The New Republic

Israeli's are finding it difficult to build apartments on occupied land in violation of international law!! My heart goes out to them. Soon they may have to move off the choice land overlooking indigent palestinian villages. Excuse me, but I am tearing up.

- jnordlander

November 5, 2009 at 12:25am

Why is it accepted nearly everywhere that Jewish settlement anywhere in the West Bank would undermine prospects for a Palestinian state? Jewish settlements in Modiin and Illit do not take land from any Palestinian-settled areas and do not block movement between any Palestinian villages (at least not the would not also be blocked by Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor). So, how does that diminish in any way the prospects for a Palestinian state? There are settlements which are a hindrance to say the least to an emergent Palestinian state. For instance, the Eli-Yizhar corridor, and the roads connecting to the coast and the Jordan Valley, divide the Palestinian section of Samaria into four parts. Removing those settlements and combining the resulting area into one Palestinian area would create a perfectly viable territory for a Palestinian state. Not to say that there are no reasons for such a state to have more territory, just that such additional territory would not be necessary for viability.

- sighthnd

November 5, 2009 at 12:49am

That's the point we have reached now. If Israel will slow down its violation of international law [not to mention its violation of the 8th Commandment---thou shall not steal] the Palestinians should be motivated enough to pursue peace...seriously. Imagine, however, if your community had been taken over by outsiders with the help of, say, the international community. You struggle for years to regain your land...your property. X successfully fights you off though and in the process takes even more of your land. Then with the help of that self-same international community "generous compromises" are offered that give you virtually none of the land back but with promises that less might be taken in the future. Now, I don't necessarily accept this analogy because it is futile to pretend we can go back to the point before the communities were taken. You reach a point where the brutal injustice becomes so interwoven into human history it has to be accepted or you are in la la land. If nothing else the "human condition" is riven with apalling injustice. Right? On the other hand, I can certainly understand why those who actually had their land, communities, property etc. stolen from them might be less willing to accede to these generous compromises. george walton

- iambiguous

November 5, 2009 at 2:54am

That's the point we have reached now. If Israel will slow down its violation of international law [not to mention its violation of the 8th Commandment---thou shall not steal] the Palestinians should be motivated enough to pursue peace...seriously. Imagine, however, if your community had been taken over by outsiders with the help of, say, the international community. You struggle for years to regain your land...your property. X successfully fights you off though and in the process takes even more of your land. Then with the help of that self-same international community "generous compromises" are offered that give you virtually none of the land back but with promises that less might be taken in the future. Now, I don't necessarily accept this analogy because it is futile to pretend we can go back to the point before the communities were taken. You reach a point where the brutal injustice becomes so interwoven into human history it has to be accepted or you are in la la land. If nothing else the "human condition" is riven with apalling injustice. Right? On the other hand, I can certainly understand why those who actually had their land, communities, property etc. stolen from them might be less willing to accede to these generous compromises. george walton

- iambiguous

November 5, 2009 at 2:54am

Sarah A Topol = Because for some reason it appears to have escaped your attention I will remind you that it is a war crime under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention for any Israeli citizen to relocate to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. An Israeli moving into the Occupied Palestinian Territories is no different than a 1930s-era German moving into a once Jewish neighborhood in Germany. It is one thing for committed bigots like Frank Foer and Martin Peretz to support Israeli war crimes - it should be quite another for Sarah A. Topol, a freelance journalist based in Cairo, to do so. So what is it Sarah? Did you forget to mention it is a war crime or were you mendacious in not mentioning it? Furthermore - does RE/MAX really want to be associated with these war criminals?

- ndmackenzie

November 5, 2009 at 4:17am

sighthnd, yeah I agree. I have zero problem for any Israeli who legally purchases a plot of land from any Palestinian landowner and builds a home there. As long as they are willing to accept that their home will be part of a future Palestinian state, that is nobody's business. I have a home in Shanghai and one in Mexico. Screw anyone who thinks I am an imperialistic war criminal. My biggest concern is that the settlers won't accept this and expect that the land they are on is Israel, and then we will have a mess like we did before. I think that Israel would cede these lands for peace under something that approaches the deal that was offered back in 2000 so I think Netanyahu is being unjust most of all to the settlers, he is using them as a bargaining chip to pressure the US and the Palestinians. Strategically it might be a good move, but these people are the ones who will pay the price.

