Boycotting the Israeli Academy

[Violet_Crumble]

Calls for the boycott of Israeli academic institutions have generated a great deal of controversy in some quarters, notably among Israeli academics and their supporters in Europe and the United States. The Palestinian voice, the voice of the Palestinian academy and of Palestinian public intellectuals, has not been heard in the raging debates about the boycott. I hope to be able to address some of the frequently raised objections to the boycott, and in so doing, to clarify how we view things from our vantage point in the Palestinian academy.1



The boycott movement was not initiated by Palestinians, although it has widespread support among Palestinian academics. The initial call was made in the UK in April 2002, at the height of the Israeli assault upon Palestinian cities and towns. During this assault, Palestinian governmental and civil institutions--including schools and universities--sustained tremendous losses, ranging from the destruction of facilities and infrastructure to the severe curtailment of operations as a result of long curfews, army raids, and the system of checkpoints that continues to this day. The British initiative was not a call for a blanket boycott of the Israeli academic community, but was a restricted call for a moratorium on European research and academic collaboration with Israeli institutions.2



This call for a moratorium was followed by other initiatives in Europe, Australia, and the US (in the US, divestment campaigns have been the main form of activism). In August 2002, a group of Palestinian organizations in the occupied territories, including the Palestinian NGO Network, issued a statement calling for a comprehensive boycott of Israel, including a boycott of academic and cultural institutions. This was followed in October 2003 by a statement by Palestinian academics and intellectuals in the occupied territories and in the diaspora calling for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.3

<snip>

In short, it is clear that the Israeli academy--as an institution--has failed miserably in upholding the ethical principles which the status of its members as scholars and intellectuals demands of them. As such, we believe that academics have no special immunity, and cannot be treated differently from Israeli workers, growers, businesspeople, and manufacturers negatively affected by economic and trade boycotts. I am mentioning these sectors in particular since for some left-leaning Israeli academics, economic and trade boycotts are understandable and perhaps even permissible, while academic boycotts are regarded as immoral and self-defeating. But we believe that Israeli academics have not as a group distinguished themselves as fighters for the cause of justice. I may add that some of them, admittedly a handful, are supportive of sanctions and boycotts against their institutions, and are aware that the funding for their research and the training of their students will be hurt by the withdrawal of outside funding. It should also be made clear here that we know of many Israeli scholars and intellectuals who have devoted their life work to the struggle against the occupation. We encourage all Palestinians and their supporters to work with these courageous individuals.


http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=6073%20

[Gimel]

1. No consideration

for the innocents hurt by these measures. It's a violation of human rights.

Israeli workers, growers, businesspeople, and manufacturers negatively affected by economic and trade boycotts.

Clearly collective punishment, similar to suicide attacks where the bomber doesn't care who he kills or maims.

[Classical_Liberal]

2. Except nobody is killed or maimed, and Israel has democratic

structure much like Apartheid, so the politicians there will likely be thrown out of office and replaced with better people, before any serious consequences are felt. This is very unlike Cuba and Iraq where the leadership didn't have any consituancy to demand change, so the strategy will work better there.

Isrel doesn't have much of a right to complain about collective punishments given the wall, the settlers, and the bulldozings. If the wall is just an inconvenience so is this.

[IA_Seth]

3. Your Suggestion?

And what exactly then would you have those that oppose do?

Sanctions/Boycotts are the ONLY civil way to handle this. Resolutions do not work, as Israel will only refuse to recognize them.

[Gimel]

21. Similarly

the wall/fence is a non-violent way to stop terrorism. I would think people should recognize that. It is an inconvenience, but over time the route can be changed, as I've often said in my posts over the past several months. It is not immovable. Once terror is down, consideration for personal grievances can be made.

I remind you, that like sanction, the fence doesn't kill anyone. If you object to the fence, you can't also promote sanctions.

[Djinn]

69. Since when do you have a problem with collective punishment

destroying the houses in an entire street because someone who committed a violent act once lived in ONE of them. 1500 people incarcerated without charge because they are in SOME way connected to someone who has been charged. Shooting MISSILES into crowds.

Need I go on????

[geek tragedy]

4. Blah blah blah blah blah.

Hundreds of repressive governments. Only one has its scholars boycotted.

Blah blah blah blah.

These boycotts have much less to do with loving the Palestinians as an outright hatred of Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

5. So, Ilan Pappe hates Israel??

You know that he, as well as other Israeli academics, were fully supportive of an academic boycott? I don't know if boycotts against South Africa involved an academic boycott, but I guess if there had been, the same silly response of 'hundreds of repressive governments. Only one has its scholars boycotted' would have been thrown around. What you should take note of is that I'm not particularly impressed with the idea of an academic boycott, and probably after Ilan Pappe's visit, even less so. If there was a boycott happening, I'm assuming that the Ilan Pappe lecture I went to this week would never have happened, and voices like his need to be heard. The Israeli govt and its supporters would love nothing better than to have their voices stifled, and a boycott would play right into their hands...

Having said that, I'm becoming more and more convinced that diplomatic and economic sanctions should happen if the US won't get off its butt and do what's needed to pull Israel into line - which is merely to warn that it's going to cut off funding to Israel if it keeps on ignoring international law...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

6. huh?

The US is supposed to "pull Israel in line" for "ignoring international law!?!" We violate international law! We are supposed to cut funds to a country that would be overrun (at least attempts would be made) by hostile neighbors?! Why should Israel be held to a higher standard than the US?! We both have hawks in office, but, unlike Israel, we don't have neighboring countries threatening us at the drop of a hat!

[Andromeda]

7. Good post.

:toast:

[Violet_Crumble]

8. You don't think a Kerry administration would be any different than Bush?

Well, d'uh. I'm more than aware that the US violates international law in a spectacular manner. I'd be hoping that a Kerry administration would start to change on that front, but maybe I'm the only person who thinks that....

