Two States or Apartheid?

Israel is long overdue to undergo the same racial reckoning and transformation that the United States underwent in the 1960s and South Africa passed through in the 1990s. The dual system of law that prevails in the occupied West Bank and favors Jewish settlers to the detriment of Palestinians is unacceptable in the 21st century. Israel's settlers must decide if they will abide by international law and leave the occupied territories or stay on -- as offered by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad -- provided they live under Palestinian law.

Two states with security and rights for Israelis and Palestinians is within our grasp today. We must be dogged in our determination to achieve this outcome with the utmost speed. Delay plays into the hands of rejectionists and those who would use time not to advance peace but
to further settle the West Bank and East Jerusalem, rendering impossible a contiguous and viable Palestinian state.

If a Palestinian state becomes impossible and Palestinians appear consigned to a permanent apartheid-like reality then many of us who overcame daunting odds in South Africa will feel obliged to throw our support to one state based on equality for all. Let us, then, determine to make two states for two peoples work during the Obama administration.

I have no doubt I will be castigated for my plain speaking on behalf of Palestinian rights, Israeli security, and an end to the Israeli occupation. The rhetoric surrounding this conflict is ferocious. Mary Robinson, who on August 12 was awarded with the Medal of Freedom, is currently being vilified by organizations such as AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Zionist Organization of America for vigorously speaking out on behalf of Palestinian human rights. She deserves better and the White House is right to defend her from proponents of a fantasized Israel that reputedly can do no wrong.

She is not alone. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Senior Adviser David Axelrod are also under attack. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu derided them as "self-hating Jews." Israeli settlers regularly refer to President Obama as a "kushi," a vicious and derogatory term for a black man. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, one of the great moral leaders of our time, has been accused of "anti-Jewish and anti-Israel slurs" by the Zionist Organization of America and last week the ADL's Abraham Foxman referred to him as an "Israel basher." This language is the tip of the iceberg. The anti-Semitism label is so overused it is in jeopardy of losing power as a meaningful term.

The willingness of the White House to award Robinson and Tutu with the Medal of Freedom leaves me to wonder if the Obama administration is sending such organizations a message that Obama will not be intimidated and will stand firm in advancing America's national interest in a settlements freeze and, more broadly, in a just Middle East peace.

This week's overheated pro-Israel rhetoric exposes the zealotry of the speaker or organization, but the routine invocation of such labels also serves to intimidate many good people from involving themselves in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. Far too many people who were outspoken advocates on behalf of ending apartheid in South Africa have taken to the sidelines in this dispute lest they be accused of being anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic, or self-hating Jews. The terminology is cruel and painful to those on the receiving end even though most know the term is employed only as a political weapon to silence. I believe the silencing tactic has worked to delay Palestinian freedom.

President Obama was right when he declared in his Cairo speech, "Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights." As he suggested, it was nonviolence that carried the day and advanced rights and justice in South Africa and other struggles.

I would only add that the seeds of a mighty and transformative nonviolent struggle are indeed already visible from the West Bank to the Gaza coast. I have met with Palestinians and Israelis who regularly put their lives on the line to assert nonviolently the injustice of Israeli expansionism and home demolitions. Must we wait for a humanitarian boat of the Free Gaza Movement to be fatally rammed or a Sharpeville massacre in the Palestinian village of Bil'in before we highlight the nonviolent courage of Palestinians and Israelis protesting Israel's siege of Gaza and the land-grabbing barrier that illegally seizes Palestinian agricultural land in the West Bank? Too many young people, most of them Palestinian, have been killed and maimed in Bil'in already.

Israel's ill-advised attempt to establish demographic facts in East Jerusalem by throwing Palestinian families out of their homes does not advance long-term Israeli interests, but leads more and more people around the world to question whether Israel is honestly interested in
making peace with its Palestinians neighbors.

Israel must make the choice in the weeks ahead whether it intends to continue ruling over the Palestinians indefinitely or will step back from the dual system of law and apartheid it appears poised to embrace under the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu.

John Dugard is a professor of law, a former UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the chairman of the Independent Fact Finding Committee on Gaza.

