The Levy Committee: what's the real price we pay?


By Hannah Weisfeld
July 13, 2012
Share

This week, the Levy Committee, set up by Israeli prime-minister Benjamin Netanyahu to examine the legal status of outposts in the West Bank, announced its findings. According to the committee the IV Geneva Convention does not apply to the West Bank and therefore Israel cannot be deemed to be occupying this piece of land. On that basis the ‘illegal outposts’ in the West Bank, built on what Israel recognises as state land, should be made legal, and zoning policies should be amended to make it easier for Jews to build in this area. The finding is indeed a win for the settler bloc within the Israeli political arena and in the face of a defeat over the Ulpana neighbourhood in settlement of Beit-El, hugely important in their eyes. It should be noted that the findings of the committee are not legally binding. However they do inform future debate and can be used as a justification for subsequent political action in the Knesset.

Interestingly, but perhaps not surprising, lacking from the report is any mention of the status of the people living on the land. Admittedly this was not the brief of the committee - the brief of the committee was to determine the legal status of outposts in the West Bank, but can one ever consider the status of a piece of land without taking into consideration the people that live on the land?

If, as the Levy committee reports, there is no occupation of the West Bank, and on that basis, the IV Geneva Convention does not apply, then Israel surely must justify its decision to grant full Israeli citizenship to the 500,000 Israelis that live over the green-line (1949 armistice lines) and deny it to the 2.5 million or so Palestinians that live in the area? If the Levy committee had found Israel to be occupying the West Bank then Israel would have had to defend its reasons for maintaining a 45 year occupation, and moving its citizens into the West Bank through the settlement project, which is prohibited in Article 49 of the IV Geneva Convention. The State of Israel and its courts have never reached a foregone conclusion on the status of the territory. When the settlers in Gaza petitioned the high court in 2005 during the evacuation of Gaza, the court ruled that they did in fact have no right to be there as the land of Gaza was occupied and therefore the evacuation was constitutional.

The inability, or perhaps unwillingness, of the Israeli government and courts to agree on a definition of the status of the land is no coincidence. Israeli politicians, judges and citizens alike are well-aware, whether they like it or not, that the land of the West Bank that some of Israel’s citizens and political establishment would like to lay claim to, comes with a sacrificial lamb: democracy. If one deems the land not to be occupied then there is no justification for denying those residing in the land a vote, unless of course the governing power chooses not to define itself according to democratic principles. If Israel was to definitively decide the land is not occupied and give all the residents of the West Bank the right to vote, it would dramatically alter the Jewish nature of the state, as the majority of its citizens will be, in the not too distant future, non-Jewish. It is this basic conundrum that ‘mainstreamed’ the two-state discourse in Israeli civil society during the 1990s: the understanding that if Israel wished to be a Jewish and democratic state it could not do so without the creation of an independent state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza.

But it seems that this conundrum does not bother justice Levy. And neither does it seem to bother him that not one Palestinian was consulted in the process. The self-interest argument that Israel’s survivability depends on the creation of a Palestinian state does not take into consideration that, regardless of whether the majority of Israelis believe it to be in Israel’s best long-term interest, there is a Palestinian right to self-determination in an independent state of Palestine. The Levy committee appears to be interested in neither Israeli self interests nor Palestinian rights. It is interested in land.

Should the Attorney General and Government l of Israel choose to accept the findings of the Levy report the settlers will have won in the short-term. It will pave the way for mass legalisation of settlements in the greater land of Israel. But the long-term sacrifice will be great. For Israel will pay for the land with not just democracy according to a demographic reality, but the Jewish ideals of democracy and justice on which the state of Israel was built, that recognise and respect the rights of all human beings. And that sacrifice will be made by Jews around the world, not just those in the state of Israel.

COMMENTS

Real Real Zionist

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 12:45

Rate this:

-1 points

Well at least they have come clean. The people don't exist except as an inconvenience to be " managed ".


