Gaza flotilla blind to Hamas

[Dubitante]

Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term “Zionism” was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.

Not all Zionists are Jews, and not all Jews are Zionists. I use the term correctly, and advisedly.

[Parihaka]

Not all Zionists are Jews, and not all Jews are Zionists. I use the term correctly, and advisedly.

But you use the word to describe "an incomplete atrocity, and inherently racist". Dreadnought linked to the meaning above, which has nothing to do with your definition. You did specifically mean it as an insult.

[Dubitante]

Great. Give me citations. Book, page number and paragraph will do. Hell, just give me book and page number, I can find the paragraph by myself

Apologies for the delay, Mondays is tennis night :)

OK, in terms of the Land ownership, it was less than 6% in 1943, and had risen to just under 7% in 1947 The source for this is the Survey of Palestine (p. 244-245, 267 and 566) which was prepared by the British Mandate for the UN. It's tabular data, no paragraph required.

In terms of the expulsions at the hands of the Zionist terror groups, the best source I can think to point you at is Benny Morris' Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. Also Norman Finkelstein's Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Much of the data regarding the expulsions of the indigenous people of Palestine were taken from a 1948 IDF report. The information is quite spread out in Morris' text, if you need specific page numbers let me know. Finkelstein critiques Morris in his book, pointing out some errors in Morris's analysis, and serves as a more condensed summary, so pages 51-87 should give you what you need (which also cross references Morris' work).

[Dubitante]

But you use the word to describe "an incomplete atrocity, and inherently racist". Dreadnought linked to the meaning above, which has nothing to do with your definition. You did specifically mean it as an insult.

If I use the term "Nazi" to describe someone who isn't a Nazi (example, someone on this board), it is inaccurate, it is inflammatory, and it is an insult. To refer to a SS Officer (for example) as a Nazi is not an insult, it is an historically accurate use of the term.

Similarly, if I use the term "Zionist" to refer to...say...Ben Gurion or Begin, for example, it is not an insult, it is an accurate use of the term. I'll clarify my comment on Zionism separately.

[Dubitante]

Friend, I'm going to ask you very nicely to please explain yourself, how Zionism "is an incomplete atrocity".

Zionism began as a political goal to create a state that was predominantly, if not homogeneously, Jewish. It was essentially a colonial project which arrived a century or two too late, at a time when the globe was full.

A number of locations were considered before the cross-hairs of the Zionist movement finally settled on Palestine. It is worth noting that there was significant opposition from European Jewry to Zionism, in fact, it was commonly held to be aligned with anti-Semitism. As the political movement evolved, and won support from a major world power, Zionist leaders began contemplating what they referred to as the "Arab problem".

Benny Morris, a Jewish, Zionist historian, concluded that ethnic cleansing "was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism - because it sought to transform a land which was 'Arab' into a 'Jewish' state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population". Now Zionists don't refer to it as "ethnic cleansing", it's too harsh a term, they use the term "transfer", which sounds like a pleasant bus ride, rather than the terrifying expulsions which took place.

So Zionism became a political ideology premised on the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people of Palestine, cleansing them based on race, and the drive to maintain ethnic supremacy in Israel is still very much there today, whether in the form of the racist "law of return", housing policy, demolitions or annexations.

So I'm not trying to insult you, but I will not shy away from articulating an opinion, an opinion based on established scholarship.

And for the record, I completely support the right of Israelis to safety and security within a state with internationally recognised borders.

[bigross86]

Apologies for the delay, Mondays is tennis night :)

OK, in terms of the Land ownership, it was less than 6% in 1943, and had risen to just under 7% in 1947 The source for this is the Survey of Palestine (p. 244-245, 267 and 566) which was prepared by the British Mandate for the UN. It's tabular data, no paragraph required.