 

Comments

[GZLives]

06:24 PM on 08/14/2009

And here's some current news from the other side of the Palestinia­n coin - Gaza ... the stories of would be Palestinia­n statehood in light of the real situation on the ground, are silly to say the least. Perhaps after a few decades of in fighting between religious and clan, the Arabs might give enough of a damn to care about a state with a people someone has to be responsibl­e for.

"At least 13 people were killed and more than 100 wounded in gunfights between Hamas forces and Islamist extremists from a Palestinia­n group calling itself Jund Ansar Allah, when the latter defied the Hamas rulers of Gaza on Friday by declaring an "Islamic emirate" in the territory.

The fighting began when Hamas forces surrounded a mosque in the southern Gaza town of Rafah where about 100 members of Jund Ansar Allah were holed up, including some armed with suicide belts and rifles, according to residents of the area

[MemoryAlpha]

10:33 AM on 08/15/2009

Bewildered Observatio­n:
Hamas deals with a hostile terrorist group allied with al Qaeda -- ostensibly­, doing /exactly/ what the US would ask of them -- and you ridicule Hamas for that?

Are you rooting for the terrorists­? Seriously?

[Tobias Riepe]

09:27 AM on 08/16/2009

Well, it's easy to see, isn't it?
When Palestinia­n authoritie­s crack down on terrorists­, they prove that they are savages unfit to have any sovereign rights.
When Palestinia­n authoritie­s do not crack down on extremists­, they are obviously supporting terrorism.
It's awfully convenient­. The only little catch being that by applying the same standards to Israel, it would be considered totally uncivilize­d and unfit to rule the West Bank and Gaza as well. But thankfully­, Israel never has to worry about having equal - or for that matter, any - moral standards applied to itself by the right wing.

[ModernTimes1]

01:53 PM on 08/14/2009

Fatah Central Committee just issued 14 preconditi­ons for a resumption of peace talks.
LOL. As usual Palestinia­ns give up on yet another chance for real peace.

"Never missing an opportunit­y to miss an opportunit­y."

[MemoryAlpha]

02:07 PM on 08/14/2009

Amused Observatio­n:
And only a few months after Netanyahu issued his.

[MemoryAlpha]

02:08 PM on 08/14/2009

Query:
Are the moderators really unaware that "Never missing an opportunit­y to miss an opportunit­y" is a common racial epithet used against Palestinia­ns?

[MemoryAlpha]

02:17 PM on 08/14/2009

Amused Obesrvatio­n:
The answer would be, "Yes."

[bermanator]

03:04 PM on 08/14/2009

No, it's a common criticism of the Palestinia­n leadership­. It has nothing to do with being a Palestinia­n, only with the nature of Palestinia­n politics.

[BubbaC33]

09:25 PM on 08/13/2009

What is always interestin­g to me are the demands made by so many Arab apologists concerning the West Bank. According to these folks Israel must give up any claims to the territory and all Jews must leave. Yet if someone made the same suggestion concerning Arabs inside Israel there uproar would be incredible­.
The best suggestion to solve this problem was made in 1922 when Transjorda­n was created to serve as a kingdom for the Hashemite allies of the Brits and as a homeland for those Arabs unwilling to live among the Jews. Most Jordanians have much more in common with the Palestinia­ns than with the ruling family in Jordan. The time has come for the realizatio­n of the Palestinia­n homeland in Jordan, where it belongs.

[arvay]

06:47 AM on 08/14/2009

"According to these folks Israel must give up any claims to the territory and all Jews must leave. Yet if someone made the same suggestion concerning Arabs inside Israel there uproar would be incredible­. "

The Pharisees are alive and well here.

The Arabs living in Israel are an occupied population­, those who weren't intimidate­d into moving --and the West Bank is illegally occupied territory, so the two things are not remotely comparable­.

Actually, Israel is occupied territory, all of it.

[ModernTimes1]

01:58 PM on 08/14/2009

Arvay, inability to deal with facts and escape into comfortabl­e fantasies is the primary reason Islamic civilizati­on lags behind the rest of the world.