Jonathan Hoffman

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 13:23

Rate this:

2 points

Levy's conclusions are perfectly correct for several reasons. Just one is that Article 49(6) of the 4th Convention does not prohibit the voluntary movement of Israelis who wish to live in Jerusalem or the West Bank, since this does not constitute a deportation or transfer within the meaning of that provision.

The Geneva convention was designed to prohibit the forcible transfer of population into occupied territories, such as was practised by the Nazis and USSR before and during the second world war. But the Israeli settlers in the West Bank made a free choice to move there. And as a country that was attacked, Israel is entirely within its legal rights to retain territory that continues to be used as a base for attacks against it.


Real Real Zionist

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 13:41

Rate this:

-1 points

Rubbish as always.

" The occupying power shall not deport OR transfer ......"

If forcible transfer was the sole concern the word " deport" would have covered it. The Convention clearly seeks to cover both

a) the deportation of undesired minorities into the occupied territories.

and

b) the colonisation of the territory

The settler movement began as an Israeli govt initiative and remains such.

All academic of course.

And since Levy's conclusions are " absolutely correct " I assume the Israeli govt will be rushing to endorse the report ?

Ha Ha pigs might fly. The cat would really be out of the bag then.


Advis3r

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 14:15

Rate this:

0 points

The fact however is that Israel has not decided to annexe Judea and Samaria only then would the question of whether those living there were entitled to citizenship would arise. There are millions of people living in the UK without UK citizenship and who are not entitled to UK citizenship. The UK has in the past changed the rules on a number of occasions which meant that people lost the right to UK citizenship who previously had been entitled to it. The Levy Report was to advise on the status of Judea and Samaria and whether Jews were legally entitled to settle it, it was not to determine whether Jews living in Judea and Samaria were to be considered as living in the State of Israel that is an entirely separate question. As such is not surprising at all that the question of the status of people living in Judea and Samaria was not addressed.
For her information I am already an Israeli citizen under the Law of Return no matter that I live in Judea and Samaria - it has nothing to do with the status of Judea and Samaria.
Secondly she is using the discredited statistics provided by the Palestinians to "frighten" us with the demographic argument. We do not need to be reminded time and again by people with an obvious agenda that Israel was founded on democratic principles and justice for all - a pity our neighbours do not subscribe to either of those ideals.
Why should a Palestinian be consulted on whether Jews should or should not be entitled to live in Judea and Samaria? Officially they do not even consider that we are entitled to live in Jerusalem.
She claims the sacrifices will be great but fails to let us know what she thinks those sacrifices will be. There were great sacrifices involved in founding the State of Israel should they not have been made? Judea and Samaria are part and parcel of the Jewish homeland our historical attachment to Hebron and Beit El precedes Tel Aviv by thousands of years.


Harvey

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 14:55

Rate this:

0 points

The settlements are a red herring . There were no settlements and no so called occupation prior to 67 . What was stopping the Palestinians from declaring statehood at any time between 48 and 67 apart from the fact it had been annexed by Jordan . The fact remains that there was never any intent to declare independence . Palestinians were perfectly happy to live under Jordanian rule and to use the status quo to constantly attack Israel using terror tactics which have changed little over the years . The objective then as now is to destroy Israel . Why should we not take the Hamas Covenant at face value or for that matter the PA which adds the RoR of millions of so called refugees as part of any final status agreement .
I have nothing but admiration for Ms Weisfeld . She's played and continues to play the perfect game . Blind siding our ineffectual and out of touch mainstream Zionist organisations , she leads our naive and impressionable student youth on a parallel course to that of Israels enemies .
I don't know who funds Yachad . Maybe Soros , maybe the Saudis indirectly . Only Ms Weisfeld and her associates knows that for certain .
One thing for sure is that Ms Weisfeld represents excellent value for their money .


Real Real Zionist

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 16:29

Rate this:

-2 points

"Blind siding our ineffectual and out of touch mainstream Zionist organisations......"

And of course Harvey your little three man extremist cult, with more than iffy associations, making idiots of yourselves all over London and making us all look bad is the real thing, is where it all is really at.