- blackton

November 5, 2009 at 11:47am

ndmac, so let me get this straight, you think Palestinians have the right of return and move into any part of Israel they want, to buy land, start businesses, etc. but Israelis have zero right to live in the West Bank? Right now, Israel has a large and vibrant Arab Israeli citizenship, but Palestine should have zero Jews, right? Oh wait, you would say Zionazis. Or as Walton would say, jewey jews. (I kid you not, he castigated someone for their "jewiness.") I am not saying Jews have the right to Palestinian citizenship, (as I am opposed to the "right of return") but good lord, if there is to ever be any hope of peace there has to be some level of free movement of goods, services, property, etc. between the two countries. If the Palestinians would forever renounce violence I am all for Palestinians working in Israel, as they did before they started blowing up buses full of school children. Calling people who simply want to have a home war criminals is crazy. ndmac, in the words of the immortal Shakespeare "if thou don't want to be bitch slapped, act ye not as a whiny bitch."

- blackton

November 5, 2009 at 12:01pm

ndmac, so let me get this straight, you think Palestinians have the right of return and move into any part of Israel they want, to buy land, start businesses, etc. but Israelis have zero right to live in the West Bank? As long as Israel is the recognized Occupying Power of the Palestinian Territories it is a war crime for Israel to transfer any of its citizens, regardless of religion, into the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Once the occupation is over there is nothing to stop any Israeli from buying property in the Palestinian Territories and moving there. That Israeli settlement is a war crime is wholly contingent on the occupation. This is totally different from blackton moving to China or Mexico because the United States is not the occupying power in either China or Mexico - and it is quite disingenuous (if not mendacious) of blackton to to claim that his situation is analogous to an Israeli moving to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Indeed, the Fourth Geneva Convention has no applicability when an Israeli buys a house in Lebanon or Jordan because they are not occupied by Israel. Calling people who simply want to have a home war criminals is crazy. No. What is crazy is people who think they can build a home in occupied territory in clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. What is crazy is that they expect a pass, because they are Jewish, from laws that affect all of us. If they want to live in Israel they should live in Israel - not the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

- ndmackenzie

November 5, 2009 at 1:33pm

I write these words from an office building on land stolen from Native Americans in the 17th century so my standing to contribute to this discussion may legitimately be questioned. But it might interest TNR readers ( and maybe even George- ND probably not so much) that that old Zionist extremist Jimmy Carter visited in July, 2009 with some settlers in precisely the area described in this article and after an exchange of views concluded that he could not envision a future in which these settlements do not stay in Israeli hands. See the (Beirut) DailyStar from July 15,2009, or the Jerusalem Post, as you like. This happens to conform with American policy, by the way and in more rational times the two sides negotiated about a trade-off for the lands to be incorporated into Israel- other areas will be given to the Palestinians. It all sounds like a pipe-dream just now. But the international law arguments leave this lawyer a little cold- more often the law bends to the reality rather than the other way around.

- ljrab

November 5, 2009 at 1:55pm

ljrab - Everyone understands that the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is two states based on the 1967 borders with small mutually-agreed exchanges of land. The problem with continued expansion of the so-called settlements is that they render this solution less and less viable. The owners and editors of this magazine have no interest in there ever being a viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

- ndmackenzie

November 5, 2009 at 2:19pm

blackton: I apparently was not clear in my original statement. The issue is what affects the viability of a Palestinian state. That effect depends not on whether the lands are possessed by Israel or just settled by Jews, but on what lands are settled. Keeping Modiin and Illit under Israeli sovereignty would not affect the viability of a Palestinian state, doing so with Eli and Yizhar will.

- sighthnd

November 5, 2009 at 2:37pm

ndmac: The first step to a viable solution is for the Palestinians to recognize that the Jews have a place in the Middle East other than as dhimmis. Once that happens the other obstacles to a Palestinian state will fade away. Unfortunately, the powers that be among the Palestinians promote themselves by asserting more forcefully than the next that the Jews have no such right and the Streichers among them have brainwashed the population to believe that the Jews have no rightful place in the Mideast. The owners and editors of this magazine merely want to change this circumstance before creating a Palestinian state given what a state that sees Jews as deserving of dhimmitude at best is likely to do.