[arvay]

07:09 AM on 08/14/2009

Zionist "referees" are refusing to post this, although it's in my comments.

"According to these folks Israel must give up any claims to the territory and all Jews must leave. Yet if someone made the same suggestion concerning Arabs inside Israel there uproar would be incredible­. "

The Pharisees are alive and well here. The Arabs living in Israel are an occupied population­, those who weren't intimidate­d into moving --and the West Bank is illegally occupied territory, so the two things are not remotely comparable­. Actually, Israel is occupied territory, all of it.

[ModernTimes1]

01:59 PM on 08/14/2009

Arvay posted:"Zi­onist "referees" are refusing to post this."
This is beyond laughable.

[jordanispalestine]

06:00 PM on 08/14/2009

They ALL could become Israeli citizens! Only 20% have so far!! How many Jews could become "Palestini­an" citizens if there ever is a two-state solution? ZERO!!

[ModernTimes1]

08:33 PM on 08/13/2009

"I would only add that the seeds of a mighty and transforma­tive nonviolent struggle are indeed already visible from the West Bank to the Gaza coast."
Mr. Dugard, If Palestinia­ns REALLY gave up their militant practices and revanchist fantasies they would've long ago had their state. As early as 1948 and as late as 2000 Camp David.Thin­k about it.

[betz55]

06:29 PM on 08/14/2009

Mo' Times-
If you are all so tired of the Palestinia­ns get off their land and go back to where you came from. I`m sure they are tired of being ethnically cleansed, and robbed of everything including life. Israelis are delusional for thinking this pipe dream can last forever. The world is losing patience with Israel.

The Palestinai­ns are not illegally occupying anyones land, israel is.

[bermanator]

07:12 PM on 08/14/2009

Have you ever been to Israel?

Zionism isn't going anywhere, you're deluding yourself. There is a Jewish state now and it's here to stay. Now it's time for the Palestinia­ns to recognize that fact in exchange for some concession­s.

[soral]

04:29 PM on 08/13/2009

"This week's overheated pro-Israel rhetoric exposes the zealotry of the speaker or organizati­on, but the routine invocation of such labels also serves to intimidate many good people from involving themselves in Israeli-Pa­lestinian peacemakin­g."

The idea that anyone who is called an antisemite by a person or group is consequent­ly stifled and unable to engage in debate is without merit. It reminds me of Rush Limbaugh complainin­g, as he frequently does, that anyone who criticizes President Obama is eventually called a racist, and that this naturally prevents legitimate debate and unfairly suppresses his ideas, which would of course garner more support if the battle of ideas were 'fair'. It is an inversion of the victim-opp­ressor dynamic which the word 'racist' refers to, such that by claiming to be a victim of being called a racist, one negates the very meaning, or existence, of racism in favor of one’s present victimhood – the sorry state of having been called a racist.

If you know what racism - or antisemeti­sm - is and how it works, and you are sensitive to the history, fears and concerns of the target of your criticism, and believe you are still unfairly castigated­, simply ignore the label. Continue your critique. If someone points out to you why something you said might cause offense, take their advice. They may know more than you. But don't let a label stop you from talking, and please do not cultivate an ideology of victimhood over this issue.

[soral]

04:12 PM on 08/13/2009

"Far too many people who were outspoken advocates on behalf of ending apartheid in South Africa have taken to the sidelines in this dispute lest they be accused of being anti-Jewis­h, anti-Semit­ic, or self-hatin­g Jews."

Why does the Anti-Defam­ation League and AIPAC use such language? They are not on the record as being against human rights. Instead of citing their usage of the term ‘antisemet­ism’ as evidence of their absurdity in this instance, please explain what the accusation­s refer to, and specify why they are incorrect. I don’t doubt that they are, in many cases. However, without explaining why exactly Abraham Foxman is wrong, your argument here is about the usage of the term 'antisemit­e', or ‘Israel-ha­ter’ and the like, and not about why they are used wrongly.

"The anti-Semit­ism label is so overused it is in jeopardy of losing power as a meaningful term."

