I won't even address the idea that Israel somehow controls the U.S. government. It's an ugly idea, and I think what is happening now in American-Israeli relations is proof enough of its falsehood.
I'll address it instead then. And let's keep in mind that this is the first time in 40 years that the U.S government has stood up to Israel on the question of settlements.
Israel lobby presses Congress to soften Obama's tough stance on Netanyahu
American Israel Public Affairs Committee circulates letter urging White House to 'reinforce' relationship with Israel
* Chris McGreal in Washington
* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 30 March 2010 19.24 BST
America's main pro-Israel lobby group is mobilising members of Congress to pressure the White House over its bitter public confrontation with Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.
The move, by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), appears aimed at exploiting differences in the Obama administration as it decides how to use the crisis around settlement building in Jerusalem to press Israel towards concessions to kickstart peace negotiations.
Aipac has persuaded more than three-quarters of the members of the US House of Representatives to sign a letter calling for an end to public criticism of Israel and urging the US to "reinforce" its relationship with the Jewish state.
The open letter, which has been circulating among members of Congress for the last week, says that while it is recognised that there will be differences between the two countries, they should be kept behind closed doors. "Our view is that such differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence," it says.
The public differences, and revelations of Obama's private snubs of Netanyahu at the White House last week, have proved embarrassing to the Israeli leader at home, where he has been accused of undermining Israel's most important relationship.
Signatories to Aipac's letter include Steny Hoyer, the Democrat majority leader, and Eric Cantor, the Republican whip. The wording is similar to an email Aipac sent out during Netanyahu's visit, describing Obama's criticisms of the Israeli government as "a matter of serious concern" and calling on the US administration "to take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish state".
But while Aipac has for years influenced US policy on Israel, by targeting members of Congress who criticise the Jewish state, it may no longer have the same impact.
Robert Malley, a former special assistant to President Bill Clinton for Arab-Israeli affairs, said the administration's decision to take a once routine disagreement over settlement construction in East Jerusalem and turn it in to a confrontation is a reflection of the determination in the White House.
"This episode tells us more about the past and the future than the present. It's a reflection of the accumulated frustration and mistrust of the Netanyahu government by the White House. For the future, they're headed for a collision on the pace and nature of peace negotiations," he said. "We're seeing determination."
A source, who is consulted by administration officials on Israel policy but did not wish to be named, said that having chosen to take Netanyahu on, Obama cannot afford to back away. "The administration's credibility is at stake – in Israel and the Arab world. Netanyahu thought he had the better of it last year after he humiliated the president by rejecting his demand for a settlement freeze. If the administration does not follow through on this, or reaches some compromise that takes the heat off the Israelis, I suspect it will be almost impossible for us to get anything off the ground," he said.
Netanyahu appears to have been caught off guard by Obama's stand, perhaps because he was overconfident of being able to bypass the administration by relying on strong support for Israel in Congress. But while Aipac has been able to mobilise support for its letter, Congressional leaders have remained largely silent on the substance of the dispute.
That is, in part, because there is little enthusiasm for Jewish settlements. In addition, the White House has played an unusual card in suggesting that Netanyahu's intransigence is endangering US interests in the Middle East, and the lives of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"So far, I've been surprised by how muted congressional reaction has been," said Malley. "It may come, but if the administration manages to portray this as an issue of US national interest, it may be able to sustain a level of criticism."
However, there are reports of divisions within the administration on how to proceed. The US special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, and the national security adviser, James Jones, believe Israeli governments respond to pressure. Last year an Israeli diplomatic memorandum described Jones as having told European officials that the US administration would take a hard line with the government in Jerusalem. Some officials favour mapping out a blueprint for peace and pressing both sides to adopt it.
But other officials argue against forcing Netanyahu to make compromises that will bring down his rightwing coalition. There has been criticism from Dennis Ross, who served as Bill Clinton's Middle East envoy. Now a Middle East strategist for the Obama administration, he is reported to be arguing for the White House to ease up on Netanyahu. However, Ross is regarded by some sceptics as too close to Israel. He has publicly argued that Jerusalem must remain undivided and is regarded with suspicion by the Palestinians, who saw him as effectively negotiating on Israel's behalf, rather than as a neutral mediator.
Malley says that whatever the Obama administration does it is almost certain to lead to further confrontation with the Israeli government. "The next crisis is more or less inevitable, given the diverging views of the Israeli and US governments on the pace and direction of the emerging talks," he said.
War of words
"We must not be trapped by an illogical and unreasonable demand."
Binyamin Netanyahu on Obama's demand for an end to settlement construction in East Jerusalem.
"I think at one point the [Israeli] prime minister added that he did not see a distinction necessarily between building in Jerusalem and building in Tel Aviv. We disagree with that."
White House spokesman on Netanyahu's reaction to the demand for an end to settlement construction.
"We recognise that, despite the extraordinary closeness between our country and Israel, there will be differences over issues, both large and small. Our view is that such differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence, as befits long-standing strategic allies."
Letter signed by members of Congress pressing the administration to avoid such public disagreements.
I'll address it instead then. And let's keep in mind that this is the first time in 40 years that the U.S government has stood up to Israel on the question of settlements.
Be that as it may, the fact that there are pretty big disagreements between U.S. and Israel right now with regards to settlement is evidence that any "control" Israel exerts over the U.S. is weakening ... In all honestly, the idea that Israel pulls puppet strings in America is disconcertingly similar to old notions that Jews control all the major financial institutions, Hollywood, etc. US foreign policy has long dovetailed with Israel's, which is the result of all kinds of factors that have nothing to do with direct control.
I'll address it instead then. And let's keep in mind that this is the first time in 40 years that the U.S government has stood up to Israel on the question of settlements.
Be that as it may, the fact that there are pretty big disagreements between U.S. and Israel right now with regards to settlement is evidence that any "control" Israel exerts over the U.S. is weakening ... In all honestly, the idea that Israel pulls puppet strings in America is disconcertingly similar to old notions that Jews control all the major financial institutions, Hollywood, etc. US foreign policy has long dovetailed with Israel's, which is the result of all kinds of factors that have nothing to do with direct control.
So the fact that 'Aipac has persuaded more than three-quarters of the members of the US House of Representatives to sign [the] letter' is not relevant?
Have you considered the radical idea that perhaps AIPAC simply makes a convincing case, or that many members of congress probably don't share your politics and happen to agree with many positions that AIPAC takes. That seems like a much more plausible position than that there is some conspiracy whereby Israel dictates US foreign policy from Jerusalem.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Have you considered the radical idea that perhaps AIPAC simply makes a convincing case, or that many members of congress probably don't share your politics and happen to agree with many positions that AIPAC takes. That seems like a much more plausible position than that there is some conspiracy whereby Israel dictates US foreign policy from Jerusalem.
Really? So what is AIPAC's case then? Go ahead and enlighten us Oh wise one.
And the occupation predates Hamas and Palestinian terrorism.
Occupation began in June, 1967. PLO was formed in 1964. Interesting. Unless I'm mistaken 1964 came before 1967.
