder of three Israeli teenagers in June. “The goal of the murders of those three youths was to sow fear among us, to disrupt our daily lives and to call into doubt our right [sic] to the land,” the Etzion council announced. “Our response is to strengthen settlement.” This must be the first time that land in “Palestine” has been acquired not through excuses about security or land deeds – or on God’s personal authority – but out of revenge.

And it raises an interesting precedent. If an innocent Israeli life – cruelly taken – is worth around 330 acres of land, then an innocent Palestinian life – equally cruelly taken – must surely equal the same. And if even half the 2,200 Palestinian dead of Gaza last month – and this is a conservative figure – were innocent, then the Palestinians presumably now have the right to take over 330,000 acres of Israeli land, in reality much more. But however “counter-productive” this might be, I’m sure America would not stand for it. Israel takes land, Palestinians lose land; that’s the way it works. And thus it has been since 1948, and that is how it will continue.

There will never be a “Palestine” and the latest territorial robbery is merely another small punctuation mark in the book of sorrow which the Palestinians must read as their dreams of statehood wither. Nabil Abu Rudeineh, the spokesman for the Palestinian “President”, Mahmoud Abbas, said his boss and the “moderate forces” in Palestine had been “stabbed in the back” by the Israeli decision, which is putting it mildly. Abbas has a back covered in knife wounds. What else did he expect when he wrote a book about Palestinian-Israeli relations without once using the word “occupation”?

So we’re back to the same old game. Abbas cannot negotiate with anyone unless he speaks for Hamas as well as the Palestinian Authority. As Israel knows. As America knows. As the EU knows. But each time Abbas tries to put together a unity government, we all screech that Hamas is a “terrorist” organisation. And Israel says it cannot talk to a “terrorist” organisation which demands the destruction of Israel – even though Israel used to say the same of Arafat and, in those days, helped Hamas to build more mosques in Gaza and the West Bank as a counterweight to Fatah and all the other “terrorists” up in Beirut.

Of course, if Abbas speaks only for himself, Israel will tell him what it has told him before: that without his control of Gaza, Israel has no one to negotiate with. But does it matter any more? There should be a special strap headline above all reports of this kind: “Goodbye, Palestine”.

God is nothing but myth.

Carry on.

Do not merely "carry on", but do better.

"If God does not exist it would be necessary to invent Him" - Voltaire

Published on Jun 19, 2012

Auschwitz survivor Hajo Meyer talks about Israeli occupation and apartheid.

I believe they've already suggested they don't want a solution.  They want a boycott.

THE OCCUPATION IN THE WORDS OF NABI SALIH

Published on Aug 29, 2014

"I don't want to explain to you what the occupation is", Nariman Tamimi told us, "I want you to come and see the occupation and tell me what peace is". Manal, Bassem and Nariman from Nabi Salih explain how the Israeli occupation affects their daily life and their access to land and water, and how their non-violent protests are met by Israeli tear gas, rubber bullets and live ammunition. - Produced by Loes & Alexander, with extra footage from Bilal Tamimi / Tamimi Press.

who would want a final solution?

HARDtalk Speaks to Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe

Published on Jun 30, 2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Pappe
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, at its heart, a story of two peoples and one land. Both see history as their justification. Which means a historian who appears to change sides inevitably becomes a figure of enormous controversy. HARDtalk speaks to Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe who says the record shows that the Jewish state is racist; born of a deliberate programme of ethnic cleansing. Not surprisingly he's widely reviled in his home country. His work has been both supported and criticized by other historians. Before he left Israel in 2008, he had been condemned in the Knesset, Israel's parliament; a minister of education had called for him to be sacked; his photograph had appeared in a newspaper at the centre of a target; and he had received several death threats.[

yes armen, they think boycotting intellectuals is somehow a good thing.  i disagree, but then my opinion isn't worth much.

here is a link tammuz posted earlier, as a way of explaining why he thinks boycotting intellectuals is a good idea

http://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/files/JAF/2013%20JAF/LloydSchueller.pdf

From Stealing Palestine: A Study of Historical and Cultural Theft

Roger Sheety

Tuesday 17 June 2014 21:18 BST

Last update: 

June 17 Jun 2014 9:32 BST

The cultural appropriation of books, music, art, cuisine and dress have been used by Zionists as a weapon against Palestinians

Stealing and appropriating the culture and history of indigenous peoples is a typical characteristic of all modern colonial-settler states, but usually accomplished once the indigenous people in question has been eliminated, dispossessed, or otherwise seemingly defeated therefore making it safe to do so.  The colonial-settler state of “Israel,” established on the ruins of Palestine and through the expulsion of the majority of its indigenous population in 1948 and after, is no different.