In terms of the expulsions at the hands of the Zionist terror groups, the best source I can think to point you at is Benny Morris' Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. Also Norman Finkelstein's Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Much of the data regarding the expulsions of the indigenous people of Palestine were taken from a 1948 IDF report. The information is quite spread out in Morris' text, if you need specific page numbers let me know. Finkelstein critiques Morris in his book, pointing out some errors in Morris's analysis, and serves as a more condensed summary, so pages 51-87 should give you what you need (which also cross references Morris' work).

in his memoirs, Khalid al-`Azm, Prime Minister of Syria from December 17, 1949 to March 30, 1949 listed a number of reasons for the Arab defeat in an attack on the Arab leaders including his own predecessor Jamil Mardam Bey:

Fifth: the Arab governments' invitation to the people of Palestine to flee from it and seek refuge in adjacent Arab countries, after terror had spread among their ranks in the wake of the Deir Yassin event. This mass flight has benefited the Jews and the situation stablized in their favor without effort. ... Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homeland, while it is we who constrained them to leave it.

================================================== ====

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Said: "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."

================================================== ====

The Arab National Committee of Haifa, the Arab leadership in Haifa in 1948, wrote and delivered a report on the flight of roughly 60,000 Arabs from Haifa. The report said, "The removal of the Arab inhabitants from the town was voluntary and carried out at our request."

[bigross86]

Zionism began as a political goal to create a state that was predominantly, if not homogeneously, Jewish. It was essentially a colonial project which arrived a century or two too late, at a time when the globe was full.

A number of locations were considered before the cross-hairs of the Zionist movement finally settled on Palestine. It is worth noting that there was significant opposition from European Jewry to Zionism, in fact, it was commonly held to be aligned with anti-Semitism. As the political movement evolved, and won support from a major world power, Zionist leaders began contemplating what they referred to as the "Arab problem".

Benny Morris, a Jewish, Zionist historian, concluded that ethnic cleansing "was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism - because it sought to transform a land which was 'Arab' into a 'Jewish' state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population". Now Zionists don't refer to it as "ethnic cleansing", it's too harsh a term, they use the term "transfer", which sounds like a pleasant bus ride, rather than the terrifying expulsions which took place.

So Zionism became a political ideology premised on the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people of Palestine, cleansing them based on race, and the drive to maintain ethnic supremacy in Israel is still very much there today, whether in the form of the racist "law of return", housing policy, demolitions or annexations.

So I'm not trying to insult you, but I will not shy away from articulating an opinion, an opinion based on established scholarship.

And for the record, I completely support the right of Israelis to safety and security within a state with internationally recognised borders.

The Scramble for Africa, when Africa was parted up and divided by Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, the UK and others, tool place from approximately 1880-1914. The first Zionist organization were founded in the early 1880's, and Zionism itself was founded in 1897. Seems to me that it came just in time and in good company.

Let's continue that be definition it can't be a colonial project, since the Jews had no mother country which is what a colony needs.

Yes, there was objection to Jewish settlement in Israel, mainly religious objection which is not known for it's latitude in thought. There was also objection to English settlers being sent all the way to live with those dangerous heathen Indians. Zionism evolved and gained power and traction not from an external power, but from within the Jewish community, the want and desire to have a land to call our own.

With regards to the law of return: For Jews, it's Israel's immigration policy, and if you have a problem with that, well too bad. With regards to Palestinians, they can return to their own state when they get it all they like, but they're not allowed to Israel. Every country is allowed to define its own immigration policy, is it not? Are the Americans racist for only having Visa-Waiver programs with certain countries?

Just a question for you: if you "completely support the right of Israelis to safety and security within a state with internationally recognised borders." (which I doubt, given your writing and Hamas sympathizing), how do you not condemn Hamas for each and every single rocket and mortar they launch into Israel? Is it because you would claim that Israel doesn't have internationally recognized borders, despite lines on the map, passport control, military control, etc? Then how can you condemn military strikes by Israel on valid military targets in Gaza, which itself doesn't have internationally recognized borders?