Hamas isn't the same as the PLO. They are two separate entities. Nice attempt at trying to appear clever.
You said Palestinian terrorism was a response to the occupation. You didn't say Hamas terrorism. Nevertheless, I would argue that the fact that Palestinian terrorism began before the occupation is a strong indication that there is a strain of thought within Palestinian society that sees all of Israel as occupied land (hence the "liberation" in the name of the PLO before there was an occupation), and that this strain of thinking is central to Hamas' ideology. That is exactly why Hamas began suicide bombings in the mid-nineties at the height of the Oslo peace process (which at the time was very much seen as a historic chance to end the occupation once and for all), because in the view of Hamas a peace that brings an end to the occupation but entails the Palestinian recognition of Israel and a permanent end to hostilities is undesirable, since the ultimate goal is not to end the occupation (of the West Bank, as we understand the term), but the occupation of all of Israel/Palestine (as Hamas understands it).
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
You said Palestinian terrorism was a response to the occupation. You didn't say Hamas terrorism. Nevertheless, I would argue that the fact that Palestinian terrorism began before the occupation is a strong indication that there is a strain of thought within Palestinian society that sees all of Israel as occupied land (hence the "liberation" in the name of the PLO before there was an occupation), and that this strain of thinking is central to Hamas' ideology. That is exactly why Hamas began suicide bombings in the mid-nineties at the height of the Oslo peace process (which at the time was very much seen as a historic chance to end the occupation once and for all), because in the view of Hamas a peace that brings an end to the occupation but entails the Palestinian recognition of Israel and a permanent end to hostilities is undesirable, since the ultimate goal is not to end the occupation (of the West Bank, as we understand the term), but the occupation of all of Israel/Palestine (as Hamas understands it).
Before the occupation? You're referring to 1947 when the Zionists sought to seize control of 56% of the land. There was resistance to this threat by the Palestinians at the time. A legitimate resistance.
As for post 1967 this is a separate issue and a separate threat. However, Hamas has declared it's willingness to adopt the same position as the international community - excluding the U.S - which calls for a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from land occupied in 1967.
As for the so called Oslo Peace Process, we've already been over this. There was no peace process. It was just an attempt by Israel to legitimize an Apartheid system of rule over some bantustans. And the Palestinians rightfully rejected it.
You see, what Israel wants is one thing, and what Israel is entitled to under international law is another thing altogether.
Nevertheless, I would argue that the fact that Palestinian terrorism began before the occupation is a strong indication that there is a strain of thought within Palestinian society that sees all of Israel as occupied land (hence the "liberation" in the name of the PLO before there was an occupation), and that this strain of thinking is central to Hamas' ideology.
http://www.counterpunch.org/martin05132004.html
'..The suicide bombings inside Israel, the first of which only occurred in 1994, after 25 years of occupation, is only a side show. That is a symptom and long way from the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
There will never be a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until Israel takes responsibility, under U.N. Resolution 194, calling for reparation of the Palestinian refugees, and recognizes the immense suffering it caused at that time. We need also to recognize the US is giving unqualified moral support to a state that is based on racial purity and one that is intrinsically expansionist.'
If Israel is intrinsically racist then why is it so multi-ethnic? And if Israel is intrinsically expansionist then why has it repeatedly given up land for peace, and repeatedly stated that it is willing to do so again?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
If Israel is intrinsically racist then why is it so multi-ethnic? And if Israel is intrinsically expansionist then why has it repeatedly given up land for peace, and repeatedly stated that it is willing to do so again?
'Jewish only settlements' and a 'sovereign Jewish homeland' both imply a semi-racial brand of Ethnic Nationalism.
http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann10142009.html 'To explain in what sense 'Jews' have a right to return to their homeland, the American-Israeli Co-operative Enterprise [AICE] states that "At present, the definition is based on Hitler's Nuremberg Laws: the right of Return is granted to any individual with one Jewish grandparent, or who is married to someone with one Jewish grandparent. As a result, thousands of people with no meaningful connection to the Jewish people theoretically have the right to immigrate." AICE neglects to mention that such persons also have the actual right to immigrate, and to obtain citizenship. On the other hand, a stateless Palestinian refugee, perhaps living a precarious existence in France, has no such right of return, even if his ancestors inhabited Palestine itself for a thousand years. Palestine, it seems, is not the 'homeland' of Palestinians, but only of the Jews.
'Jew', in other words, does not refer to those who espouse Judaism or embrace Jewish culture. 'Jew' means 'of Jewish ancestry'. In virtually every Canadian jurisdiction, ancestry is explicitly cited as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Ancestry is just a contemporary stand-in for the older notion of race and is generally used in references to racial discrimination.(**) Like skin colour, it's something you cannot change, and therefore a particularly repugnant basis for determining civic status.
For the homeland to *belong* to the Jews is for them to have *sovereignty* there. Thus Article 7(a) of Israel's Basic Law stipulates that "A candidates' list shall not participate in the elections to the Knesset if its objects or actions, expressly or by implication, include... negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people." The Jewish people, in other words, are sovereign, and hold the power of life and death over all non-Jewish inhabitants under state control. Lest this seem overdramatic, note how the Israeli ministry of justice commented on a court case in March 2009: "The State of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people, people against people, collective against collective."
And as for Israel giving up land for peace, when has it ever given up land for peace? I suppose you'll mention the fact that it gave up the Sinai Peninsula which it stole from Egypt in 1967? Israel was forced to give up this stolen land after the 1973 Yom Kippur war which could have been avoided if it hadn't rejected Sadat's peace offer in 1971.
As for Gaza:
'In a study entitled 'One Big Prison', the respected Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem observed that the crippling economic arrangements Israel had imposed on Gaza would remain in place. In addition, Israel would continue to maintain absolute control over Gaza's land borders, coastline, and airspace, and the Israeli army would continue to operate in Gaza. "So long as these methods of control remain in Israeli hands," B'Tselem concluded, "Israel's claim of 'an end of the Occupation' is questionable". HRW (Human Rights Watch) was even more emphatic that evacuating settlers and troops from inside Gaza would not end the occupation: "Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around it's periphery, and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control."
“And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.”
“The disengagement is actually formaldehyde,” he said. “It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.”
Asked why the disengagement plan had been hatched, Weisglass replied: “Because in the fall of 2003 we understood that everything was stuck. And although by the way the Americans read the situation, the blame fell on the Palestinians, not on us, Arik [Sharon] grasped that this state of affairs could not last, that they wouldn’t leave us alone, wouldn’t get off our case. Time was not on our side. There was international erosion, internal erosion. Domestically, in the meantime, everything was collapsing. The economy was stagnant, and the Geneva Initiative had gained broad support. And then we were hit with the letters of officers and letters of pilots and letters of commandos [refusing to serve in the territories]. These were not weird kids with green ponytails and a ring in their nose with a strong odor of grass. These were people like Spector’s group [Yiftah Spector, a renowned Air Force pilot who signed the pilot's letter]. Really our finest young people.”
Weisglass does not deny that the main achievement of the Gaza plan is the freezing of the peace process in a “legitimate manner.”
