Receive HTML?

In the News
Who's Online
We have 2 members online
Show Support
Share the Vision
Vision of Hope
file under: Middle East Peacelegislationboycottsa new model for the Middle East 17 Jul 2011 3:00 PM
Is the Boycott Law Good for Israel? Posted by Nissim Dahan

In the Wild, Wild West, American settlers used to "circle the wagons" when their wagon train came under attack. Some of Israel's lawmakers are doing something similar in our time.


Faced with a barrage of international criticisms, and with a concerted campaign to delegitimize the Jewish state, and with mounting calls for boycotts, divestment and sanctions, some lawmakers have taken it upon themselves to pass laws which are intended to stem the tide of widespread condemnation of Israel's policies vis a vis the Palestinians.


One such law, The Boycott Law, allows for civil suits against Israelis who organize or publicly endorse boycotts against Israel or its institutions, including universities, settlements and businesses in the West Bank. While the law does not call for criminal sanctions, it does allow the victim of boycotts to sue for damages in civil court.


Critics of the legislation say that it violates free speech and free expression. Proponents say that free speech, which has its limits, does not give us the right to injure the economic wellbeing of others. They also say something along these lines, "How can we ask the world community to ban boycotts against Israel, if we aren't willing to do so ourselves?"


In my opinion, even though I understand the rationale for such laws, and even though I can relate to the pain caused by efforts to delegitimize Israel as the home for the Jewish people, especially given the painful history that brought Israel into existence in the first place, still, I believe that on the whole, such laws do more harm than good.


There are several reasons I oppose The Boycott Law: it doesn't work, it helps Israel's enemies, it fundamentally undermines what Israel is all about, and it diverts attention from what needs to be done to restore Israel's standing in the world.


The Boycott Law will not work. On the contrary, when people who believe strongly in a cause are told "no," they become even more emboldened to do exactly the opposite. Numerous examples come to mind. The Viet Nam War, for example, was opposed by millions of Americans, some of whom took to the streets, burned their draft cards in the face of criminal prosecutions, and brought the government to its knees in a bid to end the war. The Arab Spring, although the final results are still in play, is a recent example of people taking to the streets and declaring a resounding "yes" to freedom, while assuming incalculable personal risks themselves. Simply put, it is almost impossible, over the long term, to legislate successfully against the idealistic fervor of those who are deeply committed. It doesn't work, and may actually embolden those who have been sitting quietly on the sidelines.


Another problem with The Boycott Law is that is gives fodder to Israel's enemies, who are waging a propaganda war against the Jewish state, and who search for any means possible to discredit and delegitimize the state. Therefore, while Israel holds herself out as a "democratic" state, with full freedom bestowed on its citizenry, the Boycott Law can easily be portrayed as an affront to democracy, and as a curtailment to free speech. The enemies of Israel could easily say, "What kind of democracy can Israel be is she sets out to curtail the freedom of expression of her own people?" Even the Anti-Defamation League, not exactly a bastion of liberal thinking, criticized the law saying it could impinge on the "basic democratic right of Israelis to freedom of speech and freedom of expression."


The Boycott Law is also dangerous because it can lead to a slippery slope by which Israel loses sight of her identity, her historical legacy, and the moral justification for her existence. Israel came into being, in part, because of 2000 years of oppression of the Jewish people, including forced exile, forced conversion, discrimination, inquisitions, pogroms, etc., ultimately culminating in the Holocaust, which continues to stand as one of the most evil deeds perpetrated by the hand of man.


Out of the ashes of the Holocaust, came the birth of a new nation, the nation of Israel, in the land where Jews were historically and religiously connection for over 3000 years. It was fitting, therefore, considering what Jews went through to get a state of their own, that this nation would be democratic and free, and would protect the rights of all minorities, and would serve as a "light unto the nations." In many respects, Israel has lived up to this enormous challenge, and has come to embody much of what is needed to revitalize the Middle East: economic prosperity, job creation, education, democratic rule, personal freedom, the rule of law, protection of minorities, empowerment of women, etc. It would be very wrong indeed to allow the "paranoia" of the moment to undercut Israel's stellar achievements, to discount her ability to do good in the world, and to confuse her sense of identity.


My final objection to The Boycott Law is that it diverts attention from what really needs to be done to restore Israel's image in the world. Our goal, as Israelis, should be to consummate a peace deal with the Palestinians, and to bring an end to the occupation, as soon as peace is possible. In the meantime, to facilitate and expedite the peace process, we should be doing things which point to the possibility of peace, such as spearheading an effort to revitalize the Middle East economically with good paying jobs, to put new models in place, and to promote the emergence of personal freedoms throughout the region. The Boycott Law is a short-sighted diversion, an ideological poke in the eye, which diverts attention from constructive action that could be taken, even at this time, to end the diplomatic paralysis, to build neutral pathways to peace, and to move forward on a Vision of Hope for the region, a vision of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom.


Comments (51)Add Comment
written by GABE1, July 17, 2011
Your long winded objection to this law is misplaced. Laws are put in place to protect people from unwanted harm that minorities tend to cause. Murder, libel, burglary as well as commercial laws regulate inter population relations. Why not allow a paedophile to post child pornography or yell fire in a crowded theater or allow a HIV positive person to have unprotected sex.

We in the USA, the West and Israel are nations of laws and when deeds fall through the cracks we enact laws to correct.

What is going on in Israel is unprecedented and even in the USA during the Vietnam era this did not occur. One may disagree with a policy of the government and demonstrate against it but to take money from Foreign governments to to their bidding and to harm the state is not acceptable.

Freedom of speech of a tiny vocal and self hating minority who do not go to the army or support the state in any way is a price that the majority is willing to pay. There is no intrusion into freedom of speech but if it is deemed harmful than there will be a price to be paid. I see nothing wrong with that.

I always chuckle when people who do not even know what democracy is mistake it it for a license to commit suicide. I can give you 100 reasons why Canada and the USA are not democracies even though I believe that they are the "greatest democracies" to date. So please do me a favour and lets not use that as a red herring.

Do I really care what the EU or the Arab world thinks about Israeli laws. The short answer is "NO" and the longer answer is "Mind your own business and worry about yourselves first. Clean out your own stable first"

Can you tell me about Freedoms of the Indians in Canada and the USA: the Aboriginals in Australia: the Mayas in South America: the Tibetans in China: the Kurds, the Gypsies, The Basques, etc, etc.

Do these countries worry about the world-NO. Why should we?
Why We Have to Worry About What Others Think?
written by Nissim Dahan, July 18, 2011
You make some strong points.

One of your stongest points is: Given the hypocrisy we see around the world, especially in parts of Europe, why should we worry about what others think, especially considering that as compared to them, Israel stands out as a viabrant democracy, considering the perils she faces on a daily basis.

That is a strong point. But in reality, we do have to worry about what people think, about PR and the like.

Israel is a very strong country, especially considering its small size. But Israel is far from being a super power. She is small, and she is vulnerable. And she depends on others for her economic wellbeing and for her security.

The U.S., for example, supplies Israel militarily, and supports her economically as well. We have to worry about what the U.S. thinks. There's no getting around that.

We do quite a lot of trade with Europe. And yes, the liberals there are often hateful with regard to the Jewish State, especially considering the history that took place in Europe with regard to the Jews.

But still, we are not powerful enough to write Europe off.

We are small and we are vulnerable. We have to factor that in.