By the way, read my next post it will explain why the answer you're going to give of the 1967 lines is a complete load of crock (or as I like to call it, total bullshit):

[bigross86]

Published December 2010

Vol. 10, No. 17 21 December 2010



The Fallacy of the “1967 Borders” – No Such Borders Ever Existed



Alan Baker



The Palestinian leadership is fixated on attempting to press foreign governments and the UN to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state within the "1967 borders." Indeed, this campaign appeared to have some initial successes in December 2010 when both Argentina and Brazil decided to recognize a Palestinian state within what they described as the "1967 borders."

But such borders do not exist and have no basis in history, law, or fact. The only line that ever existed was the 1949 armistice demarcation line, based on the ceasefire lines of the Israeli and Arab armies pending agreement on permanent peace. The 1949 armistice agreements specifically stated that such lines have no political or legal significance and do not prejudice future negotiations on boundaries.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 acknowledged the need for negotiation of secure and recognized boundaries. Prominent jurists and UN delegates, including from Brazil and Jordan, acknowledged that the previous lines cannot be considered as international boundaries.

The series of agreements between the PLO and Israel (1993-1999) reaffirm the intention and commitment of the parties to negotiate permanent borders. During all phases of negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians, there was never any determination as to a border based on the 1967 lines.

The PLO leadership solemnly undertook that all issues of permanent status would be resolved only through negotiations between the parties. The 2003 "Road Map" further reiterated the need for negotiations on final borders.



With ongoing and increasing intensity, the Palestinian leadership is fixated on advancing a concerted policy vis-à-vis the international community and public opinion, demanding recognition of what they claim to be the "1967 borders," and acceptance of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state within those borders. Indeed, this campaign appeared to have some initial successes in December 2010 when both Argentina and Brazil decided to recognize a Palestinian state within what they described as the "1967 borders."1

In actual fact, the Palestinian leadership, as well as members of the international community, are well aware that such borders do not exist, nor have they ever existed. They have never figured in any of the international, agreed-upon documentation concerning the Israel-Arab and Israel-Palestinian issues, and have no basis whatsoever, neither in law nor in fact.

There are no provisions in any of the agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinians that require withdrawal to the "1967 borders." There were never any geographic imperatives that sanctify the 1967 lines. Clearly, there could be no legal or political logic to enshrining as an international boundary an inadvertent and coincidental set of ceasefire lines that existed for less than 19 years

While the above is fully evident to the Palestinian leaders who are actively and daily advancing this policy - principally the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and the head of the Negotiations Department of the Authority, Sa'eb Erekat, both of whom were themselves actively involved in all the stages of negotiation - they nevertheless continue with their fixation to present the concept of the "1967 borders" as an accepted international term-of-art and as an Israeli commitment.

The following is a summary of the background to the 1967 lines as described in the international documentation:


UN Security Council Defines Initial Ceasefire Lines

The term "1967 lines" refers to the line from which Israel military forces moved into the territories at the start of hostilities on June 4, 1967 ("The Six-Day War").

These lines were not based on historical fact, natural geographic formations, demographic considerations, or international agreement. In fact, they had served as the agreed-upon armistice demarcation lines from the termination of the 1948 War of Independence, pursuant to the armistice agreements signed between Israel and its neighbors Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon in 1949. These lines remained valid until the outbreak of the 1967 hostilities.

The armistice demarcation line represented nothing more than the forward lines of deployment of the forces on the day a ceasefire was declared, as set out in Security Council Resolution 62 of November 16, 1948, which called for the delineation of permanent armistice demarcation lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective parties will not move. The line was demarcated on the map attached to the armistice agreement with a green marker pen and hence received the name "Green Line."