“That is exactly what happened,” he said. “You know, the term `peace process’ is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it’s the return of refugees, it’s the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen…. what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did.”
If Israel is intrinsically racist then why is it so multi-ethnic? And if Israel is intrinsically expansionist then why has it repeatedly given up land for peace, and repeatedly stated that it is willing to do so again?
They're giving land that's NOT there's in the first place. Yosi, no ones saying you don't have the right to say or defend your own beliefs but bro come on, how can you NOT HONESTLY think aipac doesn't control DC... I mean fuck bro, it's soo obvious to a lot of people in the world. Dude, I'm
no way rippng on you and you know that. You lve to read and it seems a lot of people on MT read so here's a book I mentioned before for all to read- They Dare To Speak Out written by Peter mclusky I believe. I lent it out and never got it back. Seriouslly, everybody read it and make your own conclusions. The author was a congressman or senator. It's first hand account about aipac and there true power in DC.
Badbrains, I don't deny that AIPAC is a powerful lobby. I've attended their national convention and seen their operation first hand. But to assert that they control the U.S. government is ludicrous. They aren't even the largest or wealthiest lobbying group in D.C. Not by a mile. I believe that AIPAC has something like 4-5 full time lobbyists. I read the other day that the lobbying groups for the big drug companies have something like 4 lobbyist for every 1 member of congress. To repeat, Big Pharma has thousands of lobbyists. AIPAC has 5. Or we could talk about the AARP, or the NRA, or the Agro-business lobbies. These are all massive lobbies that employ many more lobbyists than AIPAC, and wield treasure chests that are orders of magnitude larger than AIPAC's. Besides which, AIPAC, as a policy, does not contribute money to political campaigns because they want to be able to work with whomever is elected. I disagree with AIPAC's politics more often than not these days, but their success is built on personal relationships with members of congress and conveying a convincing message.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Canadian citizenship is typically obtained by birth in Canada, birth abroad when at least one parent is a Canadian citizen, or by adoption abroad by at least one Canadian citizen.
German citizenship is based primarily on the principle of Jus sanguinis. In other words one usually acquires German citizenship if a parent is a German citizen, irrespective of place of birth.
A person is a Swiss citizen at birth (whether born in Switzerland or not) if he or she is:
born to a Swiss father or mother, if parents are married
born to a Swiss mother, if parents are not married
Where parents marry after birth and only the father is Swiss, the child acquires Swiss citizenship at that point.
There are exceptions if only the mother is Swiss and she acquired Swiss citizenship on the basis of a previous marriage to a Swiss citizen.
Jus soli does not exist in Switzerland, hence birth in Switzerland in itself does not confer Swiss citizenship on the child.
Is this not citizenship based on ancestry? Do you consider Canada, Germany, and Switzerland to be intrinsically racist because they confer citizenship based on ancestry? Germany, by the way, also has a right of return for ethnic Germans who may have never lived in Germany their entire lives. Other countries with a right of return in some form: Greece, Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, China, Taiwan, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France, India, Ireland, Japan, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Ukraine, UK, and, for that matter, a right of return to the future state of Palestine has been universally accepted as valid for Palestinian refugees who were born outside of historic Palestine, and have never lived in Palestinetheir entire lives. Are all of these countries racist? Are the Palestinians?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Canadian citizenship is typically obtained by birth in Canada, birth abroad when at least one parent is a Canadian citizen, or by adoption abroad by at least one Canadian citizen.
German citizenship is based primarily on the principle of Jus sanguinis. In other words one usually acquires German citizenship if a parent is a German citizen, irrespective of place of birth.
A person is a Swiss citizen at birth (whether born in Switzerland or not) if he or she is:
born to a Swiss father or mother, if parents are married
born to a Swiss mother, if parents are not married
Where parents marry after birth and only the father is Swiss, the child acquires Swiss citizenship at that point.
There are exceptions if only the mother is Swiss and she acquired Swiss citizenship on the basis of a previous marriage to a Swiss citizen.
Jus soli does not exist in Switzerland, hence birth in Switzerland in itself does not confer Swiss citizenship on the child.
Is this not citizenship based on ancestry? Do you consider Canada, Germany, and Switzerland to be intrinsically racist because they confer citizenship based on ancestry? Germany, by the way, also has a right of return for ethnic Germans who may have never lived in Germany their entire lives. Other countries with a right of return in some form: Greece, Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, China, Taiwan, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France, India, Ireland, Japan, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Ukraine, UK, and, for that matter, a right of return to the future state of Palestine has been universally accepted as valid for Palestinian refugees who were born outside of historic Palestine, and have never lived in Palestine their entire lives. Are all of these countries racist? Are the Palestinians?
It's understandable that someone who has a parent that is German will be declared German. However, the fact that my Grandfather on my father's side is of Irish descent does not entitle me to an Irish passport or to emigrate to Ireland.
In the case of Israel, however, 'the right of Return is granted to any individual with one Jewish grandparent, or who is married to someone with one Jewish grandparent.'
As for the Palestinian right of return, Israel has denied it and continues to deny it, in contravention of international law. The Jewish Law of Return is a racist law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinia ... _of_return According to Akram[52] although the status of Palestinian nationals/citizens after the creation of the State of Israel has been much debated, established principles of state succession,[53] human rights and humanitarian law confirm that the denationalization of Palestinians was illegal and that they retain the right to return to their places of origin.
The author states that human rights have confirmed illegality of denationalization of Palestinians because when denationalization is based on race or ethnic origin, it is a violation of the general principles of nondiscrimination in customary international law, as well as of Articles 1 and 16 of the ICCPR, 999 UNTS 173, 19 December 1966, and Article 5.d.ii of the CERD, 660 UNTS 221, 7 March 1966. According to Akram, humanitarian law is breached because its principles prohibit transferring civilian populations under the control of an occupier and require return of those expelled. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention, have explicit provisions affirming the right of return to persons forced from their homes by hostilities. For example the "Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva IV) of 1949," 75 UNTS 31, 12 August 1949.
Many Palestinians argue that they have an inherent right of return to land which they or their ancestors had owned or resided in previous to the establishment of the state of Israel, and that they must therefore be given full Israeli citizenship under the terms of any future peace agreement. They question the legality of Israeli control over these lands, and point out the necessity of said lands for their proper livelihood. UN General Assembly Resolution 194 supports this argument, and resolved that Israel should permit "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors" to do so. Israel agreed under the terms of its admittance into the UN to abide by the terms of this resolution. Therefore, some have made the case that Israel is bound under international law to accept a full Palestinian right of return.[54]
Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition affirms that the Palestinian Arab people, regardless of their religious affiliation, are indigenous to Palestine. Therefore, they are entitled to live anywhere in Palestine which encompasses present-day "Israel", the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Al-Awda regards the "Israeli" definition of Jewish nationals, granting exclusive rights to citizenship and land to any Jew from anywhere in the world, as part of the racism and discrimination inherent in Zionist ideology which underlies the policies and laws of the settler state of "Israel".