And where are we located? We are situated in one of the toughest neighborhoods imaginable. And yes, we have no choice but to protect ourselves, to remain strong, and to do whatever we have to do to survive.

I realize that the calls for boycotts, and the effort to delegitimize the Jewish state, are threats that must be taken seriously, in our never ending duty to protect ourselves.

However, my problem with the right wing legislation is that these laws will do more harm than good, will not protect us, and could be used against us in the court of public opinion, which we have no choice but to take into account.

As you suggest, the law is a balancing act between our freedoms on the one hand, and the needs to protect society on the other. You are not allowed to yell "fire" in a movie theater. The courts have determined that your right to free speech is outweighed by the public interest in protecting the audience.

In Israel, we have a balancing act as well. Yes, we have to protect the wine producers, and the universities and the like. But we also have a vested interest in remaining true to our national character as a true democracy with the accompanying freedoms inherents in that, including freedom of expression, about things like the occupation, which is near and dear to the hearts of a majority of Israelis.

I would draw the balance differently, and use other mechanisms to get done what we have to get done to protect the Jewish state.
written by GABE1, July 18, 2011
PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD LOVE BEING LOVED. I am not an exception to this rule. Nations do not require that Love Economics and Brute force have historically determined "love" amongst Nations.Self interest decides whom we will love. No amount of PR will change that. The Turks will not love the Greeks and the British will not love the French and vice versa and so on. Europe like a prostitute switches alliances and they love the Arabs now because of the OIL. Should Israel start producing than the Europeans will discard the Arabs like yesterdays socks. STARK REALITIES.

Israels bona fides in the Middle east are well known so rehashing it is really not that productive.

Telling Europe to get the hell out of Israels political life and discourse is the way to go One way is the Anti-Boycott law in that it will give the Europeans a message that they can no longer determine what is or is not good for Israel. It will also tell the Israeli proxies who prostitute themselves for European money that the gravy train is over and there will be consequences to their actions.

Democracies are based on majority rule and the majority in Israel voted for representatives that have a different world view than Europe or the Oinkmaship and piss groups that are paid by Europe.These groups cannot or should be allowed to subvert the will of the majority. That is not democracy.

There is no balancing act involved here.

The USA under Obamination is not the USA as personified by the American people and that is who we must outreach to and the same with Europe, although Europe may be a harder sell because of the Eurabia symptoms. But that is a European problem to solve. Israel must keep its course and not succumb to "easy fixes" which are in essence not.
written by zcardin, July 18, 2011
This law is not good for Israel. It undermines the Democratic values that Israel holds so deeply. Israel is deligitmaizing itself by succumbing to " red scare" tactics. Hopefully the supreme court will overturn this Bill as it should.
written by GABE1, July 18, 2011
"not good for Israel". You are a little short on details as to why. "Democratic Values" "Red Scare" seem like such nice bogeyman soundbites but far from the realities that this law represents.

Which Democratic Values in your opinion does it undermine. Perhaps the right to Boycott-Divestment of fellow citizens and all the while raking in millions from European Governments, Here I thought that Prostitution in any form was illegal all over the world. You mistake Israel for Amsterdam.
"Red Scare" is simply untrue here. No Jail for offenders but pocketbook penalties so that even when money comes in from Europeans it will be forfeited to the people that have been harmed. Israeli Citizens living legally in an are that they consider theirs (just like the Arabs do)and is therefore disputed and producing goods that other Israelis want to purchase. I also thought that Democracy scares the Leftists and "REDS" do not scare a Democracy where majority rules.
written by zcardin, July 18, 2011
Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.

I will ellicudate my opinion. Just because Israel is scared of what people will do does not justify an abridgement on activities. Boycotts have been seen world wide as a peaceform form of protest. May I remind you that the African Americans boycotted busses for around of year until they had equality. Israel has nothing to gain from banning a boycott. Also I do not agree with how the boycott bill went down Natanyahu was not present. This bill is not what Israel was established to be a Jewish democracy.

written by GABE1, July 18, 2011
There are no issues here with free speech, even though not all speech is free. Nothing is being banned but rather like in libel laws there are penalties for interfering with the functioning of the state and harming civilians going about their lawful business.

Your second paragraph is simply a sound bite without any particular point.

So perhaps you can define Democracy for us as well as the various derivatives of it.
written by GABE1, July 18, 2011
To help you out, I will refer you to a lawful strike against a company. The legislative steps in and orders all employees back to work. The employees continue to strike. What do the Legislators usually do in this scenario.

I presume that in your world the back to work legislation is illegal if- Not unanimous, if the employees say it is.

It is not so just because you or Leftists say it is so.

It's Not About Love. It's About What Works and What Doesn't
written by Nissim Dahan, July 19, 2011
I get your point that relations between nations is not about being loved.

In fact, you point out quite nicely what motivates nations to act as they do: Economics, Brute Force and Self-Interest.

I would agree with that Gabe. In fact, your assessment coincides nicely with the notion that we use mutual self-interest to create a strategic/economic alliance which would include Arabs and Jews working together to keep the extremists in check, and to revitalize the entire region economically with good paying jobs.

You see how that works?

Now as to the boycott law, I am not so sure that such legislation, and others like it, reflects the will of the majority of Israelis. In fact, I would venture to say that the vast majority of Israelis want a two-state solution, with two states living side by side in peace. And I would also say that most Israelis, and Palestinians for that matter, would be willing to make concessions in that regard, along the lines of what Barak and Clinton put on the table in 2000, as modified by Abbas and Olmert.

Even though you might be right in making a legal case for such legislation, I think that ZCardin is also right in stating quite unequivocally that by passing such laws, "Israel is delegitimizing herself..."

Let us not forget that this law is not the only one of its kind. Another law allows small neighborhood associations to decide who can and can't live there, which is a pretext for keeping Arabs out.

Not a good law in my opinion, and certainly not in keeping with the image of Israel that many of us have of her.

And the fact is that such laws are not effective and will probably be struck down by the Supreme Court. Why should it come to that? If the laws are unconstitutional on their face, then why pass them just to score political points? The price you pay is world condemnation at a time when you need to rally worldwide support.

And I would agree as well, as ZCardin puts it, that such legislation is not in keeping with "...What Israel was established to be, a Jewish democracy..."

The word "democracy" as you suggest, is open to interpretation, and there are definitely different forms of it, but certainly a law which is intended to stifle political discussion of such an important issue as the occupation, could not possibly be in keeping with the spirit of democracy. If people can't comment about the need to bring the occupation to an end, even using peaceful protests, then what can they comment on?

The occupation is not pretty, and is not in Israel's long term interests. That situation must be brought to some sort of resolution. It may take some protests to bring that about, and some methods, short of violence, may be used by the people to effectuate change. Given the importance of this issue to the future viability of the Jewish state, a law which seeks to impinge on such expression, is not only illegal, but is contrary to the best interests of the nation, even given any legal justification which is proffered in its defense.
written by GABE1, July 19, 2011
I am not so sure that such legislation, and others like it, reflects the will of the majority of Israelis. In fact, I would venture to say that the vast majority of Israelis want a two-state solution, with two states living side by side in peace. And I would also say that most Israelis, and Palestinians for that matter, would be willing to make concessions in that regard, along the lines of what Barak and Clinton put on the table in 2000, as modified by Abbas and Olmert.