The Israeli theft of all things Palestinian, however, does not simply come from misguided notions of nationalism or childish pride as is often argued by Western apologists, but is rather a conscious political policy of the state that seeks to erase Palestine from historical memory, particularly within Western discourse.  Indeed, the continuing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their historic homeland goes hand in hand with the theft of Palestinian land, homes, history, and culture.  It is an essential part of the larger, long-term Zionist project of eradicating the Palestinian nation altogether, literally writing it out of history while simultaneously assuming its place.

This erasure has been correctly termed as memoricide by historian Ilan Pappe in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.  Nur Masalha, elaborating further, writes: “The founding myths of Israel have dictated the conceptual removal of Palestinians before, during and after their physical removal in 1948... The de-Arabisation of Palestine, the erasure of Palestinian history and the elimination of the Palestinian’s collective memory by the Israeli state are no less violent than the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in 1948 and the destruction of historic Palestine: this elimination is central to the construction of a hegemonic collective Israeli-Zionist-Jewish identity in the State of Israel” (The Palestine Nakba, 89).

Thus, the theft of Palestine and its culture has two essential and interwoven components, the removal/erasure of Palestinians and a concurrent assumption of nativity or “birthright” in Anglo-European Zionist terms.  Over the last six and a half decades, this brazen erasure and theft has been achieved mainly through two methods:  brutal violence (that is, terrorism) and mass media propaganda.

A man well worth listening to (and indeed a keen and astute observer and critic when it comes to the Arab countries, US policy/media  and Zionism/Israel) - keep in mind,  the video is circa 2012.

As'ad AbuKhalil:The Case Against Israel

Why is everyone so silent? http://inthesetimes.com/article/17127/its_time_to_speak_out

Orhan;

this is my opinion of that article. Kindly don't take offence but this needs to be said.

She says the following:

"There is a growing group of American Jews who believe that while Israel needs and deserves to exist as a “homeland for the Jewish people,” the actions of the Netanyahu government imperil the “project in democracy” that was the promise of the enterprise."

"Only by stopping the 47-year Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank can we hope for an end to this seemingly ceaseless war. For as so many Jews and non-Jews alike have said and continue to believe, “Without justice, there will be no peace”."

Excuse me, but Israel has been occupying Palestine - historic Palestine- for more than 6 decades and not simply a 47 year occupation of Gaza and West Bank. Israel IS Palestine; to be more precise, Israel IS the theft of Palestine, historic Palestine, all of it, not just Gaza and the West Bank.

To accept and overlook everything that happened before 1967 is to accept and overlook around 2 decade worth of massacres, theft of homes and lands, banishment of a huge part of the Palestinians from their homes and lands in the name of creating a "Jewish state", a fundamentally (ie built into its foundation) racist state exporting Jews from all over the world in order to take the homes of the expelled and the exterminated Palestinians, their villages, their land...

Sorry but this article is a work of utter hypocrisy. To accept Israel -however historically you define it apropos 1948 or 1967-  is to accept Zionism is to accept the murder and banishment of a people.

How could she chant "without justice, there is no peace" if she is passing on a disguise- whether stupidly or insidiously- of normalcy over the existence of Israel prior to those 47 years. This is what she is really doing - don't you see? This article is a marriage between liberal Zionism and, quite plainly, either stupid self contradiction or deliberate perversion of truth.

All of Palestine, all of it. All of the stolen land; all the memories of the murdered, the assassinated, the jailed, the terrorized.

There is a contradiction, a hypocrisy, in standing up for Palestine and be willing to accept Israel. People must be brave enough in order to surpass that "polite" hypocrisy. It is a damaging hypocrisy and it contributes further to the obfuscation that further deprives the Palestinians of their right to be restituted.