Why should Israel be allowed to get away with things that other states shouldn't? That neigbouring countries excuse is incredibly lame, btw, considering Israel's in the habit of not just threatening its neighbours, but invading them. Egypt and Jordan both have peace-treaties with Israel, and as for the rest, where's the military threat?

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

9. not sure what you are saying....but here I go!

I am not sure why you titled your response ""You don't think a Kerry administration would be any different than Bush?"." Did I mention Kerry or Bush, for that matter? I think Kerry, no, I KNOW, Kerry will be a vast improvement. But since the Kerry administration is not in power, it is a 'red herring.' I am glad to see you feel Kerry will make a difference, in that we agree!

Why should Israel get away with things? They shouldn't. Any more than the US should, or any other country (or entity) for that matter. As for my "lame excuse," I think you are way off! If the US was under constant threat, we would be very defensive. Hell, we have a fence with the border of Mexico and we are not at war with them! As for border countries, I seem to recall that no treaty exists with Lebanon nor Syria! I also seem to recall both those nations have made attacks on the state of Israel and have harbored terrorist organizations from Israeli prosecution. The fact is that the country doesn't even have to border Israel for it to spew hate on the nation. Iraq lobbed scuds into Israel during "Desert Storm" without provocation. Israel didn't respond at the request of the US. Do you think the US would have acted the same if Cuba had lobbed missiles at us while engaging an ally (say, the UK) was attacking them? We would have bombed the island into the sea!

The fact is the surrounding nations hate Jews and they hate that Israel exists! Some of them refuse to recognize the state! The only reason they do not attack Israel is because she can defeat them in war!

[Violet_Crumble]

10. What I was saying...

Considering the election is coming up soon, and it's looking increasingly like Kerry is going to win, I don't think that's a red herring at all. Whether or not he'll threaten sanctions or ceasing foreign aid to Israel is another matter, but I suspect the mere threat of cutting foreign aid would see an immediate change of tune from the Israeli govt. And that would be a much more preferable way to get some changes happening than universal economic and diplomatic sanctions, imo...

Sorry, but I'm not way off. You seem to have missed the point that Israel threatens to, or makes attacks on neighbouring states, and has little to no respect for their sovereignty. So why, if yr saying that Israel feels threatened, don't you think other states have a right to feel threatened when Israel unleashes aggression on them?

Okay, if the tensions between Israel and Arab states is simply rampant anti-Semitism, then why did the Arab states offer to normalise diplomatic relations with Israel as part of an attempt to resolve the I/P conflict? Why has Syria been involved in negotiations with Israel if the whole thing's about hating Jews? Using the same sort of logic, I guess Israel hates Arabs and they hate that Arab-Muslim states exist. I no more believe that than I believe what you said about the Arab states. I kind of have a niggling feeling that if there's anything they hate and react against, it's what they see as an oasis of Western colonialism shoved right in their faces. After all, the Western powers did a pretty good job of exploiting the region....

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

26. follow up

I agree that a new US administration could see changes in the region. It would be wonderful to see a peaceful region.

Israel has a right to keep its borders secure and safe. This means they do not have to tolerate attacks on its citizens and cities. The Israeli government has not invaded any of its neighbors, it has fought to keep them out!

The Arab nations are very anti-Jewish. They make no bones about that! Those willing to "negotiate" in order to "resolve" the I/P issue only do so if something is in it for them. Syria is a good case. They do not want normal relations with Israel, only limited contact and their negotiations have nothing to do with the I/P situation, only the Golan Height's! The fact is that 5 Arab nations invaded Israel within hours of it being declared a state. The battles have continued to the present day.

As for Western colonialism, I agree that all the Middle East is tired of that, look at our warm reception in Iraq. However, Israel is a Middle Eastern state, not a Western one.

[Darranar]

11. Prescience is a rather useful gift...

unfortunately, it seems rather rare, so I would like to know how, exactly, you "know" that Kerry will be a vast improvement.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. crystal ball...kidding

Well, let's say I do have the gift of "prescience" then I would be unable to tell you "exactly" how I know. :)

Since I don't have that gift, I made my assertions based on my feelings that someone with Kerry's background and diplomacy will be a vast improvement over our current administration. So, perhaps I don't "know" for sure, but that is sure how I feel.

[Darranar]

24. Fair enough. n/t

[Classical_Liberal]

14. Israel is in no danger of being overrun by its neighbors

none what so ever. Futhermore, making Israel comply would be a step in the right directions since there lawbreakers and ours are of one mind.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. I tend to disagree

At this time, there is no "clear and present" danger. What I was saying is that if funds were cut, aggressive moves might be taken against Israel. Because the US is seen as a strong ally to Israel, other nations are not as willing to make a move. But, if that support seemed to wain, it could open a whole new can of worms.

Again, how do we "make" Israel comply with international law, when we don't!? This concept basically sounds like a parent and child relationship where the parent says "do as I say, not as I do!" I don't know that will be very effective reasoning in international politics.

[Classical_Liberal]

19. Our past violations are water under the bridge if you are referring to

Iraq, and the forces that support the settlers in this country are the exact same people who pushed for Iraq. These forces would be fundamentalist Christians and neoconservatives. Making Israel comply would actually do much toward turning America into a law abiding nation. There is no can of worms to open. Israel isn't threatened by it's neighbors even without American aid. If American aid were cut off, it wouldn't be able to afford the frivolity of the settlements however, and it would have to get out of the west bank. I don't believe Israel's actions are security related. Their actions are primarily to support the settlers on the West Bank. They had peace through out the 90s and never even froze the settlements.

[Gimel]

25. No one wants open warfare

The Americans have been working on the diplomatic angle over the past 4-5 years with Syria, to reduce the threat from Lebanon and Syria. Iran has been threatening as of today, and of course you forgotten Iraq already which did sent 39 scud missiles attacking Israel. Lebanon has not been completely neutralized. The Palestinians have sent shipments of armaments from Iraq oar Iran that have been intercepted (the Karen A for one]. The tunnels bringing armaments into Israel from Egypt have been operating even as Israel has tried to locate and close them.

Israel isn't threatened by it's neighbors even without American aid.