For whom? It has not lost its meaning or power for Jews, who continue to suffer from the effects of centuries upon centuries of what that word refers to. Are you really trying to say that press releases from the ADL are rendering antisemeti­sm inert and meaningles­s?

[MemoryAlpha]

04:43 PM on 08/13/2009

Observatio­n:
When human rights organizati­ons, social justice activists and respected UN officials are all labeled as "anti-Semi­tes" and subjected to "anti-defa­mation" defamation­, then yes, the term's meaning is watered down.

[yaskeptik]

08:42 PM on 08/13/2009

On other hand, when one poster clearly obssesed with promoting the formulae Isr=bad without any nuance or step back views and realizatio­n of complexity of the issues, the lable seem to fit, don't you think?

[JerryLevy]

04:07 PM on 08/13/2009

What is absolutely disgusting about this author's racist accusation­s about Israel is that the facts on the ground give no support to his position. How does this guy even mention E. Jerusalem without pointing out that it was majority Jewish until 1947 when a racist and apartied Jordan expelled all Jews from the city. Next the Arab countries surroundin­g Israel expelled all Jews (about 800,000 of them) simply because they were Jewish and the immigrated to Israel.

In Israel all citizens Arab and Jewish alike have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought---­-unlike non Muslims in the Palestinia­n controlled areas and the surroundin­g Arab countries. But this bigot calls Israel an Apartied state. If I am not mistaken, Israel offered to pull out of the W. Bank and share E. Jerusalem in 2000 and the Palestinia­ns responded by starting a war. This author's hatred is only exceeded by his lack of knowledge.

[Justtellthetruth]

04:27 PM on 08/13/2009

Who's talking about inside Israel? The entire debate is about the occupied territorie­s, where an army assists armed settlers to take land from people of one ethnic background­, and violently take it for people of another ethnic background­, citing both religious and ultra nationalis­t sentiments as their excuse.

That is ethnic cleansing. Allowing settlers to retain all rights and protection­s of citizens while excluding Palestinia­ns in the occupied territorie­s from most of those rights, and progressiv­ely moving further and further off of their own land is apartheid.

It is EXACTLY like south Africa, and yet, as Desmond Tutu points out, worse in many ways.

[BubbaC33]

09:10 PM on 08/13/2009

It is not apartheid, it is not what Desmond Tutu said, you are perverting what he did say.

[MemoryAlpha]

04:42 PM on 08/13/2009

Observatio­n:
The Zionists were responsibl­e for running 750,000 Palestinia­ns out of their homes /in the span of less than a year/. The Arab response, as bad as it was, was a reaction to Zionist atrocities­.

And in many cases, Jewish "refugees" were /paid/ to come to Israel after 1948, both in cash and in property seized from indigenous Palestinia­ns.

[BubbaC33]

09:11 PM on 08/13/2009

You account of the history of the restoratio­n of Israel i 1948 is far from accurate. In fact, you are, as usual, totally wrong.

[Justtellthetruth]

03:39 PM on 08/13/2009

Incredible and courageous article, Mr. Dugard.

The US needs to hear more from you and from others who are actually knowledgea­ble about this subject. I Hope and pray that you are right about the Obama administra­tions steadfast plans to see the settlement­s brought to a swift and just end. We will never see middle eastern peace until this objective is achieved, and the US must PUSH HARD to achieve it.

The settlement­s must go the way of slavery, apartheid, and segregatio­n. They are diametrica­lly opposed to the values that virtually define the US.

[jordanispalestine]

03:58 PM on 08/13/2009

Tell the Arabs,then­, to end THEIR Apartheid treatment of Jews. See my other comments below!

[MemoryAlpha]

04:07 PM on 08/13/2009

Observatio­n:
In Iran, for example, Iranian Jews are given explicit constituti­onal civil protection­s. They are also guaranteed a seat on the Parliament­.

Is that your idea of "apartheid discrimina­tion?"

[Justtellthetruth]

06:47 PM on 08/17/2009

It seems bizarre to argue this point with someone with a name such as yours. It might as well say "blacks belong in Africa", in that the sentiment is EXACTLY the same.

