Israel’s Rejectionist Front

Until we be willin’ t’ speak public (th’ UN) an’ be willin’ t’ cut th’ purse strings, Israel be no havin’ a whit o’ incentive t’ be doin’ anythin’ other than’ whatever they be pleasin’. An’ they don’t be pleasin’ t’ have no peace, an’ they don’t be pleasin’ t’ be returnin’ any o’ th’ land they be occupyin’.

It pret’ much be boilin’ down t’ th’ US not bein’ willin’ (aye, I be knowin’ why, me hearties!) t’ exercise th’ influence we be havin’, an’ instead be continuin’ t’ try t’ cajole an’ coax ‘em into doin’ wha’ be ri’. If this were any other State, ye’d be bettin’ we’d be actin’ diff’rent.

arrgh.

My recollection is the right of return was being negotiated, during the Clinton era, with numbers like 100,000 to 250,000 being discussed. I don’t understand why Israel is so opposed to it. There are way more Israelis than there are Palestinians, so their chances of taking over Israel are next to nil.

Why don’t they just make it too enticing to be a citizen of Palestine, and set the right of return to unlimited? It always seems to be the last issue in the way of a deal.

It will be hard to find a stupider statement written in the English language this year than:
.
“it’s now becoming apparent that Israel is the prime impediment to progress in the Middle East.”
.
Wait a minute! We have a late challenger:
.
“Hamas seems willing to play”.

It seems that Mark Regev admonished the PA negotiator for meeting with the Iranians.

The problem I see there is that since Netanyahu doesn’t want to play, he doesn’t really have anything to say, really, about just who the Palestinians talk to.

Unfortunately for Netanyahu, it hasn’t occurred to the Palestinians to just roll over and play dead.

mrein:

We have an even later challenger. You.

Joe:
I also think (actually more of a hope, really) that Obama is slowly building a bulletproof case for cutting off Israel’s foreign aid.

I’m sincerely hoping that he is considering this, we are going to need a big stick to get these recalcitrant bigots to line up.

It’s more important than just US – Israeli relations, this is a piece of the puzzle that Iran is part of too. If it can be shown that Israel is interested in peace rather than war, then Iran’s posturing toward Israel can be shown for what it is. It will help to isolate Iran, particularly following the diplomatic debacle brought on by the recent elections.

53_3, why should we take anything you have to say seriously. First of all, your take on Iran and freedom (in previous posts) is plain sick:
.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443842931&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
.
Second of all, do you really get how utterly stupid the Obama Administration’s demands are. No Jewish building in East Jerusalem? Is that even possible under Israeli law? Moreover, Israelis would simply point to the ability of Arabs to build in West Jerusalem.

Let’s be honest, Bibi has no interest in negotiating peace with the Palestinians. He is only willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. And it has been that way with every prime minister since Ehud Barak.

Barak at least had an excuse. Arafat was playing fast and loose with the Israelis in what he was willing to give up. Now that Abbas has done everything that Arafat would not (decreasing the violence, which was the primary Palestinian objective), the Israeli government is clearly not satisfied.

There is no way to satisfy the Israeli government, they can never get enough. Not happy with 78% of historical Palestine, they want to reduce the Palestinians to living in Bantustans of the West Bank filled with Israeli settlements and “Jewish only” roads. Bibi wants a demilitarized Palestine, which does not even exist today. What he wants is a Palestinian Authority which is so weak that if Hamas attacks Israel, Israel will have an excuse to retake the West Bank.

Israeli apologists seem to forget that Abbas is a democratically elected president. He has given far more concessions that the Palestinian electorate is willing to accept. How many times must Abbas bend over and take it from the Israelis before they realize they will never get a better opportunity? I guess fighting Hamas and arresting militants in not enough for the Israeli government. The Netanyahu government will settle for nothing less than total capitulation.

If I were the Palestinians, I wouldn’t talk to Bibi either. Omert only talked and talked and Bibi is offering less than Omert did. As along as Israel takes more and more Palestinian land with impunity. what is there to negotiate?

As long as our tax dollars subsidize the Israeli military and colonizing of the West Bank, the Israeli government has no incentive to negotiate. It is time to cut the purse strings.

What I find ironic is the only American President to hold Israel’s feet to the fire over settlements was the first George Bush. He told Prime Minister Shamir that the U.S. would cut aid if settlements continued. Shamir blinked and settlement building froze.

Unfortunately, the second George Bush gave recognition to the settlements even though it was a point of negotiations. It is just like Chamberlain giving the Sudatenland without Czech imput.