Only Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but that is more than enough. Israel knocked out Iraq's nuclear development facilities, and it's a good thing, too.

[Classical_Liberal]

28. There is no threat from Lebanon and Syria.

Israel invaded the Lebanon and hasn't had any trouble with them since they left. Iran is developing nuke because they are on the PNAC agenda after Iraq. Iraq only threatened Israel with scuds during the first Gulf war because it is viewed as a client of America. Furthermore the scuds proved to be a pretty insignificant threat, and caused few real casualties. Hardly civilization destroying.

The Palestinians received small rocket shipments from Iran. So what? The Palestinians wouldn't be using those missiles or needing them if Israel were out of the West Bank. Israel also created the conflict with Syria through the occupation of the Golan.

Israel has largely provoked it's own security threats because of its aggressive behavior.

If Israel hadn't invaded Lebanon there would be no problems with the Lebanese. There haven't been any problems with the Lebanese since Israel left except some reactions to illegal Israeli flyovers.

If Israel would get out of the Golan there would be no problem with Syria.

Israel wouldn't have a problem with Iran if it hadn't been gungho on Iraq, and if it's ideologists here in America weren't similarly gungho about invading Iran.

[Gimel]

53. There are two sides to every coin

Your analysis is far from universally accepted, even in US liberal circles.

[Classical_Liberal]

54. Establishment liberals maybe, but not the American people.

US liberals aren't liberals by the standards of most countries, basically because both parties have to raise campaign funds from private interests. This means we are dominated by emotional minorities and corporations. Our system of democracy is deeply corrupt because of this, and those circles don't represent the views of the majority of actual Americans who would like a change in our policy toward Israel. Most Americans would like National Health Insurance but the democrats gave that up too.

[Gimel]

56. Do you have any references

links or credible quotations to back up that claim?

[Classical_Liberal]

58. Yes

According to a new Zogby International Poll commissioned by the Washington-based Council for the National Interest “half of all likely American voters agree that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry ‘should adopt an entirely new policy, different from the present administration, towards Israel.’ The poll, conducted during the Democratic Convention, showed that 51% of likely voters somewhat or strongly agreed that a policy change was necessary. Only 34% strongly or somewhat disagreed. The number who supported Kerry adopting a new policy towards Israel was even higher among Democrats: 70% of Democrats, Kerry’s voter base, supported such a change.” It has also been reported that 90% of Democratic Convention delegates did not support the war in Iraq.

http://www.world-crisis.com/analysis_comments/629_0_15_0_C

For national health insurance and single payer even.

Today the physicians’ group was “pleased but not surprised” that public support for a “universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that’s run by the government and financed by taxpayers” is high and rising rapidly. By a 2:1 margin (62 percent to 32 percent), an ABC News - Washington Post Poll released today found that the public favors national health insurance to “the current health insurance system, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance”...........

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/october/majority_of_american.php

[Gimel]

60. Half is not "most"

Also, it does not specify what that "new policy" might be, just "different". Not very enlightening.

Good luck with a universal health insurance program. It should help the underprivileged.

[Classical_Liberal]

62. Half is the majority and it is unlikely we will get National Health

inurance so long as we are warfare state.

[The Magistrate]

65. That Is Indeed The Point, Ms. Gimel

Here in the U.S. people always want something "new", and are not to much concerned with what that is. People who believe the "new' thing "everybody wants" is just what they themselves want encounter very frequent disappointments.

It is probably true most people here want some serious engagement towards a negotiated peace in this question by the U.S. government. It is probably quite untrue many here people want a cessation of U.S. support for the Israel in its continuing conflict with the various armed bodies of Arab Palestine, or quarrel with the proposition the leading cause of the trouble there is Arab hostility towards Israel.

[Gimel]

23. The Arab League

made a "peace offer" that stipulated that Israel MUST let the neighboring states over run it. That is what they call "the right of return".

Of course, Israel has since 1948 built cities on sand dunes, farm land on swaps, and turned the desert land into usable soil. So it is not at all the same country, but Palestinians claim they have 9 million in diaspora.

[Classical_Liberal]

29. Since you consider the West Bank Israel as stated in another post

the right of return to the rest of the country is a completely reasonable expectation along with full citizenship rights.

Anyway the Arab league accepted the Oslo, the Saudi proposal and Geneva. What they said a long time ago is pretty irrelevant.

Your last paragraph makes no sense at all. So what if Israelis have more money to develop land.

Israelis have received massive subsidies from many Western countries to do precisely that. They aren't more virtuous because they have more money.

[Gimel]

47. I don't

Currently large portions of the WB are under Palestinian jurisdiction. It is not yet a sovereign state, but it is not Israel either.

Israelis did not develop the land with "massive subsidies". Your history is quite off. I am not claiming "virtue" in a moral sense, but land that is reclaimed from waste land and was not previously inhabited, cannot be claimed under any "Right of Return".

Also, the Arab Summit proposal was made in 1996, and after Oslo. It was not so long ago.

[Classical_Liberal]

50. Even your ally Benny Morris admits the land was inhabited by Arabs

and the Palestinians on the West Bank are their descendents. The rest is just incoherance. You claim it was part of Israel. When was it ever deemed part of Israel. Oh the bible said it was. Oh but the Palestinians are free to make a state on the parts of biblical Israel that Israel didn't settle squatters on.

Yeah that make sense.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. The Arab Summit stipulated nothing of the sort...

Here's a link to the peace plan. Go ahead and point out where it stipulates that 'Israel MUST let the neigbouring states over run it.'

The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session,

Reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government,

Having listened to the statement made by his royal highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which his highness presented his initiative calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel,

Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighbourliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity.

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organisations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For purposes of comparison, the following is an earlier draft discussed by Arab foreign ministers on 25 March, 2002, in advance of the summit:

The Council of the Arab League, which convenes at the level of a summit on March 27-28, 2002 in Beirut, affirms the Arab position that achieving just and comprehensive peace is a strategic choice and goal for the Arab states.