- sighthnd

November 5, 2009 at 2:49pm

Topol's piece is a masterful example of how political correctness tends to be inversely proportional to factual correctness. I would expect to see this sort of journalistic intellectual dishonesty in the NY Times, not TNR. In the present instance, Topol's sins are mostly deliberate omissions (either that or she never visited Alon Shvut & wrote the piece from the comfort of her Cairo apartment), and a few sins of commission. By way of example: Alon Shvut, which is part of the Gush Etzion bloc, one of the large "settlement" blocs that even the anti-Semitic Jimmy Carter (by his own criteria; see here) admits will be retained by Israel. Alon Shvut is not situated between two Arab villages. To its south are the historic Kibbutz Gush Etzion and the community of Bat Ayin. To the west is (ex) Kibbutz Rosh Tzurim. To the north are the communities of El'azar and Neve Daniel (the latter where Jimmy Carter met with the leadership of the Gush Etzion Regional Council for "dialog" and whence he made he pronouncements on the future of Gush Etzion). To the east is the town (slated to become a city) of Efrata and Kibbutz Migdal Oz. There are a few Palestinian houses scattered in and around the above mentioned communities but the area is overwhelmingly Israeli. Indeed the combined populations of the Israeli communities in the region (including Efrat and the city of Beitar Illit which are separate administrative entities) is around 50,000. Furthermore, and perhaps most critically, the Gush Etzion region was settled by Jews in modern times starting in the late 1920's, i.e. well before the rise of the state. The first community to prove viable, Kibbutz Kfar Etzion was established in the early 1940's, and it was rapidly followed by three other kibbutzim -- Masu'ot Yitzchak, Revadim, and Ein Tzurim. The land upon which these four kibbutzim were built was PURCHASED in the 1930's along with additional land in the Gush Etzion region upon which formed the basis for the later communities mentioned above, as well as other communities in the Gush Etzion region. The Gush Etzion kibbutzim, located on a strategic point on the road between Hebron & Jerusalem, were attacked repeatedly after the 29 November 1947 and held out with essentially no reinforcements against much larger and better equipped forces, including (Trans)Jordan's famed & British trained & led Arab Legion throughout the winter of 47-48. During this period, the women and children were evacuated to Jerusalem. Ultimately the last stronghold, Kfar Etzion fell to the Arab Legion on the eve of Israeli Independence in 1948 and most of the remaining fighters who surrendered were massacred by the Arab Legionnaires and local irregulars. It is commonly known that Israel's Memorial Day falls on the day before its Independence Day. Often forgotten is that the day was selected in commemoration of the fall of Gush Etzion. Shortly after the 1967 6-Day War, the now grown children who were evacuated from Kfar Etzion in the winter of 47-48 returned to Kfar Etzion to re-establish the Kibbutz. The other communities were established mostly during the '70's and '80s, much if not mostly on land purchased either before 1948 or after 1967. Regarding the 4th Geneva Convention. The 4th convention was written after WW2 with the events of WW2 in mind. From the legislative history of the convention it is clear that intent of the "transfer" clause in Article 49 refers to the FORCIBLE transfer of a population into a captured area, like the Germans did throughout areas they captured. It has nothing to do with people moving voluntarily to an area, especially an area to which the "occupying power" has claims that pre-existed the conflict or if the land is purchased from its legal owners, if any. Hence the term "disputed territories" is a more accurate way to describe the so-called "West Bank" (a geographically nonsensical term invented by Jordan in the early 1950's). Keep in mind that the 1948 cease fire lines were NEVER recognized borders (the term "1967 Borders" is factually meaningless and its use reveals historical ignorance. At best.) at the insistence of the Arab states and the Eisenhower administration in the US. The idea that the "Transfer" clause of Article 49 could applied to Israelis communities (re)established over the 1949 cease-fire lines was concocted not long after 1967 by the International Red Cross, and organization which under Arab pressure, would not even allow Israel to become a member (until relatively recently). So to say that their judgement was biased is an understatement. One could argue that the "settlements" are a bad idea. Or not. One could argue that it would be worth it for Israel to give up some, many, or all of the "settlements" in exchange for a real peace agreement. One could also argue that the real issue is not the "settlements" but Israel's very existence (unless you define **ANY** Jewish presence west of the Jordan River, e.g. Tel Aviv, as a settlement, as is often done in the Arab press). This last hypothesis was actually tested empirically in an area once known as Gush Katif (which included at least one "settlement" that also pre-dated 1948). The hypothesis failed the test. Hershel Ginsburg Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