On November 26, 2008, the United Nations General Assembly, as it does every year, voted on a resolution to the Israel Palestine conflict. The GA/ 10791 (documents A/63/L.35; A/63/L.36) called for a two state settlement on the 1967 borders, East Jerusalem for the Palestinian State (west for Israel), and a “just” resolution to the refugee problem (”compromise”). The GA voted as it has for decades:
Vote on Peaceful Settlement of Palestine Question
The draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/63/L.35) was adopted by a recorded vote of 164 in favour to 7 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.
You misunderstand Byrnzie. The German right of return does not stipulate that a person must have parents who are German citizens. It states that any German, even if they were born outside of Germany, and even if their family has never had German citizenship, is entitled to "return" to Germany and be granted citizenship on account of being part of the German people. Greece's right of return works exactly the same way, as do, I'm sure, the laws of many other countries that grant a right of return. The idea of a right of return is based in the idea of nationalism, not, as you like to call it, "ethnic nationalism." Germany is the nation state of the German people, and therefore welcomes the return of individuals that they recognize as being a part of the German people. Likewise Greece welcomes individuals from the vast and ancient Greek diaspora because Greece is the nation state of the Greek people. These are definitions that are based on group affinity, not on race or ethnicity per se. This is especially true in the case of the Jewish people, who are far more racially diverse than either the Germans or the Greeks. Jews do not make up a separate race or ethnicity. We are, however, a people, if for no other reason (though there are, in fact, very many others, such as a unique shared language, culture, and history) then that we recognize ourselves as such. You should recognize this more than anyone, since the same is true of the Palestinians. They are a nation because they have come to recognize themselves as such.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
You misunderstand Byrnzie. The German right of return does not stipulate that a person must have parents who are German citizens. It states that any German, even if they were born outside of Germany, and even if their family has never had German citizenship, is entitled to "return" to Germany and be granted citizenship on account of being part of the German people. Greece's right of return works exactly the same way, as do, I'm sure, the laws of many other countries that grant a right of return. The idea of a right of return is based in the idea of nationalism, not, as you like to call it, "ethnic nationalism." Germany is the nation state of the German people, and therefore welcomes the return of individuals that they recognize as being a part of the German people. Likewise Greece welcomes individuals from the vast and ancient Greek diaspora because Greece is the nation state of the Greek people.
Actually, It's you who misunderstands. You say 'that any German, even if they were born outside of Germany, and even if their family has never had German citizenship' and yet the quote that you posted contradicts this:
Canadian citizenship is typically obtained by birth in Canada, birth abroad when at least one parent is a Canadian citizen, or by adoption abroad by at least one Canadian citizen.
German citizenship is based primarily on the principle of Jus sanguinis. In other words one usually acquires German citizenship if a parent is a German citizen, irrespective of place of birth.
These are definitions that are based on group affinity, not on race or ethnicity per se. This is especially true in the case of the Jewish people, who are far more racially diverse than either the Germans or the Greeks. Jews do not make up a separate race or ethnicity. We are, however, a people, if for no other reason (though there are, in fact, very many others, such as a unique shared language, culture, and history) then that we recognize ourselves as such. You should recognize this more than anyone, since the same is true of the Palestinians. They are a nation because they have come to recognize themselves as such.
Except the Jews do not share a common language, culture, or history. A Jew who has lived his whole life in the Ukraine has absolutely nothing in common with a Jew who has lived his whole life in America. A Jew living in America has no ties to Israel whatsoever, just as some Peruvians converted to Judaism have no ties to Israel whatsoever. The notion of a unified Jewish people is a Zionist concoction. It's a political concoction. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann10142009.html 'When Zionists suggest that the French and Germans have a right to their states, they conveniently forget that this means the *inhabitants* of France and Germany, not those of some French or German *ancestry*, not a 'people' in the sense of an ethnic group. (The world was outraged when it suspected that Britain's 'partial' immigration laws were designed to favor those of ethnically British ancestry.) But 'the Jewish people' have a right to their state, and this is supposed to be some lofty ideal. Why? Because ethnic nationalism has taken on the cloak of civic nationalism, and we are too stupid to notice.'
How 90 Peruvians became the latest Jewish settlers
When a delegation of rabbis travelled to Lima to convert a group of South American Indians to Judaism, they added just one condition: come and live with us in Israel. As soon as these new Jews arrived in the country, they were bussed straight to settlements in the disputed territories. So how are they coping? Neri Livneh tracks them down
Neri Livneh - The Guardian, Wednesday 7 August 2002
You misunderstand Byrnzie. The German right of return does not stipulate that a person must have parents who are German citizens. It states that any German, even if they were born outside of Germany, and even if their family has never had German citizenship, is entitled to "return" to Germany and be granted citizenship on account of being part of the German people. Greece's right of return works exactly the same way, as do, I'm sure, the laws of many other countries that grant a right of return. The idea of a right of return is based in the idea of nationalism, not, as you like to call it, "ethnic nationalism." Germany is the nation state of the German people, and therefore welcomes the return of individuals that they recognize as being a part of the German people. Likewise Greece welcomes individuals from the vast and ancient Greek diaspora because Greece is the nation state of the Greek people. These are definitions that are based on group affinity, not on race or ethnicity per se. This is especially true in the case of the Jewish people, who are far more racially diverse than either the Germans or the Greeks. Jews do not make up a separate race or ethnicity. We are, however, a people, if for no other reason (though there are, in fact, very many others, such as a unique shared language, culture, and history) then that we recognize ourselves as such. You should recognize this more than anyone, since the same is true of the Palestinians. They are a nation because they have come to recognize themselves as such.
And you didn't address the Palestinians right of return. Israel's refusal to grant the Palestinian right of return is based on racism and breaches international law.
Canadian citizenship is typically obtained by birth in Canada, birth abroad when at least one parent is a Canadian citizen, or by adoption abroad by at least one Canadian citizen.
German citizenship is based primarily on the principle of Jus sanguinis. In other words one usually acquires German citizenship if a parent is a German citizen, irrespective of place of birth.
A person is a Swiss citizen at birth (whether born in Switzerland or not) if he or she is:
born to a Swiss father or mother, if parents are married
born to a Swiss mother, if parents are not married
Where parents marry after birth and only the father is Swiss, the child acquires Swiss citizenship at that point.
There are exceptions if only the mother is Swiss and she acquired Swiss citizenship on the basis of a previous marriage to a Swiss citizen.
Jus soli does not exist in Switzerland, hence birth in Switzerland in itself does not confer Swiss citizenship on the child.
And can you please provide a link when you quote sources from the internet?
In Israel Citizenship and nationality are two different things. Citizenship (ezrahut) may be held by Arabs or Jews. Nationality (le'um) which bestows much greater rights than citizenship, is for Jews alone. In 1972 the Supreme Court declared that non-Jews cannot qualify for nationality rights in the state of Israel because there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people.
http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/1107 'Of course, Israel is not the only county to have immigrants. But it is the only one to confer nationality automatically on a single category of people: Jews. The Law of Return, adopted in 1953, is founded on the rabbinical definition whereby "Whosoever is born to a Jewish mother or has converted to Judaism is a Jew". The ultra-orthodox claim that this conversion must take place according to their own definition of religious law (Halacha), thereby excluding all the conservative, liberal and reform synagogues to which two-thirds of the faithful across the diaspora belong - and as many as 90% in the United States.