Nissim, I just hate it when people post something without looking at facts on the ground.
Lieberman is the most popular politician in Israel today. According to polls the law was well received by the public at large. Yes Israelis want peace but according to polls are not prepared to make any more concessions until the Arabs come up with some of their own. No one in Israel is willing to divide Jerusalem, one of Clintons suggestions.
If the Arabs are prepared to compromise than why did Rabin, Peres, Barak and Olmert not sign an agreement. They were after all the most accomdating PM's that Israel has ever had, at least towards the Balis.

written by GABE1, July 19, 2011
Even though you might be right in making a legal case for such legislation, I think that ZCardin is also right in stating quite unequivocally that by passing such laws, "Israel is delegitimizing herself..." You just managed to create a straw man. Israel is being delegimemized well before this law and you are simply ignoring the most ignoble of all "Zionism is Racism Resolution" and "Gallstone"
Please be REALISTIC. Fiction does not become anyone.

PS: ISRAEL DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTION. If the law is struck down than we have a serious problem with the Judiciary as they are only the interpreters of Law and only the Knesset can make Laws-JUST LIKE IN THE USA.

Lastly, let me state that "occupation" is only a word associated with the Left and people who are about to be charged for political crimes in Israel. Yes there is occupation , but it is Arab occupation. It has been showing up in terrorism and massacres since 1929 and has not abated until now.

You should choose your words more carefully lest someone may get the idea that you are an apologist for the Arabs.

Democracy is simply a word that denotes the rule of the majority of people. In the USA while segregation existed it was still a democracy. So please lets get of the dime and not make interpretations that have no meaning in universal terms. Israel was set up as a Jewish State and haven for the Jews and not as a World Order Socialist Country. I guess you and people like you have not internalized that. Israel must do what is best for Israeli JEWS who voted in the majority for a certain program.

You are trying to overturn that democracy because some law does not fit into your cubicle. Israel has a legal autonomous right to protect itself from within and without and all the WORLD can take a FLYING LEAP.
written by zcardin, July 19, 2011
Israel should not punish "peaceful descent". Israelies should be allowed to critize the imperfections of its own country. Democarcy is not only the majority rule but the ability to disagree peacefully with currengt policy. I think boycotting is peaceful dissent.
written by GABE1, July 20, 2011
I am flabbergasted by your "don't confuse me with facts reply"

I am so glad that Israel is a vibrant democracy even though people like you try to abuse it. You did not even bother to reply to my "strike" comparison with the USA. Boycotts are by its very nature not beaceful.
Checks and Balances vs. The Tyranny of the Majority
written by Nissim Dahan, July 20, 2011
Lieberman may be popular, Gabe, but that doesn't mean he's right, or that he understands what is best for the nation.

He may inspire a nationalistic fervor. But he may still be steering the country in a bad direction.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution, as you know, put in place a system of checks and balances to avoid the tyranny of the majority, whereby what is popular is used to usurp constitutional mandates.
Checks and Balances Continued
written by Nissim Dahan, July 20, 2011
The hard part with freedom of speech is that you have to tolerate speech that you find abhorrent.

For example, Palestinians like to celebrate Nakba Day, which was the founding of the State of Israel. But they call that a catasrophe. I call it a "miracle," a gift from God after 2000 years of suffering. But for speech to be free, I may have to tolerate that day being called a catasrophe. And one of the laws being considered is to outlaw Nakba Day celebrations, and to penalize anyone who participates in that.

As to Jerusalem, Jerusalem does not necessarily have to be divided, but it may have to be shared. If Jerusalem is the City of Peace, then let it be used to usher in an age of peace. So what you could do is to say that Jews will have sovereignty in this area, and Arabs in that area, but the city will remain whole, and defended by Israel.

That type of formulation is just semantics. We already have a city that is being shared by all three regigions. So what's the big deal in formalizing that in some way?

The big deal is ideological. But we may have to move beyond ideology, and beyond what we happen to believe, into a realm where we start believing in what makes sense.
Checks and Balances Continued
written by Nissim Dahan, July 20, 2011
Now, as Gabe suggests, Israel was and is being demonized and deligitimized before this boycott law came into effect, and this will continue even after the law is repealed.

No one is saying that there is a fair correlation between what Israel does and this process of demonization. Israel has its enemies, as the Jews had theirs. And some people are out to destroy the Jewish state no matter what.

What I'm trying to suggest is that we Jews shouldn't make it any easier for them. By circling the wagons, and passing legislation that on its face is discriminatory, or that curtails free expression, we are making the job of our enemies even easier. After a while, we may end up looking like South Africa defending apartheid, even though that is the futhest from the truth, and even though Israel offers more protection to Arabs then any Arab country on earth. But as they say, perception is reality.

As to why there wasn't a peace deal before, even with so many attempts, the answer is simple. There was no peace deal because a deal was not perceived to be in the mutual interest in both parties.

I believe that there is at least half a chance that this may be different in the near future. As I've said before, there is a new alignment of the stars today, by which the self-interest of the key players is coming into alignment with the best interest of the region. People have a knife to their throats, and a knife to your throat concentrates the mind.
It is an "occupation."
written by Nissim Dahan, July 20, 2011
Gabe, we can play with words, but it is an occupation in my book. After 1967 Israel had a choice. It could choose to pull back to the 1967 lines, or it could occupy the West Bank, for security reasons.

However, the strictly security justification fell apart when we started buiding settlements, after the famous 3 "No's" of Kartoom. We did not annex the land, because obviously we didn't want a state where we would be outnumbered. So we occupied instead, and many Israelis are coming to the conclusion that the occupation, whatever the previous justifications, is no longer in Israel's best interest.

Even though you don't agree with them, Gabe, it is reasonable to assume that there are Israelis who love Israel, but who are convinced that the occupation is taking us to a bad place. They don't want to be violent. They want to protest. And they may choose to endorse boycotts, which may not be fair to the settlers, but which may be appropriate given the harm that such people perceive if the occupation is allowed to continue. You may disagree, but the question is, are we justified in stifling such protests. And if we do go down this road, where will it end. And does it lead to a place we want to be?

You are right to say that Israel must do what is best for its people. The question that remains is, what is that? Saying that the "World can take a Flying Leap" may sound good, and may make us feel good, but will it take us to where we need to be?
written by GABE1, July 20, 2011
Nissim: Who decided there is an "occubation" by Israel. You, the Arabs or the Eurabians. The original word was "disputed territories".

Do you know the meaning of the word "occupation" and who was it conquered from? Did the Jordanians owns Judea and Samaria and if not who were the owners. As an aside, the Palestinians were not yer invented.

So please tell me how and under what conditions does occupation occur. I may be mistaken but I doubt it. Please do not give me the morality play. I am just sick of this Leftist soundbite.

While we are at it please tell me under what conditions the 1949 lines were set up and also the interpretations of the framers of 242. Have you even read them?

The Farkakte (shitty) world give not give a Flying Leap about Jews in 1939-1944 or 1947-1948 or even in 1949-1967 or in 1967 and 1973. We had to fend off for ourselves by ourselves. Yes it makes me feel good and will continue making me feel good. Except now I am confident to tell THEM to take a "Flying Leap". I am sure of myself as a Jew and the strength of my Nation. Obviously you are not.
You Have a Right to be Proud
written by Nissim Dahan, July 21, 2011
I can relate to your sense of pride when it comes to Israel. "I am sure of myself as a Jew and the strenght of my Nation."