The Security Council in its resolution stressed the temporary nature of the armistice lines that were to be maintained "during the transition to permanent peace in Palestine," intimating that permanent peace would involve negotiating permanent bilateral borders that would be different from the armistice demarcation lines.2


1949 Armistice Agreements

In fact, the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement signed on April 13, 1949, as well as all the other armistice agreements, emphasized the transitional nature of the armistice as "an indispensable step toward the liquidation of armed conflict and the restoration of peace in Palestine." The language of the agreement went to great pains to stress that the armistice lines were of a provisional and non-political nature and were not intended to, and did not constitute international boundaries, and as such do not prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of the parties in the ultimate peace settlement:

"No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations."3

"The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Lines is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move."4

"The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties to this Agreement."5

"The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in...this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto."6


Subsequent Views on the Transitional Nature of the Lines

Statements from Arab and other sources between 1949 and 1967 confirm the common understanding as to the transitional nature of the lines. During the debate in the Security Council before the outbreak of hostilities in 1967, the Jordanian ambassador stated:

"There is an Armistice Agreement. The Agreement did not fix boundaries; it fixed a demarcation line. The Agreement did not pass judgment on rights political, military or otherwise. Thus I know of no territory; I know of no boundary; I know of a situation frozen by an Armistice Agreement."7

Prof. Mughraby wrote in the Beirut Daily Star:

"Israel is the only State in the world which has no legal boundaries except the natural one the Mediterranean provides. The rest are nothing more than armistice lines, can never be considered political or territorial boundaries."8

President Lyndon Johnson is on record stating:

"The nations of the region have had only fragile and violated truce lines for 20 years. What they now need are recognized boundaries and other arrangements that will give them security against terror, destruction and war."9

In this context, international jurists have also acknowledged the limited effect of the armistice lines:

Elihu Lauterpacht, in his booklet, Jerusalem and the Holy Places, states:

"Each of these agreements...contains a provision that the armistice lines therein laid down shall not prejudice the future political settlement. It would not therefore be accurate to contend that questions of title...depend on the Armistice Agreements. Questions of sovereignty are quite independent of the Armistice Agreements."10

Judge Steven Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice, stated in 1994:

"The armistice agreements of 1949 expressly preserved the territorial claims of all parties and did not purport to establish definitive boundaries between them."11


Security Council Resolution 242, 1967

The transitory nature of the 1949 armistice demarcation lines was clearly acknowledged by the Security Council in Resolution 242 of 1967, after the "Six-Day War," which affirmed, in its first paragraph:

"...respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."12

There is no call in this resolution for a return to the armistice demarcation lines or to any other line or border. The Security Council specifically dismissed the Arab demand for a text that required Israel to completely return all the territory it occupied during the 1967 conflict. Israel was called upon to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict," not from "all the territories" or even from "the territories." At the same time, the Council called upon the parties to work together to promote agreement on a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles of the resolution. Clearly this settlement was intended to include the negotiation of secure and recognized boundaries that would replace the armistice demarcation lines, pursuant to the above references in the armistice agreements to the same "ultimate peaceful settlement."

During the Security Council debate on the acceptance of Resolution 242, the representative of Brazil, in accepting the resolution, declared:

"Its acceptance does not imply that borderlines cannot be rectified as a result of an agreement freely concluded among the interested States. We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighboring States."13


Israel-Palestinian Declaration of Principles, 1993

While this fact has been widely acknowledged in both legal and political literature throughout the years,14 the basic reciprocal undertaking by the Palestinian and Israeli leaderships to negotiate borders between their respective territories was given formal confirmation by Yasser Arafat, his deputy and later replacement Mahmoud Abbas, and Sa'eb Erekat during the groundbreaking "Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements" (signed inter alia by Abbas) of September 13, 1993, in which the PLO and the Government of Israel acknowledged that the negotiations on the permanent status of the relationship between them would cover:

"...remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest."

On the eve of the signature of the above declaration, Arafat made the solemn commitment in a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin:

"The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations."15


Clearly, the present, ongoing fixation by Arafat's successor, Mahmoud Abbas, and his chief negotiator, Sa'eb Erekat, in attempting to bypass the agreed-upon negotiating process and achieve unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state within the "1967 borders" runs squarely against Arafat's solemn undertaking in the name of the Palestinian people in 1993.