I have earned the right and privilege ( which I treasure ) to be an object of your rudeness but do make more of an effort to be polite to those that haven't


Jonathan Hoffman

Mon, 07/16/2012 - 13:49

Rate this:

0 points

"... that sacrifice will be made by Jews around the world, not just those in the state of Israel."

No - it was never government policy to keep all the settlements in a peace deal, just as settlements in Gaza were given back on withdrawal.

Your suggestion of "mass legalisation of settlements in the greater land of Israel" is a straw man.

You do not speak for me, neither do you speak for "Jews around the world".


Mary in Brighton

Mon, 07/16/2012 - 15:31

Rate this:

0 points

And who do you speak for Jonathan? In particular, who were you speaking for here?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBH6XONDpes


Advis3r

Mon, 07/16/2012 - 15:53

Rate this:

0 points

Mary who do you speak for? Harrassment of Jonathan Hoffman seems to be a favourite past-time of yours - I have yet to see anything remotely passing for fair comment posted under your name. Is it that you do not really have any opinions worth posting?


Mary in Brighton

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 09:14

Rate this:

-1 points

Advsr I don't purport to speak for anyone. And maybe I don't have an opinion worth posting but that would make at least two of us. The difference between you and I is that when I don't have any opinions worth posting I am smart enough not to post any.


Advis3r

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 10:01

Rate this:

1 point

The opinions I post obviously irritate you which means I am getting through so I shall continue.

But you say "when I don't have any opinions worth posting I am smart enough not to post any ..."

Another fib then considering the drivel you keep posting in your pathetic attempts to harass one J Hoffman Esq.?


Mary in Brighton

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 10:33

Rate this:

-1 points

Advis3r, I don't harass Jonathan. I merely give Jonathan the opportunity to speak for himself, in his own words, as it were. You surely wouldn't condemn that, would you?


Harvey

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 10:47

Rate this:

0 points

None of this is new . It was all on offer and subsequently rejected by Arafat at Oslo.
When thanked by Arafat for his efforts , Clinton uttered the immortal lines .
' Don't thank me , I ve failed and you are the reason why .
Ms Weisfeld believes that she can stick a plaster on the problem and all will be healed , the plaster being a unilateral withdrawal from the West bank just like the withdrawal from Gaza .
She fails to take into account that Hamas are absolute in their ideology . There can be no Jewish state in any part of the region . It's all an Islamic Waqf as far as Palestine is concerned .
A two state solution based on 67 is unacceptable except as a stage in the final objective .
The PA take a different route . Yes a two state with the caveat that no Palestinian so called refugee will be granted citizenship in the new state but remain integral to the demand of RoR .
Whichever way you look at it both the PA and Hamas will never countenance the existence of a Jewish state of Israel in their midst
It's no good Ms Weisfeld choosing to ignore these absolutes . Withdrawal from the West bank will not lead to an irrevocable Peace accord with the Arabs . It would be simply a first stage on the way to a single Palestinian state .
Maybe Yachad and ms Weisfeld should come clean and spell out whether that is also their objective in the long term .


zaheerayin

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 10:50

Rate this:

0 points

I merely give Jonathan the opportunity to speak for himself, in his own words

And it's not a pretty sight.


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 10:56

Rate this:

0 points

Oh goodie Harvey then it's one big happy family between the river and the sea. I bet Moshe and Rachel in Tel Aviv can't wait for Mahmood and Fatima in Nablus to move in next door.

What is your objective in the long term Harvey ? Same as Hoffie's ? Israel from the river to the sea and Jordan is Palestine ?

What exactly wil be the status of Mahmmood and Fatima in this from the river to the sea Israel ? Will they really be able to move in next door to Moshe and Rachel or will it be an apartheid state ?


zaheerayin

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 10:59

Rate this:

0 points

Churchill might very well have been talking about Harvey. "A fanatic is someone that can't change his mind and won't change the subject."