I am also proud of Israel, even if you question that. But you know what I'm most proud of? I am most proud of the justice of her coming into being. After 2000 years of homelessness and oppression, we finally have a home of our own. In a sense, the existence of the Jewish state has a moral justification to it, that meets or surpasses that of any other nation on earth.

We can't afford to lose the legitimacy that our history has conferred to us.

Our legitimacy springs forth from the anguish of our history, and our innate ability to survive, and to thrive even against the greatest odds stacked against us.

And in the face of such odds, what did we do? We established a state that excells on so many level, and that is founded on the rule of law, and on the decency (derech eretz) which is at the heart of the Jewish tradition, including the decency with which we are instructed to treat our fellow man, who may not be equally disposed to treat us the same.

Israel may have to tolerate a certain measure of abuse, and it is abuse, in the name of moral decency, and for the sake of consummating a peace deal.

No one is saying that she should compromise her security. But within the need to secure oneself, there may be an opportunity to forge a peace deal which respects security considerations, but which allows the two people to live in peace.
Resolution 242
written by Nissim Dahan, July 21, 2011
This resolution was passed by the UN security council on Nov. 22, 1967 after the Six Day War.

Among other provisions, it says that lasting peace will require two things:

1. The removal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict. (Not all territories)

2. Ther termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

Israel accepted this resolution, and the Palestinians did only many years later during the Osla process.

It is important to note that the withdrawal anticipated was from occupied territories, but not all territories. But notice that the territories are referred to as "occupied."
What is Occupation?
written by Nissim Dahan, July 21, 2011
Gabe, you seem concerned with what "occupation" means?

I guess you could come up with a legal argument that says that Israel is not occupying the West Bank because these are "disputed territories."

Perhaps, but in my book, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.

If Israel controls the situation in parts of the West Bank, and decides to build settlements there, and tells Arabs where they can and can't live, or where they can or can't work, or where they can travel, and so forth, then Israel is occupying the land, regardless of the legal arguments that could be used at the Hague.

Israel was occupying parts of Lebanon, and Barak decided to pull out. Israel was occupying parts of Gaza, and Sharon decided to pull out.

I think we will soon be reaching the point where Israel may seriously consider pulling out of additional parts of the West Bank, and may do so unilaterally, if a negotiated settlment cannot be reached.

If Israel does this, it will be because in her considered opinion, it is better to do so, then to continue the present course.

So, for example, if a Palestinain State is declared in September, which probably will happen, Israel could decide to pull out of most of the West Bank, even unilaterally, and she may decided to annex the large settlement blocs which surround Jerusalem.

Of the 300,000 settlers who live in the West Bank, 220,000 live in these settlements blocs which will be part of Israel. Of the 80,000 that remain, 40,000 seem willing to move if they are compensated. The 40,000 who refuse to move could continue to live there, as part of a Palestinian state, if they so choose.

I am not saying that Israel should be forced to do this. I am saying that this is one option to be considered, and should be decided based on what Israel considers to be in her long term best interests.

And you are right to say that I am not absolutely "sure" of Israel's fate. Given our history, I don't even pretend to be absolutely "sure" of anything. However, I like the fact that Israel is strong, and I want her to continue to be strong. What we're talking about is how to best do that.
written by GABE1, July 21, 2011
Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

• Institute for the Study of Diplomacy:
Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.

• Journal of Palestine Studies, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:

Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?

A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” The can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.

• Daily Star (Beirut), June 12, 1974. Qtd. in Myths and Facts, Leonard J. Davis, pg. 48:

It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ...

• Interview on Kol Israel radio, February 1973, qtd. on Web site of Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

Q. This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?

A. The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...

Nothing in this piece about Palestinians and it could be inferred that a secure border is the Jordan River as the negotiations and the Green Line were with Jordan. I am just sick and tired of your morality play. Let the Arabs be moral for a change and Eurabia can take a FLYING LEAP.
written by GABE1, July 21, 2011
Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs. He helped draft Resolution 242.

• Telegram from the Department of State to the U.S. Interests Section of the Spanish Embassy in the United Arab Republic summarizing Rostow’s conversation with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin:

Rostow said ... resolution required agreement on "secure and recognized" boundaries, which, as practical matter, and as matter of interpreting resolution, had to precede withdrawals. Two principles were basic to Article I of resolution. Paragraph from which Dobrynin quoted was linked to others, and he did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated. These words had been pressed on Council by Indians and others, and had not been accepted.

• Proceedings of the 64th annual meeting of the American Society of International Law, 1970, pgs 894-96:

... the question remained, “To what boundaries should Israel withdraw?” On this issue, the American position was sharply drawn, and rested on a critical provision of the Armistice Agreements of 1949. Those agreements provided in each case that the Armistice Demarcation Line “is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims or positions of either party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.” ... These paragraphs, which were put into the agreements at Arab insistence, were the legal foundation for the controversies over the wording of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Security Council Resolution 242, of November 22, 1967. ...

The agreement required by paragraph 3 of the resolution, the Security Council said, should establish “secure and recognized boundaries” between Israel and its neighbors “free from threats or acts of force,” to replace the Armistice Demarcation Lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June, 1967. The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines, as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the resolution, and in a condition of peace.

On this point, the American position has been the same under both the Johnson and the Nixon Administrations. The new and definitive political boundaries should not represent “the weight of conquest,” both Administrations have said; on the other hand, under the policy and language of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, and of the Security Council Resolution of November 22, 1967, they need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines. ...

This is the legal significance of the omission of the word “the” from paragraph 1 (I) of the resolution, which calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces “from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” and not “from the territories occupied in the recent conflict.” Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word “the” failed in the Security Council. It is therefore not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the Cease-Fire Resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation Lines.

Those who claim that Resolution 242 is ambiguous on the point are either ignorant of the history of its negotiation or simply taking a convenient tactical position.

• The New Republic, “Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies,” Oct. 21, 1991:

Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from “all” the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the “fragile” and “vulnerable” Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called “secure and recognized” boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.

• The New York Times, “Don’t strong-arm Israel,” Feb. 19, 1991:

Security Council Resolution 242, approved after the 1967 war, stipulates not only that Israel and its neighboring states should make peace with each other but should establish “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” Until that condition is met, Israel is entitled to administer the territories it captured – the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip – and then withdraw from some but not necessarily all of the land to “secure and recognized boundaries free of threats or acts of force.”

written by GABE1, July 21, 2011
Eugene Rostow is the former US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs.? He played a leading role in drafting Resolution 242, which many cite as the basis for Israel/Arab peace agreements.? Mr. Rostow, before he died, always claimed that Resolution 242 is still binding, and that this resolution gives the Jews the full right to live within the West Bank and Gaza:

…the Jews have the same right to settle there as they have to settle in Haifa. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never parts of Jordan, and Jordan’s attempt to annex the West Bank was not generally recognized and has now been abandoned. The two parcels of land are parts of the Mandate that have not yet been allocated to Jordan, to Israel, or to any other state, and are a legitimate subject for discussion.