November 5, 2009 at 5:15pm

ijrab: I write these words from an office building on land stolen from Native Americans in the 17th century so my standing to contribute to this discussion may legitimately be questioned. gw: As I noted above: "it is futile to pretend we can go back to the point before the communities were taken." At the same time, however, I can well understand why Palestinians might not be able to go along with this. Again, human history is a veritable gusher of apalling crimes against humanity. If all we did was spend time trying to recompense for the past that would be the only thing we'd have time for in the present and the future. Wouldn't it? But the consequences of international "realpolitik" in 1948 isn't...necessarily...the same as what unfolded in the 18th and 19th century. Right? And whatever Jimmy Carter envisioned doesn't change the fact that Israel is stealing land that doesn't belong to it. Well, unless you count having the brute military power to call stealing something else. But than that just takes us back into the bowels of human history, doesn't it? So, why not just call it that: might makes right. Why the tortured logic of the psuedo-ethicists twisting the occupation into something it is not? But again: What would you do if it was your land taken, your community dissolved in 1948? A one size fits all international "legal" compact just won't fo for some folks over there. They may be fighting a futile battle, sure, but let's not pretend they don't have an ethical leg to stand on. Even native Americans still have that, right? george walton

- iambiguous

November 5, 2009 at 6:34pm

gw: "Why the tortured logic of the psuedo-ethicists twisting the occupation into something it is not?" So, if land is stolen an 1948 and then the heirs of those who had it taken from them retake it by force in 1967, it is pseudo-ethics to point out that what they are taking is only what had previously belonged to them. That is the only conclusion to be drawn from your disinterest in the fact that many of the settlements existed well before 1948 as Jewish habitations and only became Arab after the Jordanians expelled the Jews living there. In other words, ethnic cleansing is a crime, but once it's done and a few years have passed, it is also a crime to undo that ethnic cleansing. "But again: What would you do if it was your land taken, your community dissolved in 1948?" That's exactly what happened to the Jews of Gush Etzion. Why does that happening one way exercise your moral indignation but not the other?

- sighthnd

November 5, 2009 at 7:54pm

ginzy writes:

The 4th convention was written after WW2 with the events of WW2 in mind. From the legislative history of the convention it is clear that intent of the "transfer" clause in Article 49 refers to the FORCIBLE transfer of a population into a captured area, like the Germans did throughout areas they captured. It has nothing to do with people moving voluntarily to an area, especially an area to which the "occupying power" has claims that pre-existed the conflict or if the land is purchased from its legal owners, if any. Hence the term "disputed territories" is a more accurate way to describe the so-called "West Bank" (a geographically nonsensical term invented by Jordan in the early 1950's). (my emphasis)

The ICRC commentary on Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention clarifies that the truth is precisely the opposite of that claimed by ginzy:

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race. The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power. It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.

The point of Article 49 is not to protect the occupying population from forced transfer it is to protect the occupied nation from colonialization of the type Israel is practicing. ginzy needs some schooling in that commandment about not lying - and probably quite a few more. Every competent legal and political outside Israel regards the Palestinian Territories as occupied by Israel. Occupation denial is the great and central lie of Zionazism - a lie most frequently exhibited, as ginzy does, in the assertion that the Palestinian Territories are disputed. The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories is no more disputed than was the German occupation of Europe or the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait.

- ndmackenzie

November 5, 2009 at 8:53pm

of for heavens sake nd, give it a rest with your nonsense. I have never once seen a single post from you talking about real occupation throughout the rest of the world. Tibet? you never heard of it, Kosovo, the same, Chechnya, huh? Israel has done everything in its power to create a Palestinian state, it is because of people like you in the lunatic choir cheering on the Palestinians that it won't happen. You are responsible for every bit of misery that exists there. 1967 borders? yeesh, and then it will be 1948 borders, later it will be the Jews have a right to live in the Mediterranean sea. You have no goddamn idea what occupation means. Why are you filled with such hatred of jewish people? And when the hell are you ever, and I mean ever, going to write about the continuing occupation of Northern Ireland by the British? You are a Goddamn hypocrite.