Advis3r

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 11:27

Rate this:

0 points

I can see that the Levy report is causing such consternation among the trolls especially RRZ who can't for the life of him tell us whose territory he claims Israel is illegally occupying.
The fact is that there is support in Israel for adopting sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria, even if that means making citizenship available to qualifying Arabs.
Israel must decide between a rock and a hard place either accept the two-state solution based on the pre six day war armistice lines with swaps as Obama is pushing for or annexe the land and contend with an extra 1.5 million Arabs within its borders.
With the latter alternative, the Jews would be left with a stable 2:1 majority. Israelis are already moving towards annexation after all who wants a terror state on your doorstep providing easy access for ther Mullahs of Iran to do their worst and maybe the report will add to this viewpoint.
Obviously despite what they say to the Americans the Arabs will not accept such a two state solution because it will preclude the “right of return” and will require them to recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish People. Furthermore Israel has made it clear that a two state solution comes with the signature of an end-of-conflict agreement as it did with Egypt and Jordan.
If Israel annexes Judea and Samaria the Arabs will have to decide whether to push for citizenship or to accept autonomy. Good luck with that!


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 11:53

Rate this:

0 points

" push for citizenship " what does that mean ?

" qualifying Arabs " what does that mean ?

If Israel is from the the river to the sea then all the people between the river and the sea are Israelis yes ?

Or will it be an apartheid state ?

Jews will be citizens " qualifying Arabs " will be able to push for citizenship. Non qualifying Arabs won't even be be thrown that crumb. I knew all of this already.

( I think we are getting there Jose is coming clean )


Advis3r

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 12:32

Rate this:

0 points

Well RRZ not everyone living in the UK is entitled to UK citizenship are they? Non-qualifying UK residents can live in the UK - but they can't apply for citizenship and can't vote. So the UK is an apartheid state - thought not. Stop applying standards to Israel which are not applied elsewhere and please let us know whose territory it is that you claim Israel is illegally occupying.


joemillis1959

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 12:46

Rate this:

0 points

Donniel Hartman is not usually given to anti-Israeli hyperbole, but here he makes a valid point, to whit:

Our tradition teaches us that one mourns for the past destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple not merely by fasting but by internalizing the causes that led to it. According to one account in the Talmud, Jerusalem was destroyed because Jewish society at the time merely followed the law and did not see itself as obligated to go beyond it. When a society fails to be bound by larger moral imperatives and instead hides behind legalese, it loses its compass and undermines its legitimacy.

The Edmund Levy report on the status of the occupation of Judea and Samaria is a case in point. While the potential political fallout has been avoided for now by assigning it to a bureaucratic black hole, it is incumbent upon us to not overlook the moral blindness and societal failing that it or its like can engender.

Removing the status of occupation either as a result of the fact that Judea and Samaria are part of the Jewish people’s ancestral homeland or as Justice Edmund Levy claims was never under the control of a sovereign state from which it was annexed, is not only politically irrelevant, but Jewishly and morally irrelevant. Israel’s control over Judea and Samaria is an occupation because we are occupying a people that like us have a right to sovereign, independent, national expression.

And Advis3r, that thing about UK residents is a bit of a red schmaltz herring. The Palestinians in the occupied territories are not migrants. They were there before the 1967 Six-Day War and the following military occupation (yes, even Area A is in effect under Israeli military control).


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 12:49

Rate this:

0 points

everyone that is born here is entitled yes.


zaheerayin

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 12:52

Rate this:

1 point

Now that Advis3r is busted and confessed to being the Jewish facist we all knew him to be, is there now any further need to engage with him?


Harvey

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 12:55

Rate this:

0 points

Advis3r
One state doesn't work . It never worked in Gaza .
It requires the consensus of all the people . There is no point maintaining an artificial edifice whereby the majority of the Indigenous west bank citizens of the proposed state do not recognise it , are murderously resentful and biding their time for a change in circumstances .
The only way forward is a return to the Oslo Accord with land swops , a united Jerusalem and a symbolic gesture of acknowledgement to RoR .
This was what was on offer in Oslo . It was rejected . It would be rejected by the Palestinians today . For the Palestinians its all or nothing . No concessions no recognition of Israel .
Because of their intransigence there will be no Palestinian state and new realities will be created on the ground .
The suffering on both sides will continue .
Both parties must make painful concessions without which there will never be peace .