Israel is exactly proportional to the the extermination of the Palestinian presence so as to  replace it. This is what Zionism was and is about. To force people who truly belong to their land out of their homes in the name of all Jews around the world. This is exactly what ISIS is doing now, calling on all "true" Moslems to migrate to their so-called Islamic republic.

What kind of absurd inhumane rationale is this - and, while one might understand that depraved Zionist and Al Qaeda fanatics think they're right, how could -lets say- more rational, balanced people, who believe in human rights and all, support and buy into that crap.

How could anyone support the Zionist agenda, accept the existence of a State built on that parasitical agenda of the extermination of one people's rightful existence on their land so as to replace it with anyone....anyone....who shares their religious view point.

It is Israel that is the religious fanatic, compounded with the evil of sheer 19th century style colonialism (although, of course, armed with 21st century technology).

No to all of Israel. Not just its "occupation" of West Bank and Gaza. No to one single iota of a racist colonial apartheid system on any of the land that does not, did not, and will not belong to it.

This is why Israel kills and kills. It knows this is the only way it can fight in the name of a fundamentally wrongful cause, through the most radical heinous means possible. This is Israel and its Zionist ideology, this is a State as a parasitical colonial murderer.

No offense and with all due respect, not withholding Palestinian opinion which matters the most, realistically, pre 67 borders with Israel would be welcomed and it certainly be a major victory for Palestinians under the current circumstances a two state solution was to be the end result. With Jerusalem also being the co-capitol with Israel. 

Orhan, I am sure you would want me to speak my free mind, so, I hope you read the below with an open spirit. My intention is not egoistic, as you know.

Firstly, what is the difference between a PAlestinian who lost her or his home within the pre 1967 borders and a Palestinian who lost her or his during the Nakbah epoque, around the late 1940's. This is stolen property and that is stolen property? The immoral valour of the theft is equally inequitable.

Are you telling me that I should accept that my grandmother and around three quarters -if not more- of Akkah's original inhabitants, who have lived continually for generations, who own their property and have deeds to back this up, who have been kicked-out in order to be replaced by Jews from goodness knows where, Poland, Russia...without being deserving of restitution?

Are you telling me that this is fair? That we should accept this? Why? Seriously, why? Who is anyone to tell us that this property is not ours and that we should not be able to go back to the house that they owned and lived in, that was handed down to them by their parents and prior to them, their grandparents and so on? Is it really up to you or anyone else to dictate these restrictive terms, and again, why? I'm not asking a brainwashed Zionist here, I know that. I'm asking a reasonable, humane person who cares about justice. Would that be justice served ? Why? Simply in order to preserve a Jewish State? Which, by definition is an apartheid state creating two tiers of humans, true citizens, superior and equal amongst themselves, and another living in a precarious state of existence, ill-defined as "non-Jews", always threatened by every sort of exclusion?

The two-state solution, while possibly - a long time ago, now having been rendered utterly impractical and a farcical subject of discussion that has been abused by Israel in order to, insidiously, expand and overtake more and more of Palestine- a logistically reasonable step in order to gain a foothold from which to launch a more guarded fight to gain back of all of Palestine, would be, if viewed as an end, a fundamentally morally compromised solution for only some Palestinians.

Not only that, you accede to the fact that everyone Palestinian finding themselves within the Jewish State can be treated in the dire way that we see today. You are telling me this: its would be a great victory to have a Palestinian state and, next to it, a Jewish State (namely within the confines of Israel's self definition) ie an apartheid state for its non-Jewish inhabitants. Do you propose that they should move to the PAlestinian state? They, who have lived in their homes, who built their homes, who farm their lands, are they to be viewed like cattle to be moved over to another place just because you or others - even other Palestinians- accept that the Jewish identity be applied to erase their existence on this land because you want to solve this Israel-Palestinian problem once and for all?

This, trust me, will only create more problems in the future. A two-state solution ensures the maintenance of an apartheid state - albeit within a smaller region and within defined limits (ISrael has never defined its limits)- and even legitimizes it to a further extent than its status nowadays.

Jewish state = all Jews in the world have more of a right to the land than does its actual owner, the actual person who has lived on it and belongs to a lineage of countless generations that belongs to it and to the larger region, rather than belonging to Poland or Ukraine or the US. Are you fine with this? Because if you're fine with the existence of any Zionist state (which is exactly what Israel sees itself), you would have no problems with the two-state solution.