After the Council heard the statement of Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz in which he called for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel, and that Israel declares its readiness to withdraw from the occupied Arab territories in compliance with United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 and Security Council resolution 1397, enhanced by the Madrid conference and the land-for-peace principle, and the acceptance of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state with al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital, the Council calls on the Israeli government to review its policy and to resort to peace while declaring that just peace is its strategic option.

The Council also calls on Israel to assert the following:

Complete withdrawal from the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including full withdrawal from the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and the remaining occupied parts of south Lebanon to the June 4, 1967 lines.
To accept to find an agreed, just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees in conformity with Resolution 194.
To accept an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian lands occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and with Jerusalem (al-Quds al-Sharif) as its capital in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1397.
In return, the Arab states assert the following:

To consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over and to enter into a peace treaty with Israel to consolidate this.
To achieve comprehensive peace for all the states of the region.
To establish normal relations within the context of comprehensive peace with Israel.
The Council calls on the Israeli government and the Israelis as a whole to accept this initiative to protect the prospects of peace and to spare bloodshed so as to enable the Arab states and Israel to coexist side by side and to provide for the coming generations a secure, stable and prosperous future.

It calls on the international community with all its organisations and states to support the initiative.

The Council calls on its presidency, its secretary general and its follow-up committee to follow up on the special contacts related to this initiative and to support it on all levels, including the United Nations, the United States, Russia, the European Union and the Security Council.

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm

I've bolded the bit that you may think is stipulating the overrunning of Israel by neighbouring states. And I went and took a look at Resolution 194 to see where it's stipulating that Israel MUST let the neigbouring states overrun it. Would this be the bit?

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid or the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad171.htm

I'm a little bit confused as to how the RIGHT of Return that applies to refugees who fled or were expelled during war is being read as some sort of right for neighbouring States to overrun Israel....

Violet...

[Gimel]

35. There was a partition plan

Some of the Arabs accepted it. Others wanted to regroup for battle. Some preferred an Arab state as opposed to one governed by Jews. Whatever their reasons for leaving, it does not automatically assume right of return. That was the plan of some of them, and they are trying to accomplish it by any means possible. "Over run" may not be the working of the Arab League text, but that has always been the intention.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Refugees from war ARE automatically given right of return...

That right is not dependent on how any particular state behaves, Gimel. But, yes. Isn't it absolutely appalling and totally unreasonable that Palestinian refugees and the international community think that they're entitled to a right of return. Why are you so opposed to the concept of acknowledging that they are entitled to a right of return? Does that also mean yr totally opposed to them being financially compensated for their physical losses, and opposed to an Israeli acknowledgment that they do have even a symbolic right of return, which could go a long way to compensating them emotionally?

'May not be the wording'???? I posted the entire document for you to read. Nowhere in that document did it stipulate what you claimed it did. And yr going to have to explain how individuals wanting to exercise their right of return either physically or by compensation turns into neigbouring states overrunning Israel. They're REFUGEES, Gimel, many of whom are stateless. Am I missing something here?

Violet...

[Gimel]

Property loss

That is another issue, and I never indicated that I opposed it. In fact, I recall supporting it several times on this board. The Israeli government also supports it.

They are not stateless. Their country is recognized by the International Olympic organization committee and they are participating, remember?

The Jews were stateless. You continue to thrust aside the right of the Jews to a state. You say that Israel does not have a right to build a fence across the Green Line, yet you claim there is no Palestinian state. Very contradictory.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Wrong...

The Israeli govt is opposed to financial compensation for the Palestinian Refugees....

So frigging what if the Palestinians have a team in the Olympics?? Most Palestinians are stateless. That's why they travel on UN documentation, rather than having citizenship and passports of a country...

How on earth can you claim that the Palestinians aren't stateless and then turn around and in the next sentence claim the Jews were stateless? And how does that in any way negate the blatantly obvious fact that Palestinians are a stateless people?

No, I've never 'thrust aside' the rights of Jews to a state. It may appear that way to some because I don't embrace the Eretz Israel expansionist and extremist vision that unfortunately a small but loud segment of Israeli society have decided means a support of the right of Israel to exist. I've explained many times before that Israel not only has a right to exist within well-defined boundaries alongside a VIABLE Palestinian state, but Israel also has the right to defend itself. What I don't support is silly nonsense where a belief that Palestinian refugees do have a right of return (which will realisitically be compensation and official acknowledgement from the Israeli govt) gets morphed into some crap about not wanting Israel to exist....

Too right I've said that Israel doesn't have a right to build its barrier deep into the Occupied Territories. The ICJ says that very same thing. I'm not exactly sure what yr finding contradictory. The West Bank and Gaza are not a state. I don't think anyone would dispute that one. What the West Bank and Gaza are is OCCUPIED TERRITORY invaded by Israel in 1967. That's why the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the occupied territories, and I'm failing to see where any contradiction is in that...

Violet...

[Gimel]

42. Right of return

The uprooting of settlements which were established according to the principles of Right of Return are somehow not only called "illegal" but their removal is demanded. Erroneously, it is claimed that Arabs have been removed in order to establish them. Another falsehood.

International humanitarian law prohibits the forcible transfer of segments of the population of a state to the territory of another state which it has occupied as a result of the resort to armed force. This principle, which is reflected in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, was drafted immediately following the Second World War. As International Red Cross' authoritative commentary to the Convention confirms, the principle was intended to protect the local population from displacement, including endangering its separate existence as a race, as occurred with respect to the forced population transfers in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary before and during the war. This is clearly not the case with regard to the West Bank and Gaza.

The attempt to present Israeli settlements as a violation of this principle is clearly untenable. As Professor Eugene Rostow, former Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs has written: "the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there" (AJIL, 1990, vol. 84, p.72).

The provisions of the Geneva Convention regarding forced population transfer to occupied sovereign territory cannot be viewed as prohibiting the voluntary return of individuals to the towns and villages from which they, or their ancestors, had been ousted. Nor does it prohibit the movement of individuals to land which was not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state and which is not subject to private ownership. In this regard, Israeli settlements have been established only after an exhaustive investigation process, under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Israel, designed to ensure that no communities are established on private Arab land.

