Canada (again) narrowly dodges a dangerous bullet at UN Security Council!

un veto at security council.jpg

Fourteen of the UN Security Council’s 15 members approved a motion to condemn US President Trump’s decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. The US vetoed the resolution and even went so far as to threaten other members of the council saying their act “would not be forgotten”. Mr. Trudeau has said Canada wants to join the Security Council, but he must be happy we aren’t there yet… read more….

UNITED NATIONS—The United States on Monday vetoed a resolution supported by all 14 other UN Security Council members that would have required U.S. President Donald Trump to rescind his declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. According to the Toronto Star, the vote showed the depth of global opposition to the U.S. move.

According to the British newspaper the Guardian, the unanimity of the rest of the council was a stark rebuke to the Trump administration over its unilateral move earlier this month, which upended decades of international consensus.

Canada: Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil

The unanimity of opposition to the US should serve as a warning shot to Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, who, almost alone among our western allies, had carefully avoided any criticism of Trump’s move. The vote is also an awkward reminder to Canada that, if it is successful in its bid to join the UNSC, it will be quickly confronted by tough choices.

The UK and France had indicated in advance that they would would back the resolution, which demanded that all countries comply with pre-existing UNSC resolutions on Jerusalem, dating back to 1967, including requirements that the city’s final status be decided in direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

The US reaction was immediate and harsh. US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, described it as “an insult” that would not be forgotten. “The United States will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy!,” she thundered.

Relief in Ottawa??

Canada has a dedicated unit at the Global Affairs department whose job it is to ensure Canada gets elected to the UN Security Council next year. Getting there is an uphill battle as Canada has already isolated itself from the UN General membership over the Israel/Palestine issue on several occasions, including several votes in early December.

But if we were to be successful in our attempt to join that select body, we will increasingly forced to make some hard choices – between our support of Israel and our desire to be seen to support human rights and international law around the world.

______________________________________________________

Canada Talks Israel Palestine (CTIP) aims to promote a serious discussion in Canada about the complicated and emotional Israel/Palestine issue. We invite comments from readers. Both Zionists and non-Zionist opinion is welcome as long as it is expressed in a respectful way. If you support our educational mission, why not join? Or make a donation? Or learn more about what we do?  Contact us at membership.ctip@gmail.com.

 

173 comments

  1. Although the US stood alone, they were right and the other 14 members of the council were wrong. It is a fact that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel and has been for almost 70 years. Pretending otherwise does not advance the cause of peace in my opinion

    1. Mr. Roytenberg, that was spoken like a true Zionist, certainly not a humanitarian. Judaism is not the only religion to have roots in Jerusalem, but it’s all or nothing for an oppressive regime.
      I am glad to see that the majority of the world can recognize this fact.
      A loving God would accept the rights and views of others. My rights (or those of the Palestinians) should not change just because you call you “imaginary friend” by a different name, or read from a different book.

    2. Hey David,
      Thanks your your thoughtful comment. Of course, you are right. Being in the majority does not prove anyone is right.

      Back in the ’30s a majority of Canadians didn’t want to accept Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust. We now know that was a wrong, and immoral decision. We are, and should be, ashamed.

      But i do believe in this case that the only moral answer is to share Jerusalem among the 3 Abrahamic faiths, each of which has such profound ties to it. Your ties to it are no doubt sincere and deep felt. But so are those of others.

      It does give me some comfort that most of the world appears to agree with me.

      1. Peter, Wikipedia lists 10 Abrahamic faiths not 3. If we believe the old Testament story that Abraham was promised that he would be the ancestor of many nations and that the land of Canaan would belong to them, all 10 have an equal claim to the land. They only have to learn to share and not to try to dominate each other.

    3. Mr. Roytenberg,

      There is a german joke about a an american soldier stationed in Germany who enters the Autobahn incorrectly and ends up in the wrong lane. Seeing many automobiles coming towards him, he has the sense to pull to the side and call the police. When he reaches them, he reports that the road he is on is full of drivers going the wrong way and asks the military police to come and stop them.

      Moral: Sometimes when you find that most of the traffic is going “the wrong way”, you need to reassess what you have been doing. If you have been doing it for 70 years, reassessment is long overdue.

      1. Indeed, the international community needs to do a 180 or get out of the way. They are the reason why there is no peace process. The PA knows they can always whine and get suckled by the IC.

      2. Mr. Sigman,

        You wrote, “They are the reason why there is no peace process. The PA knows they can always whine and get suckled by the IC.”

        Sadly, the reason that there is no peace process is that Israel believes that it will win without giving up anything. They believe that slow but unceasing settlement of land previously used by others, preventing the diaspora from returning, and putting pressure on those who remain will achieve surrender and they won’t have to give up any of the land that they seized. They know that, thanks to international support, they have military and economic superiority. Having forgotten the words of Rabbi Hillel, they believe that “steady as she goes” is a winning strategy. The PA will complain, but Israel believes that nobody will really help them. The “International Community” has done very little up to now.

        Do you disagree with their beliefs?

    4. I don’t understand, Mr. Roytenberg. What makes you think Jerusalem is Israel’s capital? Isn’t international recognition required? Jerusalem isn’t even in Israel.

      1. Of course you do not understand. International recognition is not required by any sovereign state as where to have their capital city. It is not up for a veto by any other state. Not only in Jerusalem in Israel, it has been the capital of Israel for almost 70 years. All the US did was recognize reality and humiliate 1,8 billion Muslims again. The rest of the world fears the heinous violence caused by Islamists.

      2. Well, that convinced me! Seriously though, is there another country that has its capital city beyond its borders? Maybe Canada could declare it’s capital to be somewhere warm, at least for the winter. If recognition doesn’t matter, tell that to Israel the next time it demands to be recognized as a Jewish state.

        I happen to think international — including Palestinian — recognition of Israel is important and has been useful to Israel. But Israel is determined to flout international law and convention, and turn allies into enemies.

      3. If the Knesset, etc., are in Israel, they’re not in Jerusalem — because, “… neither part, West or East Jerusalem, is recognized as part of the territory of Israel or the State of Palestine. Under the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1947, Jerusalem was envisaged to become a corpus separatum administered by the United Nations” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#International_status). That’s where it stands. That’s international policy. That’s why Canadians born in Jerusalem can’t have Israel listed as place of birth. Incidentally, that’s why (almost) all embassies to Israel were never in Jerusalem.

      4. Seriously, the UN resolution recommending partition was a recommendation, not international law and not a UNSC declaration. Israel was admitted to the UN with the UN de facto recognizing the Armistice lines as Israel. That includes Jerusalem. Really.

      5. Isn’t international recognition required?

        No it isn’t. If state chooses to locate its administrative functions primarily in a particular city that city is the capital.

        Jerusalem isn’t even in Israel.

        Really then how come when you go there you see Israelis walking around, Israeli police, Israeli fire department, Israeli buses….? It sure seems to be in Israel.

        And that was David’s (as well as Trump’s point). It is time to stop pretending nonsense is true.

      6. “How come when you go there you see Israelis walking around, Israeli police, Israeli fire department, Israeli buses….?”

        Oh, that’s a tough one. Let me think. … Because Jerusalem is occupied by Israel.

        Ariel isn’t in Israel, even though “when you go there you see Israelis walking around, Israeli police, Israeli fire department, Israeli buses….” Both Ariel and Jerusalem are occupied by Israel. Clear?

    5. Dont Lie!! Israel was Created in 1948, 1967 borders say TEL AVIV is the capital of your so called “israel” Dont try to hide it, there are only 3 generations of israel! JERUSALEM WILL AND ALWAYS WILL BE THE CAPITAL OF PALESTINE…. you’re saying 14 other countries made an unethical decision, and the usa did not? Israel is an apartheid state! Taking more and more land every year and building more and more illegal settlements. Shame on you! IF its been the capital of the terrorist state then why was tel aviv ever in the picture? Jerusalem is the Holy land of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity… no one ever said Zionism… Zionists are the scum of the earth =)

      1. @aPalestinian

        The Yishuv existed since 1882. In 1948 the country wasn’t depopulated there was a pre-existing Jewish homeland that existed within what was then the British mandate. As for pre-1967 borders Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1950. The eastern part of the city at that point was under the control of Jordan and was annexed.

        IF its been the capital of the terrorist state then why was tel aviv ever in the picture?

        Tel Aviv has never been in the picture as far as Israel is concerned. The partition plan recognized Jerusalem as an international city so the world has/had been trying to get both the Arabs and Jews to relinquish claim. Neither did.

        Jerusalem is the Holy land of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity

        The holy land of Christianity cannot exist. The holy land of Islam is Mecca.

      2. Bravo , Israel should relocate itself to a region that no one has claim to, maybe the Saudi’s could provide them some part of the desert or Antarctica, lots of space there to go Zionist

      3. Hey aPalelestinian, please remember that this is a Canadian site for Canadians to express their opinions. Zionists are welcome to post comments on this blog. You may disagree with them, as I do, but this site feels its important to exchange views honestly and respectfully. Most Canadian Jews agree with Zionism. To say that “Zionists are the scum of the earth” is the same as being anti-semitic.
        In fact, most Canadians believe in a 2 state solution in which one of the states will be a religious one. This means that most Canadians agree with Zionism, whether they understand it or not.

      4. aPalestinian, I am glad you mentioned the 1967 borders. The Israeli capital which contains the Israeli Parliament as well as the President’s home, the executive offices and the Israeli supreme court, are all in Western Jerusalem and they are all within the 1967 borders. Look again at the map and you will see I am right.

    6. Half of Jerusalem is under military occupation and its residents are not Israeli citizens.

      For this reason, Tel Aviv is Israel’s capital.

      If jerusalem was actually the capital of Israel, then Israel will have to grant the residents of the Eastern part, citizenship.

      1. @Anita

        If jerusalem was actually the capital of Israel, then Israel will have to grant the residents of the Eastern part, citizenship.

        The Israelis agree with you on that. They used to offer citizenship freely to people in the East and then with the separation fence they started to falter and in practice it became hard. They agree that it is unacceptable to not have everyone living in Jerusalem be a citizen and have started a round of reform to change policy on that issue.

    7. Dear Mr. Sigman and Mr. Host.

      I am in awe. Do you work in tandem or independently? Are you the same person or a team?

      Watching you is like watching one of those chess matches where a master plays forty boards simultaneously. The master is so familiar with the moves of amateurs — even talented amateurs — that he or she rarely sees a new move and so knows instantly how to counter. It’s fantastic to behold.

      The difference between you and they — the chess masters — is that they have to get to the end and win. The games are finite, everyone recognizes a checkmate when it happens, they play to the end. In that sense, there’s a kind of truth, a kind of honesty in a chess match. Chess masters can’t just bluster, they have to actually win in the end.

      But in your game, there’s no goal except to not reach an end, to undermine the game, to tire people out. You’re happy to just knock the board over. You might win no games but you’ll suffer few defeats.

      Your method includes going off on tangents, challenging statements with unproven and unprovable “facts,” picking at a small point and intentionally missing the larger one, occasionally accepting a point, but ignoring its implications.