- blackton

November 5, 2009 at 9:18pm

sight: So, if land is stolen an 1948 and then the heirs of those who had it taken from them retake it by force in 1967... gw: First, I would point out what happened in 1967 is open to a wide assortment of interpretations, isn't it? And I do not equate the Palestinians who did in fact lose their lands and their communities in 1948 with the vast and varied motives of Arab [mostly Arab] leaders in 1967. They are connected of course, but hardly in a straight line. Morally, for example. And to the extent that Jews back then were visited with this self-same "might makes right" curriculum, it doesn't change what hapened to the Palestinians. I'm neither "pro-Israel" nor "pro-Palestininian" here. I merely point out how both of these factions today love to con themselves into believing their own motivtion [their own narrative] is pure as the driven snow. But human history never really works that way, does it? Instead, most children are brainwashed into swallowing one or another cultural, ethnocentric narrative. And then as adults they rationalize every newspaper headline to fit into it. Or as "realists" they pretend to in order to embrace anything that will further their own narrow political andeconomic interests. Sorry, the "Jew-hating Nazi" narrative from The Spine is not really applicable at all to me. Instead, I expose the True Believers in MartyWorld for what they really are: Blindly self-deluded caricatures of a thinking human being. They embody the authoritarian mind-set of all Whole Truthers. Some are just more dangerous than others. george walton d/a

- iambiguous

November 5, 2009 at 9:37pm

Tibet One big difference between Tibet and the Palestinian Territories is that there are no high-profile, so-called liberal magazined supporting the Chinese occupation of Tibet in the way TNR does the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories it would be rightly derided. The blind, ignorant hate is all yours, blackton. The most pernicious and pervasive form of anti-semitism in the west is that which excuses Israeli war crimes because Israel is a Jewish state because doing so seeks to share the blame for these crimes among all Jews.

- ndmackenzie

November 5, 2009 at 9:38pm

Hey, I like this "view full comment" device. A suggestion please: Why not insert it at the very begin of each talkback post? That way folks like JD, noga, blackton et al don't even have to see any of the words I write. It will be the sort of "ignore" function they have been whining about for months now. Unless, of course, just seeing my name is enough to get them inconsolably riled. george

- iambiguous

November 5, 2009 at 9:42pm

gw: Instead, most children are brainwashed into swallowing one or another cultural, ethnocentric narrative. And then as adults they rationalize every newspaper headline to fit into it. Try looking in the mirror. Okay, the narrative in your case is not cultural or ethnocentric in nature, but it is a narrative that is similarly not susceptible to facts. In your case, it is the assertion that those who defend any actions that Israel does that do not meet with your approval are colonialist racists out to exterminate the Palestinian people. There are Zionists who fit that mold, but for the most part Zionists limit the extent to which they accept the narratives and outright reject parts of it. Instead, I expose the True Believers in MartyWorld for what they really are: Blindly self-deluded caricatures of a thinking human being. They embody the authoritarian mind-set of all Whole Truthers. Let's set some things straight. There are many ways in which Israel restricts the societal freedom of the Palestinians, which even Peretz recognizes and occasionally laments. The difference is that Peretz recognizes that many of the societal freedoms, if granted, could become tools with which to implement sovereignal freedom. Sometimes the capacity to do so is limited, but it is a real risk. However, all of this is irrelevant to you as all that is important is that Peretz ends up advocating maintaining the restrictions on societal freedom. Your lumping protection against the exercise of sovereignal freedom with restriction of societal freedom for purposes of lording ones superiority puts you in the same category of those who casually hurl the epithet "Jew-hater" or anything specific.