Now it is time for the Obama administration to follow the lead of the older Bush, who certainly understood foreign affairs much more than his son.

I wonder if the people who actually live in Golan would want to go back to Syria. Probably not.

Mrein
~
Israel is in violation of international law, as it has been since its inception in 1948. The 4th Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits the transfer of one’s civilian population to another’s sovereign territory. Israel currently has nearly 500,000 illegal settlers in the West Bank. These settlers are not immigrants, they are provided with government created settlements with Jewish only infrastructure in Palestinian lands. Israel is in violation of both the UN Charter and the 4th Geneva Convention in its illegal annexation of lands through military force. The Golan Heights from Syria, the Sheba’a Farms from Lebanon, and large swaths of land surrounding Gaza and West Bank have been illegally occupied and annexed by Israel. Jerusalem, as per the 1947 UN Partition Plan, is to be an international city, yet Israel has occupied it as its national capital in contempt of international consensus. These are the undeniable factual illegalities of Israel. Less reported on, however, are also the batant human rights violations, use of illegal munitions, and oppressive subjugation of the Palestinian people by way of blockades, illegal checkpoints, killings, beatings, torture, and more. So, yes, as it stands now, Israel is the chief obstacle to peace.

As for Hamas willing to negotiate, this is also true. Since 2005 Hamas has wished to partake in negotiations, however has been blocked by US and Israel. While Hamas’ tactics and random rocket attacks on civilian areas are not to be condoned, it is honestly their only way of defense against Israeli encroachment. Palstine has no army. Palestine has no way of organzing an internationally accepted resistance. Palestine is entirely subject to the say-so of Israel, which controls its borders, its resources, its access to aid, ability to travel, as well as airspace and sea. Palestinians, thus, if they wish to fight for their sovereignty,w hich is violated by Israel on a daily basis, resort to launching rocket attacks from within Gaza into Israel. These attacks are more symbolic than anything else. The death-toll has been negligiable. Yet people like you react as if these are unthinkable atrocities, while at the same time utterly ignoring Israel’s blanket bombing campaigns of Gaza and Lebanon. In Gaza, for example, Israel killed 1300 in January, while Israel lost only 13 in that particular offensive. There is no equivalence here. Israel is the aggressor. Israel has disportionately sowed death and suffering. Israel is the obstacle to peace.

“It is just like Chamberlain giving the Sudatenland without Czech imput.”
.
Gotta love those Nazi references when discussing Israel. But naaaaah, no one’s anti-Semitic.

“The 4th Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits the transfer of one’s civilian population to another’s sovereign territory. ”
.
And who is sovereign over the West Bank?

Zero fer four on real content. Try something besides talking points and propaganda, spob…

Spob
~
I think we can all agree that it’s certainly not sovereign Israeli land.

And, further, East Jerusalem isn’t sovereign Israeli land either, to address your other fart.

I’d lay off the hot links spob…

Exiled, but isn’t that a problem for the “settlements are illegal” claim? And don’t forget, they won that territory in a defensive war.
.
To the Israelis it is sovereign–you moron. And didn’t candidate Obama say that Israel was going to be undivided?

Zing!

If it is so cut and dried, spob, then why is it that the rest of the world refuses to recognize any soverignty beyond the 1967 borders?

As usual spob, you try to hide in the minutiae, but the broader picture is clear.

And, just to emphasize this particular point, everyone knows that’s what the Israelis think.

Tell us something substantial.

Spob
~
Fact 1: West Bank is not part of Israel
Fact 2: West Bank is administered by its own governing apparatus, the Palestinian Authority
Fact 3: The international community recognizes West Bank as sovereign Palestinian land
Fact 4: Israeli government transplanted nearly 500,000 setters onto these lands, providing the resources, capital, and IDF security and linking these settlements throughout the West Bank on roads that Arabs are not allowed to access
Fact 5: Israeli settlements violate 4th Geneva Convention

Neo, perhaps, just perhaps, the idea that Israel won the land in a defensive war has some relevance. Oh guess not.

Even then, they still have responsibilities under international law, and no, it’s not relevant, as Israel is attacking the population that lives there, not the losers of that land.

Sorry Neo. Over to you!

Good point. Recall Bush’s famed press conference on the eve of the Madrid Conference when he took Israel to task publicly on its actions and enunciated the astronimical amount of US aid it receives while doing so. AIPAC launched a massive campaign following this and pressured Congress into fighting the President on the matter.