      Your mantra is “Israel is doing its best, and things are improving. Israel isn’t perfect, but what country is? Therefore, if you single out Israel for criticism, you’re an anti-Semite.” I’m surprised at how gratuitously you insult people and resort to calling people anti-Semitic at every opportunity. That works well, no doubt, in synagogues and other Jewish community centres, among people mostly want their biases confirmed.

      Of course, there’s nothing new about your methods. I’m not referring to politicians and their spokespeople, who have always shaded the truth and avoided the uncomfortable. But yours is a special, modern breed of bad faith. It begins with “spin doctoring” and Karl Rove and continues with “fake news” and Donald Trump. I suspect they all learnt a lot from the inventors and masters of hasbara.

      Those of us who have spent years learning about Palestine and Israel, and have travelled there, and are concerned and want to learn more, are easily lured in by smart, knowledgeable people who do not argue in good faith and seem to have no goal but to waste our time.

      I appreciate the experience, but it’s time to move on.

      Arthur Milner

      1. Milner, I do not know what you are babbling bout. But I can assure you, only that criticism of Israel that crosses the line is identify by me as antisemitic. The typical standards deal with comparisons to Nazi Germany, as there are no legitimate comparisons so those trying are doing so for antisemitic reason. The comparison to South Africa which is ridiculous and designed to foment antisemitism.

      2. @Arthur

        It is very tough for the pro-Israel side to deal with the blizzard of lies from the anti-Israel camp. What you are discovering is that not everyone agrees with you on even your basic premises and assumptions. Normally a good faith argument would start with going back to the more basic philosophical questions like “what is a government”, “what is a state”, “what do we mean by a border”. But in the Israel debate we have to start with specifics like the slight shift in USA policy under Trump and then work backwards to those questions which in reality are the heart of the disagreement.

        Not everyone agrees with you on everything. That’s not a game it is a simple reality, You want to be able to take the UN position as a given, and you are suddenly discovering that not everyone agrees with the UN. So you can end up bring quite frustrated when you assert that the UN says XYZ and the pro-Zionist side agrees that the UN said XYZ without in any way seeing that as implying XYZ is true.

        Rather than thinking about Israel / Palestine you should probably ask the more basic questions about the nature and purpose of government and come to realize there is more than one view on those questions.

  2. Wonder when this charade which has taken the lives of millions will end. This farcical nonsense about all the world’s Jews belonging to the middle east. These European and Russian Jews must know that even a camel would have more Semitic blood than them. The followers of no religion in the world can claim title to lands which gave birth to their religion. So, why this exception for the Jews? Every day you hear these Jews of Polish ancestry say Jerusalem was their capital for 3000 years. Why do these guys hate their ancestors so much? They know their ancestors are buried all over Europe and Russia. What fault was it of the Palestinian people that the West killed millions of Jews?

    1. Sammy, Their political and spiritual leader allied with Hitler and begged him to come to British Mandate Palestine to kill more Jews. That answer is sufficient for you based on the ignorant BS you post.

      1. What an amazing tribute to your ethnic cousin Hitler by Mackenzie King, longest serving Prime Minister of Canada. “Joan of Arc” I know Jack, the guy was in league with the Mufti. Everyone loved the Jews in the West.

      2. http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP13CH4PA2LE.html

        “I often think that instead of persecution it would be far better if we more often told them frankly why many of them are unpopular,” said Blair. “If they would divest themselves of certain of their habits I am sure they could be just as popular in Canada as our Scandinavians.”

        Anti-Semitism was rife among Canada’s ruling elite, reflecting a deep-rooted prejudice in Canadian society. Indeed, anti-Semitism was a way of life in Canada. Many industries did not hire Jews, and Jewish professionals were routinely excluded from jobs at universities, hospitals and law firms. Clubs, resorts and beaches also barred Jewish Canadians.

        For five years the people of Europe were merrily loading you onto the wagons and the US and Canada said you are not coming here. The British Windsors and the Mosley family also admired Hitler. After having received thousands of years of hate you have absolutely no shame in spewing hate on the Palestinian people who did you no harm. In fact I was just telling a German that it was them and their European partners who kicked your butts and then what do you do; go on a murderous rampage in the middle east, courtesy King David.

  3. Can you imagine a Jew going up to a house in the U.S. and telling the owner that Kind David left the keys with him; I think the answer would come in a hail of bullets.

  4. The majority of Israel’s leaders were from the former Soviet Union; the present generation of leaders are mostly Polish origin. Racist to their bone marrow all of them. All they do is demolish homes; steal land; murder anyone who resists and all this time are waving the holocaust banner. Zionism is pure, unadulterated evil and has nothing to do with the Jewish religion.

  5. Truman who went against the advice of General Marshall his Secretary of State and after having received a large donation from a rich Jew, gave the green light for the U.S. to support Resolution 181 creating the state of Israel. Only a year earlier in July 1947, this is what he said about the Jews. “The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I’ve found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes.” https://www.trumanlibrary.org/diary/page21.htm

  6. You need a conscience to be ashamed. I mean here we have these European and Russian Jews telling the Palestinians: “I belong here, you don’t” You have your eternal undivided capitals, they are Warsaw and Moscow and Talinn and Vilnius and Riga. In the name of God go back and stop the murderous rampage.

    1. @Sam

      You are about a century too late for that line. At this point the population of Israel are intermixed. The people who live there were born there often to parents who were born there and those people from multiple countries. There is no back.

      Israel is permanent.

      1. Mr.Host,

        Things change!

        When I became aware of the world, the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany were separate countries, both recognized and deemed permanent. Today, they are one.

        Crimea was once part of Russia; then for many years it was part of Ukraine. Today it is again part of Russia.

        The Island of Ireland was once a part of the UK. Today, most of it is an independent country. Things may change again as a result of Brexit.

        The town where my father was born was part of 3 different countries during his lifetime. After his death, the borders changed to put it in a fourth country.

        The borders in the Middle East have changed in living memory.

        Israel can change too. Lets hope it changes for the better to give equal rights to all of its residents and all people under its control.

      2. Do you know of any immigrants who came to Canada since the second war and stole and occupied lands, demolished homes, cut off peoples power, water and food, built barricades, and killed those who resisted? Who asked these European and Russian Jews to move to the middle east? They are all white Caucasian; have as much Semitic blood as my cat. They have been slaughtering the Palestinians for 69 years and counting. It is never too late for them to return to their ancestral homes.

      3. Sam,

        I have seen DNA studies that conclude that Ashkenazi Jews are closely related to Palestinian Arabs. I don’t think that entitles them to claim land that very distant ancestors may have abandoned but it seems to be a fact.

        In fact, the DNA evidence can be used to refute the assertion by some extreme Zionists that today’s Palestinians are the descendants of people who came to the region long after the Jews did. The evidence suggests that both groups have common ancestors, which would give them the same claim if such a claim is valid.

    1. Guess they just stuck to the agenda: NK and NAFTA. Knowing Trump, I think it was wise of Freeland not to ruffle any feathers, lest it further complicates the NAFTA negotiation.

  7. @Arthur

    ” Both Ariel and Jerusalem are occupied by Israel. Clear?

    No it isn’t clear and it has never been clear. By definition an occupation occurs when an army for military reasons seizes control of territory it makes no claim to and imposes martial law. Both Jerusalem and Ariel are claimed, Jerusalem has been outright annexed and both are governed by civil law. That is not remotely an occupation. Israel is not the occupying power in Jerusalem it is the governing power. You may want to live in a world where words mean whatever you want them to mean but thankfully this UN inspired nonsense of twisting concepts beyond any semblance of reason is ending.

    1. Mr. Host,

      According to my most accessible dictionary, the relevant definitions are

      govern: control, influence, or regulate
      occupy: taken control of by military conquest or settlement

      I see nothing that says that an occupying cannot be a governing power power. In fact, they have the word “control” in common.

      Are you using another dictionary or, using your words, “twisting concepts beyond any semblance of reason”?

      1. @parnas2014

        The definition you want to look up is not “govern” but “occupy”. Your definition is incorrect. The Leiber code defines these terms and gives the definition that was used for both Hague and Geneva conventions. Leiber makes clear and explicit than an occupation can only occurs on hostile territory (i.e. territory the military in control doesn’t lay claim to) and thus distinguishes occupation from military dictatorship (what it calls military tyranny) The start and end of an occupation are defined by the imposition of martial law. Before there is a collapse of civil law there is no occupation and when civil law is put in place over a territory it is no longer occupied.

        Quite simply there is no part of Israel where there is no civil law in place and rule is directly by the IDF. Area-C comes closest but there is a civil law system for at least some of the residents and the military rule is subject to review by that civil system not visa versa.

        Be definition, nothing in former Mandate Palestine plus the Golan is today occupied territory. Iraq used to be under USA occupation, that’s a clean example of what is meant according to international law.

      2. Mr. Host,

        If you wish to complain that the definition that I quoted for “govern” is incorrect, I suggest that you raise the issue with the publishers of the New Oxford American Dictionary from which I extracted that definition. Because you seemed so sure, I checked two other sources; neither supports your claim that “govern” and “occupy are mutually exclusive or that forcing a legal code on an occupied territory ends its occupation.

        Standard dictionaries describe language as it is currently used by the majority of speakers of a language. When we write professional papers, papers by a specialist for other specialists, we sometimes include a lexicon or glossary if we want to make a distinction that is not easy to make using standard definitions. If you are writing to a non-specialist audience, it is incumbent on an author who wishes to use a specialist definition to either include the definition (or a reference to it); otherwise the usual definition may be assumed.

        Of course, nothing in any of the definitions that I found makes “govern” and “occupy” equivalent. In the Iraq case, the US occupied Iraq but did not want to accept the responsibility, burden, and cost of governing Iraq, so they worked to install a puppet government. They seemed to have lost some control of that puppet.

    2. Impressive argument, Mr. Host. Logical. Of course we know that logical arguments can be wrong; and that they mean even less legally. You seem to think I can steal your car but, because I never regarded it as yours and don’t recognize it as yours, it’s not stealing. I wish.

      But I’m curious. Please list the courts of law or countries of the world that have bought your argument. (Have Israeli courts bought it?) Or is it another case of the lone defender of truth against the hundreds of sheep? Good luck in a court of law.

      I have a question for Mr. Roytenberg and Mr. Sigman, who have been silent awhile. Do you part company with Mr. Host on Ariel, or do you think here, too, it is time to “recognize reality”?

      1. @arthurmilner

        You seem to think I can steal your car but, because I never regarded it as yours and don’t recognize it as yours, it’s not stealing

        If you can steal my car by getting legal title to it, then it is yours. The problem with your analogy is there is some authority capable of enforcing title that decides who owns the car and who is just driving it illegally. There is nothing like that for Palestine because it can’t enforce.

        Have Israeli courts bought it?

        The Israeli Supreme Court sits in Jerusalem. They reject the UN position every day of work,

      2. Mr. Host.

        You didn’t respond to my request.

        Please list the courts of law or countries of the world that have bought your argument. Have Israeli courts bought it?

