December 30, 2009
Disputing occupation
I've often argued that by giving the Palestinians the final word on what an acceptable amount of land is to make peace effectively gives those against peace a veto over the whole "peace process." Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon makes a similar point and argues against the term "occupied territory," in an excellent op-ed. He concludes:
After the war in 1967, when Jews started returning to their historic heartland in the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, as the territory had been known around the world for 2,000 years until the Jordanians renamed it, the issue of settlements arose. However, Rostow found no legal impediment to Jewish settlement in these territories. He maintained that the original British Mandate of Palestine still applies to the West Bank. He said "the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan River, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors." There is no internationally binding document pertaining to this territory that has nullified this right of Jewish settlement since.And yet, there is this perception that Israel is occupying stolen land and that the Palestinians are the only party with national, legal and historic rights to it. Not only is this morally and factually incorrect, but the more this narrative is being accepted, the less likely the Palestinians feel the need to come to the negotiating table. Statements like those of Lady Ashton's are not only incorrect; they push a negotiated solution further away.
Posted by SoccerDad at December 30, 2009 6:15 AM
Hezbollah in passive voice
A cynical and mistrusted offer
Wapo: peace process succeeding because of the great work of the administration
Council speak 100610
Nyt: peace process failing despite the great work of the administration
Do we have enough regulations yet?
Iranian General: "US, Mossad played roles in 9/11 event"
Absolving arafat, ten years later
Rahm can't run? antisemites!
The politics of peace
If Israel has better title to the land, then why freeze Jewish communities there? If Israel has a legitimate claim, why have Israeli governments wanted to give nearly all of Yesha away? I have to raise these inconvenient questions because Danny Ayalon doesn't address them in his article.
Posted by: NormanF at December 30, 2009 2:20 PMThe title of the land is to those who own it .
Posted by: sass at December 30, 2009 4:31 PMThe title of the land is to those who own it .
Posted by: sass at December 30, 2009 4:31 PMAnd Jews had owned land in Judea and Samaria before they were thrown out by Jordan and their property confiscated.
Posted by: Laura at December 31, 2009 12:09 PMSo if a Palestinian Christian was to convert to Judaism he can then claim his right of ownership.
What about if a Jewish Arab was to convert to Islam, would that means he is not the decendant of the ancient hebrew people and now is a filthy raghead.
I wonder where all the Ethiopian Jews fit into all this?
Such a convientient law is Israels 'Law of Return'
You really don't make sense. They don't claim ownership simply because they are Jewish but because they actually bought the property.
Posted by: Laura at January 1, 2010 12:15 PMIt is simply because they are Jewish.
What about all those Palestinian refugees who once owned homes in Palestine , or what is now called Israel, who aren't allowed to return simply because they are the wrong religion?
All moral accountibility for the non jews , who were driven from their homes in 1948 and 1967, has been forgotton and has become a recognizable episode for the zionist Jews.
This is the main reason for Palestinian resistance but instead you believe that the Palestinian claims have been 'artifically and mischievously inspired' which is the fruit of 'unreasonable hatred' and that the Palestinians are not victims with a genuine grievance.
What about all those Jews who owned homes in Judea and Samaria before Jordan drove them out in 1949?
No, in fact the "palestinians" are not victims of a genuine grievance. Far from being victims, the "palestinian" culture is one of genocidal anti-Semitism. Through terrorist groups like hamas and backed by powers like Iran and much of the muslim world, they have been waging a genocidal war against the Jews of Israel. It is not statehood they seek, but the obliteration of Israel and an end to all Jewish cultural, religious and political life in Israel, as hamas states in its charter.
Posted by: Laura at January 2, 2010 11:51 AM