The Law is racism, say the Palestinians. They are not alone. Can it be legitimate to grant citizenship to Jews who have never set foot on the land, and refuse - or even withdraw - nationality to an Arab who was born there, but has temporarily lived abroad or happened to be absent at the time of the occupation of the Palestinian territories in 1967?...
In the last few years there has been the unprecedented phenomenon of the wide-scale arrival of non-Jewish workers. Some 300,000 East Europeans, Asians and Africans fill unqualified, poorly-paid jobs, until now reserved for the Palestinians. These latter-day slaves are miserably housed. But what bothers the guardians of the "purity of the race" is the fact that they are not Jews. Their worry is that sooner or later they will integrate into the country through marriage and naturalization. Their voices will perhaps be heard one day in Israel's pluralist concert. In the meantime, it is nationalism and intolerance that reigns.
When will Israel become the state of all its citizens and transform itself into a multicultural society in which all its communities, Jewish and non-Jewish, can live in harmony?'
Regarding Germany: "German law allows persons of German descent living in Eastern Europe (Aussiedler/Spätaussiedler ("late emigrants"; de:Aussiedler), see History of German settlement in Eastern Europe) to return to Germany and claim German citizenship. As with many legal implementations of the Right of Return, the "return" to Germany of individuals who may never have lived in Germany based on their ethnic origin has been controversial. The law is codified in Article 116 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which provides access to German citizenship for anyone "who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of December 31, 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person"."
Regarding Greece: "Various phenomena throughout Greek history (the extensive colonization by classical Greek city states, the vast expansion of Greek culture in Hellenistic times, the large dominions at times held by the Greek-speaking Byzantine Empire, and the energetic trading activity by Greeks under the Ottomans) all tended to create Greek communities far beyond the boundaries of modern Greece.
Recognizing this situation, Greece grants citizenship to broad categories of people of ethnic Greek ancestry who are members of the Greek diaspora, including individuals and families whose ancestors have been resident in diaspora communities outside the modern state of Greece for centuries or millennia([10])
"Foreign persons of Greek origin", who neither live in Greece nor hold Greek citizenship nor were necessarily born there, may become Greek citizens by enlisting in Greece's military forces, under article 4 of the Code of Greek Citizenship, as amended by the Acquisition of Greek Nationality by Aliens of Greek Origin Law (Law 2130/1993). Anyone wishing to do so must present a number of documents, including "[a]vailable written records ... proving the Greek origin of the interested person and his ancestors.""
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
"Except the Jews do not share a common language, culture, or history. A Jew who has lived his whole life in the Ukraine has absolutely nothing in common with a Jew who has lived his whole life in America. A Jew living in America has no ties to Israel whatsoever, just as some Peruvians converted to Judaism have no ties to Israel whatsoever. The notion of a unified Jewish people is a Zionist concoction. It's a political concoction." - Byrnzie
Language - Hebrew. No matter where in the world Jews have always shared Hebrew as a common language. Though for thousands of years Hebrew was not a spoken language it was universally used by Jews as a language for prayer and ritual observance, as well as study. There are letters between wide-flung Jewish communities and rabbis written in Hebrew, since that was the language they shared. For example there are letters from communities in Europe asking rabbis in what is now Iraq questions about matters of ritual observance. The letters were written in Hebrew, and clearly the correspondents were able to understand each other.
Culture - Judaism. Judaism is not simply a religion wherein you go to synagogue on Saturday, say a few prayers and call it a day. It is an all encompassing way of life. It defines virtually every aspect of a person's daily existence. It is, quite simply, a culture, and it was shared by Jews the world over. Some communities developed different particular customs, or interpreted certain laws in different ways, but the foundations were the same everywhere.
History - clearly the histories of Jewish communities diverged in the diaspora, but we all share the same history up to the Roman exile. Not to mention the fact that many Jewish communities maintained contact with other communities around the world, and that the history of the Jewish people, at least in Europe, is marked by repeated migrations, such that the histories of many of these communities are incredibly intertwined. As for Israel, Israel is actually the central thread running through all three things discussed here. Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people. Hebrew arose in Israel, Judaism arose in Israel, and the shared ancient history of the Jewish people the world over is the history of the Jews in Israel.
Converts become part of the Jewish people through learning. One cannot simply be tapped on the head and declared Jewish. You study for conversion. You learn Hebrew, you learn Judaism, you become part of the culture, and in doing so you become another link in the unbroken chain of Jewish history. I'll grant you that there are some sketchy things that go on today, and perhaps this Peruvian thing is one of them.
I actually find your position kind of humorous. Your argument against the existence of a Jewish people is that there were converts to Judaism who were therefore not ethnically Jewish. And yet you keep accusing me of racism, when you are the one who is trotting out arguments based in race. There is no unitary Jewish race. There is a Jewish people, or nation if you prefer.
Even if you don't accept the fact of shared Jewish history, language, and culture (in which case I would simply say that you clearly don't know the first thing about Judaism, and perhaps if you're interested in having informed opinions you should find a university with a good Jewish Studies Department), the Jewish people exist by virtue of the fact that we recognize ourselves as a nation.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
In Israel Citizenship and nationality are two different things. Citizenship (ezrahut) may be held by Arabs or Jews. Nationality (le'um) which bestows much greater rights than citizenship, is for Jews alone. In 1972 the Supreme Court declared that non-Jews cannot qualify for nationality rights in the state of Israel because there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people.
http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/1107 'Of course, Israel is not the only county to have immigrants. But it is the only one to confer nationality automatically on a single category of people: Jews. The Law of Return, adopted in 1953, is founded on the rabbinical definition whereby "Whosoever is born to a Jewish mother or has converted to Judaism is a Jew". The ultra-orthodox claim that this conversion must take place according to their own definition of religious law (Halacha), thereby excluding all the conservative, liberal and reform synagogues to which two-thirds of the faithful across the diaspora belong - and as many as 90% in the United States.
The Law is racism, say the Palestinians. They are not alone. Can it be legitimate to grant citizenship to Jews who have never set foot on the land, and refuse - or even withdraw - nationality to an Arab who was born there, but has temporarily lived abroad or happened to be absent at the time of the occupation of the Palestinian territories in 1967?...
In the last few years there has been the unprecedented phenomenon of the wide-scale arrival of non-Jewish workers. Some 300,000 East Europeans, Asians and Africans fill unqualified, poorly-paid jobs, until now reserved for the Palestinians. These latter-day slaves are miserably housed. But what bothers the guardians of the "purity of the race" is the fact that they are not Jews. Their worry is that sooner or later they will integrate into the country through marriage and naturalization. Their voices will perhaps be heard one day in Israel's pluralist concert. In the meantime, it is nationalism and intolerance that reigns.