      3. Mr Milner,

        In the case of Ariel, Israel does not claim that it is Israeli territory. The people in Ariel are Israeli, but the land Ariel is built on is disputed territory, whose status is to be determined by negotiations between Israel and those who are at war with it. Jordan formerly claimed to own that land but renounced that claim some time ago in favour of a Palestinian state which has not yet been established. Israel has tried to negotiate with the people who claim to represent the Palestinians, but so far those Palestinian representatives have refused to come to an agreement and have opted to continue the war. Israel’s presence in Ariel is provisional and is a result of the ongoing conflict.

        Jerusalem is a different case. Israel does lay claim to Jerusalem. Parts of Jerusalem were also captured as a result of Israeli action in its own defense. Other parts of Jerusalem have been part of Israel since the beginning. Israel has declared Jerusalem to be its capital since 1950.
        While the boundaries of Jerusalem are disputed, the fact that the city is Israel’s capital is something for Israel to decide. So recognizing the reality that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital is not the same as claiming particular boundaries for Jerusalem or claiming that Ariel is part of Israel, which no Israeli government has done. The status of Ariel and the boundaries of Jerusalem are negotiable and indeed more than one Israeli government has offered eastern Jerusalem to the Palestinians in return for a Palestinian agreement to make peace with Israel.

        The fact that Jerusalem, within some boundaries is the capital of Israel is not negotiable. It is simply a historical fact. That is why the international reaction to the announcement by the US Administration is so unfortunate. It encourages the intransigence of the Palestinian side and that is an obstacle to peace.

      4. Mr. Roytenberg,

        You wrote, “…so far those Palestinian representatives have refused to come to an agreement and have opted to continue the war.”

        I hope you can accept that it is a matter of opinion just who is being intransigent and opting to continue the war. When you offer the other side a deal that you would not accept yourself, you are confusing peace with conquest. Perhaps we need to remember King Solomon and his proposal to cut a baby in half to settle a dispute over that baby. We can also remember what Christians call the Golden Rule. Israel, by continuing to take land and refusing a truly equal state (equally armed, equally in control of borders, etc.) is, in my view, the party that does not want to make peace.

      5. Parnas, By your standards, Israel does not want peace. But your standards are inane. No viable state would accept them. Therefore, you are asking for something that will never happen. Good luck with that.

      6. Mr. Roytenberg,

        First, I’m pleased to see you distancing yourself from Comrades Host and Sigman on the matter of Ariel.

        You can call them “disputed” territories if you like, since all you’re saying is that someone disputes them. In that sense, one can call astrology “disputed” rather than nonsense. But in legal matters at the international level, we have no authority other than associations of countries and the countries themselves. In that sense, Ariel is not disputed, it is in the occupied Palestinian territories. The countries of the world might change their minds about Ariel, and its future might be decided in future negotiations, but until then, legally, it is in occupied, not disputed territory.

        You’re right that “Jerusalem is a different case,” but legally (again) it is not part of Israel or the OPT. Common sense might tell you differently, but one person’s common sense is another person’s nonsense.

        As for your argument that “Palestinian representatives have refused to come to an agreement and have opted to continue the war,” David Parnas is correct. It is absolutely true that some radical Palestinians organizations have tried to sabotage peace negotiations, and insist they do not and will never recognize Israel; just as radical Jewish-Israeli organizations insist they do not and will never recognize a Palestinian state. Extremist Jewish-Israeli organizations regularly burn down mosques and olive groves, but their heroes have also killed an Israeli Prime Minister and Muslims at prayer in Hebron.

        Those are the extremists. What about the governments of Israel and the Palestinians?

        With the possible exception of the Oslo accords, Israel has never made a serious, good faith offer. (We can go through them one by one if you like.) The “Peace Process” has been, sadly, a means by which Israel maintains international support while it delays a resolution, and while it builds more settlements (“facts on the ground”) and forces more Palestinians from their homes. An absolute freeze on settlement construction (an end to “facts on the ground”) would have to be the minimum required to show Israel’s good faith.

        Meanwhile, the primary and internationally recognized representative of the Palestine people decades ago recognized Israel’s right to exist within pre-1967 borders, with the understanding that the Palestinians would be allowed to set up their own state in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel has never recognized those borders. The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which presented very clear terms for a two-state solution (including West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital), has been accepted many times by the PLO and the PA, but has been rejected out of hand by all Israeli governments. Meanwhile Israeli governments, left-wing as well as right, have promoted the building of settlements and have promoted or tacitly accepted the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes.

        Perhaps, as a next step, Mr. Roytenberg, you could tell me what’s wrong with the Arab Peace Initiative, and describe for me a serious Israeli peace overture, and we could discuss that.

        Arthur

      7. Milner, you are confusing international opinion with international law. Res 242 demands the boundaries beyond the 1949 armistice lines be determined through negotiation between the involved parties. Until that determination is made, the entirety of Judea and Samaria that was beyond the armistice lines is disputed territory.

  8. Bottom line, the Old City of Jerusalem is not in Israel. Neither Bibi, The Donald, nor the Lobby can change that, despite their fantasies.

    As to the churches, Christians in the West Bank are a persecuted minority by Israel. They cannot freely go to their churches, and most startlingly not to Easter services in Jerusalem. The primary difference in this regard with Muslims is that they are a persecuted majority.

    1. Bottom line is that Jerusalem is in Israel. Bottom line is that Christians in the disputed Palestinian territories are not being persecuted by Israel for being Christians. Bottom line is that Muslims in the disputed Palestinian territories are not being persecuted by Israel for being Muslims.

      If all you bring are lies, do you think anyone is doing anything but sneering at you.

    2. Mr. Assaly, I agree with Mr. Sigman on this. Christians and Muslims in Palestinian and Israel are not being persecuted by Israel for being Christian and Muslim. They are being persecuted for not being Jewish. Since the arrival of Zionism, Palestinian Christians and Muslims have been persecuted by Zionism and then Israel for not being Jewish.

      1. I swore I wouldn’t be lured into this, but you write such silly and obviously incorrect things. Do you read them before you hit “post comment,” or do they pop out of your brain right onto the keyboard? You wrote: “The Muslims and Christians living in the disputed (sic) territories are not being persecuted because they are not Jewish.”

        If the Muslims and Christians living in the occupied territories were Jewish, they could be Israeli citizens and vote in Israel’s elections. If they were Jews, they could cross borders and checkpoints with ease and without humiliation. If they were Jews, they could live in the settlements. If they were Jews, they would be subject to Israeli civil and criminal law rather than military law. If they were Jews, they could destroy Christian and Muslim property pretty much with impunity — in fact, they could commit a serious crime, even murder, and the homes of their families would not be destroyed because Jews are not subject to collective punishment. If they were Jews, their children would not be imprisoned or shot if caught throwing rocks.

        If they were Jews, they could marry someone from abroad and that person could come live with them. If they were Jews, they could study abroad and not worry about being allowed to return to their homes. If they were Jews, they would not have to worry about their land or water resources being turned over to Jews. If they were Jews, they would not have to worry about an impassable road being built between them and their fields or schools. And If they were Jews, those among them who were refugees or the descendants of refugees would be allowed back into Israel and could regain their properties.

        That’s pretty much off the top of my head. So I would say that most — almost all — of the discrimination suffered by Muslims and Christians living in the occupied territories is precisely the result of their not being Jewish.

      2. If they were Jews, they wouldn’t have gone to war with Jews and they wouldn’t be trying to murder Jews today. The Arabs living in the disputed territories are not persecuted because they are not Jews. They are not persecuted at all. They are living under the control of the Israeli military because they are enemy nationals.

        Do you ever think or do you just go to the bathroom and post what comes out?

      3. You: “If they were Jews, they wouldn’t have gone to war with Jews.”

        Gosh, you’re clever!

        You: “The Arabs living in the disputed territories are not persecuted because they are not Jews. They are not persecuted at all.”

        You can say it again and turn it into a chant if you like. Please go back and read my post. To pick just the first and last examples from what I wrote …

        “If the Muslims and Christians living in the occupied territories were Jewish, they could be Israeli citizens and vote in Israel’s elections.” If they were Greek Jews living in Paraguay, they could be Israeli citizens and vote in Israel’s elections. It has nothing to do with security. It has to do with not being Jewish.

        “If they were Jews, those among them who were refugees or the descendants of refugees would be allowed back into Israel and could regain their properties.” This has almost nothing to do with security. It was about ridding the country of Arabs and keeping them out. It is persecution and it is precisely for being Arabs.

      4. You can live in your fantasy world. If the vast majority of inhabitants of the portions of Judea and Samaria not a part of Israel were Jewish, they would have petitioned to have the land annexed by Israel.

        We can do this all day long and you will still be wrong and I will still be right.

      5. Arthur,

        While I agree that they are being discriminated against because they are not Jewish (were they recognized as Jews by Israel, they could claim their “right of return” and even receive aid in resettlement), we should not conclude that Muslims and Christians are treated the same way by Zionist Israelis and other Zionists.

        I have received countless Zionist hate messages that declared Islam to be a religion of hate and terrorism and implied that all Arab Muslims were terrorists. I have never received such a message about Christian Arabs. Recently, Israel made some attempts to get Christian Palestinians to join the IDF. While other Israeli Arabs can join the IDF, one government official “reassured me” that they were “not allowed in positions where they could do harm”.

        The irrational bias against Islam is not confined to Israel or Zionists. I viewed a German study in which people asked random Germans (on a street corner) to identify some verses. They were told that all the verses came from either the Koran or the Bible. Without exception those interviewed identified the peaceful messages as being from the Bible and the verses about revenge or violence as coming from the Koran. In fact, all of the verses came from the Bible.

        When I talked to Israelis those who were anti-Arab spoke about the Muslims not the Christians.

        One of the nicest things I saw at Birzeit University in Ramallah was that females who appeared to be Muslim (wearing a Hijab) and others who appeared to be Christian (no Hijab) were working together and chatting together ignoring the obvious differences in clothing.

        In contrast, at the Israeli Colleges where I saw some Arab students they were in groups working with each other, not with Jews.

        I do not have published sources and did not make a scientific study but the differences were startling.

      6. Yes, the Arabs refuse to work with Jews. Nice of you to notice. The Jews do not have a “right to return.” there is a law allowing them citizenship. That is because you and your countryman refused them refuge when they were being persecuted as harmless Jews.

        They were not decapitating German babies, they were not murdering German pregnant mothers. They were living absolutely peacefully contributing to Germany and its economy far beyond expected of their numbers.

      7. Mr. Sigman,

        You wrote “Yes, the Arabs refuse to work with Jews. Nice of you to notice. ”

        You must ave been to a different country than the Israel that I visited. I saw many Arabs working with Jews. They were almost always in lower-level positions. For example, on a tour, the guide was Israeli; the driver was Arab. The driver actually spoke better English than the guide and winced quietly when the guide misinformed us about his status. The maintenance staff in my hotels was almost always Arab. The managers were always Jewish. Palestinians who are educated (often abroad) tell me that they would be happy to work with Jews but expect equal rights and respect.

        You then wrote, “The Jews do not have a “right to return.” there is a law allowing them citizenship.”

        Please explain that remark. It sounds like a “distinction without a difference”. What is the difference? You might also explain why several Israelis, including a government official, told me that all I had to do was ask for “the right of return” (their words) and I would become a citizen.