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 13:10

Rate this:

0 points

What ? When Harvey talks about painful concessions he means the universe is ours but we are willing to negotiate over Pluto.

It is irrational to say I am in favour of two statesand at the same time deny the circumstances that would make it possible.

The present pm of Israel says Jerusalem will never be divided or shared and Israel will never cede the Jordan valley. So Jose is right. One state it is. And since the world will never tolerate an apartheid state Mohamed and Fatima can happily start packing their bags for their eagilly awaited move to Tel Aviv.


JC Webmaster

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 13:30

Rate this:

0 points

This comment by Real Real Zionist has been moderated


Advis3r

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 13:33

Rate this:

0 points

Millis why a red herring. Citizenship would be offered to any person who would be prepared to recognise Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people and fore-swear violence against it. Now tell me do you think every current member of Hamas living in Judea and Samaria would be prepared to do that? But this is all hypothetical nonsense.
The Levy Report was only commissioned to establish Jewish rights of residence in Judea and Samaria not to promote annexation. Everyone is now going off half cocked predicting goodness knows what when the Government has not even adopted it and even if it did there would so many challenges in the Supreme Court that Moshiach would have arrived before we ever got a definitive ruling.
That I am entitled to something does not mean I am going to risk everything proving it by flying in the face of common sense. Half the world and his brother will break off diplomatic relations with Israel if it decided to annexe Judea and Samaria. Do you honestly think we are totally mad?
We have to acknowledge that Israel is not everybody's darling if it ever was. This is no small measure due to the campaign of orchestrated hatred aimed at it as neatly encapsulated on this website by the trolls who turn up time and again to accuse Israel of every wrong known to man and yet do absolutely nothing about the real wrongs in the world.
All the report does is to strengthen Israel's negotiating position. The threatened fall back if the Arabs again decide they want to miss an opportunity for statehood because it involves at a minimum an end of conflict agreement and the dropping of any so-called "right of return".


Advis3r

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 13:35

Rate this:

0 points

Zaheeryin I trust you will now do the honourable thing and apologise.


joshua789

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 13:50

Rate this:

0 points

Hannah is quite correct - those who are occupied should at least have been considered.
The correct thing to do - and a decision that would be welcomed around the world and especially by the Palestinians - would be to make The West Bank an independent Palestinian state. Jewish people should, if they choose, be able to live in Palestine with equal rights and equal security.
The alternative is aparthied, occupation or worse still ethnic cleansing.


Harvey

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 14:03

Rate this:

0 points

Joshua
What s preventing a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza .
It was there to be had at any time between 48 and 67 . What prevented their declaration of independence at the same time as Israel in 48 .
Why should an Israeli believe that a return to 67 borders is all that is required to see an irrevocable peace accord and an end to the conflict when the Palestinians themselves reject out of hand such a notion .
It's not about the West Bank , settlements , the status of Jerusalem or RoR .
It's about Israels existence and Palestinian refusal to accept it as a
Nation state in any form


joemillis1959

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 14:03

Rate this:

0 points

Advis3r, It's a red schmaltz herring not because of the reason you jumped to, but because you were not comparing like with like - migrants as opposed to indigenous population.
But to your most recent attempt: Citizenship would have to be given on the basis that it is given now. No one signs or swears to pledges of the nature you are proposing. The Supreme Court - and thank God for the Supreme Court - would strike down any attempt at forcing inequality. Just look how the government is trying to deal with a replacement for the Tal Law.


Advis3r

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 14:04

Rate this:

0 points

Joshua this was a legalistic exercise - do the Jews have a legal right to settle in Judea and Samaria? What would have been achieved in consulting the Palestinians whose official line is that Jews per se have no right to settle anywhere in the Land of Israel.
I go along fully with your second paragraph a pity that the Palestinians have already indicated that they would not allow a single Jew to live in their State. See for example http://www.advocate.com/politics/commentary/2011/10/12/op-ed-new-state-h...