- sighthnd

November 5, 2009 at 10:56pm

gw [original post]: Instead, most children are brainwashed into swallowing one or another cultural, ethnocentric narrative. And then as adults they rationalize every newspaper headline to fit into it. sight: Try looking in the mirror. george: I never exclude myself from my own existential narrative. Yes, of course: how I see the world today is going to be predicated in part on how I was taught to view the world around me growing up. And, in turn, on all the unique, personal experiences [and relationships] that nudged me one way rather than another. My point however has always been to suggest this is applicable to all of us. And if it is what can we extrapolate from it? Well, we can begin to grasp there is no optimal or essential narrative about anything as enormously complex as "the birth of Israel". And from this we can pull back from all the conflicting and contradictory Whole Truths from all the conflicting and contradictory True Believers who insist there is. Their own, of course. But let me guess: All "the facts" here confirm your narrative? For example, this "fact" from you: those who defend any actions that Israel does that do not meet with your approval are colonialist racists out to exterminate the Palestinian people. That's a fact right? No more or no less than this technology I use to express it. Hard cold facts about me that are simply irrefutable. And gee, how would I go about even trying to refute them since this is for all intents and purposes Who I Am. I may as well try to prove I am not an anti-Semitic Nazi Jew hater. GW [original post]: Instead, I expose the True Believers in MartyWorld for what they really are: Blindly self-deluded caricatures of a thinking human being. They embody the authoritarian mind-set of all Whole Truthers. sight: Let's set some things straight. There are many ways in which Israel restricts the societal freedom of the Palestinians, which even Peretz recognizes and occasionally laments. george: In my opinion [and that's all it is...and subject always to change] Peretz is bigot. His hatred for Arabs and all those who refuse to toe his hardcore Zionist line could not possibly be more glaring given his posts over the past year. I start there with him and so I don't take any of his posts about Israel seriously. Now, I'm not saying this is a fact about him. I'm saying bigotry and a blind adherence to his own rabidly authoritarian Whole Truth is what seems [to me] to be his prime directive in The Spine. Societal freedom? Sovereignty? Okay, what are the facts here? Are they only in line with Peretz's take on the Palestinians or do some of the facts align themselves with the Palestinians too? And how does this constellation of facts serve to rationalize the Israeli policy of subsidizing Israeli citizens who move onto more and more Palestinian land in the West Bank? Again, in violation of both international law and the 8th Judaic commandment. george walton j

- iambiguous

November 6, 2009 at 3:58am

gw: "In my opinion [and that's all it is...and subject always to change] Peretz is bigot. His hatred for Arabs and all those who refuse to toe his hardcore Zionist line ..." Peretz does not hate people for being Arabs nor does he adhere to a "hardcore Zionist line." Peretz has made clear in several places that he does not believe that Israel should hold every square inch of Judea and Samaria because it is the Jewish people's birthright, just that for any parcel of that territory, the fact of Jordan's conquest of those territories in 1948 should not mean that they should be permanently judenrein. What does set Peretz off is the whitewashing of any malign expressions of intent by Fatah and anything else that would indicate that concessions to the Palestinian powers that be would be used as a springboard from which to attack pre-1967 Israel. Your disinterest in those considerations and insistence that the only possible motivation is a racist desire for domination is as odious as any degree of racism you accuse Peretz of. gw: "Societal freedom? Sovereignty?" There was an article some time ago in TNR on personal freedom and sovereignal freedom in which personal freedom was the right to do anything which does not impinge on others freedoms while sovereignal freedom is the ability to disregard someone else's freedoms. My use of the term societal freedom is meant to apply to societies what the term personal freedom means to individuals. gw: "or do some of the facts align themselves with the Palestinians too?" There are some facts that align with the Palestinians. I would say that they have the right to live where they are, to control the land connecting there settlements and to conduct the major functions of international relations from that territory. I have not seen anything that would indicate that Peretz does not agree with this. Is it racist to believe that the Palestinians are not automatically entitled to anything more than this (though there might be good reason to give them more anyway)? If so, what entitles them to more other than the fact the Jordan conquered the land in 1948? gw: "And how does this constellation of facts serve to rationalize the Israeli policy of subsidizing Israeli citizens who move onto more and more Palestinian land in the West Bank? Again, in violation of both international law and the 8th Judaic commandment." I'll repeat, if you showed up with an armed gang and threw me out of my house and then I came back ten years later to reclaim my house, would you call that theft. In many cases, such as the Gush Etzion bloc, that is exactly what is happening. I think that settlements that impinge on what I think should be the Palestinians' entitlement should be dismantled, anything else, it's just a matter of what Jordan conquered in 1948.