Israeli-Palestinian Agreements, 1993-1999

The above references to permanent status negotiations on borders and to achieving the aims of Security Council Resolution 242 were repeated in a series of mutually agreed documents entered into between the PLO and the Israel Government.16 Furthermore, with a view to strengthening this commitment, they undertook in the 1995 Interim Agreement not to act unilaterally to change the status of the territories pending outcome of those permanent status negotiations:

"...neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations."17


This undertaking was reiterated by the parties in Article 9 of the 1999 Sharm el Shiekh Memorandum:

"Recognizing the necessity to create a positive environment for the negotiations, neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in accordance with the Interim Agreement."


Throughout all the phases of the negotiations on these various agreements and memoranda between Israel and the Palestinians, and in the texts of these documents, there was never any reference to the 1967 lines as a potential border between the two neighbors, nor was there any reference to any commitment or obligation by Israel to withdraw to the 1967 lines.


Road Map, 2003

Further indication of the non-existence of "1967 borders" and the rejection of any unilateral act by the Palestinians is evident from the terms of the Quartet-initiated "Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" of April 30, 2003.18 In this document the parties were expected, in the second and third phases of implementation of the "Road Map" and after election of a responsible Palestinian leadership, to engage in negotiation focusing on the option of creating an independent, viable Palestinian state, initially with "provisional borders." This was intended to serve as a way-station to the permanent settlement that was scheduled for the third stage, where final status borders would be recognized by an international conference convened for that purpose.

Clearly, if and when the parties return to a modus of bona fide negotiation and reach the issue of defining their mutual border, the 1967 line could indeed figure as a point of reference in the negotiations between them, assuming that it answers the criteria set out by the Security Council for a border that will avoid situations of threats of force and violence.

But this can only emanate from a reciprocal and good faith attempt by the parties to act together, and not unilaterally, in determining their own borders, based on their mutual interests as neighbors. Such issues cannot and must not be dictated from outside, whether by the UN or by individual states.

Thus, in light of all the above, the question arises if and when the Palestinian leadership will come to admit the absurdity in attempting to invent "1967 borders" that obviously lack any historical, legal, or factual basis?

Similarly, one may ask when they will see the utter lack of pragmatism and realism in their attempt to dictate to the international community a unilateral Palestinian state in violation of their own commitments, undermining the internationally accepted Middle East peace process as well as internationally recognized and witnessed documents.


* * *

1. For the text of the Argentinean declaration, see MINISTERIO DE RELACIONES EXTERIORES, COMERCIO INTERNACIONAL Y CULTO - Cancillera Argentina. The text of the Brazilian declaration may be found at

Reconhecimento do Estado Palestino nas Fronteiras de 1967 / Recognition of the Palestinian State along the 1967 Borders / Reconnaissance de l'Etat de Palestine dans les frontières de 1967 — Ministério das Relações Exteriores.

2. S/RES/62 (1948)S/1080, 16 November 1948.

3. Article II(2), Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement.

4. Article IV(2).

5. Article VI(8).

6. Article VI(9).

7. 1345th meeting of the Security Council, May 31, 1967.

8. Beirut Daily Star, May 28, 1967.

9. Department of State Bulletin 33, June 19, 1967.

10. Elihu Lauterpacht, Jerusalem and the Holy Places (London, 1968), p. 45.

11. Justice in International Law, Selected Writings of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel (Cambridge University Press, 1994).

12. UN Security Council Resolution 242, November 22, 1967, UN Security Council Resolution 242.

13. S/PV.1382(OR), 22 November 1967. See also Alan Baker, "Recognition of a Palestinian State - Premature,

Legally Invalid, and Undermining any Bona Fide Negotiation Process," Jerusalem Issue Brief, December 9, 2010, ME Diplomacy-Recognition of a Palestinian State ? Premature, Legally Invalid, and Undermining any Bona Fide Negot.