When will Israel become the state of all its citizens and transform itself into a multicultural society in which all its communities, Jewish and non-Jewish, can live in harmony?'
so is your name really laura ? :? and are you a soccer dad
In Israel Citizenship and nationality are two different things. Citizenship (ezrahut) may be held by Arabs or Jews. Nationality (le'um), bestows much greater rights than citizenship, is for Jews alone. In 1972 the Supreme Court that non-Jews cannot qualify for nationality rights in the state of Israel because there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people.
Regarding Germany: "German law allows persons of German descent living in Eastern Europe (Aussiedler/Spätaussiedler ("late emigrants"; de:Aussiedler), see History of German settlement in Eastern Europe) to return to Germany and claim German citizenship. As with many legal implementations of the Right of Return, the "return" to Germany of individuals who may never have lived in Germany based on their ethnic origin has been controversial. The law is codified in Article 116 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which provides access to German citizenship for anyone "who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of December 31, 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person"."
Regarding Greece: "Various phenomena throughout Greek history (the extensive colonization by classical Greek city states, the vast expansion of Greek culture in Hellenistic times, the large dominions at times held by the Greek-speaking Byzantine Empire, and the energetic trading activity by Greeks under the Ottomans) all tended to create Greek communities far beyond the boundaries of modern Greece.
Recognizing this situation, Greece grants citizenship to broad categories of people of ethnic Greek ancestry who are members of the Greek diaspora, including individuals and families whose ancestors have been resident in diaspora communities outside the modern state of Greece for centuries or millennia([10])
"Foreign persons of Greek origin", who neither live in Greece nor hold Greek citizenship nor were necessarily born there, may become Greek citizens by enlisting in Greece's military forces, under article 4 of the Code of Greek Citizenship, as amended by the Acquisition of Greek Nationality by Aliens of Greek Origin Law (Law 2130/1993). Anyone wishing to do so must present a number of documents, including "[a]vailable written records ... proving the Greek origin of the interested person and his ancestors.""
The difference being that very few Jewish people have any ancestral connection to the land of Israel, apart from the small number living there at the turn of the 20th century.
But just simply converting to Judaism gives someone the 'right' to emigrate there. Though Palestinians are excluded from returning to their homeland by Israels racist laws.
Comments
And the occupation predates Hamas and Palestinian terrorism.
I'll address it instead then. And let's keep in mind that this is the first time in 40 years that the U.S government has stood up to Israel on the question of settlements.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... sure-obama
Israel lobby presses Congress to soften Obama's tough stance on Netanyahu
American Israel Public Affairs Committee circulates letter urging White House to 'reinforce' relationship with Israel
* Chris McGreal in Washington
* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 30 March 2010 19.24 BST
America's main pro-Israel lobby group is mobilising members of Congress to pressure the White House over its bitter public confrontation with Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.
The move, by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), appears aimed at exploiting differences in the Obama administration as it decides how to use the crisis around settlement building in Jerusalem to press Israel towards concessions to kickstart peace negotiations.
Aipac has persuaded more than three-quarters of the members of the US House of Representatives to sign a letter calling for an end to public criticism of Israel and urging the US to "reinforce" its relationship with the Jewish state.
The open letter, which has been circulating among members of Congress for the last week, says that while it is recognised that there will be differences between the two countries, they should be kept behind closed doors. "Our view is that such differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence," it says.
The public differences, and revelations of Obama's private snubs of Netanyahu at the White House last week, have proved embarrassing to the Israeli leader at home, where he has been accused of undermining Israel's most important relationship.
Signatories to Aipac's letter include Steny Hoyer, the Democrat majority leader, and Eric Cantor, the Republican whip. The wording is similar to an email Aipac sent out during Netanyahu's visit, describing Obama's criticisms of the Israeli government as "a matter of serious concern" and calling on the US administration "to take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish state".
But while Aipac has for years influenced US policy on Israel, by targeting members of Congress who criticise the Jewish state, it may no longer have the same impact.
Robert Malley, a former special assistant to President Bill Clinton for Arab-Israeli affairs, said the administration's decision to take a once routine disagreement over settlement construction in East Jerusalem and turn it in to a confrontation is a reflection of the determination in the White House.
"This episode tells us more about the past and the future than the present. It's a reflection of the accumulated frustration and mistrust of the Netanyahu government by the White House. For the future, they're headed for a collision on the pace and nature of peace negotiations," he said. "We're seeing determination."
A source, who is consulted by administration officials on Israel policy but did not wish to be named, said that having chosen to take Netanyahu on, Obama cannot afford to back away. "The administration's credibility is at stake – in Israel and the Arab world. Netanyahu thought he had the better of it last year after he humiliated the president by rejecting his demand for a settlement freeze. If the administration does not follow through on this, or reaches some compromise that takes the heat off the Israelis, I suspect it will be almost impossible for us to get anything off the ground," he said.
Netanyahu appears to have been caught off guard by Obama's stand, perhaps because he was overconfident of being able to bypass the administration by relying on strong support for Israel in Congress. But while Aipac has been able to mobilise support for its letter, Congressional leaders have remained largely silent on the substance of the dispute.
That is, in part, because there is little enthusiasm for Jewish settlements. In addition, the White House has played an unusual card in suggesting that Netanyahu's intransigence is endangering US interests in the Middle East, and the lives of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"So far, I've been surprised by how muted congressional reaction has been," said Malley. "It may come, but if the administration manages to portray this as an issue of US national interest, it may be able to sustain a level of criticism."
However, there are reports of divisions within the administration on how to proceed. The US special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, and the national security adviser, James Jones, believe Israeli governments respond to pressure. Last year an Israeli diplomatic memorandum described Jones as having told European officials that the US administration would take a hard line with the government in Jerusalem. Some officials favour mapping out a blueprint for peace and pressing both sides to adopt it.
But other officials argue against forcing Netanyahu to make compromises that will bring down his rightwing coalition. There has been criticism from Dennis Ross, who served as Bill Clinton's Middle East envoy. Now a Middle East strategist for the Obama administration, he is reported to be arguing for the White House to ease up on Netanyahu. However, Ross is regarded by some sceptics as too close to Israel. He has publicly argued that Jerusalem must remain undivided and is regarded with suspicion by the Palestinians, who saw him as effectively negotiating on Israel's behalf, rather than as a neutral mediator.
Malley says that whatever the Obama administration does it is almost certain to lead to further confrontation with the Israeli government. "The next crisis is more or less inevitable, given the diverging views of the Israeli and US governments on the pace and direction of the emerging talks," he said.
War of words
"We must not be trapped by an illogical and unreasonable demand."
Binyamin Netanyahu on Obama's demand for an end to settlement construction in East Jerusalem.
"I think at one point the [Israeli] prime minister added that he did not see a distinction necessarily between building in Jerusalem and building in Tel Aviv. We disagree with that."
White House spokesman on Netanyahu's reaction to the demand for an end to settlement construction.
"We recognise that, despite the extraordinary closeness between our country and Israel, there will be differences over issues, both large and small. Our view is that such differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence, as befits long-standing strategic allies."