Advis3r

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 14:13

Rate this:

0 points

Joe Millis right now unless you are entitled under the Law of Return to seek citizenship in Israel it is in the gift of the Government of Israel - this is the same the world over. If Israel ever took the step of extending sovereignty over Judea and Samaria anyone living there who was not entitled to citizenship under the Law of Return and wanted to be a citizen of Israel would be obliged to apply for it and like the UK Israel could impose conditions including an Oath of Alliegence.


joemillis1959

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 14:16

Rate this:

0 points

Advis3r, the 1.5 million non-Jewish citizens of Israel are not citizens because of the Law of Return, are they? The same would apply if Israel were to annex the occupied territories. Equality before the law, and all that.


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 14:21

Rate this:

0 points

Jose I was born in the UK and a citizen. I never had to swear anything not even to be a faithful, committed and unquestioning supporter of Hull City.

Are you saying that immigrant Jews or Jews born in the from the river to the sea Israel would be citizens but Arabs that were born there would have to apply and " qualify " by swearing all kinds of stuff ?

OK I re read. Of course you are saying that. Don't bother answering.


joshua789

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 14:29

Rate this:

-2 points

And anyway - the alternative is Apartheid or ethnic cleansing.


Advis3r

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 14:32

Rate this:

0 points

Millis the situation of the Arabs who were living in Israel in 1948 (there were not 1.5 million then) is somewhat different and even they were placed under restrictions which were only removed in 1966.
Tell me what country would grant unconditional citizenship to someone who openly calls for the destruction of the country offering him citizenship and has demonstrated a propensity for trying to achieve that aim?


joshua789

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 14:33

Rate this:

-2 points

There always seems to be a reason (and it's the Palestinian's fault of course) why Israel can't desist from occupation and Apartheid.

Just give the Palestinians the right to live free from occupation. Is that too much to ask?
Don't worry, you have enough guns and hate inside you to blow them all away if they 'dare' to get uppity.

The excuse that the Palestinians wish to bring an end to Israel doesn't stand true - especially in view of the fact that the Palestinian presence in Palestine is actually being eradicated.


joshua789

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 14:35

Rate this:

-2 points

'Tell me what country would grant unconditional citizenship to someone who openly calls for the destruction of the country . . . . '

But that is exactly what the settlers are doing to the Palestinians - calling for and implementing the destruction of the Palestinians, their livelihoods and their futures.


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 14:40

Rate this:

-2 points

"Tell me what country would grant unconditional citizenship to someone who openly calls for the destruction of the country offering him citizenship and has demonstrated a propensity for trying to achieve that aim?"

Every country in the world to those that were born there.

Whatever the consequences of my calling for the dismantlement of the UK and my propensity for trying to achieve it, denial of citizenship wouldn't be one of them.


joshua789

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 14:47

Rate this:

-2 points

That's a good point actually.

Citizenship isn't denied to those who attack the state. As far as I know the Red Brigades, the Baader Meinhoff etc retained their citizenship despite everything.

It still causes a grimace when settlers say that they are eliminating Palestinians through occupation and Apartheid for the good and safety of Israel. It's a bit too close to the rhetoric employed last century.


Advis3r

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 14:50

Rate this:

0 points

Joshua I do not understand your hostility. Israel does not want to blow away the Palestinians if it did it could have taken out the Hamas leadership long ago and with much justification.
The Arabs have over the years been offered a number of ways of solving this problem and they have failed to seize the opportunity every time. In 1970 before a single settlement had been set up Israel offered unconditional talks and all it got in response were the three "no"s of Khartoum: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.
I regret to say but in my own view the reason is because any Palestinian leader who signs a peace deal with Israel will be a marked man and his days will be numbered. You have only to see what became of Anwar Sadat to understand that.
That is why I believe Arafat refused even to make a counter offer to Barak and why Abbas waited until the ninth month of a tenth month settlement freeze before even deigning to begin negotiations.
Even if Israel was to withdraw every single Jew from Judea and Samaria in the same way as it did in Gaza no Palestinian leader would sit down with Israel to sign a peace agreement.
Ask yourself why is Abbas trying to circumvent everything by again threatening to go straight to the United Nations. In my view simply so that he does not have to sit down with Israel and be accused of being a traitor to his people.