14. For example, see Prof. Ruth Lapidoth, "Security Council Resolution 242 at Twenty Five," Israel Law Review, vol. 26, 1992, pp. 295-318. Ministry for Foreign Affairs: The First Fifty Years (Jerusalem, Keter), vol. 4, pp. 840-853 (Hebrew).

15. Exchange of letters between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, July 9, 1993, Israel-PLO Recognition - Exchange of Letters betwe.

16. See, for example, the "Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip," Washington, D.C., September 28, 1995, Preamble, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Proc...AGREEMENT.htm; and see the "1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum on Implementation Timeline of Outstanding Commitments of Agreements Signed and the Resumption of Permanent Status Negotiations," 4 September 1999, Article 1.

Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum on Implementation Timel.

17. Article XXXI (7).

18. See A Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-Sta.



* * *



Amb. Alan Baker, Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is former Legal Adviser to Israel's Foreign Ministry and former Ambassador of Israel to Canada. He is a partner in the law firm of Moshe, Bloomfield, Kobo, Baker & Co. He participated in the negotiation and drafting of the various agreements comprising the Oslo Accords.

[Dubitante]

in his memoirs, Khalid al-`Azm, Prime Minister of Syria from December 17, 1949 to March 30, 1949 listed a number of reasons for the Arab defeat in an attack on the Arab leaders including his own predecessor Jamil Mardam Bey

Benny Morris, after pouring over countless primary historical sources concluded that the "stronger side won".

He also shattered the myth of Arabs leaving at the behest of their leaders.

[Dubitante]

Yes, there was objection to Jewish settlement in Israel, mainly religious objection which is not known for it's latitude in thought.

Another of the many myths shattered by Morris. Jews and Arabs had lived in Palestine quite happily before Zionism, and in fact they were still quite open to Jewish immigration. When Zionism gained traction after winning backing from the imperial power, as Morris noted, "it was the fear of territorial dispossession and displacement that was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism". Not anti-Semitism. Not xenophobia, but that Zionists had publicly stated their intention to have Palestine as a Jewish state.

With regards to the law of return: For Jews, it's Israel's immigration policy, and if you have a problem with that, well too bad. With regards to Palestinians, they can return to their own state when they get it all they like, but they're not allowed to Israel.

Even if the land you know as Israel was their home before they were driven out? Surely you can see the inherent immorality? I could convert to Judaism and "return" to a country to which I have no ancestral ties, but someone who was drive out of his home cannot actually return? You're right, it's Israeli business, doesn't stop me having an opinion does it?

Just a question for you: if you "completely support the right of Israelis to safety and security within a state with internationally recognised borders." (which I doubt, given your writing and Hamas sympathizing), how do you not condemn Hamas for each and every single rocket and mortar they launch into Israel?

You're making an enormous assumption there, and a bad one. I have constantly criticised Hamas (and other groups) for targeting civilians in Israel, and will continue to do so. No one (that I can think of) disagrees with me on my views on Palestinian terror. The only problem comes when I apply standards consistently, and also criticise Israel for targeting civilians in Palestine - plenty of people disagree with me on my views on Israeli terror.

[bigross86]

Another of the many myths shattered by Morris. Jews and Arabs had lived in Palestine quite happily before Zionism, and in fact they were still quite open to Jewish immigration. When Zionism gained traction after winning backing from the imperial power, as Morris noted, "it was the fear of territorial dispossession and displacement that was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism". Not anti-Semitism. Not xenophobia, but that Zionists had publicly stated their intention to have Palestine as a Jewish state.



Even if the land you know as Israel was their home before they were driven out? Surely you can see the inherent immorality? I could convert to Judaism and "return" to a country to which I have no ancestral ties, but someone who was drive out of his home cannot actually return? You're right, it's Israeli business, doesn't stop me having an opinion does it?