Letter signed by members of Congress pressing the administration to avoid such public disagreements.
Be that as it may, the fact that there are pretty big disagreements between U.S. and Israel right now with regards to settlement is evidence that any "control" Israel exerts over the U.S. is weakening ... In all honestly, the idea that Israel pulls puppet strings in America is disconcertingly similar to old notions that Jews control all the major financial institutions, Hollywood, etc. US foreign policy has long dovetailed with Israel's, which is the result of all kinds of factors that have nothing to do with direct control.
So the fact that 'Aipac has persuaded more than three-quarters of the members of the US House of Representatives to sign [the] letter' is not relevant?
Occupation began in June, 1967. PLO was formed in 1964. Interesting. Unless I'm mistaken 1964 came before 1967.
Hamas isn't the same as the PLO. They are two separate entities. Nice attempt at trying to appear clever.
Really? So what is AIPAC's case then? Go ahead and enlighten us Oh wise one.
You said Palestinian terrorism was a response to the occupation. You didn't say Hamas terrorism. Nevertheless, I would argue that the fact that Palestinian terrorism began before the occupation is a strong indication that there is a strain of thought within Palestinian society that sees all of Israel as occupied land (hence the "liberation" in the name of the PLO before there was an occupation), and that this strain of thinking is central to Hamas' ideology. That is exactly why Hamas began suicide bombings in the mid-nineties at the height of the Oslo peace process (which at the time was very much seen as a historic chance to end the occupation once and for all), because in the view of Hamas a peace that brings an end to the occupation but entails the Palestinian recognition of Israel and a permanent end to hostilities is undesirable, since the ultimate goal is not to end the occupation (of the West Bank, as we understand the term), but the occupation of all of Israel/Palestine (as Hamas understands it).
Before the occupation? You're referring to 1947 when the Zionists sought to seize control of 56% of the land. There was resistance to this threat by the Palestinians at the time. A legitimate resistance.
As for post 1967 this is a separate issue and a separate threat. However, Hamas has declared it's willingness to adopt the same position as the international community - excluding the U.S - which calls for a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from land occupied in 1967.
As for the so called Oslo Peace Process, we've already been over this. There was no peace process. It was just an attempt by Israel to legitimize an Apartheid system of rule over some bantustans. And the Palestinians rightfully rejected it.
You see, what Israel wants is one thing, and what Israel is entitled to under international law is another thing altogether.
http://www.counterpunch.org/martin05132004.html
'..The suicide bombings inside Israel, the first of which only occurred in 1994, after 25 years of occupation, is only a side show. That is a symptom and long way from the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
There will never be a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until Israel takes responsibility, under U.N. Resolution 194, calling for reparation of the Palestinian refugees, and recognizes the immense suffering it caused at that time. We need also to recognize the US is giving unqualified moral support to a state that is based on racial purity and one that is intrinsically expansionist.'
'Jewish only settlements' and a 'sovereign Jewish homeland' both imply a semi-racial brand of Ethnic Nationalism.
http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann10142009.html
'To explain in what sense 'Jews' have a right to return to their homeland, the American-Israeli Co-operative Enterprise [AICE] states that "At present, the definition is based on Hitler's Nuremberg Laws: the right of Return is granted to any individual with one Jewish grandparent, or who is married to someone with one Jewish grandparent. As a result, thousands of people with no meaningful connection to the Jewish people theoretically have the right to immigrate." AICE neglects to mention that such persons also have the actual right to immigrate, and to obtain citizenship. On the other hand, a stateless Palestinian refugee, perhaps living a precarious existence in France, has no such right of return, even if his ancestors inhabited Palestine itself for a thousand years. Palestine, it seems, is not the 'homeland' of Palestinians, but only of the Jews.
'Jew', in other words, does not refer to those who espouse Judaism or embrace Jewish culture. 'Jew' means 'of Jewish ancestry'. In virtually every Canadian jurisdiction, ancestry is explicitly cited as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Ancestry is just a contemporary stand-in for the older notion of race and is generally used in references to racial discrimination.(**) Like skin colour, it's something you cannot change, and therefore a particularly repugnant basis for determining civic status.
For the homeland to *belong* to the Jews is for them to have *sovereignty* there. Thus Article 7(a) of Israel's Basic Law stipulates that "A candidates' list shall not participate in the elections to the Knesset if its objects or actions, expressly or by implication, include... negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people." The Jewish people, in other words, are sovereign, and hold the power of life and death over all non-Jewish inhabitants under state control. Lest this seem overdramatic, note how the Israeli ministry of justice commented on a court case in March 2009: "The State of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people, people against people, collective against collective."
And as for Israel giving up land for peace, when has it ever given up land for peace? I suppose you'll mention the fact that it gave up the Sinai Peninsula which it stole from Egypt in 1967? Israel was forced to give up this stolen land after the 1973 Yom Kippur war which could have been avoided if it hadn't rejected Sadat's peace offer in 1971.
As for Gaza:
'In a study entitled 'One Big Prison', the respected Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem observed that the crippling economic arrangements Israel had imposed on Gaza would remain in place. In addition, Israel would continue to maintain absolute control over Gaza's land borders, coastline, and airspace, and the Israeli army would continue to operate in Gaza. "So long as these methods of control remain in Israeli hands," B'Tselem concluded, "Israel's claim of 'an end of the Occupation' is questionable". HRW (Human Rights Watch) was even more emphatic that evacuating settlers and troops from inside Gaza would not end the occupation: "Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around it's periphery, and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control."
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun ... isglass-g/
“The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process,” Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s senior adviser Dov Weisglass has told Haaretz.
“And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.”
“The disengagement is actually formaldehyde,” he said. “It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.”
Asked why the disengagement plan had been hatched, Weisglass replied: “Because in the fall of 2003 we understood that everything was stuck. And although by the way the Americans read the situation, the blame fell on the Palestinians, not on us, Arik [Sharon] grasped that this state of affairs could not last, that they wouldn’t leave us alone, wouldn’t get off our case. Time was not on our side. There was international erosion, internal erosion. Domestically, in the meantime, everything was collapsing. The economy was stagnant, and the Geneva Initiative had gained broad support. And then we were hit with the letters of officers and letters of pilots and letters of commandos [refusing to serve in the territories]. These were not weird kids with green ponytails and a ring in their nose with a strong odor of grass. These were people like Spector’s group [Yiftah Spector, a renowned Air Force pilot who signed the pilot's letter]. Really our finest young people.”
Weisglass does not deny that the main achievement of the Gaza plan is the freezing of the peace process in a “legitimate manner.”
“That is exactly what happened,” he said. “You know, the term `peace process’ is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it’s the return of refugees, it’s the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen…. what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did.”
They're giving land that's NOT there's in the first place. Yosi, no ones saying you don't have the right to say or defend your own beliefs but bro come on, how can you NOT HONESTLY think aipac doesn't control DC... I mean fuck bro, it's soo obvious to a lot of people in the world. Dude, I'm
no way rippng on you and you know that. You lve to read and it seems a lot of people on MT read so here's a book I mentioned before for all to read- They Dare To Speak Out written by Peter mclusky I believe. I lent it out and never got it back. Seriouslly, everybody read it and make your own conclusions. The author was a congressman or senator. It's first hand account about aipac and there true power in DC.