        Finally, you wrote, “That is because you and your countryman refused them refuge when they were being persecuted as harmless Jews.”

        First, note that it was not Arabs who did that? Why are they paying the price?

        Second, don’t blame “you and your countrymen” for that crime. I was a child and not in Canada when that happened. Also note that it was not only Canada, my adopted country, that did that. Many Jews, including my own mother, were not granted legal entry to the US at that time.

        Note too that such denial of entry is not exclusively for Jews. Your country is presently denying entry to people for being Muslims. You should be equally outraged about them. I am.

        Most important, it is not allowing Jews to enter Palestine that bothers me. It is the way that Israel denies entry to people born there or their descendants that I find immoral. Providing refuge to refugees is a good thing. Creating refugees by denying them the right to return to their birth land is quite the opposite.

      8. Hi, David. I agree that Muslims and Christians are treated differently by Zionist Israelis and other Zionists — strategically (“divide and conquer”); and also because in their prejudices Jewish Israelis are no different than anyone else. Yes, one can find Muslim and Christian Palestinians working cooperatively together. But Palestinians, too, have their prejudices. I found examples of strong anti-Bedouin sentiment among Palestinians. Unless we’re in the habit of romanticizing the oppressed, that shouldn’t surprise us.

        But in a million statements, Jewish Israelis see undifferentiated Arabs as the enemy — from Netanyahu’s classic “the Arabs are voting in droves” to football fans in Jerusalem who shout “death to Arabs” at Palestinian players. Headlines like “Nearly half of Jewish Israelis want to expel Arabs, survey shows” and “Pew study finds 79% believe Jews should get preferential treatment over Arab citizens” and “Almost half of Israeli Jews don’t want Arabs teaching their kids” indicate an undifferentiated anti-Arab (and pro-Jewish) prejudice. Would Israelis be willing to cede the West Bank if 90 percent of Palestinians were Christian? I doubt it.

      9. Mr. Sigman,

        You wrote, “After so many Arab attacks on Jews for the sin of being Jewish make one a little prejudiced. These are not crimes of opportunity but serious attempts to murder Jews.”

        There is a vicious cycle in which extremist Jews murder Palestinians and extremist Palestinians try to murder Jews. This horrific situation is one of the reasons why I cannot share Mr. Host’s description of Israel as thriving and prosperous.

        The news reports are misleading. We hear much more about Palestinian attacks on Jews but more Palestinians are killed. The unarmed or lightly armed Palestinians are no match for heavily armed Israelis who seem to treat Palestinians as pests who can be shot whenever they might be a threat. “Shoot on suspicion” seems to be an approved policy.

  9. @parnas2014

    Of course Israel is going to change into a society with equal rights for all. We’ve already seen this with multiple minorities that have integrated into the society. Even for the Palestinians we have evidence of a transformation program. The Israeli-Arabs were under a military dictatorship from 1948-1966 then an integration program started which went swimmingly until the 1st Intifada and has gone still rather well since then. Israelis themselves are far more culturally Arabic than they were a century ago and thus an easier society for Palestinians to integrate into.

    The problem in Israel is that a huge group of the people living under its control hate the idea of the 19th and 20th century Jewish immigration and wish to see the state they live in destroyed. Sam in this thread being representative of the rejectionism from their population. That creates a lot of violent crime against the state and the people. In the 1970s we didn’t see this sort of violent crime and we didn’t see a lot of separation. Prior to the 2nd intifada the PA was thriving. The situation does not have to be bad. Netanyahu is not doing a good job of presenting positive alternatives but that doesn’t mean Israel as a whole wants to make permanent what exists today.

    The real problem area right now is Area-C. That’s likely going to be annexed and citizenship given to its residents. Assuming the entire West Bank isn’t put under a Federal system. In Jerusalem proper the situation is further along. There has been optional citizenship and a civil regime for decades, there is a push in the Knesset to move from residency with optional citizenship to full mandatory citizenship even this year.

    The Israelis are simply not going to permit the destruction of Israel and want to prevent apartheid. They will use apartheid or worse if they must but most Palestinians who don’t want to die in a series of hopeless ethnic civil wars.

    1. Mr.Host,

      You wrote, “Of course Israel is going to change into a society with equal rights for all.” There is no sign of that. Israel continues to pass and adhere to numerous laws that treat non-Jews differently. Recently, there was outrage when it was suggested that “detention without charge or trial” be applied to a Jew although it is regularly applied to others.

      Many minorities have been grudgingly “integrated” but only the truly exceptional succeed. Minority people who are doing well, tell me that they have to be very careful because that status is fragile. Even citizens who are non-Jewish have to fight for rights that Jews get automatically. One friend told me that even in a normal traffic incident between a Jew and an Arab, the Arab cannot insist on his or her rights when talking with a Jewish policeman.

      “Destruction of Israel” would be bad for everyone (and most know it) but democratic change such as we saw in South Africa would be good for everyone. A policy of equal rights for all, would reduce the amount of violence.

      1. @David

        There is no sign of that.

        There are tons of signs of that. The Mizrahi are fully integrated and their both their economic and education status is rising rapidly. Israel is doing a good job at integrating the Christians of Russian origin with almost all Israelis heavily focused on fixing there remaining problems. Israeli-Arab economic status has risen sharply in the last 2 generations. Christian Israeli-Arabs are about to be integrated into the IDF. The evidence of success is available everyday on the ground.

        Israel continues to pass and adhere to numerous laws that treat non-Jews differently.

        As contrasted with a full blown military dictatorship that existed 51 years ago for Israeli-Arabs? Israel is not perfect, but the question was one of rather rapid improvement.

        Many minorities have been grudgingly “integrated”

        They have not been grudgingly integrated they have been enthusiastically, rapidly and aggressively integrated. For someone who claims to be interested in human rights you seem to have a tough time being complementary when Israel does what you claim you want.

        Minority people who are doing well, tell me that they have to be very careful because that status is fragile.

        Of course their status is fragile until they are normalized. That’s what assimilation does, it makes people act like the dominant culture so that the minority culture more difficult to pass on intergenerationally and thus is lost leaving the descendants fully part of the majority culture. Israel need to put those integrating under pressure so they pass on a weak hollowed out version of their minority culture leaving the children fully integrated into the majority culture. The means of assimilation is enough pressure to make cultural preservation difficult while not so much pressure that the minority disengages.

        One friend told me that even in a normal traffic incident between a Jew and an Arab, the Arab cannot insist on his or her rights when talking with a Jewish policeman.

        No one can or should insist on any rights when talking to a policeman. They can insist on rights before a court. I also know Israeli-Arab attorneys. They most certainly do insist on their rights and quite often win. Again not perfect but no society is. One of the founding concepts and rights in my country was prohibitions on general warrants and those have become normalized under Bush-43 and Obama. Even talking about violations in detail can get you jailed.

        A policy of equal rights for all, would reduce the amount of violence.

        A policy of equal rights for all without laying the groundwork in a way to prevent it from destroying the society would lead to an ethnic civl war. This round would involve chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. It would likely spread between multiple countries if it were not quickly over (which is what I really suspect would happen). Israel needs to reform obviously, but impractical absolutism is dangerous and destructive.

      2. Mr. Host,

        You wrote, “There are tons of signs of that. The Mizrahi are fully integrated and their both their economic and education status is rising rapidly. Israel is doing a good job at integrating the Christians of Russian origin with almost all Israelis heavily focused on fixing there remaining problems. Israeli-Arab economic status has risen sharply in the last 2 generations. Christian Israeli-Arabs are about to be integrated into the IDF. The evidence of success is available everyday on the ground.”

        In my observation, Israelis use the technique of divide and conquer. They seek to separate Christian Palestinians from Muslim Palestinians But with very limited success. They try to erase the divisions between different segments of Judaism, knowing that such divisions weaken them in their effort to suppress Palestinians, but here too there is only limited success. I visited a separate college for Haredi in Jerusalem and found that some of the teachers could argue of which hat style was “right” and barely talk to each other. The Haredi there were so opposed to integration with other Jews that a separate college with 8 campuses was needed to get them to have any modern education. The dispute about IDF service is always there.

        At another Israeli institution, I did see Arab students but was told that they require special help because of the underfunded lower schools that they had attended. They did not seem to interact with their fellow Israelis of Jewish ethnicity.

      3. Mr. Host, you admit, in a pro forma way, that Israel has its faults, and then go on to paint it as some kind pluralist wonderland. Frankly, I’m less concerned with its internal operations than with the occupation and the refugees. Were it only a matter of how Israel treated its own people, I’d suggest we Westerners turn our attention to, say, Myanmar.

        But since you ask, you should know that with respect to domestic policy, Israel is rather pathetic in comparison with other countries we normally consider democracies. Israel spends 3 to 4 times as much on education for Jewish children as on Israeli-Palestinian children. There are, I believe, a total of five schools in Israel in which Palestinian and Jewish children study Arabic and Hebrew. Despite their being in separate schools, Palestinians do not control their education system. There are no Arabic universities. There are a great many jobs for which army service is implicit or explicit required, effectively barring the vast majority of Palestinians. Arabic has no legal standing (though its use on signs, etc., is improving). Jews who have never been to Israel are admitted almost automatically; meanwhile it’s practically impossible for Palestinians who owned property in Jaffa, for example, to even visit what was once their home. It’s practically impossible for Jews and Palestinians to marry in Israel (of course the same goes for Conservative and Orthodox Jews), because in many areas of state regulation Israel is a (Jewish) theocracy. There is a tremendous amount of legal discrimination in access to land and housing. Go to any Palestinians neighbourhood/town near a Jewish neighbourhood/town; the difference in municipal services in immediately visible and astounding. I could go on.

        Oh yes. A prime minister who encouraged Jews to vote by warning them that Arabs were voting in droves. Whatever happened to that prime minister? (Compare to what happened to Premier Parizeau of Québec when he blamed the referendum loss on — I believe the word was — “Ethnics.”)

        Still, it’s better than Saudi Arabia!

      4. Parnas, please stop spreading the lie that Jews and Muslims cannot have a legal marriage. Just like a Kohen marrying a divorcee, they have to go abroad for the ceremony but it is a recognized legal marriage in Israel.

      5. Mr. Sigman,

        Mr. Milner here, not Mr. Parnas.

        You wrote: “Stop spreading the lie that Jews and Muslims cannot have a legal marriage.”

        I wrote: “It’s practically impossible for Jews and Palestinians TO MARRY IN Israel.” That’s okay. You misread it. Can happen to everyone.

        You also write, “Jews and Muslims … have to go abroad for the ceremony … but it is a recognized legal marriage in Israel.”

        Like I said, it’s way more liberal than Saudi Arabia.

  10. Bottom Line: Anyone, who in the twenty-first century believes that God gave away lands to every single Jew in the world doesn’t matter at what point of time in history they converted and what ethnicity they were; has to be insane. The fact that Ivanka Trump, because she married a Jew and converted can pack her Gucci bags and move, while the Palestinians can stew in a refugee camp, smacks of the worst kind of racism known to mankind.