I know where you're coming from, or I suspect you do. You deem it a victory because it seems to incur far more suffering to continue a fight for all of Palestine....so we should settle for a small part of it. Firstly, that would be an argument not based on what is morally right or wrong. It would be based on what you imagine to be practical or not. Secondly, it seems to me that, given Israel's nature -past, present and near future- is antithetical to a solution whereby it can give over the huge chunks it tool after 1967 to date. What I mean is, this view of practicality - which I'm assuming you hold- does not factor that in, this is not the very rationale of the state of Israel. Israel views that once it starts doing this, it will collapse, vanish - it guarantees its own future by perpetrating violence and sowing discord in the region. This is not just the story of its government nowadays; this is the story of all of its governments - if you don't see this, you don't know Israel. Thus, it is far more practical that Israel, the Zionist system, the self-willing of a Jewish State that prohibits the right of return for the Palestinians, will collapse entirely in the future. And there are agents working on this right now - it knows that, it has existential enemies, not enemies who want to "kill Jews" but enemies who are adamant at ending Israel, ending this system and country of racism and colonialism. Whether through international boycott of ISrael or whether through the valorous undertakings of Resistance movements and factions in the region.

Israel, nowadays, unlike any other time after its sordid creation, is exposed to two things: one is the ever growing international civilian-led retribution  by means economic and cultural as the world wakes up to its nature as a blatant racist colony ...and the second is non-governmental, civilian resistance forces (Palestinian, Lebanese and, perhaps in time to come, Syrian) that pose existential threat to it. This has never been the case. Economic and security warfare. Rightfully so against a racist colonial state that murders, pillages, throws people out of their homes and lands, turns whole neighbourhoods into experimental labs to test out the military complex products...

Do we know how many Israelis nowadays are binational? Do we know how many are their retracing backwards their Aliyah journey? Do you know how more difficult things are going to get for them, say in the almost guaranteed outbreak of another war with Lebanon? Do you know how many more will quit the homes their state stole from others? This is a structural weakness.

The fundamental weakness of Israel is its very nature. As a colony that cannot ensure its existence, as a cancerous implant in the region, except through massacres and land theft. The fundamental strength of its victims and their supporters in the region is their nature too. People who belong primordially to the land, who cannot give up because if they do, they lose their identity, a product of fermentation of thousands of years within this region  (something a colony, such as Israel, such as the USA and Canada, do not understand and cannot envisage). Who will last longer? A European who has been asked to come to Israel in the name of a bullshit myth about her or his ancestors belonging to that land some thousands of years ago...or someone who's lineage can be traced, continually, even throughout phases of religious conversions and cultures within the region , for hundreds of years...someone who did not throw anyone out in order to replace them?

Israel carries the seed of its end within itself. It is doomed to disappear.

Again, no where do I say that Jews should leave the land. I believe in one country, Palestine entire, not a partial Palestine, that guarantees the right of return to Palestinians , guarantees the right of residence of people who have resided many years in the country, be they called Israeli now and, as a secular state, guarantees full rights to its citizens irrespective of religion. A peaceful multicultural Palestine will constitute an infinitely more rich and active anchor of peace and cultural enrichment within the larger region than would a "two-state solution", which, as a moral compromise, does not preclude pathological aftereffects and a continuation of a feud by other means.

I agree with the stolen land, lives, and everything else.but also realistic about not getting it back. It would perhaps only possible if Israel decides to leave Palestine and dissolve the Jewish state on its own. Seems like science fiction in the foreseeable future. Ethnically 1947 was a great tragedy for Palestine.

And your last paragraph seems to be the ultimate solution however distant. 1 country and democratic and secular. That would be beautiful for all. 

Orhan,

who would have thought that South Africa would have found the solution that it did eventually? What is above all needed is not a half baked solution that is fundamentally unfair to the Palestinians because it seems practical. As I said, I don't see the two-state solution as practical or judicious : neither within the framework of Israel's nature and modus operandi nor on the scale of what is judicious in terms of restitution nor even in terms of what, I would venture, the overriding majority of Palestinians and Arabs want: a liberated historic Palestine.