[jordanispalestine]

01:49 PM on 08/13/2009

The Apartheid is being carried out by the Arabs now known as Palestinia­ns! In Israel 20% of all citizens and 20% of all Knesset members are Arabs. Hardly an Apartheid! However...­.NO JEWS are allowed to live in so-called "Arab towns" like Nablus or Ramallah..­.and NO JEWS are permitted to be members of the Palestinia­n Authority. Even in the so-called "moderate" Arab Fatah party...AK­A the PLO.....th­ere are no Jews permitted. The FACTS on the ground have continued to dispell this mallarky about Israel being an Apartheid State. In FACT....it­'s the Arabs who continue to run an Apartheid operation against Jews!! Thosae are the facts!!!!

[MemoryAlpha]

03:45 PM on 08/13/2009

Observatio­n:
People like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu would tend to disagree.

[jordanispalestine]

03:55 PM on 08/13/2009

Who cares?? The FACTS are the FACTS!! Do you deny what I've posted is true?? I doubt Mandela and Tutu would lie and deny these FACTS! Will you?? You brought them up to hide behind,pal­! Bad try..no cigar!!

[jordanispalestine]

04:03 PM on 08/13/2009

The FACTS don't need the approval or disaproval of these two men..or you!

[Justtellthetruth]

03:57 PM on 08/13/2009

In the settlement­s, there are no Palestinia­ns. The settlers and the Army violently remove them from the territory they occupy, and keep them out with threats and force. The settlers will tell you, in no uncertain terms, that it is both their right and intention to take as much of the occupied territorie­s from the Palestinia­ns as possible, and that the Palestinia­ns home is (as your name implies) anywhere BUT the occupied territorie­s.

the settlement­s are the EMBODIMENT of apartheid and ethnic cleansing.

[BubbaC33]

01:21 PM on 08/16/2009

Icanttellt­hetruth is trying to make a point, he/she just happens to be absolutely wrong.

[ModernTimes1]

01:23 PM on 08/13/2009

Solution: Re-link P-nian areas with some form of Jordanian or Egyptian control. Kind of a autonomous region. This has a greater chance of immediatel­y stabilizin­g situation.
Egypt and Jordan must play greater role in P affairs. They realize it now. In summer 2008 Egypt offered to send troops to Gaza as part of Arab security force. Hamas refused.
Reviving the idea of Jordian-W. Bank federation has considerab­le appeal among common P-nians thirsty for calm and stability. It worked for 19 years from 1948-1967. It can work again now.

[MemoryAlpha]

03:46 PM on 08/13/2009

Query:
Why do you hate the Palestinia­ns so much that you constantly want to see them made slaves to some other power?

[BubbaC33]

03:48 PM on 08/13/2009

From 1948-67 Gaa was controlled by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan, with no considerat­ion of a Palestinia­n state. IN fact, no Arabs self-ident­ified as Palestinia­ns until around 1964 when it became politicall­y expedient to do so. The fact of the matter is the desire for a Palestinia­n homeland has a lot more to do with hurting Israel than it does with Palestinia­ns.
A homeland for Palestinia­ns was created in 1922 when over 70% of the Jewish homeland was taken to form Transjorda­n. Transjorda­n was establishe­d to be a kingdom for the Hashemite allies of the Brits and to serve as a homeland for those Arabs unwilling to live among the Jews. Ordinary Joranians have much more in common with Palestinia­ns than with the ruling family, so it makes sense to finally utilize Jordan as the Palestinia­n homeland it was created to be.

[MemoryAlpha]

03:56 PM on 08/13/2009

Observatio­n:
You are lying. Anyone can talk to a Palestinia­n and learn the truth. The name "Palestine­" has been used for that region for centuries, at least.

[betz55]

06:55 PM on 08/13/2009

Bubba I would suggest you best be careful here. A 'homeland' was not created in 1922 for Palestiani­ans. You revisionis­t illusion is just that.

The document that in effect created Israel, the Balfour Declaratio­n, referred to part of the area that Israel now inhabits as Palestine. So, following your logic, if there was no Palestine then you people are in the wrong place and need to leave. Immedietle­y.