  11. @ Host: Your comment about “a century too late” It is never too late to end colonialism, racism and apartheid.

    1. Hey Sam, this woman has a very strong sympathy for the Palestinians. I am sure that what she says she saw is true.

      And there is certainly a lot of injustice to oppose.

      But I’m afraid a lot of what she is saying is based on very limited information, and in some cases is quite wrong. I think it great she went there, but it’s dangerous to too quickly draw conclusions based on limited information.

      1. I believe this was just one segment; Peter the bloodbath has been going on there for decades. I have never got an answer for some basic elementary questions from the Zionists. One would have be totally deranged, in this day and age, to use God or some old text to occupy land anywhere in the world. And many of these Zios I hear are not even religious, but secular. It is without doubt a racist colonial settler enterprise perpetuating itself with the help of overwhelming military superiority and the willfully blind support of the U.S.I mean, for years now, you hear the phony ‘we want peace’ and then the bulldozers move in to demolish Palestinian homes; evict them and build another settlement. All the Palestinians have is stones and kitchen knives against hellfire gunships and drones. Seventy years of slaughter, all under the holocaust banner. Most human beings would have some kind of remorse or shame but not these guys.

  12. The focus of this article isn’t the legitimacy of Israel’s continuing expansion onto Palestinian lands, but the unanswered question; how would Canada vote if it were on the UN Security Council.

    The world knows quite well that expansionism is terribly wrong.

    Frankly, given Canada milquetoast approach to anything regarding Israel and it’s deafening silence on anything Palestinian, I have little doubt Ottawa, under our current regime, would be in lockstep with the US Trump administration with perhaps, at best, a mild caution being uttered lest there be muted gasps from the backbenches.

    Despite that, if citizens were asked to respond rather than politicians I have little doubt Canadians would express exasperation at our continued cap in hand support for anything the Americans do to assist Israel at the expense of Palestinians.

    In short, most Canadians would prefer to side with the UN vision regardless if some thug president in the US threatens us for standing with the rest of the world.

  13. My grandmother lived most of her lives in Israel as a secular Jew, but In her final years her Catholic upbringing took over.
    My mother had a wonderful idea, during one of my vacations from the IDF, I took my mom and my grandmother to the old city of Jerusalem and we followed a group of christian pilgrims who re-enacted the last hours of Jesus.
    My grandmother was amazing, she couldn’t always remember if I’m her grandson or her son (my late uncle) but she remembered every tiny detail from every scene along the via doloroza

    Jerusalem belongs to everyone, unlike Mecca which is only open for Muslims, Jerusalem is open to Muslims, Jews Christians and non-believers like me

    And all that is possible because the soverign in Jerusalem is the state of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East

    Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, I wouldn’t mind if it will also be the capital of a future Palestine, but the sovereignty of the city will always be under the state of Israel

    1. Perhaps you can name a few other “democracies” that discriminate against so many of the life long residents and has permanent security posts and fences designed to keep the vast majority of residents under strict marshal law out of much of the rest of the country.

      Sure, your Christian granny was allowed to visit Jerusalem, but then she was registered as a Jew for most of her life in Israel. Why is it, if you are a Palestinian or a Muslim your chances of reaching Jerusalem are just about nil.

      But hey, “only democracy in the mid-east” most certainly has resonance especially if you are intentionally blind to what you don’t want to admit.

      I think your final comment -” the sovereignty of the city will always be under the state of Israel” – gets closer to the truth than anything else you tried to convey. Unfortunately it runs into the reality of that UN mandate that led to the formation of Israel in Palestine and many, many subsequent UN resolutions that have since been ignored by your “democracy”.

      1. @allan m

        Why is it, if you are a Palestinian or a Muslim your chances of reaching Jerusalem are just about nil.

        This is far too vague as phrased. Muslims travel to Jerusalem all the time insubstantial numbers so as written this is just false. Huge numbers of Muslims live in Jerusalem. If you mean West Bankers while they have trouble traveling to Jerusalem there chances are far from nil.

        Obviously the 2nd intifada resulted in a nasty security situation. Prior to the 1st intifada there was rather free travel throughout the country. If you want to go back to a situation where people can travel freely then you likely should stop trying to convince the West Bankers they live in a separate country.

      2. Mr. Host,

        You wrote, “If you want to go back to a situation where people can travel freely then you likely should stop trying to convince the West Bankers they live in a separate country”.

        It will be hard to convince them that they live in a separate country when they cannot control their own borders, the purported borders are filled with islands of foreigners”, and the IDF enters freely and imprisons people without a need to give them a trial or even charge them.

    2. Take your revenge from the Europeans, if you must; they are the ones who were only too happy to put you on the wagons destined for the camps. You have lots of eternal undivided capitals in Europe; eastern and western. Get out of the death squads (IDF); many of your fellows with a conscience have done that. Stop using the Old Testament as a land registry. All the world’s Christians do not claim title to Nazareth; or the world’s Muslims to Saudi Arabia; so why are Jews an exception? My question again; why do you hate your ancestors in Poland and Russia so much. You know you have as much middle eastern/Semitic blood as Hitler; i.e. zilch

    1. Mr. Alnader, you are talking to the imaginary Israelis that only exists in your mind.
      If you are truly interested in dialogue with Israelis, try to meet and talk with one. You will be surprised.

      1. Cmo’n now you all still really believe in that nonsense that God gave you that land and I guess that awareness came to you after 3000 thousand years when your Caucasian kin Hitler had done to you, what you do to the Palestinians ever since. All under the holocaust banner. The other day we had a Jew here in Canada who battered a Columbian man with a baseball bat, because he thought he was in Israel. Of course there he would have been honoured with a medal. Here the loser went to prison where I hope he rots for a long long time.

      2. Sammy, why are you spewing so much antisemitic hatred? Hitler as kin? Really? Care to link proof that the criminal who hit the Columbian actually believed he was in Israel or just that he was mentally imbalanced? Are you so afraid of Jews being superior to you that you have to search for one who is mentally defective to make yourself feel better?

  14. I am not going to comment on the Jerusalem issue which has occupied the contributors above other than to say that I believe Jerusalem belongs to the world not to any one religion and definitely not to any one country. I feel the same way about other places and spaces in the world–some that terrorists blow up (such as the huge Buddha carvings in Asia some years ago) or others that some countries claim as their own such as Lhasa in Tibet (read here the Chinese).

    I do wish to comment on the issue of what our government does with respect to the UN Security Council vote on Jerusalem. It seems to me that there is not a great deal of choice for our Canadian politicians here since our formerly collaborative neighbour to the south has currently taken on a new much more aggressive and self focused approach to international relationships. We have a dependency on them of which they are quite aware and I would bet money that they have warned our government in no uncertain terms not to publicly oppose them on the international scene on certain issues (of which this is no doubt one). There are jobs at risk here and NAFTA is still on the table for discussion; our economy at this point is highly dependent on them and the US can seriously damage our economy if they choose; there is a president who is determined to wield the ‘big stick’ and weave a legacy of ‘toughness’ not realizing that there will be serious consequences for the US eventually.

    Our government has to deal with each international situation knowing that what has been a relatively gentle giant bear to the south is now emerging as a danger and not just to us…yet as their closest neighbour we could end up with some serious difficulties if we openly poke sticks at them. For the time being, I personally am willing to trust that our governments motives are the best for Canada in the long run and I’m not ready yet to get involved with criticising them vociferously until such time as they do something I truly cannot support.

    This particular Jerusalem issue is not that issue for me as so far as it has changed not much on the ground. The real issue is not who ‘owns’ Jerusalem. The real issue is figuring out how to ensure that both peoples, Palestinians and Israelis, are going to be able to live together on a piece of land that both want but don’t want to share…that’s the intractable problem and we must NOT let these side issues deflect us from dealing with the resolution of this challenge.

    1. I mostly agree, Sylvia.

      I would just say that, given Canada’s understandable wariness of the sensitivities of the elephant next door — on this issue and others — it’s likely not a good idea to elect us to the UN Security Council.

    2. Ms. Laale

      You wrote, “The real issue is figuring out how to ensure that both peoples, Palestinians and Israelis, are going to be able to live together on a piece of land that both want but don’t want to share…”.

      On my first visit to Israel/Palestine, I was able to have some deep discussions with members of both communities. One thing that struck me was that both sides said, that they would be happy to live with the other group (as equals) but that the others wanted to kill them or force them to leave. Viewed abstractly, both sides said the same thing.

      I believe that the problem is extremist politicians who use propaganda and fear to convince people that sharing is not possible. I know that my sample was not representative but I would like to believe that what those people told me was the view of the majority. We should find a way to test that hypothesis but it will require silencing the propagandist extremists on both sides.

      1. I’m less optimistic, David. My impression, as unrepresentative as yours, after spending several months in Israel in Palestine over many years, is that even the progressives among Israeli Jews — those who tell pollsters they are willing to give up the territories and share Jerusalem — believe the fault for the impasse lies entirely with the Palestinians — “we have no partner for peace” being the operative liberal slogan. Jewish Israelis willing to share a single, democratic state with Palestinians are, as is said about Palestinian-Jewish intermarriage, too rare to study.

        Given the enormous power imbalance in Israel’s favour, if this were a corner of Antarctica, it would all be moot. But it’s the world’s tinderbox and some measure of stability must be found, and it will be found only when the world forces a solution.

        We know what that solution will be: something very much like the Arab Peace Initiative, rejected often and out of hand by Israel, but accepted by the PA and by all Arab states. It’s very simple:

        (a) Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon; (b) Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194. (c) Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. (I believe “mutually agreed upon land swaps” has been added.)

        When the rest of the world gets serious and imposes increasingly harsh sanctions on Israel — in other words, when Israelis are forced to accept that they do not get to keep land acquired in war — change will happen.

        I’m a big fan of cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians; and breaking down the animosity between them can only be beneficial. But Palestinians do believe that Israeli Jews want “to kill them or force them to leave,” and they’re mostly correct. A solution will not be worked out by Israelis and Palestinians.

      2. Arthur,

        I agree that many Israelis have been brainwashed into believing that they have no “partner for peace”. I also know that many Palestinians believe that Israelis do not want to make Peace. When visiting Israeli universities, the majority of the students I talked to had never talked to anyone from the West Bank or Gaza. The students I taught in Ramallah told me that I was the first Jew that they had talked with. My impression is that what they know of each other is what they here from extremist politicians who trade on a false patriotism. Even among the Israeli Citizens and Residents of Jerusalem, who could meet, there is limited and shallow contact. Opinions are formed by hate-filled propaganda

        One of the things that needs to be done by those who want to end the present injustice is to find ways for people to get to know each other. That won’t be easy. For example, when I was in Ramallah, my e-mails to people that that I had been working with in Israel were rejected. Even though, I sent from a Canadian account, a filter on the Israeli side was detecting that the mail came from Ramallah (a Swiss owned hotel). To get a message through, I had to write to my daughter in Canada and get her to cut out the message text and send it to Israel. The Israeli technicians then made a special case for my e-mail address and I could discuss arrangements for my time in Israel.