I’m out.

Neo:

Playing “whack a mole” is a lot easier with two people!

spob 0, 53_3 30.

spob,

Israel has never claimed sovereignty over the West Bank. While they have claimed East Jerusalem, and made its Palestinian inhabitants “citizens” of Israel, they have not done so for the West Bank at large.

When Israel conquered the West Bank, the Israeli government had intended to trade it for peace. In fact, it was ILLEGAL under Israeli to settle in the West Bank for several years. What happened?

Religious zealots started claiming the West Bank as the Judea and Samaria and that it belonged to the State of Israel. At first, when they started settling in the West Bank, the Israeli government tried to stop them. After awhile, the religious zealots were viewed as a political weapon to be used against the Arabs. Settlements suddenly became a negotiating tactic, the same way Arafat used Islamic militants against Israel as a way to gain a advantange at the negotiating table.

The problem is that the religious zealots were unleashed and have since be used as a political football in Israeli domestic politics. Both the left and the right catered to this minority and granted them all sorts of favors (Ehud Barak, the so-called “dove” INCREASED settlement building during his tenure).

Now there are so many settlements, it does not look like you can create a Palestinian state that does not look like Swiss cheese unless you remove a number of them which are not suburbs of Jerusalem.

Spob
~
International law prohibits the annexation of land through war, defensive or otherwise. This is simply the way it is. Since WWII, expansion through military means is no longer admissable.

The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled the settlements illegal. And that’s the way it is.

If the analogy fits, use it . . . . . . . .

It is funny because Bibi uses the Nazi Germany analogy to describe Iran even though . . . . .

Iran did not expel Jews like the Arab states in 1948 . . . .

There is Jewish representation (granted it is token) in the Iranian partliament . . . . . .

Iran has the largest Jewish population outside of the U.S., Europe and Israel.

[...] in Mideast Conflict at 10:24 am by LeisureGuy It’s becoming ever more evident. Joe Klein in TIME’s Swampland: Benjamin Netanyahu’s phony flexibility on a two-state solution was always [...]

Neoexile –

I were wantin’ t’ be havin some serious discussion wi’ ye, bu’ wi’ th’ spongy feedin’ fest goin’ on ‘ere it be no’ worth it. Too much trouble avoidin’ th’ depth charges strewn about.

I be settin’ sail fr’m this ‘ere thread.

Bon voyage, mates!

YARR!

First of all, guys, I was talking about Jerusalem when I mentioned Israeli sovereignty.
.
Second of all, the right of self-defense is the one rule that trumps all others. To the extent that settlements in an area taken in a defensive war buttress self-defense, they are legal. Moreover, the territory was not sovereign when conquered–Jordan doesn’t claim the territory any more. Moreover, guys, when the territory was administered by the British, Jews had the right to settle anywhere in Palestine–nothing has changed that. Even further, let’s not forget that some settlements are simply the reversal of Arabs forcing Jews off land owned by Jews either before the War of Independence or during the war. Certainly, nothing in international law prohibits that.

“To the extent that settlements in an area taken in a defensive war buttress self-defense, they are legal.”

Citation?

Furthermore, though I believe the Israelis were largely justified in pre-empting what appeared to be an impending Arab assault in 1967, “self defense” in this usage would suggest an overly broad interpretation of the word. The war was pre-emptive.

“Moreover, the territory was not sovereign when conquered–Jordan doesn’t claim the territory any more.”

These two statements seem to contradict each other and barely make sense. If territory is not “sovereign” it wouldn’t need to be “conquered.”

In 1967 the area in question (West Bank/ Judea and Samarra) was administered by the Jordanians. I believe they considered it their sovereign territory at the time, which is why in the second part of the statement you state that they don’t claim that territory “any more.” This obviously suggests that at one point they did claim that territory (up until 1967).

“Even further, let’s not forget that some settlements are simply the reversal of Arabs forcing Jews off land owned by Jews either before the War of Independence or during the war.”