It should be emphasized that the movement of individuals to the territory is entirely voluntary, while the settlements themselves are not intended to displace Arab inhabitants, nor do they do so in practice.

Repeated charges regarding the illegality of Israeli settlements must therefore be regarded as politically motivated, without foundation in international law. Similarly, as Israeli settlements cannot be considered illegal, they cannot constitute a "grave violation" of the Geneva Convention, and hence any claim that they constitute a "war crime" is without any legal basis. Such political charges cannot justify in any way Palestinian acts of terrorism and violence against innocent Israelis.

Politically, the West Bank and Gaza Strip is best regarded as territory over which there are competing claims which should be resolved in peace process negotiations. Israel has valid claims to title in this territory based not only on its historic and religious connection to the land, and its recognized security needs, but also on the fact that the territory was not under the sovereignty of any state and came under Israeli control in a war of self-defense, imposed upon Israel. At the same time, Israel recognizes that the Palestinians also entertain legitimate claims to the area. Indeed, the very fact that the parties have agreed to conduct negotiations on settlements indicated that they envisage a compromise on this issue.

Link

I did say that the Arabs call this "Right of Return". If you wish an euphemism, there it is.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. What a load of horsedung...

This is the sort of idiotic crap one can expect to find on the MFA site? Since you've been very concerned in the forum about bias, why are you posting something so incredibly biased?

We've been through this before. The Geneva Conventions DO apply to the Occupied Territories. Whether the territory is a state or not isn't relevant, because it would be mindbogglingly insane to think that the intention of the Fourth Geneva Convention would be to deliberately not give any protection to civilians if they happen to not be living in sovereign territory...

The population that is being moved into the Occupied Territories are Israeli citizens. They can live anywhere they like inside Israel, but they are NOT entitled to be moved into territory that Israel is illegally occupying. The Magistrate has explained why the West Bank and Gaza Strip are occupied and not merely 'disputed'. Jack Rabbit has done so as well on several occassions. What they've said is supported by international law. This drool you just posted isn't....

Now, would you like to return to what was supposed to be discussed, which was the Palestinian right of return?(or for those who have a problem with the name Palestinian, we can call them Arabs) ;)

Violet...

[Gimel]

44. Apparently yr confusion will continue

Item 11 in the document you've posted stipulates Right of Return. The neighboring Arab states, such as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, to be specific, claim to have millions of "Palestinian refugees". They are the descendants of Arabs who lived in the British Mandate.

(BTW, if the Br Mandate had no borders, and was divided between Jews and Arabs, you might have an argument that Israel never included the West Bank in it's borders.)

What population is being "moved into the 'occupied territories'"?

The "drool" that you continually support goes against all rights of human beings to live in their homeland in peace.

The Arab States (who proposed the "solution" and promoted the document that you posted) are not Palestinians. If they were, I would have called them so.

Let me clarify in the words of the MFA, and Israel's official position:

Israel has valid claims to title in this territory based not only on its historic and religious connection to the land, and its recognized security needs, but also on the fact that the territory was not under the sovereignty of any state and came under Israeli control in a war of self-defense, imposed upon Israel. At the same time, Israel recognizes that the Palestinians also entertain legitimate claims to the area. Indeed, the very fact that the parties have agreed to conduct negotiations on settlements indicated that they envisage a compromise on this issue.

There has been no "forced transfer" which is what the Geneva Convention Article 4 refers to. The right of Jewish Israelis to reoccupy their homeland is the historical right referred to. The area that was not under a sovereign state, and occupation is rather a meaningless term.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Okay, I am confused now...

Item 11 in the document you've posted stipulates Right of Return. The neighboring Arab states, such as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, to be specific, claim to have millions of "Palestinian refugees".

Yes, the document does stipulate Right of Return. I doubt any state bar Jordan has ever claimed to have millions of Palestinian refugees. And the reason Jordan would is because it has nearly 2 million. What has where the refugees have ended up got to do with some weird claim that their right of return translates to Israel being overrun by neighbouring states?

I looked for some credible statistics on Palestinian refugee populations, but unfortunately couldn't find any anonymous letters ala 'Lucky Arab' or anything from Arutz Sheva, so the UNRWA statistics will just have to do ;)

http://www.un.org/unrwa/publications/statis-01.html

I find it really hard to understand why yr still arguing that the West Bank is or ever has been part of Israel. So, point out to me one point in time since the creation of Israel in 1948 where the West Bank has been part of Israel. Then explain to me how Israel was a democracy during that time, because that wouldn't have been possible.

What population is being "moved into the 'occupied territories'"?

Jewish settlers who are Israeli citizens...

The "drool" that you continually support goes against all rights of human beings to live in their homeland in peace.

Hey, I didn't support the drool in that link you posted, and I did think I made that pretty clear. So what are you referring to?

The Arab States (who proposed the "solution" and promoted the document that you posted) are not Palestinians. If they were, I would have called them so.

Oh, okay. It's just that I wasn't sure what the hell you were talking about back there. You produced the drool link and then claim 'this is what the Arabs call 'Right of Return'. Nah, I'm thinking most folk would call the drool link 'Unmitigated Dribble' :)

Violet...

[Gimel]

46. The 4 million plus

That is without including Iraqi Palestinains population, but it doesn't matter. My comment didn't say that each of the states claimed millions of Palestinians, whatever you may have interpreted. The document clearly indicates all the states would claim the right to evict their Palestinians because they are "refugees."

Do you mean Israel has to be a "perfect democracy" and not nave any non-voting residents (refugees or 'stateless' people) in order to be considered a democracy (or even borders, apparently)? It is just another proof of the impossibility of discussing the situation when one issue bleeds into another.