        I agree with you that the rest of the world must get serious. At the moment, they are providing “life support” that allows the dominance and injustice to continue. It may not even be necessary to impose sanctions; one could begin by outlawing any support to Israel in the same way that support to other violent groups is outlawed. That may not be enough but it would be a good start.

        If we want peace, there must be justice. There will be no justice until the Palestinians who left Israel, and their progeny, are allowed to return. A return to 1967 borders won’t do that.

      3. David, I agree with much of what you say. I’m not fond of the word “brainwashed” in this context; it lets Israelis off the hook. Brainwashed or not, most Israelis prefer the West Bank and especially East Jerusalem to peace — which means they don’t actually want peace. Fewer than 10 per cent of Jewish Israelis vote for parties that would freeze settlement construction today.

        You write, “It may not even be necessary to impose sanctions; one could begin by outlawing any support to Israel.” I would call that a sanction, and I agree one should start by withdrawing Israel’s privileges — e.g., special trade deals with Europe; and the U.S. should, of course, withdraw military support. If that doesn’t work, we could move on to actual punishment — e.g., barring Israel from the Olympics.

        You write, “If we want peace, there must be justice. There will be no justice until the Palestinians who left Israel, and their progeny, are allowed to return. A return to 1967 borders won’t do that.”

        We can have some degree justice and, of course, not everyone will be satisfied. A solution must be in accord with UNGA Resolution No 194, but even a “single democratic state” will want to, and have the right to, control immigration. A combination of repatriation for some and monetary compensation for others will have to suffice. “Palestinians who left Israel, and their progeny” amount to some 7 million people. No imaginable state will allow them all to “return.”

  15. Started reading your comment and felt your mind was in the right place till you think it was okay to put principles and morality and humanity aside when there is a risk to the economy.

    1. Hi, Sam. Sorry to disappoint you. Governments and political parties have to balance risk. You can’t go to the wall for every principle. I accept that my “balancing” might be incorrect or unnecessary in any particular instance, but only true fanatics refuse to balance risk. In any case, it’s not just, or even primarily, risk to the economy. It could be risk to other policies one believes in. It could be the risk of losing an election.

      As someone said (who?): “There are two kinds of people in the world: hypocrites and fanatics. I prefer the hypocrites.”

      1. There is another two kinds of people; ones with a conscience and one’s without a conscience. I prefer the ones with a conscience.

  16. To my mind paying attention to the economy IS paying attention to people and principles and integrity (morality does not interest me)…behind the ‘economy’ as an entity there are lives of Canadian men and women who depend on a successful economy to feed, clothe and house their families and rely on government paid education and our health care system and other aspects of life for which the economy is the bedrock.

    For our country to be able to influence and apply pressure in the world domain it must first sustain an internal equilibrium. Personally I wish deeply to help out all peoples in the world who suffer; however, first I address the needs of my own family and then with all my additional resources I ripple out into my community, my country, my world. Realistically that is the best I can do.

    There are many ‘two kinds of people’…I don’t see the point of labelling and criticizing. I focus on dialogue, compassion, and making every effort to be as open as possible to the ideas and beliefs of others.

    1. Kind of attitude which lets bullies get away. Let’s not poke the bear, because he will take away our caviar and champagne. I believe we did poke the bear in not getting involved in the Iraq bloodbath. What happened? No Canadian is going to starve by taking a principled stand on Jerusalem. They need us just as much as we need them. It’s a symbiotic relationship. The mad guy threatens everyone; do we succumb to his threats?

  17. @Parnas: C’mon now; all the Jews come from the middle east. Really????? Have you seen their faces; they don’t look middle eastern to me and I do not need glasses. I guess all Christian DNA is also from Nazareth and all Muslim DNA from Saudi Arabia. Read Prof. Shlomo Sand’s book ‘The Invention of the Jewish people’. In fact the first person these Khazari Jews would have knocked out with a precision drone attack was the Aramaic speaking founder of Christianity (minus his fake Scandinavian looks). “Our capital 3000 years ago” What a load of codswallop! 3000 years ago your ancestors were eating pork chops in Lithuania; that is where your eternal, undivided capital was.

    1. Sam,

      We cannot make the world better by using “alternative facts”

      1) Nobody said “all”. The DNA study looked at only one branch of judaism. It did not say that they and Arabs were identical. It showed common ancestors. The divergance, which we call all observe, is explained by conversions and interbreeding.

      2) The ancestry and dietary habits that you imagine for my personal family are irrelevant. How do you hope to move forward by making up facts?

      3) There is evidence of a Jewish “Kingdom” with buildings in ancient Jerusalem. It is counter-productive to deny that. It is more important to point out that such ancient history does not justify what Israel is trying doing now. Even if you accept the Old Testament as historically accurate, it is clear that the Jewish Tribes were just one group of many that lived (and fought) in the area.

      In other words, to find the truth you must forgo inventing things for which there is no evidence and denying facts for which there is evidence, Instead, focus on the injustice of the present situation. Remind people that “might is right” arguments are immoral.

      1. Dr. Parnas: I am not asking you to look at alternative facts; all I am asking you to do is open your eyes and look When I see a Chinese guy on the street I know he is from China; if I see an African, I know he is from Africa; when I see a European, I know he is from Europe. When I see Arabs, I know they are from the middle east. Now you tell me Doc. why I should make an exception for Jews who by their own admission describe themselves like any other European as white Caucasian? I can assure you the local Jewish tribes who lived in the middle east had nothing to do with Poland or Russia. Let me give you the benefit of doubt and agree that some Jews NOT ALL have a DNA connection to the Palestinians; is that reason enough to go and occupy lands and start a murderous rampage?

        You may want to read a memo written by Edwin Samuel Montagu, the only Jewish member of the British Cabinet at the time, to the certified Jew hater Lord Balfour. Believe it was in August 1917; the very idea of a separate homeland he saw as a ruse to drive the Jews out of Europe and described the very notion as antisemitic. He says in the memo, he has absolutely nothing to do with the middle east or Palestine; his only connection, that his religion took root there. You tell me Doc; the followers of which religion in the world claim any kind of ownership to lands which gave birth to their religion. When you hear the grandson of a Polish or German or Dutch Jew say this was my capital 3000 years ago; do you really believe him? As far as I know there wasn’t a nation state there or a capital city in those days. How was it his capital. Back to square one; check his face. Thank you

        PS And btw I had my DNA checked by a Jewish company and it showed 6% for the area around Israel/Jordan/Syria; but I doubt if they will even let me in; but Ivanka Trump who has zero connection will be rolled out the red carpet. The world will be a much better place if truth and justice were the foundations for peace.

      2. Dr. Parnas: I shouldn’t be telling you some basic facts (you can call them alternative facts, if you like) that Judaism is not an ethnicity or a race; in the same way as Christianity or Islam are not ethnicities. Unless one is legally blind, you can see quite clearly the difference between the many different races who embraced Judaism. Obviously Jews lived in that area of the middle east 3 or 4000 years ago, but to than argue that those Jews were ancestors to all the world’s Jews is you know a total aberration.

      3. Sam,

        You wrote, “Dr. Parnas: I shouldn’t be telling you some basic facts (you can call them alternative facts, if you like) that Judaism is not an ethnicity or a race; in the same way as Christianity or Islam are not ethnicities. Unless one is legally blind, you can see quite clearly the difference between the many different races who embraced Judaism. Obviously Jews lived in that area of the middle east 3 or 4000 years ago, but to than argue that those Jews were ancestors to all the world’s Jews is you know a total aberration.”

        There is much truth in what you wrote but then you added the second half of that last sentence. We all have many ancestors – 2 parents, 4 grand parents, … and onward. The DNA studies suggest that among the many ancestors of european Jews there are people from the Middle East. You are perfectly right that that ancestry does not justify Israeli policies, far from it, but it is more effective to point that out than to deny the DNA data.

        I agree that Jews are not a race but would go further. The DNA studies suggest that the common concept of a race is not supported by science at all. In contrast, the common definitions of “ethnic” is “a population subgroup with a common national or cultural tradition”. I believe it correct to apply that word to Jews. We have many common traditions. We share some of them with Muslims.

      4. Dr.Parnas: You are one person on this website who one can have a civilised conversation with. One can disagree respectfully. Ok. Now back to the DNA question. This obsession with DNA I assume is one attempt to establish a link with the middle east; you do not find this obsession among followers of any other religion. Would you agree? On this Jerusalem issue, not a minute goes by when you don’t hear of a Zionist identifying with King David. I don’t know if the guy had any idea that thousands of years later, people from across Europe and Russia would be invoking his name to justify what is going on and it’s not a pretty picture.When you move to another part of the world, for whatever reason, be it King David or DNA or the holocaust, etc; is it ok to dehumanise the people living there and make their lives a living hell, with no end in sight? And, I’d like to hear your views on Montagu’s memo to Balfour. It is sad that anyone, a Jew or non-Jew who wants to extend a hand of friendship to the Palestinians or says ‘stop killing them’ or says ‘stop the illegal settlements’ is instantly attacked as antisemite. Jack is one example. He thinks Bernie Sanders was antiSemite.

      5. Sam,

        I believe that without respect, we cannot have a fruitful discussion. If you want to be treated with respect, it helps to treat others with respect. It doesn’t always work; some people can do nothing but call other discussants names. However, I know that there are many people following this discussion with whom one can have a fruitful discussion. No two agree on everything, but most want to have a real discussion and gain understanding.

        Nobody is obsessed with the DNA issue. I mentioned the results only when it was suggested that European Jews have no connection with the Middle East. Jews know that we are connected to the Middle East because most of us have grown up being told stories that were passed down from one generation to the next. The DNA results were seen by many as a confirmation of those stories but not really needed.

        There are 3 problems with those stories.

        1. Stories can change as they are passed forward over thousands of years.. Languages change and current issues can bias the way that they are told. New stories may get mixed with the old ones

        2. The stories told in an ethnic group focus on what happened to people of that ethnic group. The stories I heard in Ireland were about Irish people and were often stories that I had never heard before. When I read German stories they were, not surprisingly mostly about people who lived in the German states. The stories told in Jewish homes and synagogues centred on Jews with other people of the area playing a peripheral role. This created the impression that the Jews were more important in the area than they were.

        3. These stories were falsely interpreted as meaning that the area belonged to Jews. When children hear such stories, they rarely question them. When they grow up the stories are deeply ingrained and few people are able to view them with the needed perspective. They will be very angry at those who question them and even angrier if some of the questioners are Jews. They will also have been taught that to be worthwhile one must be a “good Jew” and often told that a “good Jew” must support Israel. I have good friends, people who know me well and respect what I have done, but shake their heads in disbelief when they hear that I disagree with strongly with Israeli policies and do not recognize the validity of any ethnically biased state.

        Much as my Jewish friends and I may disagree on this, we respect each other and continue to talk. I persevere in the hope that we will begin to understand each other better and eventually we will join in a call for full recognition of Palestinian rights in Palestine including the “right of return” and an end to laws that discriminate between Jews and non Jews.