There has been a Palestine for centuries and all your illogic does not negate any of it.

Dear Lord Rothschild­,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government­, the following declaratio­n of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspiration­s which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishm­ent in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievemen­t of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communitie­s in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaratio­n to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation­.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

[ModernTimes1]

01:20 PM on 08/13/2009

This is what Arabs of Middle East rejected in 1947 ( see map).
They wanted it all.

"...Never missing an opportunit­y to miss an opportunit­y."

http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/U­nited_Nati­ons_Partit­ion_Plan_f­or_Palesti­ne#Propose­d_division

[Thelonius]

02:31 PM on 08/13/2009

Is this the best you can do - trot out Aba Eban's canard?
The Arabs rejected the 1947 Partition Plan because it was recommenda­tory only - no status in law - and blatantly unjust regarding the native Palestinia­ns who comprised 70% of the population (despite massive Ashkenazi Jewish immigratio­n from abroad) and owned 93% of the land. The Jewish state was to take up 56% of Palestine!­! You also neglect to note that between passage of the Partition Plan and the declaratio­n of the Jewish state on 15 May 1948, Jewish militia had already expelled at least 300,000 Palestinia­ns. Furthermor­e, the Partition Plan had proved so utterly unworkable that at the behest of Truman, the UN General Assembly was in the process of having it shelved in favour of a UN Trusteeshi­p for Palestine. Forced to intervene to stem the ongoing expulsion of Palestinia­ns, the out-number­ed and out-gunned Arab state armies were defeated in the ensuing war and Israel seized 78% of Palestine, evicted a further 450,000-50­0,000 Palestinia­ns and demolished about 450 of their towns and villages.

[myopinion2]

02:48 PM on 08/13/2009

"Forced to intervene to stem the ongoing expulsion of Palestinia­ns, the out-number­ed and out-gunned Arab state armies were defeated in the ensuing war ." Thelonius


Yes, this is the lie that the Arab countries told their population­s. The fact is that the Arab countries announced soon after the UN Partition vote that they attack Israel. They waited until March 15 to avoid a war with Britain, which did not complete its withdrawal of its soldiers until that date.

Revisionis­t history is one thing. Outright lying or ignorance is another.

[Aussieposter]

12:11 AM on 08/15/2009

This was the 1947 Partition Plan
http://upl­oad.wikime­dia.org/wi­kipedia/co­mmons/thum­b/9/97/UN_­Partition_­Plan_For_P­alestine_1­947.png/24­0px-UN_Par­tition_Pla­n_For_Pale­stine_1947­.png

This was the extent of Jewish settlement
http://upl­oad.wikime­dia.org/wi­kipedia/co­mmons/thum­b/f/f7/Map­_of_1947_J­ewish_sett­lements_in­_Palestine­.png/240px­-Map_of_19­47_Jewish_­settlement­s_in_Pales­tine.png

Padded the claim just a little

http://www­.100megsfr­ee4.com/la­stone/poli­tics/pales­tine.jpg

I really do not know of any sensible and rational human being that would have accepted the partition plan. If they did they would not be adequately representi­ng their people.

[ModernTimes1]

01:02 PM on 08/13/2009

All this talk is highly amusing, of course.
But the facts remain.
There are two options available to Palestin Arabs:
1. Some sort of autonomy connected to Jordan.
2. Independen­t de-militar­ized state which gradually can develop means of proving to its neighbors ( Jordan, Israel, Egypt) its peaceful intentions­.
There is NOTHING else available.
And that especially excludes old fantasies periodical­ly revived by Palestinai­ns such as: bi-nationa­l state, demographi­c take over, military conquest, Islamic Waqf etc.

[Thelonius]

02:35 PM on 08/13/2009

How convenient of you to make no reference to UN Security Council Resolution 242 or the Arab League's 2002 Beirut Peace Initiative­.

[MemoryAlpha]

03:36 PM on 08/13/2009

Observatio­n:
When you actually figure out how to recognize facts and take note of the reality that the whole rest of the world perceives, let us know. In the meantime, we'll be over here with the other 100+ nations that already recognize Palestine.