Do Palestinians refugees in Lebanon have a right to vote? How about in Iraq, Syria and Jordan? Have the Palestinian rfugees been granted citizenship anywhere but in Jordan? Why should they be considered citizens of Israel? While the West Bank is not currently part of israeli leagal system and democracy (not since Aug 29, 1994 when the agreement of http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Preparatory%20Transfer%20of%20Powers%20-amp%20Responsibiliti">transfer of powers was signed, has Israel had any authority over the local governments of Gaza and WB Palestinian areas. )

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Yr right. It doesn't matter...

Yr comment: 'The neighboring Arab states, such as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, to be specific, claim to have millions of "Palestinian refugees".' is totally irrelevant, because such claims are totally correct if we're talking about the total number of refugees in all states....

The document clearly indicates all the states would claim the right to evict their Palestinians because they are "refugees."

Where did the document clearly indicate that? Would that be the secret, invisible clause right under the secret invisible one that stipulated that Israel MUST let neighbouring states overrun it? ;)

Do you mean Israel has to be a "perfect democracy" and not nave any non-voting residents (refugees or 'stateless' people) in order to be considered a democracy (or even borders, apparently)? It is just another proof of the impossibility of discussing the situation when one issue bleeds into another.

This one's simple. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be of the belief that the West Bank was at one point part of Israel. A state that denies citizenship and voting rights to a portion of its population anywhere in the state based on the ethnicity of the population isn't a democracy, even under any fast and loose twisting of what democracy is. Therefore, if the West Bank had been part of the state of Israel, Israel couldn't have been a democracy during that time. And if the West Bank had been part of Israel, then there'd be no stateless Palestinians in the West Bank. They'd be Israeli citizens....

I suggest that you do some reading on the Palestinian refugees and try to gain a basic understanding of the complexity of the issue...

Here's something from Human Rights Watch


Palestinian Refugees and the Politics of Peacemaking The link to the pdf of the report is down the bottom of the page. It's very long, but well worth reading....


Amnesty International's position on forcible exile and the right to return

Palestinian Refugees and the Individual Right of Return: An International Law Analysis

Violet...

[Gimel]

51. I'm well aware of your opinion

However, that wasn't even nearly the discussion. The borders of a state can be defined whether it's a democracy or a dictatorship. The form of government was not the issue, so you are sidetracking.

As for democracies, the US claimed to be a democracy long before blacks, Indians or women had the right to cast a ballot for elected officials. Other democracies acted likewise. I hardly think that total enfranchisement is a prerequisite for democratic for of government. It helps, of course to be considered a democracy above repute. It was to move in that direction that the Madrid Conference was held in 1991. The Palestinian population was held in very adverse conditions. This was a result of constant terror threats, as well as general inability to change to situation. The Madrid Conference was the beginning of the international efforts to bring about a change. Israeli governments were active in Madrid Conference and recognized the need to evolve a more acceptable situation for the Palestinians.

[Classical_Liberal]

55. It's true Israel is like the American South under Jim Crow.

This is why I want to boycott it, and not give it aid and comfort. It does have to be a contemporay and unsegregated democracy for me to deem it worthy of my cash assistance.

[Gimel]

57. Not true

The Palestinians have been given their own government and the beginnings of a state. Apparently you want to boycott the peace process that will help the Palestinians create a democratic state of their own.

[Classical_Liberal]

59. They don't have the beginnings of a state

They won't have it until the soldiers leave, and settlers are out of the land they intend to build one on. I am boycotting a process that will leave them bantustaned, into little diconnected prisons, economically unviable, and surrounded by settlers who should go back to their country or apply for Palestinian citizenship. If they don't do these things Israel is a apartheid, Jim Crow state, and should be treated as such, if not by my government then through a citizens divestment campaign.

[Gimel]

61. Your concern is shared

Many want to insure a viable Palestinian state. The terrorist groups will have to be neutralized before there is any trust, however. So far, only Israeli efforts have reduced terror and the threat of more terrorism.

[Classical_Liberal]

63. Israel had long periods in 90s with very little terrorism and it

failed to stop settlements. If Israelis were seriously committed to stoping terrorism they would have dismantled the settlements and stopped the occupation. They also would move the fence to the green line. They should move the settlers there while they're at it.

Furthermore if you think that land is Israel then this new position that you share my concern represents an inconsistency that makes no sense.

[Gimel]

64. They thought that

we could all get along. Bad move.

[The Magistrate]

66. A Couple Of Comments On This, Ms. Crumble

First, Resolution 194 is drawn in typically flexible language. Insistence on its implementation could mean many things, so it is necessary to enquire into how people insisting on its implementation mean it to be implemented, before stating whether its implementation could be characterized as Ms. Gimel characterizes it is or is not meant. If a body calling for its implementation is composed of governments that have in other statements held that its implementation means several million people ought to move into the state of Israel, than her characterization is not far off. The resolution certainly allows for compensation instead, and could even require some demonstration those entering Israel meant in fact to live in peace with their neighbors. That latter could exclude many, if some authority were so inclined. Even "at the earliest practicable date" could provide some rum fun for the truely impish; that, it could well be argued, clearly has not yet arrived, and may not still arrive for quite some time.

Second, you are definitely in the right concerning the application of the Geneva Conventions. The transfer by an occuppying power of a portion of its population to the occuppied territory as settlers is a violation. The authorities Ms. Gimel cites may wish the regulation made some exception for returning to the lands of ancestors, but the fact is that they do not. There were some Jews driven from the Jordan Valley in the '48 war, and even before that war, and perhaps these could make some arguement that they have a right, as refugees, to return, but it is nonsense to suppose that more than a tiny proportion of the Israelis now resident in the lands over-run in '67 could be classed as persons thus shedding refugee status. If it could be demonstrated that the movement of Israelis into that territory were wholly unconnected with acts of the Israeli government, than an arguement might be made there was no violation of the Geneva Accords in that, but the fact is that no such showing can be made. It is true that the first few settlement ventures were private, and even against the will of the government, but since then, a web of government actions, from subsidies to provision of land through military condemnation, have clearly established that these settlements are acts of the Israeli government.