What is needed is to be fair, to be thoroughly fair, from A to Z fair. This really is the way to healing the region. Total restitution, total equality on all of historic Palestinian land, the right of return to one's village, within whatever epochal border designated for an x-Israel.

It is incumbent upon us, especially, those who wish to pass on information to others about the Palestinian plight, not to show moral compromise owing to an idea of practicality that really is beyond my or your envisagement. Again, who was to think that South Africa would have found its solution in a system that makes allowance for complete equality between indigenous Africans and those who were once colonists? ...even if the system is not yet factually perfect and there is still a wide gulf between the socioeconomic realities of those different national components. Things have improved drastically...even if there is still injustice to be fought and an amelioration to be achieved.

We should not compromise out of what we deem is possible or not. What seems impossible may actually be far more possible than what seems possible (such as the two-state solution that has been rendered a fiction in the absence of land left over for a viable Palestinian state).

Archinect, please boycott Israeli architects and remove their listings here as well as that of all Israeli institutions. They build on stolen land and in the wake of an expelled and/or exterminated people.

Israel increases the Settlement Division budget by 600 percent in 2014

Friday, 05 September 2014 17:01

Palestinians look on as Israeli soldiers leave the West Bank village of Jabaa, after demolishing houses belonging to Palestinian families, on the pretext that they lacked building licenses near Jenin, on September 02, 2014

IMAGES

The Israeli government has increased the Settlement Division budget by 600 percent since the beginning of 2014, an unprecedented rise, reported Israel's business newspaper Calcalist on Thursday.

According to the newspaper's website, the Settlement Division received 58 million shekels during the month of January.

This March, 177 million shekels was given to the Division from the Israeli government and in the month of June it received a further 169 million shekels. In total it is believed that the Division has received nearly 404 million shekels so far this year.

The Settlement Division funds construction projects in the Galilee and the Negev, as well as settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and Golan Heights. The majority of the money is devoted to expanding settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank.

The settlements around the Gaza Strip such as Sha'ar Negev and Sdot Negev received only 500 thousand shekels, which has led to anger from the settlers in the area. During yesterday's Knesset Finance Committee meeting they demanded better compensation after "everything that they have suffered" during the war on Gaza.

The newspaper pointed out that the majority of the Division's budget is shifting towards supporting settlement construction in West Bank in the absence of transparent procedures in transferring and allocating the funds.

Israeli officer tosses Palestinian shepherds from their land so settlers don’t have to hear Arabic.

From Israeli settlers destroy Palestinian grape vines in Beit Ummar

Published Monday 01/09/2014 (updated) 02/09/2014 14:19

HEBRON (Ma'an) -- A group of Israeli settlers chopped down grape vines on Palestinian agricultural property in northern Beit Ummar on Monday, a popular committee spokesman said Monday.

Muhammad Awwad said the settlers destroyed seven grape vines in the Wad Abu al-Rish area near the illegal settlement of Beit Ein.

The vines belong to Hammad Abd al-Hamid Jaber al-Sleibi, Awwad said.

In 2013, there were 399 incidents of settler violence against Palestinians and their property in the occupied West Bank, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

VIDEO: Seven-year-old violently detained, one child and two adults arrested

in Features, Hebron, Video September 8, 2014

8th September 2014 | International Solidarity Movement, Khalil Team | Hebron, Occupied Palestine

This morning in al-Khalil (Hebron), through the Salaymeh checkpoint, a seven-year-old was forcefully detained and three more were arrested, including another child.

After a brief ceasefire tammuz has resupplied and is attacking again. At last count five missiles were launched into Archinect.

i stumbled across this today, and thought it might show some perspective to the idea that there is a certain group of people who have always had rights to a given plot of land, to the exclusion of others.

http://youtu.be/dp0tqdu7fH4

i assume with this new information we will advocate returning the land to the hyksos?  though i suppose they were actually an aggressive colonizing sort of empire, so i suppose that wouldn't do.  maybe all the land should be returned to egypt?  that would count as a one-state solution.