      6. Dr Parnas: Keep trying to convince your Jewish friends that the way to peace is not through lip service, but actions. No country can achieve peace by treating millions of people as second class.The way the settlement activity is going, I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole of the West Bank is gobbled up; there will be nothing left for the Palestinians. Unless the ultimate final solution for the Palestinians is ethnic cleansing with the help of willing Arab partners; the only other option would be a one-state solution which will take away Israel’s exclusivist vision of a Jewish state. It just won’t be possible to sustain ‘Jewish only’ roads in the long-term. Unfortunately the Palestinians, because of lack of entertainment or very high libidos or plain ignorance, I don’t know, keep multiplying at alarming rates and will overtake the Jewish population in years to come. The Jews on the other hand prefer pets to kids, which is why the frantic effort to encourage Jewish migration from the West.

      7. Sam,

        You wrote, “Dr Parnas: Keep trying to convince your Jewish friends that the way to peace is not through lip service, but actions.”.

        I discuss this with all of my friends without regard to their ethnicity. We all should.

        You also wrote, “The Jews on the other hand prefer pets to kids, which is why the frantic effort to encourage Jewish migration from the West.”

        Beware the use of an implicit universal quantifier as in, “The Jews…” or simply “Jews…”. Such statements are almost always false and will distract readers or listeners from the truths elsewhere in your message.

    1. Sammy, how many antisemitic tropes and lies are you going to tell? I said Sanders is the antisemite’s favorite Jew, not that Sanders is an antisemite. Of course, reading your posts, you are either one of the stupidest antisemites around or you are great at feigning ignorance. To answer your original comment, no one tires of pointing out your antisemitism on a regular basis. You are surely not tired of being one.

  18. @Jack: I think one can safely assume that millions of Jews living in the West have dual nationality and many have served in the death squads (IDF); and in any case any white Jew living anywhere can just pack his bags and move there; they will even pay for the travel.For your enlightenment: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/22/mccarthyite-anti-semitism-smears-and-racism-at-the-guardianobserver/

    When you move to another part of the world because someone was kicking your butt in your native countries, you don’t go there and start demolishing homes and killing people. If a Jew came to your door, holding a book in one hand and a gun in the other and told you this book tells me this land is mine; what would you do?

    So, unless you believe in the chosen people drivel, you should have a hearty laugh when next time you hear a Polish Jew or his grandson presently residing in the middle east say this was my eternal capital 3000 years ago. Cheers

      1. Jack: Any publication that exposes the lies of dyed in the wool, radical, militant Zionists would be a ‘rag’. As long as you have no plans to demolish my neighbourhood homes; you can spew your hate for the Semitic Palestinians.

      2. Sammy, you are reading the comics and using those “alternative facts” to fuel your antisemitism. Every educated person on the face of the Earth knows that antisemitism has nothing to do with hatred of those who speak a Semitic language. Don’t you know pulling the Semite “alternative fact” out of your butt just further identifies you as an ignorant antisemite?

      3. Mr. Sigman,

        You wrote, “Every educated person on the face of the Earth knows that antisemitism has nothing to do with hatred of those who speak a Semitic language. ”

        I hate to fall back into the pattern of quoting dictionaries but …

        Semitic |səˈmidik| adjective
        1 relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family.
        2 relating to the peoples who speak the Semitic languages, especially Hebrew and Arabic.

        I have long wondered how so many people came to believe that the words “semitic” and “antisemitic” only applied to Jews. I lived and worked in Germany for a few years and spent time in museums and with books to try to understand how the very civilized people of the Weimar republic became the violent and hate-filled Nazis. In that time, I read a lot of original propaganda newspaper articles. I noticed that those articles, and many Nazi political posters, used pictures of Jews that looked nothing like the people I knew; they looked very middle eastern. My guess is that the Nazi propagandists wanted to make us look foreign and chose pictures of Jews with a strong percentage of middle-east “blood”. They also used the word “Semit” (a word rarely used then) to make Jews (a familiar concept) seem more foreign.

        Wouldn’t it be ironic if the claim that, “antisemitism has nothing to do with hatred of those who speak a Semitic language” was testimony to the success of Nazi propagandists?

        Arabs and Jews, both semites, need to stress our commonalities and reject the people (on both sides) who try to make us hate and fear each other.

    1. Sammy, No one can safely assume anything you state has any resemblance to truth. Counterpunch is a fake news site. That you rely on it for your education is indicated by your persistent antisemitic statements.

  19. @Jack: I am so antisemitic that had I been a US citizen I would have voted for Bernie Sanders; the best of the lot.

      1. @ Jack what you forgot to tell me was when exactly did King David leave the keys with you? Was it under the front door mat? Keep taking samples from different orifices, above and below, to check for some elusive middle eastern DNA. You are not gonna find it Jack; maybe some match with your buddy Hitler. Remember he did come to push the Jews of the world to the middle east as declared by another of your most ardent supporters Pastor Hagee. “Then God sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible says – Jeremiah writing ? ‘They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from the holes of the rocks,’ meaning there’s no place to hide. And that might be offensive to some people but don’t let your heart be offended. I didn’t write it, Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.”

        Pity you wallow in so much bs.

  20. @David

    I have long wondered how so many people came to believe that the words “semitic” and “antisemitic” only applied to Jews

    Yet another example like “occupation” of where dictionaries aren’t going to help you. Dictionaries are about word usage they don’t delve into the why of usage.

    The problem in the 19th century that drove the creation of antisemitism (i.e. a racial hatred of Jews) was what to do with people who had a Jewish ethnic background but were Christian converts, and more broadly what to do with heavily assimilated Jews whose religious choices were a mostly private matter and in all other respects acted like Christian Europeans. Under an anti-Judaic theory there was no longer any excuse for organized social hatreds towards them. After the Russians launched a pan-European push for more Jew hatred on an ethnic basis there was a need to create an intellectually defensible form of Jew hatred based on ethnicity and not religion targeting those people who lacked a strong hatred of the Jewish religion. The people who embraced this idea of a new racial Judeophobia. formed the Antisemiten-Liga in Germany and the Ligue nationale antisémitique de France. The term applies to Jews uniquely because the people who invented the terms applied it to Jews uniquely.

    Like you they believed in a concept of a sort of permanent racial land ownership and that Jews were forever interlopers where they lived. They hold that living in France or Germany didn’t make them French of German, the same way you object to the concept of land becoming Israeli because Israelis live on it. They opposed the idea of normalization of the Jewish condition the same way you do for Israel. There were plenty of Germans or French who wanted a pure state religiously, culturally and ethnically and in theory didn’t like Jews living there but thought since they already did that practical measures should be taken to resolve this problem in a sane and sensible way. The antisemitism leagues argued against this strenuously, saying that practical compromise was unacceptable one should aim for either the total surrender of the Jews and their agreement to fully assimilated in all respects or their deportation.

    Most importantly the idea of Judeophobia / antisemitism is to put Jews in impossible binds where every action is characterized negatively. Again something you are so fond of in your completely unbalanced Israel comments. If Jews were on the right they oppressed the workers with Capitalism if on the left they undermined society with Communism. If they lived in Jewish community they were Jewish racists, if they lived in Christian society they had double loyalties.

    1. Talking of dictionaries, they too became politically correct over time or because of pressure. I remember looking up the meaning of the word ‘Jew’ as a kid and in this old 50’s Oxford Dictionary, one meaning was the religious meaning and the other was the social and I can assure you it wasn’t complimentary.

    2. Mr. Host. “Like you they believed in a concept of a sort of permanent racial land ownership and that Jews were forever interlopers where they lived. They hold that living in France or Germany didn’t make them French of German, the same way you object to the concept of land becoming Israeli because Israelis live on it.”

      What a gratuitous insult and ridiculous analogy! Ridiculous because it was leading Zionists who, like the anti-Semites, argued that Jews could never be French or English. Palestinians live on the land, too. Does that make it Palestine?

      1. Couldn’t agree more. You may want to read the memo sent by Edwin Samuel Montagu, the only Jewish member of the British Cabinet, to Balfour. A British Jew who said the very idea of a separate homeland for the Jews is antiSemitic. In politer language he said, what the hell have I got to do with Palestine and saw this Balfour Declaration as a ruse to get the Jews to leave Europe. Balfour incidentally was a certified Jew hater; but there are roads named after him in Israel, including the one on which Satanyahu lives. Balfour was the architect of the Aliens Act 1906, designed to keep Jews out of Britain.

      2. Early Zionists and antisemites came to the same conclusion through different thought process. To claim any other relationship is antisemitic in nature. I am sure you do not need me to explain the difference.

    3. Mr. Host,

      You wrote, “Like you they believed in a concept of a sort of permanent racial land ownership and that Jews were forever interlopers where they lived. ”

      How did you get get the impression that that is my opinion when my views are the opposite? Isn’t it the Israeli officials who claim that Israel and Jerusalem is theirs because of their presence their 3000 years ago? Isn’t it you who wrote that Israel was permanent?

      I found your historical discussion of the Antisemiten-Liga in Germany and the Ligue nationale antisémitique de France interesting and useful. The parallel between their beliefs and those of extreme Zionists is striking. I was reminded of a recent trip by Netanjahu to France, where he addressed French Jews to leave France and move to Israel as they had no placer in France any more. I frequently receive Zionist newsletters saying the same thing.

      1. @David

        Thanks for the polite response to that one. My words to you were more hostile than they should have been (no ability to edit posts on this blog).

        How did you get get the impression that that is my opinion when my views are the opposite?

        You have rather consistently talked about all of Israel as Palestinian land and the Palestinians as the owners of the land who are being stolen from. Since they were not the legal property owners under the Ottomans such claims are racial not legal.
        cu

        Isn’t it the Israeli officials who claim that Israel and Jerusalem is theirs because of their presence their 3000 years ago?

        They make many claims however the dominant claim is that Israel territory is Israeli because they are the state that exists there now. Almost uniquely in Israel’s case there is this belief of treating a never existing former state as a legitimate claimant to their territory. Spain for example doesn’t get referred to as Asturias, León, Castile, Navarre and Aragon occupying Almohad. It is just Spain. France gets to be France not: Aquitaine, Saxony, Gascony…

        The main counter to just recognizing Israel as the governing power is the Palestinian racial claim. So certainly in response to that Israelis argue that Jews can similarly make an even stronger racial claim. But this is all a bunch of racist nonsense that the Palestinians, Arabs more broadly and the UN promotes. Far better would be to just consider a state ass belonging to the people who live there now. As is the case in the both Canada and the USA where we don’t evaluate neighborhoods racially but rather consider them as belonging to their current occupants for as long as they remain occupants.

        The parallel between their beliefs and those of extreme Zionists is striking.

        It is deliberate. Pinsker wrote in response to the antisemitism of Alexander III, Herzl and Nordau are writing their early works in response to Edouard Drumont (the French antisemitism league). Zionism has always seen itself as a serious response to the antisemetic critique of the Jewish people.

      2. Mr. Host,

        You wrote, “You have rather consistently talked about all of Israel as Palestinian land and the Palestinians as the owners of the land who are being stolen from. Since they were not the legal property owners under the Ottomans such claims are racial not legal.”

        You are putting words in my mouth that I did not say and attributing opinions to me that I do not share.

        I do not believe that Palestines own all of the land in Palestine.