[Violet_Crumble]

67. Resolution 194...

While it is drawn up in flexible language, the implementation that Gimel reads into it is not at all within the bounds of discussing the flexibility of the language. One of the links I posted for her discussed the need for Israelis and Palestinians to be educated about what the Right Of Return entails, because sections within both populations seem to hold onto some out-there interpretations of what it would practicly entail...

I've got to get back to this later on tonight when I'm not at work and add a bit more on a subject that's really interesting me right now...

Nice to see you round these parts again, Sir...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

68. Here's an alternative interpretation of Res.194...

And this stuff is what someone could use to claim it's contestable, if they wanted to ignore the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions means that a right of return would exist under international law even without Res.194....

But here's the contestable stuff...

General Assembly resolutions aren't binding...

It didn't refer unambiguously to a right of return...

Permission had to be granted for the return and the willingness of the refugees to live in peace. But as the armistace agreements were already in place, those conditions were met...

Did you take a look at the ICG report on Palestinian refugees that I suggested Gimel read through? I found it really interesting because it did talk about what refugees think, which is something that tends to get buried under all the political posturing by Palestinian, Israeli, and a bunch of Arab states politicians, who aren't the slightest bit interested in what the refugees really want, but are interested in using the refugees to score points of the other side and each other. Anyway, the report says that virtually all of the refugees they interviewed understand that a full implementation of the right of return is incompatible with a two-state solution, and most accepted that there would have to be a compromise on the refugee issue. And they want acknowledgement and recognition, which is a totally reasonable thing to expect. One of the refugees said: 'I'm prepared to accept that only one refugee will return, but on condition that this is recognised as exercising the right of return and not an Israeli humanitarian gesture that we have been denied for more than 50 years."

Y'know, that 'authority' Gimel linked to put up a pretty damn good argument for me to exercise my right of return that I so rightly now have after my Irish ancestors were so unceremoniously expelled from their homeland (not just expelled, but put on a ship and dumped on the other side of the world!). And in the true spirit of Israeli-settler right of return as expressed by the guy Gimel linked to, the Australian govt will deploy large numbers of troops to protect me from the population who for their own selfish reasons aren't joyous at me exercising my right of return, and may get a bit pissed off when all these Australian-only bypass roads and military checkpoints start appearing throughout Ireland. Wait until they find out that some of their homes are going to have to be bulldozed to make sure that the Violet Settlement Block is just as secure as if I were sitting here in Australia. All I can say is thank goodness my English ancestors came here voluntarily. I'd be hard-pressed to want to exercise any right of return to England ;)

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

70. You Raise An Important Point Here, Ma'am

It would seem that the people are well in advance of their leadership in this question, and that the leadership has scant regard for the good of the people, let alone their will.

There is no doubt in my mind that the overwhelming majority of the people of Arab Palestine would be willing to settle for cash compensation, and it is certainly my view that such compensation, and in lavish measure, must be a leading feature of any peace settlement, with expedience and justice come into an un-holy alliance in the matter. How this can be translated into political will, and political and diplomatic action, is a veritable Gordian Knot.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. I think I also made a bit of a mistake in my post...

I said that Res. 194 came after the armistace agreements had been signed. I got that bit the wrong way round. I've been doing a bit of reading on the refugee issue, and while people fleeing and/or being expelled from war-zones happens, a terrible wrong was done to them when they were not allowed to return to their homes after the war was over. And considering it's them who suffered, I find it says a hell of a lot that a large number of them are willing for there to be compromises on the right of return. Yet that same sense of compromise is remarkably absent from mainstream Israeli discussion. All I see on that side of things is whenever the mere mention of the Right of Return comes up, an almighty shriek of 'They're trying to destroy Israel!!' comes up and doesn't subside....

The physical return of a symbolic number of refugees who want to return to Israel, compensation, and acknowledgement by Israel is what it'd probably take to finally reconcile what I consider to be a dark chapter of history, but to be honest, I think we've got buckleys of it ever seeing it happen...

Violet...

[Djinn]

73. umm how does that logic work

"made a "peace offer" that stipulated that Israel MUST let the neighboring states over run it. That is what they call "the right of return".

If Palestinian refugees were allowed to return to their lands in Haifa, Tel Avib et al how on earth would that equate to letting neighbouring states overtake Israel? are you saying that a palestinian indicidual or family is akin to the governments of Jordan, Syria, Egypt etc????

Oh and btw Israel in 1948 didn't look much like the biblical land most Israeli's ancestors left up to 1000 years ago either - guess their claims of a diaspora must be bullshit too. Interesting twists of logic Gimel

[geek tragedy]

12. Exactly.

The goal should be to increase Israel's bond with the international community. A boycott would only cause them to become more isolationist and less responsive to international pressure and diplomacy.

The Israeli left/academics should be the partners of those seeking a solution--not the objects of their scorn.

First and foremost, Israel's enabler-in-chief needs to get booted out of Washington. Kerry's rhetoric is by sad necessity 100% pro-Israel in his campaign rhetoric, but you can bet this nonsense of supporting Likud and expansion settlement would end.

[Classical_Liberal]

15. I am not that hopeful Kerry will be a change. He is upping the funding of

Ned, and has made hostile statements toward Venezuala and the liberal and left opposition in Bolivia.

[geek tragedy]

18. What does that have to do with Israel? n/t

[Classical_Liberal]

20. Those two countries are neoconservative pet causes as well

and increasing the funding of NED indicates Kerry is not imitating neocon foreign policy as an election ploy. It indicates Kerry will attempt to keep up a neocon foreign policy even after he is elected. The advantage we get from Kerry is his promise to get along with European allies, who in all likelyhood will force him to be a real liberal on at least the issue of Israel Palestine.

The neocons aren't just likudites they're also servants of the defence industry. They like American Imperialism, because it serves that industry. They bias toward aggressive Israeli foreign policy for the same reason.

[geek tragedy]

22. John Kerry is not a goddamn neocon.

That is simply idiotic.