quondam,

tammuz says there is a group of people, divided by their race or dna or something like that, that have a right to the land because they come from the land or whatever.  watch the video and you'll see groups out of the mid-east, africa, persians, arabs, europeans, and whatever possible ethnic group that could have been in that area were in that area, and have been for a very long time. it seems to me tammuz wants to define land ownership by what happened 2 generations ago, without respect for the rest of history, the present, or the possible future.  that is not reasonable.  the assumption that people in the levant lived in one house for countless generations does not seem very reasonable, considering how common migration was and the fairly regular influx of new people, new cultures, new governments, and new laws.

there should be restitution for people who lost their land, though i doubt that would extend to people who were born in other countries, pay taxes in other countries, and support their communities in other countries.  i also don't think you can extend the rights to land ownership indefinitely.  otherwise, egyptians would get first rights to claim the land, right?

i think it's great that tammuz is starting to consider possible scenarios where there could be peace between the israelis and palestinians.  the single-state solution is fraught with difficulties.  to start with, if israel stopped attacking palestinian land, would palestinians stop attacking israeli civilian targets?  no more bus bombs or airplane hijackings?  even with the difficult situation as it is, i think it's much more useful to look ahead at how things could actually be better, and what we might be able to do to make them better, rather than just protesting because it worked for south africa.

as a side note, i'm curious as to whether the property deeds tammuz was talking about were formed under the ottomon or british rule?  were the land surveying and legal rights similar to the western laws i'm familiar with?  in a way, american real estate law started with british law, which started with the assumption that the king owns everything.  i would think canada and the british mandate would be similar.  i don't know much about turkish real estate law.

Fyi, Ottoman land codes were well known and detailed specialty of the Empire and the deeds are all archived in Istanbul. They were again modernized in 1858. They are still referred from time to time by Palestinians and Israelis.

which is to say when the state of Israel had the right to be the state of ISrael

 I'm sure that even if you buy around 7% of a country's land surface, I doubt you can set up another country even on that parcel.

When the Zionists discovered they couldn;t just buy the whole land, they thought up a more effective ploy: lets kill and terrorize.

Jewish Owned Land in Palestine as of 1947

As of 1947, Jews in Palestine owned UNDER 7% of the Palestine's lands, and after the 1948 war 80% of the Palestinian people were DISPOSSESSED of their homes, farms, and businesses. Scroll below for the source and tabular break down of land ownership.If you wish to view Palestinian vs. Jewish land ownership (including public) map, click here for details

quondam, i don't think israel has the right to take the west bank the way they are, and i think the international community agrees

for some reason though, they can't seem to do anything to compel isreal to stop.  i'm sure part of the reason is that they look at hamas and think, if we weaken israel, these guys are going to go assassinating olympic athletes again.  hamas won't agree to disarm, and i don't think they'll agree to stop committing acts of violence against civilian populations.  hamas wasn't declared a terrorist organization because of some great white conspiracy, it's because of their actions and the choices they made. also iran's position of wiping israel off the face of the earth is probably disconcerting.  i think the international community needs groundwork for a workable solution before they can pressure israel, but i could be wrong.

understanding the problems the region is facing and trying to figure out a solution, then directing action towards that solution, would be much more useful than crying about how mean israel is and saying we should not let israelis talk on architect forums.

as far as isreal existing, it was the un that created israel.  the right for them to exist was granted by the un.  the un was given that right by the british government, because the british mandate was under rule of the british government.  there was never an independent palestinian government to make that choice.  tammuz can't speak for canada at the un, i can't speak for america, and the random landowner in the british mandate was not able to speak for britian.  it doesn't work that way.

the british gained the right to give the UN authority over the land by taking the land from the ottomon empire, as part of the covenant of the league of nations, after the treaty of lausanne.

in a land that has seen so many wars and changes in government, wouldn't there be at least some expectation that war would bring about changes in land ownership?  what happened when egypt took over?  when rome took over?  when alexander the great took over?  did those wars not also cause casualties?  they didn't loot abandoned villages back then?  wouldn't there have been displaced populations every time this happened?

regarding property rights, i would be curious as to how change in government affects a deed.  so if you have a survey and deed from ottomon syria, what is the expectation for the legality of that deed under the british mandate?  was that ever stated anywhere?  there wouldn't be ottomon courts to legitimize the documents anymore, right?  if you had an egyptian deed that predated ottomon rule, would that be legal under the ottomon empire? also, hypothetically, if the palestinians in 1948 chose to fight for a peaceful solution instead of going to war with their neighbors, wouldn't there have been more of an expectation that the un would protect their citizenship and property rights?