- sighthnd

November 6, 2009 at 12:44pm

sight: Peretz does not hate people for being Arabs nor does he adhere to a "hardcore Zionist line." Peretz has made clear in several places that he does not believe that Israel should hold every square inch of Judea and Samaria because it is the Jewish people's birthright... gw: Yes, I recall 6 or 7 months ago congratulating Marty for drawing the line against Israel "holding every square inch of Judea and Samaria". Have you been reading his posts since? If with a straight face you can tell us Peretz, railing over and again about the unwashed, uncivilized Arabs, does not express the taunting, denigrating perspective of a bigoted point of view how can I one take you seriously at all? Even today he can't help but point out the "Arab dress" that Muslim jihadist Nidal Hasan wore. What are the fact there? Who cares! He is a jihadi muslim dressing like an Arab. sight: What does set Peretz off is the whitewashing of any malign expressions of intent by Fatah and anything else that would indicate that concessions to the Palestinian powers that be would be used as a springboard from which to attack pre-1967 Israel. Your disinterest in those considerations and insistence that the only possible motivation is a racist desire for domination is as odious as any degree of racism you accuse Peretz of. george: This is such a blatant caricature of my point of view only JD and noga will recognize it as the gospel truth. I have made it clear over and again that I oppose any and all Palestinian forces that refuse to accept the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign nation. I also condemn any and all attempts to link the Palestinian plight to Islamism or religious fanaticism of any sort. I merely point out that I can never really grasp their plight because it was not my plight so I can understand why they might reject my own arguments in turn. I don't have a disinterest in those considerations. I simply refuse to believe that Peretz [or your own] interest in this is the final word on it. sight: There was an article some time ago in TNR on personal freedom and sovereignal freedom in which personal freedom was the right to do anything which does not impinge on others freedoms while sovereignal freedom is the ability to disregard someone else's freedoms. My use of the term societal freedom is meant to apply to societies what the term personal freedom means to individuals. gw: No one has ever written an article anywhere which clearly delineates where "sovereignal freedom" of the state ends and "personal freedom" of the individual begins. Instead we have all these different cultures worshipping all these different Gods and political icons [ideologies] telling us that only they know where this crucial line is to be drawn. And, most crucially, these transactions always unfold within the context that ever includes the relationship between might and right. Do you honestly believe with respect to Israel and Palestine [and with respect to Israelis and Palestinians], we can set out to capture the most rational, the most ethical, the most politically correct "facts" here? And they are? But still, again, I have always pointed out the Israelis live in a far more democratic political environment. So their approach to this vital relationship between "I" and "we" and "them" is governed more by the rule of law and thus, in my view, is far superior to the more despotic Palestinian agendas. sight: There are some facts that align with the Palestinians. I would say that they have the right to live where they are, to control the land connecting there settlements and to conduct the major functions of international relations from that territory. I have not seen anything that would indicate that Peretz does not agree with this. george: What does it really mean for someone to embrace this when he holds those who might embrace it along side Israel in such utter contempt? sight: Is it racist to believe that the Palestinians are not automatically entitled to anything more than this (though there might be good reason to give them more anyway)? If so, what entitles them to more other than the fact the Jordan conquered the land in 1948? george: I agree that given the consolidated reality of the past 60 years the Palestinians should accept a two state solution based roughtly on the 1967 borders. I'm just suggesting their interpretation of all this will not necessarily coincide with mine or yours. All I've seen from Peretz so far however is this disdain for anything they made suggest that does not coincide precisely with his own historical chronology. And his own interpretation of what this existential trajectory means. gw [original post]: "And how does this constellation of facts serve to rationalize the Israeli policy of subsidizing Israeli citizens who move onto more and more Palestinian land in the West Bank? Again, in violation of both international law and the 8th Judaic commandment." sight: I'll repeat, if you showed up with an armed gang and threw me out of my house and then I came back ten years later to reclaim my house, would you call that theft. In many cases, such as the Gush Etzion bloc, that is exactly what is happening. I think that settlements that impinge on what I think should be the Palestinians' entitlement should be dismantled, anything else, it's just a matter of what Jordan conquered in 1948. george: Whether it was the Jordanians or the Israelis or the realpolitik of the international community dividing up the Middle East after decades of colonial rule hundreds of thousands of Palestinians got uprooted and tossed on their asses somewhere they didn't want to be. What should be done about that? And is everything always everyone else's fault. Israel and Zionism are basically the good guys in all this? george walton

- iambiguous

November 6, 2009 at 10:45pm