Ultimately I agree that it should be prominently noted, especially in light of the concept of “right of return,” that the number of Jews who were forced from their homes in Arab countries following the 1948 Partition nearly equals the number of Palestinians forced from their homes in historic Palestine during the same period, and thus there is no intrinsic justice in the claim of the right of return, your construct trying to make the obviously illegal settlements legitimate as a tit-for-tat demands a simple response: two wrongs don’t make a right.

piper1, remember, the Egyptians were blockading Israel when Israel struck–last I checked, a blockade was an act of war, and can be responded to militarily. That means that Egypt started the Six Day War.
.
The point about Jordanian sovereignty is that (a) they didn’t have it in 1967 (they did claim it) and (b) that’s how it is now. Sorry for being a litle unclear. The point, of course, is that there is a strong argument that the Geneva Conventions simply don’t apply to this situation, since settlement activity is not happening on lands to which a sovereign had “title” (for lack of a better word), and Jews did have a right, pre-1947, to settle in all areas of Palestine. And certainly, they cannot be held to bar Jewish resettlement of areas that were Jewish before the war of Independence.
.
The right of return simply is not going to happen.

spob,

Settlements do not buttress self-defense. In fact it is the opposite, the more you extend your colonies, the harder it is to defend them, so the idea that settlement are for “defensive” purposes is at best disingenuous.

Second, the West Bank was claimed by Jordan, so you are wrong when you state the land was not sovereign when conquered, it belonged to Jordan.

Third, it is disingenuous to argue that somehow Israel was claiming land owned by Jews before the 1948 War. How many of these people actually returned to their homes? There are Palestinians who still have the keys to their homes in Israel proper, should they be allowed to claim those homes?

You and I both know that the zealots were not reclaiming their homes. Most of those moving into the settlements are religious zealots, many born in the U.S. or unsuspecting immigrants lured into the settlements by the promise of cheap housing.

The time for colonizing has ended. This is the 21st century, not the 19th.

Spob
~
Since you concede that a blockade is an act of war justifying a military response, then surely you stand behind Palestinian aggression against Israel’s blockade of Gaza. It must be so.

Israel blockades the Mediterranean Sea, preventing shiploads of humanitarian aid to the Gazan Coast. Israel controls Gazan air space. Israel has encircled Gaza by land, complete with military checkpoints to prevent crossings in and out of Gaza. Israel hasn’t the right to deny access to and from Gaza, whether it be people, aid, or even arms. Israel’s actions are nothing less than a complete blockade of Gaza. So, surely you support armed resistance of this.

As for self-defense, it’s one of those natural law things. Ya get to do it.

Wow. A lot of ignorance here.

First, fhm, the point is that, since we are classifying land as “palestinian” or “Jewish”, the holding of lands by Jews is relevant to whether a settlement of Jews on land is legal. To the extent, the settlements place Jews on Jewish-owned land that was expropriated, I dont see how those could possibly be illegal, unless one wants to argue that Arab pogroms should be recognized as faits accomplis.
.
Second, while Jordan claimed the West Bank, it was not recognized internationally. Thus, it’s difficult to see how the Jewish right to settle in all of Palestine was extinguished.
.
As for neo, well, my man, you miss some key issues. First of all, Gaza was conquered by Israel in a war of self-defense. Thus, Israel has the right to conduct operations with respect to Gaza in self-defense. Or are you arguing that a winner in a defensive war simply has to abandon its gains at peril to its self-defense rights. The mistake you make is that the Gazan situation did not arise in a vacuum, but rather as a response to a warlike act by Egypt. Israel has no obligation to go to the status quo ante, and certainly has the right to ratchet down its occupation to quarantine. Moreover, Egypt is free to open its border with Gaza.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/world/middleeast/17westbank.html?_r=1

Spob

I was contending the second. That no matter who starts the war, no entity is justified in conquering territory. This is the way of the world in which we live now. For better or worse, acquisition of land through military operations is simply inadmissable. Israel conquered Gaza and annexed it. It has since relinquished governing over the territory and Israel itself recognizes Gaza and the West Bank as Palestinian territory with their own governing apparatus. Israel has no right to blockade Gaza at this point. It is a continuing act of war, which by your own accord, justifies Palestinian militance toward Israel.

Secondly, the right of Jewish immigration is not the issue. Certainly Israeli Jews have every right to immigrate to Gaza or West Bank on an individual basis. However, when the Israeli government funds the construction and expansion of entire settlements, provides the resources, builds Jewish only infrastructure, and operates Israeli military as security over these towns, then we are no longer speaking of mere immigration. This conduct is definitively banned per the 4th Geneva Convention. and has been ruled illegal by Israel’s own Supreme Court. There is simply no justification for this other than Israel’s intentions to ultimately control the West Bank.