The international community has thrown around the expression “international law” and “Palestinian rights” in discussing the issue of Israeli settlement, but few have actually looked at the law and the opinions of the lawmaker, upon which these statements are based.? It is clear that the drafters of Resolution 242 were not banning Israeli settlement in the West Bank and Gaza.? Anybody who argues this fact hasn’t read the laws or surveyed the opinions upon which the resolutions we
written by GABE1, July 21, 2011
There is a long line of quotes to show that not all are of the opinion that Israel occupies anything. I get very offended by Jews that KNOW what is best for Israel. (You have never told me when was the last time that you were there). Israeli leaders from Golda Meir on have determined certain red lines that you believe are jokes. Is not Leftism grand. One can choose and pick what he likes and discard the wishes of the majority if it does not suit them.

I will bet you that there will not be a Palestinian State in any Borders in my ,your or our grand children's lifetime. The Arabs are not after some borders, they are after the whole enchillada-Israel.

written by GABE1, July 22, 2011
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

PLEASE TRANSLATE THIS PARAGRAPH FROM THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION and how it relates to your belief(mistaken) that Israel occupies anything.

BTW: There seems to be no clear definition of occupation in this convention. If Florida declares itself a country and the USA retakes it within a year , does that qualify as "occupation".

1947 UN votes for partition Israel agrees the Arabs not.
Israel declares a State and the Arabs attack.
Jordan captures Judea and Samaria and annexes it
1967 Jordan attacks Israel and Israel captures Judea and Samaria.

As a lawyer you could answer these questions.
1. UNGA votes for partition but the Arabs reject. In International Law. there is no CONTRACT and the last operational League of Nations decision is the Mandate for Palestine. The Borders of Israel therefore revert to this last agreement.
2. Jordan's conquest is illegal and the question is who did they conquer it from. I maintain Israel.
3. You have two scenarios possible
1. Israel simply recaptures its own land in keeping with the League of Nations, Mandate for Palestine (It was btw ratified by the USA Congress)
2. Israel conquered the land for a conqueror. The question is from whom?
There is legality and there is reality, and reality bites.
written by Nissim Dahan, July 22, 2011
First of all, I last visited Israel, the land of my birth, in 2009. My wife and I were invited to attend the President's Conference in Jerusalem, which we did. On this trip I met with Munib al Masri, at his home in Nablus, and he subsequently agreed to be part of the team which I refer to as Billionaires for Peace.

My family goes back 200 years in Israel. The parents of my grandmother were the first 60 families to start the city of Tel Aviv. There is an iconomic photograph which shows them on the sand dunes picking lots.

You keep calling me a "leftist." I don't really think of myself that way. I think of myself as a "centrist" because I hold near and dear the notion, as espoused by the likeds of Aristotle and later Maimonides, of the Golden Mean, by which it is said that usually the truth of a matter is to be found somewhere in the middle between two extremes. In short, the truth is not an extremist position, but is somewhere in the middle, which is where I usually find myself.

If I am a "leftist," which I'm not, then I'm a leftist who believes in the following; Israel's existence is a moral imperative, she has as much right to existence as any country on earth, the 1967 border is not the proper one, and the final borders between the two people will have to be adjusted, and Israel will have to annex a small protion of land to secure itself, and the large settlement blocs will probably be part of that annexation. I also believe that Israel should do what is in its best interests, and that she has a right to defend herself using any means at her disposal.

So if I'm a leftist, I that type of leftist. But I will add that in my opinion, Israel could do a lot more than she's doing to further the cause of peace, and I also believe that peace is the only way for Israel to consolidate her security. In addition, I believe that the situation on the ground is different than anything we've seen before, and that there are opportunities to make things happen on the peace front, and that such efforts will involve a revitalization of the entire region, including the creation of millions of Western jobs as well.

I see this not as a "leftist" but as a pragmatist who sees no other solution.
The Intent Behind 242
written by Nissim Dahan, July 22, 2011
Gabe, I appreciate your research on the UN resolution 242.

The central point is that the new borders between Israel and Palestine are to be "secure and recognized boundaries."

The word "secure" means that these boundaries be defensible, and it is clear, in light of previous wars, and in light of present military capabilities, including missles and the like, that the 67 borders would have to take security threats into account, and that Israel would have to retain some land for this purpose.

Also, as your research documents, the borders should be "recognized" and in reality, only a final agreement could meet this test. Therefore, even if Israel withdraws unilaterally, then the new borders would still not be "recognized" as envisioned in the 242 resolution.

So I would agree with you, and with the offials you refer to, that the final borders would be somewhat different from the 1967 borders, which were somewhat arbitary, based on the Armistice Agreements of 1949, which were arbitary themselves because they did not take security into account.

That is why, with Barak and Olmert, it was always presumedd that about 4-6% of the land would be retained by Israel, in exchange for Israeli land, in a series of land swaps, and that these swaps could help Palestinians as well, for example, to create a land bridge of some sort, between Gaza and the West Bank, although this also must take Israeli concerns into account.
written by GABE1, July 22, 2011
I applaud to for at least backtracking from your previous stance that Israel should have arbitrarily vacated Judea and Samaria.

Land swaps are a non starter as the Israeli public will not allow or forgive anyone who will part with the Galil and that is the anticipated land, the Arab triangle, that would be given up.

The Bush 2004 letter would more likely be the outcome. Gaza and Judea and Samaria would most likely be connected via a tunnel and not a bridge. Security wise it would be easier to control , including checkpoints along the route. Also easier to shut down in case of hostilities.

YOU still have not replied to my analysis of your "occupation" statement. Nor have you alluded to Eugene Rostows statement that Israels claim to Judea and Samaria has a stronger validity than that of the Arabs.

As to being a Leftist, I have no doubts about it but you do fluctuate between both Leftism and Centrism depending on how much your feet are put to the fire.

BTW: Legality and Possession are generally all that one needs to claim Legal Rights and possession.

Reality and legality are the same face of a coin. You seem to think that reality and law should somehow differ. That is just plain nonsense. In reality Israel is a Jewish State that reality cannot be changed. The laws of Israel are based on that reality. Leftists want to somehow change the nature of Israel by demonizing a portion of its citizens and scream bloody murder when they are prevented from denying the Jewish its democratic right and its majority from deciding what policies they will carry out.

What is an Occupation?
written by Nissim Dahan, July 22, 2011
I was side-tracked by a construction project at our home, and I did'nt get to finish my statement.

When I say that legality and reality are sometimes different, I mean to say that the law may point in one direction, but if that law is out of step with the will of the people, then reality may set in and the law will either be changed, or people may choose not to abide.

I guess you could make a case that as between Jordan and Israel, Israel certainly has a better claim to Judea and Samaria than Jordan.

Yes, a partition plan was proposed by the UN, and was accepted by Israel and rejected by the Arabs.

The Arabs attacked, Israel won, and the Armistice Agreements was based arbitarily on where the soldiers were at the end of hostilities.

Therefore, since Israel was fighting a war in self-defense, and since she needed the land to secure herself, then it could be argued that her claim to the land was justified, and she had a right to hold on to that land until a final settlement of all issues.

However, Israel went beyond just holding the land for security purposes. She build settlements. And at least in the mind of many Israelis, she has a God given right to that land, in religious terms, and also for the sake of consolidating her security.

However, and here's the rub, if Israel is holding the land, and controlling the shots there, but refuses to annex, because of the demographic problem of being outnumbered by Arabs, then it is infact occupying, even if you can make a legal argument that Israel has a right to be there, and to live there.

That's the essence of the problem. What do you do with millions of Palestinian Arabs, who live outside the Green line. If you annex, and you call yourself a democracy, then they have the right to become citizens, and vote you out of office. And if you don't annex, then you are occupying, because you are telling them how and where to live. You are witholding their right of self-determination.