        I do not believe that the Palestinians are a “race”. I rarely use the word “race” because scientists who study such things do not believe that the concept is sound, Palestinians are the people who were living in the land almost universally referred to as Palestine. They included people of many religions including Jews, Christians, Samaritans, Muslims, Druze, …..

        There are many parts of the world that do not have land registries and deeds. Ownership is often determined by who is living on and using the land. Even in Canada, where we do use a land registry, I once “lost” a small segment of the land covered by my deed because it had been in continuous use by my neighbour for many years before I bought the home. When a survey revealed this, the law decided that the land was not mine even though my deed said it was. In my view, your mention of the Ottomans is irrelevant.

        What I do believe is that many of the Palestinians who were not Jewish have lost the land that was theirs before 1948. This is a clear violation of the Balfour declaration. Further, land continues to be seized. A previous threat on the CTIP blog discussed this at length.

        You also wrote, “They make many claims however the dominant claim is that Israel territory is Israeli because they are the state that exists there now. Almost uniquely in Israel’s case there is this belief of treating a never existing former state as a legitimate claimant to their territory.”

        a) Israelis very often justify their state’s seizure of control using the “3000 year” (+/-) argument that we hear so often.

        b) It is not a state that claims the stolen territory. It is the people who were living on and using the territory from whom the land was taken who claim that territory. See the earlier thread about the so-called absentee land. It is the people who were forced into a diaspora or are living in camps, as individuals, from whom the land was stolen.

      3. Parnas, Your belief that the Arabs who “lost” their land before 1948 did so in violation of the Balfour declaration is not based on fact. Arabs sold land to Jews. Arabs who had tenants living on the land paid those tenants to leave the land once the land was sold to the Jews.

        Canadian Law is not Ottoman law not Israeli law. There are few places where theft of land is deemed legal via usage as in your case.

      4. Mr.. Sigman,

        Claiming to quote me, you wrote “Your belief that the Arabs who “lost” their land before 1948 did so in violation of the Balfour declaration is not based on fact. Arabs sold land to Jews. Arabs”

        What I actually said was “lost the land that was theirs before 1948” not ““lost” their land before 1948”. Before 1948, the UK was in control and some people like Mr. Abboud actually had deeds to their land that were honoured. After Israel declared itself independent, everything changed. People were not allowed to return and their land was taken. Other land was taken, and continues to be taken, under several different ruses. This was the subject of a previous discussion. Mr. Abboud’s family never sold their land.

        I am sure you recall that Balfour wrote, “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”. Clearly the cases that we have discussed violated that.

        I suspect that many of those who were able to “sell” their land did so under pressure. Thinking back to Nazi Germany, many houses were “sold” to SS officers at very low prices so that the owners could escape to other lands. Some of those people were able to get their land back after WWII. I see no reason why anyone who sold under pressure in similar circumstances, should not be compensated or get the land back.

        Obviously, every country has different laws. No dispute there. However, my land was not a case where “theft of land is deemed legal via usage “. There was no “theft”. There had been an informal agreement between the previous owner of my house and my neighbour who had reason to use that land. The only problem was that they forgot to record it. I suspect that they did not want to pay lawyers. The matter was settled quite amicably. The seizures of land in Palestine were not at all like that.

        By the way, my real-estate lawyer told me that such situations are common – even in your country.

      5. Parnas, absolutely not. The Balfour declaration ceased to have any authority once the British left. After the independence of the Jewish state, abandoned Arab property was claimed by the state via eminent domain. Quite legal.

        You really have a shoddy education in this particular area.

      6. Mr. Signman,

        I did not say that the Balfour declaration was legally binding. I merely said that the actions taken by Israel were in violation of that declaration. They are.

        While I agree that the legal status of that old declaration is questionable, I have lost count of the number of times that an Israeli or other Zionist has used the Balfour declaration as justification for what has happened. It is very frequently cited.

      7. Parnas, stating that an action is in violation of a declaration that was null and void at the time of the action is rather ridiculous. It is the same as arresting someone for violating a law that the courts invalidated. There is no question as to the legality of a law which is null and void. However, it is becoming quite clear, based on the pattern of your pronouncements and replies, that you are deliberately skirting with antisemitism. Shame on you.

      8. Mr. Sigman,

        You wrote, “Parnas, why are you still comparing Nazi action to Israeli action? You know that every reasonable person considers that to be promoting antisemitism.”

        It is with great regret that I note the similarities between early Nazi treatment of Jews and Israeli treatment of non-Jewish Palestinians. It is the Israeli actions that promote anti-semitism. What I say is insignificant,.

  21. Sam, I say this only to encourage a bit of humility: I read the Montagu letter 30 years ago.

    There’s a story about a British representative to the UN who disobeyed his government’s directive and voted in favour of a pro-Zionist motion. When asked, many years later why he had supported the Zionists, he said, “I thought they would establish a socialist paradise.”

    People became Zionists, and supported Zionism, for many reasons.

    1. You are quite right about the “many reasons”. The Israeli UN Ambassador had a King David seal put on all the desks before he went up to deliver his charade. The other day I heard the rabid Naftali Bennet of Polish and Dutch parentage, say that King David had given Jerusalem to him 3000 years ago. Are these guys insane, delusional, what?

  22. Parnas, what kind of doctor are you? Ph.D.in pottery? To claim you have no idea why antisemitism strictly refers to hatred of Jews as a people, rather than hatred of those who speak a semitic language, is the height of ignorance on this discussion board.

    1. Dr. Parnas has an H-index ranking above 60, this is an amazing score, it means that in the field of CS his ideas are highly recognized and appreciated

      Like many of us, he is a flawed jew, his desire to be liked by the people who will hate him no matter what, is pathetic and sometimes heart breaking

  23. Miller,

    Early Zionists and antisemites came to the same conclusion through different thought process. To claim any other relationship is antisemitic in nature. I am sure you do not need me to explain the difference.

  24. @arthurmilner

    Please list the courts of law or countries of the world that have bought your argument. Have Israeli courts bought it?

    Yes they have, though the site isn’t going to do you a whole lot of good: https://web.archive.org/web/20120902070224/http://www.yesh-din.org/userfiles/file/LevyReport_Heb.pdf. This is authored by a retired Supreme Court Justice in 2012. The idea of Israel as being just the successor government to the British mandate has been used repeatedly in the courts.

    Israel’s official position that they have argued consistently is the territory is disputed not occupied, that is they have never recognized the territory as hostile. So they don’t acknowledge there ever was an occupation. Here is a sample article making the case: http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm

    The Bush administration’s and later the quartet’s recognition of the settlement blocks includes the idea the territory is clearly being claimed. Moreover even the opponents of settlement don’t really treat the territories as occupied. There are Americans who decided to stay in Iraq, they aren’t talked about the way Israeli settlers are, everyone agrees they are just emigrants. The Israeli settlers aren’t talked about as emigrants from Israel to Palestine even by opponents.

    No one really thinks this is an occupation, they just don’t know what the word means.

  25. @David

    They seek to separate Christian Palestinians from Muslim Palestinians But with very limited success.

    Well first off I’m not so sure about limited success. You look at the respective migration figures.
    I also don’t think they have pushed hard on this yet. I suspect that’s going to be a major theme of the 2020s.

    I visited a separate college for Haredi in Jerusalem and found that some of the teachers could argue of which hat style was “right” and barely talk to each other. The Haredi there were so opposed to integration with other Jews that a separate college with 8 campuses was needed to get them to have any modern education. The dispute about IDF service is always there.

    Yes it is a pity that Yesh Atid didn’t join the coalition. Yesh Atid and Jewish Home are ready to address this problem.

    At another Israeli institution, I did see Arab students but was told that they require special help because of the underfunded lower schools that they had attended. They did not seem to interact with their fellow Israelis of Jewish ethnicity.

    Anti-normalization on the Arab side and anti-integration on the Israeli side is a very bad thing in Israel. It is creating hatreds. I think this rectifies once West Bankers stop calling for a cultural boycott to end an occupation and instead work collaboratively on a civil rights based program.

  26. @Arthur

    But since you ask, you should know that with respect to domestic policy, Israel is rather pathetic in comparison with other countries we normally consider democracies. Israel spends 3 to 4 times as much on education for Jewish children as on Israeli-Palestinian children.

    Well first off it isn’t about children. Parents have the right to enroll their kids in different schools at least formally.

    Second your figures are total nonsense it has never been remotely that bad. In the 1990s it used to be about 1.3-1.6::1 today is currently about a 20% difference 1.2::1. When it became clear in the late 1990s that spending wasn’t equalizing naturally the Israeli government engage in an affirmative action program to bring up spending per student which has been successful. So for example 81% of Israeli-Arabs and 84% of Israeli Jews apply to get the certificate needed to attend college in Israel, with a success rate of 50% for Arabs, 62% for Jews and 66% for Druze.

    So yes there is still some differences but nothing remotely like what you are claiming.

    There are, I believe, a total of five schools in Israel in which Palestinian and Jewish children study Arabic and Hebrew. Despite their being in separate schools, Palestinians do not control their education system.

    Palestinians don’t control anything in Israel. Israeli-Arabs run the teaching colleges and the schools are under substantial local control with some oversight. Israeli-Arabs vote in Israeli elections.

    There are no Arabic universities.

    The university system is fully integrated except for the teacher training colleges.

    There are a great many jobs for which army service is implicit or explicit required, effectively barring the vast majority of Palestinians Israeli-Arabs

    Quite true. Israel is working on fixing that with some subgroups that are willing to be full Israelis. Part of being an Israeli is being in the IDF.

    Arabic has no legal standing (though its use on signs, etc., is improving).

    Actually it is the other way around. Until recently it had official legal standing which it is losing. As that is happening the social use is increasing. The national language is Hebrew. You can’t complain that the Israeli-Arabs are discriminated against and then push for more discrimination.

    Jews who have never been to Israel are admitted almost automatically; meanwhile it’s practically impossible for Palestinians who owned property in Jaffa, for example, to even visit what was once their home.

    Nonsense. Israeli Arabs can travel freely to Jaffa same as any other place in Israel.

    It’s practically impossible for Jews and Palestinians to marry in Israel (of course the same goes for Conservative and Orthodox Jews), because in many areas of state regulation Israel is a (Jewish) theocracy.

    It is fully permitted for Jewish ethnics of various types to marry and quite common. Religious intermarriage is not permitted. That has nothing to do race. Israel is not a theocracy (again you should look up the word) but it does have a full blown state church.

    Oh yes. A prime minister who encouraged Jews to vote by warning them that Arabs were voting in droves. Whatever happened to that prime minister? (Compare to what happened to Premier Parizeau of Québec when he blamed the referendum loss on — I believe the word was — “Ethnics.”)

    Netanyahu uses atrocious rhetoric. I’m not arguing the Israelis are perfect. They aren’t. They are playing a bad hand well. Since you like to use Quebec, the Israeli Arabs are being treated far better than the British treated the French 70 years after their conquest.

  27. Peter, I don’t know enough about the SC, but is progressive politics a requirement? haven’t they had members who support human rights abuses?

      1. I agree the UN has never been up to no good especially when they passed Resolution 181 and the use/abuse of veto powers

Comments are closed.