Advis3r

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 15:00

Rate this:

0 points

"Citizenship isn't denied to those who attack the state."

You mean Palestinians especially those born there are entitled to citizenship in Kuwait, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria? I suggest you check.

I am not sure what you are talking about when you mention the Badermeinhoff Gang they were already citizens when they became terrorists.

"It still causes a grimace when settlers say that they are eliminating Palestinians through occupation and Apartheid for the good and safety of Israel"
Where did you get that from the deep recesses of your enfeebled mind? Who ever said that? Do you ever actually read what other posters comment on here?


joshua789

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 15:00

Rate this:

0 points

If Israel doesn't want to blow away the Palestinians why not just leave them alone?
Why not give them the West Bank and let them be?

The Palestinians have repeated that they will talk if the settlements stop. But Israel will not even do that!
I mean look at all the hysteria over the UNESCO recognition. If Israel was a fair minded democracy it would help the Palestinians instead of constantly scuppering every attempt they make to live unoccupied.

The Israelis don't want the UN to recognise Palestine because then the Palestinians would have access to international law. And then Israel would be f***ed.


joshua789

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 15:03

Rate this:

0 points

Shai Golden gets it correct:

…We’ve turned into a nation that shoots at nine-year-old children, that kicks them with a military boot and which doesn’t understand what the problem with that is. On the contrary: it believes that kicking a nine-year-old boy is just the precursor of what truly ought to be done to him…


Advis3r

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 15:13

Rate this:

0 points

Joshua you are writing things I have not said. We left them alone for eight years - we left them alone firing rockets into Sderot and the South of Israel until we had to take action before any more innocent civilians got killed. Fact.

At the request of Obama Netanyahu stopped settlement building for ten months (living where I do I can tell you it has been going on for a lot longer than that) to provide an incentive for peace talks. Even then Abbas refused to sit down and talk. Fact.

Israel wants a negotiated settlement as do all the Quartet and most of the Western democracies if not all of them. The only side seeking not have a negotiated settlement are the Palestinians and I have given you the reason why I think that is. Fact.


Advis3r

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 15:20

Rate this:

0 points

RRz do you ever actually think before you write:"Whatever the consequences of my calling for the dismantlement of the UK and my propensity for trying to achieve it, denial of citizenship wouldn't be one of them."

You were a citizen of the UK before you became a terrorist. Now tell me would the UK allow someone resident in the UK with known affiliations to al Quaida to become a citizen of the UK? the likelihood even if he was in the UK from childhood would be deportation.http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/04/15/man-can-be-deported-despite-living-in-uk-since-age-of-three/


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 15:52

Rate this:

-1 points

" Now tell me would the UK allow someone resident in the UK with known affiliations to al Quaida to become a citizen of the UK?"

If they were born on the land that the UK govt was sovereign over allow wouldn't arise. They would be citizens.

You tell us that non Jews that were born on the territory would have to " qualify " for citizenship but native born Jews and Jewish immigrants wouldn't.That is immigrants with the right ethnicity would have significantly more rights than the indigenous populace of the wrong ethnicity. You are a confessed Judeo fascist and advocate of an apartheid state between the river and the sea. We knew that already. Nothing more to be said. Move on.

I suggest we now leave him to bicker with himself. He won't be lonely he is used to it.


JC Webmaster

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 17:00

Rate this:

0 points

Comments for this page are now closed.


JC Webmaster

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 17:00

Rate this:

0 points

Comments for this page are now closed.

HANNAH WEISFELD ON TWITTER

    LATEST COMMENTS