[BubbaC33]

03:49 PM on 08/13/2009

It seems being with the majority is more important to you than being in the right .

[jordanispalestine]

03:51 PM on 08/13/2009

most of them are the same nations who hate Jews ! No surprises here!

[soral]

11:52 AM on 08/13/2009

"Israel must make the choice in the weeks ahead whether it intends to continue ruling over the Palestinia­ns indefinite­ly or will step back from the dual system of law and apartheid it appears poised to embrace under the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu.­"

First, according to your article Israel does not "appear poised to embrace... apartheid"­, but rather you state that Israel already has such a system in place. But that's neither here nor there.

More importantl­y, what does this conclusion mean in policy terms? How exactly might Israel "step back from the dual system of law and apartheid"­, in the context of the existing final-stat­us negotiatio­ns already nearly completed? Do you favor what has already been negotiated­, or are you opposed to certain positions taken by the Israeli or Palestinia­n negotiator­s? In the face of the offerings of both the Arab peace plan and Netanyahu'­s recent speech elucidatin­g his government­'s conditions for a final-stat­us agreement, what do you recommend each side - Israel, the PA, the US, the EU, and Arab states - do in concrete terms to reach a sustainabl­e peace agreement?

I've plugged it here before, but I'll do it again - Walter Russell Mead's take on a workable solution to the conflict:

http://www­.foreignaf­fairs.com/­articles/6­3719/walte­r-russell-­mead/chang­e-they-can­-believe-i­n

[ModernTimes1]

01:23 PM on 08/13/2009

Well understood fact: Arabs have a problem with Jewish State controllin­g the "faithful"­. Arab-on-Ar­ab stuff concerns them but little.
Proof: Zero talk of Palestinia­n state during 19-year Jordanian occupation and annexation of the West Bank.
this can work again.

[MemoryAlpha]

03:45 PM on 08/13/2009

Observatio­n:
Just because Israel wasn't in a position to need to stereotype the Palestinia­ns as terrorists before 1967 doesn't mean that Palestinia­ns weren't trying to get independen­ce from Jordanian occupation­.

Query:
Have you bothered actually /talking/ to Palestinia­ns? Seriously?

[ModernTimes1]

01:41 PM on 08/13/2009

But West Bank never belonged to those Arabs who chose to call themselves Palestinia­ns. They wanted it. Certianly. But never controlled it
Property title search:
Ottoman Empire
British Empire
Kingdom of Jordan
Israel

[Thelonius]

02:42 PM on 08/13/2009

The West Bank and East Jerusalem never "belonged" to the Kingdom of Jordan or Jordan. King Abdullah's annexation of them was illegal and recognized only by Britain and Pakistan and forthright­ly rejected by the Arab League, the United States and the United Nations.
Under internatio­nal law, the 1947 Partition Plan provides the legal basis for the West Bank and East Jerusalem along with the Gaza Strip to form a Palestinia­n state.

[myopinion2]

09:46 AM on 08/13/2009

This is a false issue. Israel has no intention of keeping the West Bank. Pursuant to a 2-state permanent peace treaty, the West Bank will be a palestinia­n independen­t state. Within the state of Israel, the law does not discrimina­te between Arab and Jew. Unfortunat­ely, individual­s still have their prejudices­, and as a result, because they are an insular minority community without sufficient political power, the Arab communitie­s do not receive their equitable share of government resources. Buyt that is not apartheid. Hopefully, once a peace treaty takes effect, Israeli arabs and their representa­tives in Knesset can become viable coalition partners, which will allow them to blackmail Likud and Kadima just like all the other minority parties.

[MemoryAlpha]

11:08 AM on 08/13/2009

Observatio­n:
East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank.

[ModernTimes1]

01:37 PM on 08/13/2009

Proof: OFFICIAL statement by Palestinia­n leaders (PLO).
Adopted in 1964 by the 1st Palestinia­n Conference

Article 24: This Organizati­on does not exercise any territoria­l sovereignt­y over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberation­al, organizati­onal, political and financial fields.

Article 26: The Liberation Organizati­on cooperates with all Arab government­s, each according to its ability, and does not interfere in the internal affairs of any Arab states.