Sounds like Naderite nonsense to me.

[Classical_Liberal]

27. You're responce is not rational either.

If you disagree you should present a logical argument rather than namecalling.

Naderites are right about more things than Kerry is as a matter of fact. Nader is not a member of the duopoly so until we have IRV he isn't an option.

[geek tragedy]

30. "As a matter of fact?" By definition a false statement.

Since you can't distinguish mainstream Democratic positions from the Neocon agenda, there's no sense discussing this with you.

[Classical_Liberal]

31. Oh I see, you still can't back up you assertions.

. He has agreed with the neocons, on Iraq, Venezuela, Israel/Palestine, Bolivia and the National Endowment for Democracy. If I can't tell the difference maybe there is a reason for it. If I am wrong it is up to you to explain how.

[geek tragedy]

32. It's not worth the time to explain the obvious to the unwilling to listen.

Most of these subjects have been discussed ad nauseum. But, a brief synopsis

1. NED: Not a controversial issue, nor is it considered a Neocon issue.

2. Kerry is not a Likudnik, nor a Christian fundamentalist who thinks that Jews controlling Israel is a prelude to the rapture.

3. There are maybe 20 people in the US that deeply care about what happens in Bolivia. Seriously, that is not a way to measure the two men. I doubt either has thought about Bolivia in the past three months.

4. Did Kerry endorse the coup against Chavez? Did Kerry encourage it in the first place?

5. Are you fucking kidding me--same position on Iraq? Did Kerry sign the PNAC document? Was Kerry a close personal friend of Chalabi? Would Kerry have appointed Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld?

Dear lord. You really ought to familiarize yourself with Kerry before making false statements about him.

I cannot understand how someone could spend time here and not know the difference between John Kerry and Richard Perle when it comes to foreign policy. Unbelievable.

[Classical_Liberal]

33. 1)NED was founded by the neocons

Jean Kirkpatrick and Ben Wattenberg. It currently is lead by such neocons as Vin Webber and Francis Fukiama. It funded the coup against Hugo Chavez, and Haiti and is also funding the new Government of Iraq. It has always been associated with neocon projects.

Kerry can't be a likudnik because he isn't an Israeli. He maynot be a fundy, but he certainly shares his discernible foreign policy views with the neocons. As mentioned before these include a hostility to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez who has accused of supporting terrorism, drug trafficking and having political prisoners. Hostility to the liberals and leftest who want a change from the current neoliberal government in Bolivia. He accused protesters in Bolivia who don't want their water privatized of engaging in mob violence, despite the polls showing they represent the majority of people, no evidence of actual violence, and despite the fact that the neoliberal despot currently in control of Bolivia ordered his police to fire on protesters, killing many of them. Complete acceptance of Bush and Sharon's plan to maintain most of the settlers on the West Bank. An undivided Jerusalem, which pretty much means the West Bank will be cut in half at least. The settlement blocks would isolate the Palestinians into divided cantons or bantustans. A commitment to maintaining troop presence in Iraq permanently, and a commitment to maintaining unneeded bases oversees. Furthermore Michael Rubin a campaign adviser, said there was no daylight between the two on the issue of Israel.

Kerry didn't sign the pnac document but his foreign policy speech writer Will Marshall did.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/marshall/marshall.php

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Whoa! I'm going to disagree here...

Kerry can't be a likudnik because he isn't an Israeli.

One has to be an Israeli to be a Likudnik? I didn't know that...


But what I'm here to disagree with is any claims that Kerry's a neo-conservative in sheeps clothing. While I'm not greatly impressed with some of his comments regarding foreign policy, he tends to support things that are poison to neo-conservatives, like multilateralism. And with a support of multilateralism would come the knowledge that the US wouldn't be able to continue trampling around all over the globe bullying allies and targets alike...

Violet...

[Classical_Liberal]

49. I already acknowledged his support for multilateralism is a sign of

hope, but it is the only one. His other activities indicate a closet neocon, particularly the fact that he wants to increase funding for NED. I just don't believe that the antiwar movement should demobilize over Kerry because his actions are ominous. The whole democratic party is compromized with neocon views. That is why stupid things like the Syria Accountability Act get passed with such large numbers.

[Gimel]

38. International law

That is law agreed upon by the nations of the world. The US has an ongoing relationship with Israel, and Israel's policies are being continually monitored. The US can use sanctions when it's policies run counter to US agreements with Israel.

No, there is no dramatic shift in policy that the US is trying to impose on Israel. Thanks to more enlightened views in US foreign policy. However, the acceptance of US positions is part of Israel's commitment, and in case you haven't noticed, there are continuing negotiations to bring about agreements here.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. And?

Yr first sentence started off well, and it faded from there. Yes, basically international law is agreed upon by the international community. As progressives, I would hope that we respect international law infinitely more than US policy under Bush....

No, there is no dramatic shift in policy that the US is trying to impose on Israel. Thanks to more enlightened views in US foreign policy.

Yes, we all owe a deep debt of gratitude to Bushy's neo-conservatives for their more enlightened US foreign policy! Sheez, do I need to put sarcasm tags on that? ;)

Isn't Israel's commitment to accept not US positions, but the positions of the Quartet? Or did the others drop out while I wasn't looking? Me, I wouldn't be surprised if they've given up the whole Quartet thing as the bad joke it was from the start...

Violet...

[Gimel]

52. US foreign policy did not start with Bush

US policy has been far more consistent than "international law".

[Classical_Liberal]

13. Bull. Israel's policy and my governments support of it creates problems

for the US. It naturally pisses off Arabs, since it discriminates against them. I am an American citizen and I have a right to be concerned about something that deeply effects the security of my country.

That is not hatred of Israel that is common sense.

[Djinn]

72. thats right

but then it's never to do with "love" of Palestinians is it? after all we anti-zionists speak in code and it's all really about our outright hatred of Israel (which btw were it true would STILL not make someone anti-semitic Israeli does not and never will equate to Jewish)

[DU GrovelBot]

37. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.