The Right of Return

The UN emissary, Count Folke Bernadotte (1895-1948) arrived in Palestine in May 1948 to mediate a cease fire. The recently proclaimed Israeli government consented to his appointment because, as president of the Swedish Red Cross, he saved 15,000 Jews from the Nazi Camps during WW2. Now, in Palestine, having witnessed the expulsion of the Palestinians from their homes and villages, he called for the unqualified return of all Palestinian refugees expelled as a result of the conflict. He declared:

“It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes, while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine”.

For this, he was assassinated by Jewish underground terrorists, the Stern Gang headed by Itzhak Shamir, on 17 September 1948, as his motorcade drove through Katamon west of Jerusalem. Shamir later became Israel's Pime Minister in 1983 and also in 1988.

It was partly as a tribute to Count Bernadotte that the UN General Assembly issued its Resolution 194 on 11 December 1948 calling for:

1. Return of all expelled Palestinians (Art. 11)
2. Protection of and free access to the Holy Places (Art. 7)
3. Demilitarization and UN control over Jerusalem (Art. 8)
4. Free access to Jerusalem (Art. 9)

Only the day before, on 10 December 1948, The UN published The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 13 of that Declaration states that every person has the right to return to his/her home. To prevent that person from returning, no matter what the reasons are for his/her exodus, is itself a war crime.

The right of the refugees to return to their homes is not only a sacred and legal right, but also a possible one. Studies show that 80% of Jews live on 15% of historic Palestine. The remaining 20% of Jews live on 85% of land that belongs to Palestinians.

The Right of Return is an inalienable right sacredly held by all refugees and entitles them to return at any time to their homes. This Right can never be diminished by the passage of time or by any treaty unless the refugees themselves declare otherwise, or forfeit that Right altogether, but under no duress of any kind.

The expulsion of the Palestinians in 1948. Approximately 750,000 indigenous Palestinians became homeless

Children of a Palestinian family from Haifa 1 year after their expulsion (L) and 60 years later (R)

We repeat: The Right of Return is an inalienable and non-negotiable right. Period.

International Law considers agreements between occupiers and occupied as null and void if they deprive civilians of their right to return to their homes, of their right to repatriation and of their right to restitution.

Acceptance and implementation of Resolution 194 was made a condition for Israel’s entry into the United Nation.

No surprise, then, that the Zionist leadership quickly welcomed it. But Resolution 194 has never been implemented despite its reaffirmation by the UN on more than 130 occasions. Despite this miscarriage of justice, Israel was admitted as a member of the UN on 11 May 1949 “as a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is willing to carry out those obligations”. This peace-loving State has defied more UN Resolutions than any other member state of the UN.

Resolution 194 remains the major legal foundation on which the Right of Return is based. It states that the General Assembly “resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at their earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return…”

A number of international conventions including the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 9, 13 and 30, the UN Resolution 242 passed in 1967 and many others, call on Israel to permit the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes. It must now be forced to do so. Or be expelled from the UN.

As a result of the Nakba (1948) and the Naksa (1967), 55 Palestinian refugee camps dot the region. 

Copyright 1996-2004 The Palestinian Return Centre

They Shall Return...Homeland Is Not For Sale.

For a chronology of key events in the history of Palestine up to The Nakba, please log on to:

http://www.alnakba.org/chronology/chronology.htm

THE FUCK IS THIS?????!!?

Puppet US government's next action? If AIPAC going these lengths, somethings must be working, right? 

"The most powerful pro-Israel lobbying organization, AIPAC, is working on drafting legislation that would aim to counter the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel, two sources familiar with the situation told BuzzFeed News.

The legislation, which has not yet been introduced and has been in the process of being drafted for months, would aim to prevent U.S. companies from participating in the campaign without infringing on Americans’ First Amendment rights to political speech. It would also try to make the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership being negotiated between the U.S. and E.U. conditional on whether the E.U. takes action to stop BDS."

Link

News at 11: a political lobby drafts proposed legislation.