That's a big problem, no matter how we interpret the law. And in fact, as you can see from the survey I sent you, the majority of Palestinians are in fact saying, "Hey, you want the West Bank, go ahead and keep it, and let's have one binational state."

Why shouldn't they say that, Gabe. They have a good argument for citizenship, and thereby bringing a swift end to the Jewish State.

That's the fix we've gotten ourselves into, regardless of how we interpret the law.

So I say, as between losing Israel, or pulling out of most of the West Bank, we pull out, hopefully based on a final agreement, but even unilaterally if we have to, and we keep what we have to keep for security, and the major settlement blocs, and we annex everything we have to on that basis.

If there is no agreement, we do this after a Palestinian state is declared, and we leave for the future the question of Jerusalem, and compensation for the refugees.

In other words, you may have the upper hand with regard to the law. But what I'm looking at is not the law, but the reality of the situation, and fashioning a solution that puts that reality in the best light.
written by GABE1, July 22, 2011
There is a group in Israel that would split Israel into two States. One Jewish and the other Jewish-Arab and leave it for time to determine whether Jew and Arab can live together. Another option is to pay the Arabs to leave and still another is to simply annex and deport all the Jordanian citizens. These are but a few solutions
written by GABE1, July 22, 2011
By Israel they are talking about Judea and Samaria and Israel proper.

When you are talking demographics you are in fact making the mistake that a lot in the Left are making, except that they are making that mistake on purpose.

Israel without Judea and Samaria has about 20% Arabs and with Judea and Samaria 28%. Within the next 20 years the Arab numbers are supposed to shrink as the birth rates are declining while Jewish birth rates are on the ascendancy. So if you are taking population exchanges we may have something to discuss otherwise lets not go into demographics as that is a red herring.


If a Palestinian State is established even on Israeli terms you will still have that 20% Arab population and in Judea and Samaria you will be adding a hostile, extremist population there and if Israel has to recapture or annex than you will have a bigger mess on your hands. The addition I am talking about are the so called Arabs who may in fact destabilize the area as unemployment would skyrocket and the Palestinians will lose all the UNWRA welfare money.

Nissim, as far as I am concerned and I am backed by quite a few Israelis the status quo suits me just fine.
Are You Sure of Your Numbers?
written by Nissim Dahan, July 24, 2011
I may be treading on thin ice here, considering you're an accountant and economist, but I think the demographic problem is more of a threat than you think.

Israel has a population of about 7.4 million of which 20%, or 1.5 million is Arab. The West Bank has a population of 2.5 million. If Israel annexes the West Bank, total population would be about 10 million, of which 4 million would be Arab, or about 40%. The birthrate in the Arab world is relatively high, even though our Haredim are doing their best to compete. But still, the demographic threat is there, especially considering that Israel wants to maintain its democracy, including "one man one vote."

In terms of your "long term threat," I think you're missing one point. Once Palestine becomes a state, then it becomes a state, with all the rights and privileges which pertain thereto, including all the responsibilities as well. So if we treat one another as partners, we could help each other grow and prosper. But if extremists take over, and if they decide to attack Israel, then Israel would have every right in the world to defend herself, just as she would with respect to any other state.

In a way, you could argue that as an occupier, Israel has her hands tied behind her back, because anything she does, even in self-defense, is watched closely around and world, and easily condemned. But once there are two states, then they have no choice but to treat one another with respect, or else all bets are off.

Selling a Vision of Hope, and Billionaires for Peace, are two models which can be used to better insure that the relations among states in the region will be positive and not negative.
written by GABE1, July 24, 2011
There is an article on Ynet by Yair lapid a Far Leftists and he talks about these demographics. I don't mind discussing nonsense as long as that nonsense can at least be documented.

Gaza is the larger of the two and it has only 1.2 million Arabs.

Come back when you have done your homework and not just mouthing unsubstantiated propaganda.

On the long term threat, I have not missed the point. Your UTOPIA prevents you from looking at reality and that my friend is really sad.
written by GABE1, July 25, 2011
Really sad that you would give the Arabs the benefit of the doubt even after decades of massacres, expulsions, terror and broken agreements. More Jews have been murdered post Oslo than at any other time in history except for the attempt to murder ALL Jews in 1948.

I know that you will whitewash all that and just say that after all this time will be different. JUST TRUST ME as I know the Arab mind, or something approximating this.

Your UTOPIAN vision is simply a recipe for disaster.

Once you give something away and acknowledge that there is such a people as the Palestinians than you cannot take it back without being an agressor or an occupier of someones sovereign lands, which they never were , are not and never will be. So please stop salivating. It will not happen in September or anytime soon.

Based on your statements, your so called love of Israel is simple contrived to cover your naivete or simply your conscious Leftist Inter nationalistic mind frame.

You can argue that Israel is an occupier and you would be dead wrong. I would not stoop to such outlandish Leftist and Arab labeling. I was not aware that squatters could acquire and f land that they are squatting on. The tragedy is that some Jews (Leftists) have the unmitigated gall to claim that it is so and the land actually belongs to these squatters. SAD. REALLY SAD.

Did you ever hear of "adverse possession"?
written by Nissim Dahan, July 25, 2011
First of all, if you have a demographic argument, please make it. I tired looking up the article you referenced, but he seems to be talking about Israel proper and not the territories. If you make the argument, we can debate it.

Also, in terms of "squatters" and all, there are instances in the law when you can possess land as a squatter, and over time you do acquire title, if you possession is adverse and open and in defiance of the true owner.

Of course, international law may well be difference, and certainly the terrirories are different from normal lands. However, one could argue that over time, and in defiance of Israel, the Palestinians have acquired a connection to the land, and some sort of national identity, even though you are right to say that historically they have never been a united people with national aspirations. But things change, don't they?

By the way, if there is absolutely no demographic problem, and if Israel's claims are so patently legitimate on their face, then why did Israel not annex? Simply out of politeness?

Or did Israel fear the demographics from the beginning, or the fact that world condemnation upon annexation would be overwhelming? Just a thought.

And yes, maybe I am naive, and maybe some of my ideas amount to no more than wishful thinking. However, I for one do believe that there is indeed something new on the table. The biggest reason why this could work, at this point in time, is because the Arabs are beginning to worry about the same things that Jews are worried about. They worry about radicalism, and about a nuclear Iran, and about the man on the street.

Not only do Arabs share these worries with Jews, but even more importantly, it may be precisely only Israel and the Jews which can help the Arab world get out of this mess. Israel, the Arabs, and the U.S. could come together to form a strategic/economic alliance to do two things: to fight against extremism, and to revitalize the entire region with jobs, education, freedom, etc.

You say this is naive. I say it's the only game in town. In fact, I think it's not only a good idea, but it's the only idea. I would challenge you, or any one else for that matter, to come up with a better idea, an idea which makes more sense.

Yes, there is something new on the table. Something which have never been there before. And if you don't factor this in, then who is really being naive?
written by GABE1, July 25, 2011
Also, in terms of "squatters" and all, there are instances in the law when you can possess land as a squatter, and over time you do acquire title, if you possession is adverse and open and in defiance of the true owner.

As someone with a law degree tell me the circumstances. I also have a Law Degree so lets not pull each others leg.

The facts have died

Op-ed: How many people live in Judea and Samaria? One’s answer depends on ideology

Yair Lapid
Published: 07.23.11, 16:41 / Israel Opinion

So how many people live in the territories?