You can certainly be a supporter of the state of Israel, of its right to exist and defend itself, and condemn terrorist attacks which target civilians, without any reasonable criticism. In fact, I was in this group several years ago before traveling to Gaza, Israel, and the West Bank and witnessing the conditions myself and attending conferences, lectures, and briefing by Mossad, Shin Bet, IDF, and members of the Knesset. Once seeing the reality for myslef and hearing the rhetoric employed by those who would justify Israeli expansion and subjugation under false guises, I reformed my views on the mater and now come down decidely in support of the human rights of Palestinians. Attempting to legitimize the illegalities of annexation and settlements is to justify the oppression of an entire people, and in that, you are certainly warranting of criticism and condescension, spob.

“That no matter who starts the war, no entity is justified in conquering territory.”
.
Says who?
.
“Attempting to legitimize the illegalities of annexation and settlements is to justify the oppression of an entire people, and in that, you are certainly warranting of criticism and condescension, spob.”
.
Israel didn’t start the war, and is beset by hostile forces, and you call me names because I refuse to adhere to crabbed readings of international treaties. Gaza was occupied in the course of a defensive war. Israel has seen fit to loosen restrictions on Gaza and withdraw, but for purposes of self-protection, it sees fit to maintain a blockade, and this justifies terrorism? Ha. What have you been smoking?
.
No other nation on earth would put up with this nonsense. Not us. And certainly not Russia, China, India or any other great power.
.
The reality is that Israel would love a prosperous and free West Bank and Gaza. The government running Gaza wants Israel’s destruction. And Abbas probably, in his heart of hearts, would love to see that too. And Israel is supposed to what, put itself at risk so that scolds like you can deem yourselves satisfied.

“That no matter who starts the war, no entity is justified in conquering territory.”
.
Says who?

Israel has seen fit to loosen restrictions on Gaza and withdraw, but for purposes of self-protection, it sees fit to maintain a blockade, and this justifies terrorism?

Israel didn’t start the war

All I am saying, spob, is that while I cannot take issue with you defending Israel’s right to exist or right to defend itself and while I do not criticize your condemnation of terrorism, it is impossible for a rational mind to justify Israel’s annexations of land, its illegal settlements, its human rights violations, etc. To do so, is to attempt to provide cover for clearly illegal and immoral actions which render your position indefensible.

Who started the 18 year Israeli occupation of Lebanon? It certainly was not the Lebanese.
.
Surely you realize, neo, that a nation has the power to enter into another to stop assaults emanating from the other nation. That’s what justified the invasion of Lebanon.
.
“Who started the January 2009 Gaza offensive? I’ll tell you. It was Israel . . .”
.
Once again, in response to armed provocation coming from without its territory. Perfectly justifiable self-defense.
.
Israel should keep Golan too.

So what you’re really saying, spob, is this:

Forget international law, it’s survival of the fittest.

It’s clear that international law means absolutely nothing to you. Ethnic cleansing is fine because Israel is stronger.

Fortunately for the world, and unfortunately for you, most of the world is on that particular page of history in a chapter well beyond the one you are still reading.

The middle ages ended some 600 years ago…

[...] Neither, according to Time’s Joe Klein (shown at right in file photo), who insists in a July 20 Swampland blog post the fault lies with Israel: Benjamin Netanyahu’s phony flexibility on a two-state [...]

Seems to me you just justified Hizb Allah’s use of rockets.

Remember, spob, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Or in your case, the other goose…

“Israel has seen fit to loosen restrictions on Gaza and withdraw”

spob, you are a liar. I’ll call you no less:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932009_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip

Check links

Joe Klein Denounces Israeli Govt. as ‘Prime Impediment to Progess’ in Mideast Peace
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/07/20/joe-klein-denounces-israeli-govt-prime-impediment-progess-mideast-peac

53_3, loosen, as in no longer occupy. Try to keep up with the discussion, dumbass.
.
Don’t think I’ve justified any use of rockets by Hezbollah, which is a terrorist group in Lebanon.

Joe Klein’s credentials have been questioned by Ken Shepherd, former staff writer for the Business & Media Institute. He must be shaking in his boots. The only thing worse would be if the janitor at WorldNutDaily took him on.