You're making an enormous assumption there, and a bad one. I have constantly criticised Hamas (and other groups) for targeting civilians in Israel, and will continue to do so. No one (that I can think of) disagrees with me on my views on Palestinian terror. The only problem comes when I apply standards consistently, and also criticise Israel for targeting civilians in Palestine - plenty of people disagree with me on my views on Israeli terror.

And here is the problem: Israel does not target civilians in Palestine, but no matter what proof I bring, you will refuse to believe that, because you are close minded.

[snapper]

To return to the Gaza blockade issue etc..

It seems that some here doubt the illegalatiy of the Gaza blockade ie. they suggest that it may be legal. Seeing as seemingly nobody can prove the blockade to be illegal can those who would support it prove that is legal? I would suggest that this case must fail for precisely the same reasons as an attempt to prove the blockade illegal fails. The inetvention of shipping in international waters then falls back on international maritime law as as the blockade zone can be proved neither legal nor illegal certainly the flotilla must be regarded as having been in international waters. It proceeds from this that the intervention was in fact illegal for much the reasons as Somali interference with international shipping is in breach of international shipping laws. At least so argues my sister who is a maritime lawyer.

As for court cases to decide this issue it is doubtful that it will get that far. More likely to be dealt with by insurance companies but you can bet nobody will insure another 'aid flotilla' to Gaza.

[Dubitante]

The Fallacy of the “1967 Borders” – No Such Borders Ever Existed

As you can imagine, as a researcher who specialises in Israeli propaganda, the various arguments around the green line are well known to me, on both sides. The piece you pasted above is fairly standard, and has been regurgitated countless times be countless propagandists for years, and it falls over in precisely the same place as all the others do.

The reason that it works so well as propaganda, is that there is nothing in it (at least after one skim-read) which jumps out as being incorrect. The problem with the argument (which is decades old) is with what it doesn't say, rather than what it does say. It leaves out crucial parts of the puzzle, with the deliberate intent of misleading the reader. And it is very effective.

You would need to do a bit of reading to understand the parts of the puzzle that are left out of the argument. I would start by actually reading the resolution 242, it's not long, nor is it complicated. You will note that the resolution stresses the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war", usually referred to in legal discourse as the "inadmissibility principle." The basic principle of international law that states cannot expand their borders through war.

The official security council records are also likewise illuminating. The intent of the resolution was clear. The authors of the resolution knew that the armistice lines did not make for good borders, they were accidents, they represented (largely) where the various forces just happened to be. The Security Council recognised that this was an opportunity to iron out the borders, engage in minor and mutual land swaps to create a sane border. It wasn't a green light for Israel to annex parts of the West Bank or East Jerusalem.

Israel's failure to recognise international law on this point, and to disregard the will of the international community has led us to the point of the the Palestinians asking for recognition in the UN. This will be the birth of the peace process, because it will remove any fig leaf for Israeli land grabs, and will force Israel to engage in good faith negotiations on minor and mutual land swaps, guided by the inadmissibility principle.

Like I said, the piece you quoted isn't inaccurate, it is just incomplete. If you want me to go into more detail, let me know. As you might have guessed, it's a topic I enjoy discussing :)

[Dubitante]

And here is the problem: Israel does not target civilians in Palestine, but no matter what proof I bring, you will refuse to believe that, because you are close minded.

hmmm. You can call me close minded, but there is too much documentary evidence to hold that position, at least in my view.

[bigross86]

hmmm. You can call me close minded, but there is too much documentary evidence to hold that position, at least in my view.

Oh, like the Goldstone report, which Goldstone later recanted, saying that the IDF in all actuality, just like they'd been claiming all along, didn't actually target civilians? Or the Israeli Supreme Court cancelling the Neighbor Procedure? You know, that same IDF that drops leaflets before they attack and sends text messages to people's cellphones to tell them to leave an area that the IDF is going to be operating in, even though it gives advance warning to the enemy. Or perhaps you have the IDF confused with the child-shield toting, rockets from schools and mosques firing Hamas? I can understand how it's easy to get the two confused