Seemingly, it’s a simple question. There’s a certain area called “Judea and Samaria,” where a certain number of people live. What’s this number?

Yet a raging, almost violent debate surrounds the answer. The numbers range from two million to four million Palestinians (which, according to the economist from the previous clause, is a difference of no less than 100%) and somewhere between 200,000 to 350,000 settlers.

written by GABE1, July 25, 2011
The true numbers, Ettinger told Arutz-7 last month, are as follows: "Within the Green Line, there are currently 1.4 million Arabs, compared with almost 6 million Jews. In Judea and Samaria, there are 1.5 million Arabs, and not 2.3 million, as claims. In Gaza, there are 1.1 million, and not 1.5 million."
written by GABE1, July 26, 2011
Thanks for the Mazal Tov
written by Nissim Dahan, July 26, 2011
Thank you, Gabe, for the Mazal Tov. If there is anything that brings us a sense of hope in this world, it's the birth of a new baby. Almost all of us can relate to that, and therefore, we could extrapolate from this that there may well be other things that we can all relate to.

In terms of adverse possession, there is a concept in common law, which has been adopted in many states, that if you possess a piece of land for over 20 years, and if your possession is open, and plain to see, and not with the approval of the actual land owner, then you could well gain title to such land over time. The possession must be "notorious" in that it is defiant and open, for all to see, and without approval.

Technically, of course, this law would probably not apply to the Palestinian issue, because international law would be more applicable in that case. However, I'm using it here just to make the point that title to land, or at least a claim to it, could arise by means other than what is normally thought of as legal procedure.

The Palestinians, no matter how international law is interpreted, could well succeed in making a claim to the West Bank, based on their possession of the land, and based as well on their historical connection to that land. At least in the minds of most of the world community, they would probably succeed in making such a claim, as will soon be evidenced by their effort to gain statehood from the UN.

You could well argue that this should not be the cased based on international law and legal precedent. But the law is not always decisive in such matters. Public perception can play a major part.

As to the demographic problem, or non-prolem, depending on your point of view, I am certainly not in a position to argue the numbers. My numbers came from Wikipedia, which granted may not be the most authoritative source.

However, I would continue to argue that a pullout from the West Bank would be in Israel's best interests, if it could be done in a secure manner, and if the major settlement blocs around Jerusalem could be retained and annexed by Israel.

A negotiated settlement would be preferable, but a unilateral move should not be ruled out.

Such a move would nullify any claim that Israel is an occupier, and under the right circumstances, would pave the way for Israel taking a leading role in revitalizing Palestine, and the region as a whole, which in the long term would go a long way to secure the Jewish state, as a Jewish state.

Insead of being railroaded into doing what we don't want to do, how about taking the initiave in doing what we're going to end up doing anyway?
written by GABE1, July 26, 2011
Israel will not be railroaded into creating a hostile state with foreign Arabs (oops refugees) coming in and destabilizing Israels borders.

Squatters in the US can gain ownership only under conditions where the land is abandoned and where the squatter is paying all the levies against the property and is actively living on that property and/or working it. He must apply for title.

This is not the case in Judea and Samaria as most of that land until 1948 was owned by absentee landlords under agreements with the Ottomans and not as titled ownership. A large percentage of this land was owned or purchased by Jews. Most of the land however is state owned ie Ottomans, Jordanians and now Israel. I am sure that you will not argue that the Ottomans gained the land other than through conquest as did the British and had rights to deed it to whoever they wanted to. You would be dead wrong on that.

International law in the current climate is too political to have a go at it, but in a world free of bias there would never come a time when a 23 Arab state would be created.

Sorry to change topics but I do not know how to initiate a new discussion
written by zcardin, July 26, 2011 Is this cerimonial or ligitament.

written by GABE1, July 27, 2011
Do you believe that this "tearjerker" has any significance? I don't. Why not tell us the stories of Hamas's charter and how women in Gaza and Judea and Samaria follow them. About the Palestinian woman that was treated in Israel for severe burns who brought a suicide belt with her to blow up the hospital where she was treated.

Instead of swimming let these women demonstrate against the terror and honour killings. They will not do that because it is safer to demonize Israel than work for a genuine peace.

As for that Aharoni "ZONA shel Aravim", well I have said it all
An Interesting Article
written by Nissim Dahan, July 27, 2011
ZCardin, I actually enjoyed the article you referenced, and may end up writing a blog about it, much to the consternation of our good friend, Gabe.

You are always welcome to initiate a new discussion at any time, even in the Middle of a thread. You could also include your own article in the forum section.

I liked the article because it spoke to me on several levels, which I will elaborate on in the upcoming blog post.

And Gabe, nothing I suggest would require Israel to sacrifice her security. In fact, I would hope that Israel has the wisdom to judge how to best protect herself, and to reject any idea that compromises her security.

However, within that context, there is room for interpretation as to what will enhance securty, and what will compromise it. I would argue that in the long run, the occupation, or however you want to call it, will not enhance security, and will compromise it by pitting the whole world against the Jewish state.

Now, there are instances when it is justified to take the whole world on, especially when it's a matter of life and death. However, in this particular case, and given Israel's military superiority, and techonlogical expertise, I think that Israel would be able to defend herself even if she pulls out of most of the West Bank. And people like Ehud Barak, who are respected military leaders, seem to agreed.

Therefore, if we look at both sides of the picture, I think that on the whole we should get out of the occupation business, not only for the Palestinian' sake, but for our own.
written by GABE1, July 27, 2011
I do not salivate every time I hear the word peace or withdrawal. In fact I just laugh at the idiocy of some who somehow believe that this conflict is over land.

Both you and Zcardin cannot even explain why these women are trying to get into Israel when Aharoni cannot even get near the beautiful beaches of Gaza or why she does not join these women in Gaza to demonstrate for peace, against terror and Qassams and for womens rights.

Unlike you, I do not quake every time I hear intifada, Naqba, UN or any other threats emanating from the beaceful Balestinians.

Do not fool yourselves by repeating your mantra of "Israeli Security". It reminds me of Nero and his fiddling. Do not fool yourself my making these suicidal suggestions and claiming that they are for our sake. Plain unadulterated BS and if you don't know that than I feel sorry for you.

If you continue with that occupation crap than I assure you you will be debating with yourself.
written by GABE1, July 27, 2011
A short time ago, Iran 's Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged the Muslim World to boycott anything and everything that originates with the Jewish people.

In response, Meyer M. Treinkman, a pharmacist, out of the kindness of his heart, offered to assist them in their boycott as follows:

"Any Muslim who has Syphilis must not be cured by Salvarsan discovered by a Jew, Dr. Ehrlich. He should not even try to find out whether he has Syphilis, because the Wasserman Test is the discovery of a Jew. If a Muslim suspects that he has Gonorrhea, he must not seek diagnosis, because he will be using the method of a Jew named Neissner.

"A Muslim who has heart disease must not use Digitalis, a discovery by a Jew, Ludwig Traube.

Should he suffer with a toothache, he must not use Novocaine, a discovery of the Jews, Widal and Weil.

If a Muslim has Diabetes, he must not use Insulin, the result of research by Minkowsky, a Jew. If one has a headache, he must shun Pyramidon and Antypyrin, due to the Jews, Spiro and Ellege.