What precisley makes Hezbollah a terrorist organization? The organization was born out of an 18 year occupation of Lebanon. Hezbollah arose from this turmoil to defend Lebanon from Israeli occupation. This is a perfectly justifiable initiative, no? Defending the homeland from foreign powers? Now, 20 years later Hezbollah acts as the cheif humanitarian and social organization in Lebanon, serving the disenfranchised people of the southern regions. The only actions that could be construed as illegal are the rocket attacks on Israel, which indiscriminately inflict damage. However, while civilians are endangered, they are not specifically targeted. The definition of terrorism is “violence targeted against civilians to promote or obtain political goals.” Hezbollah, by and large, has targeted the IDF, both within Lebanon and along the border on Israeli soil. This makes them a guerilla group whose aim is armed resistance of a military power. The civilians, albeit very very few, who have been harmed by Katyusha rockets are simply collateral damage. Similar to the thousands upon thousands of innocent Palestinian and Lebanese civilians killed by Israeli bombs. Mere collateral damage to war. That has been you contention all along, spob, has it not? That civilians die in war, such is the nature of war. SO why are Israeli killed civilians simply collateral damage, while those killed by Hezbollah constitute acts of terrorism?

[...] Neither, according to Time’s Joe Klein (shown at right in file photo), who insists in a July 20 Swampland blog post the fault lies with Israel: Benjamin Netanyahu’s phony flexibility on a two-state [...]

[...] Neither, according to Time’s Joe Klein (shown at right in file photo), who insists in a July 20 Swampland blog post the fault lies with Israel: Benjamin Netanyahu’s phony flexibility on a two-state [...]

They are a resistance movement, spob.

Or didn’t you notice they have quite a large number of fighters on the ground.

The word “terrorist” is an overused term, expanded to include armed groups (formerly called “guerillas”) who aren’t on your* side.

I’m sure that you consider the contras a legitimate resistance group. Actually, by proper defs they were.

The fog?

All agents in war are involved in terror. Israel itself is no exception. For information on that, just peruse any of the non-FOX news sites.

Oh, and just as a service rendered to Pirate Wench, I’ll say it for her:

Go f*ck yourself!

“Israel has seen fit to loosen restrictions on Gaza and withdraw.”

Try upgrading your memory, spob.

You wrote the words I bolded. In case you hadn’t noticed, you specified two actions, with withdrawal as the second one.

I’m much, much more alert to this stuff than you are, spob. I can drill down into the discussion and get to the issue at hand, which, in this case, is clear.

You’ve tried to disguise it, but when you wrote the words “natural law” a while ago, you gave yourself away, along with all credibility.

What you really have been trying to do is to substitute your own judgment for that of the rest of the world!

spob 0, 53_3 31…

Derek:

Is the janitor’s name Joe?

No that’s the plumber, another one of the heavy weight intellectuals the right has been recruiting to the cause, who obviously is more qualified that J Klein to talk about the Middle East, as well.

Do you think we will ever see the day when the right substitutes reason, for insult, as a form of argument?

Derek

Joe klein is not exactly an authority on the Middle East, and he is entirely too soft on Israel. Take this article, for example. Yes, he calls Israel out as an impediment to peace. Yet he is blinded by a misguided desire to be “fair,” and thus he makes ridiculous claims that an exclusively Israeli Jerusalem is “as foolish” as Palestinian return of refugees. So what he is saying is that Israel seeking to break international law, yet again, and annex all Jerusalem which was to be an international zone per the 1947 UN Partition Plan is as absurd as Palestinians wishing to return to their rightful homelands. To equate these two is to disingenuously cast rational pursuit of justice in the same light as blatant contempt of international law. Yet again, in “How Democracy Works,” Klein contends that Israel’s suggestion that it might temporarily freeze settlements warranted concrete Palestinian concessions. In this case, he is suggesting that Israel be rewarded for offering to temporarily abate its illegal activities in the West Bank. There should be no diplomatic reciprocation for mere adherence to international law, which forbids the illegal settlements in the West Bank.

Klein is insightful enough to realize the blatant illegitimacy of much of what Israel does and he is courageous enough to voice his opposition to immoral and illegal conduct, amidst an environment rampant with what Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Claire characterize as “The Politics of Anti-Semitism.” Yet, he is still beholden to Israeli propaganda of false equivalences and irrational pursuit of ‘fairness and balance’ in reporting on a conflict that is neither fair nor balanced.

[...] Neither, according to Time’s Joe Klein (shown at right in file photo), who insists in a July 20 Swampland blog post the fault lies with Israel: Benjamin Netanyahu’s phony flexibility on a two-state [...]

Neo I agree with much of what you have stated. Klein certainly did try to set aside the right of return, and if he is serious about wanting to see peace in the ME, he will need to change his mind on that point. I don’t see how there will be any peace without it. I just found it kind of funny that “Ken Shepard” was questioning his credentials.

Derek

No worries. I was simply using your post as an excuse to rant against Klein and his Israeli apologetics.