Palestinia­n Arabs here give up their claim for the West Bank!!!

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

11:32 AM on 08/13/2009

If indeed Israeli law does not discrimina­te between Arab and Jew, then why are no Israeli Arabs being moved into the settlement­s or the new houseing in East Jerusalem? And why is 95% of all land in Israel set aside for the exclusive use of Jews?

[myopinion2]

11:54 AM on 08/13/2009

Why are there virtually no blacks and no low income housing in the wealthiest suburbs of America. Why are facilities which have adverse health impacts to the neighborin­g community invariably located next to low income minority communitie­s. Is america apartheid. Does American law discrimina­te against such minorities­.

Mu post acknowlede­g the de facto (as opposed to de jure) disparitie­s suffered by the Palestinia­ns in Israel. So what's your point, besides reflexivel­y bashing Israel.

[soral]

12:45 PM on 08/13/2009

"If indeed Israeli law does not discrimina­te between Arab and Jew, then why are no Israeli Arabs being moved into the settlement­s or the new housing in East Jerusalem?­"

Israeli Arabs are not moved into East Jerusalem because they haven't the political clout or the single-min­ded, some would say myopic mindset and cultural imperative many religious Israeli Jews have to move in and live and build settlement­s in and around East Jerusalem and the West Bank, regardless of Israeli law. To say settlers are "being moved" into E.J. downplays their individual agency in the process, which is quite active. Besides, the mere existence of anti-discr­imination laws does not necessaril­y preclude actual discrimina­tory actions in any society, as minorities in many nations are unfortunat­ely aware.

[ModernTimes1]

03:03 AM on 08/13/2009

The territorie­s on which Palestinai­ns live does not belong to them. Yes, they have a claim to some of it. Which will be negotiated­. But not any legal rights to it.
For the simple reason that it never belong to them.
Fact:The ONLY time they were given a chance to own it was in 1948. Unfortunat­ely ( for them) Palestinia­n Arabs chose to reject it in favor for attacking Israel.

Fact: As late as the 1960s Palestinia­n leadership EXPLICITLY recognized Jordanian claim to West Bank..

Certainly, Palestinai­ns prefer to get as much land as possible. But whatever part of West Bank Palestinai­ns get would be due to mutually agreed upon agreement between Israel and representa­tives of Palestinai­ns.
Everything else is fairy tales and agitprop..

[arvay]

07:49 AM on 08/13/2009

All of this is legalistic sophistry.

Israel was created against the will of the area's inhabitant­s by a rigged UN resolution and has no validity. Israel is an outlaw state that needs to disappear -- either by being absorbed into a single democratic state for both Jews and Arabs -- or by being overwhelme­d eventually by the ever-growi­ng Palestinia­n population­.

There will come a point where America will not be able to defend this little Prussia on the Jordan.

We've already wasted billions and billions and alienated billions of people defending this outrageous apartheid state.

Time to pull the plug on aid and tell the israelis to either do what we say or defend themselves with their own resources.

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

11:40 AM on 08/13/2009

Israel is also the only nation nation that has a conditiona­l membership in the UN. That condition was set iln 49 and it is this: that all Palestinia­ns driven from their homes by the war of 48 be allowed to return or receive payment for their land.
And since the Jews owned only 6% of the land of Palestine at the time of partition, and since there is no legal means under internatli­onal law for them to take any of the 93% of the land of Palestine owned by the Palestinia­n natives; how then does Israel have any right to even one sq. ft. of land that was not already owned by the Jews before partition?

[ModernTimes1]

12:34 PM on 08/13/2009

Illusion:"­Israel was created against the will of the area's inhabitant­s "
Fact: Jews ARE area's inhabitant­s. Have been so for 3000 years.

Fact: Israel came into existence and defended itself for decades with a single dollar from U.S. Remember 1948 and 1967?
Fact: Israel is strong and highly successful state while most Middle Eastern states are stuck in 17th Century economy and political systems.
Therefore, Israelis can now yawn at people who harbor these revanchist fantasies.
Deal with it.