Muslims with convulsions must put up with them because it was a Jew, Oscar Leibreich, who proposed the use of Chloral Hydrate.

Arabs must do likewise with their psychic ailments because Freud, father of psychoanalysis, was a Jew.

Should a Muslim child get Diphtheria, he must refrain from the "Schick" reaction which was invented by the Jew, Bella Schick.

"Muslims should be ready to die in great numbers and must not permit treatment of ear and brain damage, work of Nobel Prize winner, Robert Baram.

They should continue to die or remain crippled by Infantile Paralysis because the discoverer of the anti-polio vaccine is a Jew, Jonas Salk.

"Muslims must refuse to use Streptomycin and continue to die of Tuberculosis because a Jew, Zalman Waxman, invented the wonder drug against this killing disease.

Muslim doctors must discard all discoveries and improvements by dermatologist Judas Sehn Benedict, or the lung specialist, Frawnkel, and of many other world renowned Jewish scientists and medical experts.

"In short, good and loyal Muslims properly and fittingly should remain afflicted with Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Heart Disease, Headaches, Typhus, Diabetes, Mental Disorders, Polio Convulsions and Tuberculosis and be proud to obey the Islamic boycott."

Meanwhile I ask, what medical contributions to the world have the Muslims made?

written by GABE1, July 27, 2011
I am truly perplexed that so many of my friends are against another mosque being built in Sydney ..

I think it should be the goal of every Australian to be tolerant.

Thus the Mosque should be allowed, in an effort to promote tolerance.
That is why I also propose that two nightclubs be opened next door to the mosque, thereby promoting tolerance from within the mosque.

We could call one of the clubs, which would be gay, "The Turban Cowboy ", and the other a topless bar called "You Mecca Me Hot."

Next door should be a butcher shop that specializes in pork, and adjacent to that an open-pit barbeque pork restaurant, called " Iraq o' Ribs."

Across the street there could be a lingerie store called " Victoria Keeps Nothing Secret ", with sexy mannequins in the window modeling the goods.
Next door to the lingerie shop there would be room for an adult sex toy shop, "Koranal Knowledge ", its name in flashing neon lights, and on the other side a liquor store called "Morehammered."
All of this would encourage the Muslims to demonstrate the tolerance they demand of us, so the mosque problem would be solved.

If you agree with promoting tolerance, and you think this is a good plan, please pass it on...
written by GABE1, July 27, 2011
That were two of many problems that the West has with Muslims. It offends me greatly that the left wants democracies to commit HARI KIRI just so that a "SPECIAL" group of people would behave like civilized citizens of this world. It offends me greatly when the left wants to sell Israel down the river of annihilation just so that they will not have to counter the many lies of "occubation" "apartheid state", Racist Laws" and other pure BS that they are peddling on behalf of the terrorists and terror facilitating Arabs.

Lets get real and call a spade a spade. Appeasement by throwing money at them will not change their behaviour. Giving them land that was never theirs will not change their behaviour. Making them perpetual refugees did not change their behaviour and keeping them on welfare did not change their behaviour.


So please lets cut the crap. Enough is Enough.
Trying to Make Sense of a World that Doesn't
written by Nissim Dahan, July 28, 2011
Gabe, you make some valid points, but there is room for interpretation as to what they mean, and what their implications are for our strategy in moving forward.

You point to the hypocrisy in the world, and it disgusts you, which is natural.

So for example, you point to the efforts of Israeli women to sneak Palestinian women to Israel's beaches, and to promote human rights, but you ask, fairly enough, why aren't Israeli women allowed to swim on the beaches of Gaza. Why, in short, is there a double standard.

You point to the boycotts that are called for in the Muslim world against the Jews, and point out, rather forcefully, that taken to an extreme, such boycotts, if followed, would deny Muslims of numerous medical advances made by Jews. Fair enough.

You talk about the Muslim demand for tolerance, in allowing them to build mosques where they choose, and allowing them to follow Sharia law, but you ask, and rightly so, where is Muslim tolerance in accepting ideas and values that are not their own.

You want us to get real, and call a spade a spade.

You want to change their behavior, and point out, quite candidly, that appeasement does not work, nor throwing money at them, nor giving them land, nor keeping them as refugees, nor welfare programs.

All that is hard to argue with. But here's the thing. Look at your medical example. The Jews are great at medecine. They go ahead and discover every thing you could think of. These discoveries are used by the througout this crazy world of ours. And guess what, Muslims and Arabs buy in as well. When Muslims or Arabs need medical attention, they don't hesitate seeking the help of a Jew.

Look carefully, Gabe, at what you're saying. In affect, our expertise in the medical field has established a credibilty in the world that is boycott proof.

This is an important point. You can reach a certain level of expertise and credibility where you services are needed, no matter what ideological imperative stands in the way.

In a way, Gabe, isn't that what I'm call for with Billionaires for Peace?

Before you say no, think about it carefully. If Jews know anything it is how to make and invest money. If you take this skill, not unlike the skill of medicine, and if you create jobs in the Arab world, would this not give us a certain measure of credibility, at least in the mind of many, and under the right circumstances, would this crediblity not help to render us boycott proof, just as we are in medicine?

You ask us to get real. I think I'm being real, Gabe. Yes, there is a lot of hypocrisy out there. No dount. And yes, there are pleny of double standards to go around. And yes, nothing we've tried, including your litany of sins, has seemed to work.

But your medical analogy is right on point. The same way that we've penetrated the ideological barriers with medicine, could be used to penetrate the ideological barriers with business.

In today's globalized world, business is the new language of diplomacy. Business creates its own ideological imperative. We may start hating each other's guts. But if we're making money together, we're going to find a way to get along. That's the answer, Gabe. And after a while we will begin to humanize each other in each other's eyes. It will be a slow tedious process. And it may or may not work. But the question remains, is it worth a try?
written by GABE1, July 28, 2011
written by GABE1, July 27, 2011
Do you believe that this "tearjerker" has any significance? I don't. Why not tell us the stories of Hamas's charter and how women in Gaza and Judea and Samaria follow them. About the Palestinian woman that was treated in Israel for severe burns who brought a suicide belt with her to blow up the hospital where she was treated.


Why are you so selective?

BTW I posted it on this blog on July 27,2011.

NO, it is not worth a try . Let the Beacefull Balestinians try being civilized and not be so drunk on the idea of annihilating Israel. You could try getting a spine and stop being a jellyfish. I know it does not square with your Leftist agenda , but try it nevertheless.

Frankly, I am tired of your butts in the face of irrefutable facts to the contrary.
What do you have against jellyfish?
written by Nissim Dahan, July 29, 2011
Jellyfish are majestic creatures. They have no backbone, but their flexibility has allowed them to weather the storms of harsh environments. They have been able to adapt to change, and have managed to survive for ions, much longer than us.

So what do you have against them.

You suggest that Palestians should be more civilized and should "...not be so drunk on the idea of annihilating Israel." Okay. Great. Now what are you prepared to do to make that happen. Or is it enough to simply say it.

After World War I we left it to the Germans to become more civilized. How did that work out?

After World War II we learned our lesson and invested in the Marshall Plan. That worked out a little better, didn't it? How about a Marshall Plan for the Middle East finanaced with Arab capital. Oh no, that is simply out of the question. That couldn't possibly work, could it? No way Jose.

How about thinking out of the box that you've built for yourself?
Write a comment:
You must be logged in to comment. Please login or register if you do not have an account.