German citizenship is based primarily on the principle of Jus sanguinis. In other words one usually acquires German citizenship if a parent is a German citizen, irrespective of place of birth.
A person is a Swiss citizen at birth (whether born in Switzerland or not) if he or she is:
born to a Swiss father or mother, if parents are married
born to a Swiss mother, if parents are not married
Where parents marry after birth and only the father is Swiss, the child acquires Swiss citizenship at that point.
There are exceptions if only the mother is Swiss and she acquired Swiss citizenship on the basis of a previous marriage to a Swiss citizen.
Jus soli does not exist in Switzerland, hence birth in Switzerland in itself does not confer Swiss citizenship on the child.
Is this not citizenship based on ancestry? Do you consider Canada, Germany, and Switzerland to be intrinsically racist because they confer citizenship based on ancestry? Germany, by the way, also has a right of return for ethnic Germans who may have never lived in Germany their entire lives. Other countries with a right of return in some form: Greece, Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, China, Taiwan, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France, India, Ireland, Japan, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Ukraine, UK, and, for that matter, a right of return to the future state of Palestine has been universally accepted as valid for Palestinian refugees who were born outside of historic Palestine, and have never lived in Palestinetheir entire lives. Are all of these countries racist? Are the Palestinians?
It's understandable that someone who has a parent that is German will be declared German. However, the fact that my Grandfather on my father's side is of Irish descent does not entitle me to an Irish passport or to emigrate to Ireland.
In the case of Israel, however, 'the right of Return is granted to any individual with one Jewish grandparent, or who is married to someone with one Jewish grandparent.'
As for the Palestinian right of return, Israel has denied it and continues to deny it, in contravention of international law. The Jewish Law of Return is a racist law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinia ... _of_return
According to Akram[52] although the status of Palestinian nationals/citizens after the creation of the State of Israel has been much debated, established principles of state succession,[53] human rights and humanitarian law confirm that the denationalization of Palestinians was illegal and that they retain the right to return to their places of origin.
The author states that human rights have confirmed illegality of denationalization of Palestinians because when denationalization is based on race or ethnic origin, it is a violation of the general principles of nondiscrimination in customary international law, as well as of Articles 1 and 16 of the ICCPR, 999 UNTS 173, 19 December 1966, and Article 5.d.ii of the CERD, 660 UNTS 221, 7 March 1966. According to Akram, humanitarian law is breached because its principles prohibit transferring civilian populations under the control of an occupier and require return of those expelled. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention, have explicit provisions affirming the right of return to persons forced from their homes by hostilities. For example the "Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva IV) of 1949," 75 UNTS 31, 12 August 1949.
Many Palestinians argue that they have an inherent right of return to land which they or their ancestors had owned or resided in previous to the establishment of the state of Israel, and that they must therefore be given full Israeli citizenship under the terms of any future peace agreement. They question the legality of Israeli control over these lands, and point out the necessity of said lands for their proper livelihood. UN General Assembly Resolution 194 supports this argument, and resolved that Israel should permit "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors" to do so. Israel agreed under the terms of its admittance into the UN to abide by the terms of this resolution. Therefore, some have made the case that Israel is bound under international law to accept a full Palestinian right of return.[54]
http://www.al-awda.org/index.html
Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition
Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition affirms that the Palestinian Arab people, regardless of their religious affiliation, are indigenous to Palestine. Therefore, they are entitled to live anywhere in Palestine which encompasses present-day "Israel", the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Al-Awda regards the "Israeli" definition of Jewish nationals, granting exclusive rights to citizenship and land to any Jew from anywhere in the world, as part of the racism and discrimination inherent in Zionist ideology which underlies the policies and laws of the settler state of "Israel".
Norman Finkelstein - Peaceful Settlement of Palestine Question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ_v5fwW9fE
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/01 ... -conflict/
On November 26, 2008, the United Nations General Assembly, as it does every year, voted on a resolution to the Israel Palestine conflict. The GA/ 10791 (documents A/63/L.35; A/63/L.36) called for a two state settlement on the 1967 borders, East Jerusalem for the Palestinian State (west for Israel), and a “just” resolution to the refugee problem (”compromise”). The GA voted as it has for decades:
Vote on Peaceful Settlement of Palestine Question
The draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/63/L.35) was adopted by a recorded vote of 164 in favour to 7 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.
Actually, It's you who misunderstands. You say 'that any German, even if they were born outside of Germany, and even if their family has never had German citizenship' and yet the quote that you posted contradicts this:
Canadian citizenship is typically obtained by birth in Canada, birth abroad when at least one parent is a Canadian citizen, or by adoption abroad by at least one Canadian citizen.
German citizenship is based primarily on the principle of Jus sanguinis. In other words one usually acquires German citizenship if a parent is a German citizen, irrespective of place of birth.
Except the Jews do not share a common language, culture, or history. A Jew who has lived his whole life in the Ukraine has absolutely nothing in common with a Jew who has lived his whole life in America. A Jew living in America has no ties to Israel whatsoever, just as some Peruvians converted to Judaism have no ties to Israel whatsoever. The notion of a unified Jewish people is a Zionist concoction. It's a political concoction. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann10142009.html
'When Zionists suggest that the French and Germans have a right to their states, they conveniently forget that this means the *inhabitants* of France and Germany, not those of some French or German *ancestry*, not a 'people' in the sense of an ethnic group. (The world was outraged when it suspected that Britain's 'partial' immigration laws were designed to favor those of ethnically British ancestry.) But 'the Jewish people' have a right to their state, and this is supposed to be some lofty ideal. Why? Because ethnic nationalism has taken on the cloak of civic nationalism, and we are too stupid to notice.'
And I suppose these Peruvians are also Jewish?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/07/israel1
How 90 Peruvians became the latest Jewish settlers
When a delegation of rabbis travelled to Lima to convert a group of South American Indians to Judaism, they added just one condition: come and live with us in Israel. As soon as these new Jews arrived in the country, they were bussed straight to settlements in the disputed territories. So how are they coping? Neri Livneh tracks them down
Neri Livneh - The Guardian, Wednesday 7 August 2002
And you didn't address the Palestinians right of return. Israel's refusal to grant the Palestinian right of return is based on racism and breaches international law.
And can you please provide a link when you quote sources from the internet?
this, incidentally, makes the term "apartheid" accurate, among, sadly, many other things.
In Israel Citizenship and nationality are two different things. Citizenship (ezrahut) may be held by Arabs or Jews. Nationality (le'um) which bestows much greater rights than citizenship, is for Jews alone. In 1972 the Supreme Court declared that non-Jews cannot qualify for nationality rights in the state of Israel because there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people.
http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/1107
'Of course, Israel is not the only county to have immigrants. But it is the only one to confer nationality automatically on a single category of people: Jews. The Law of Return, adopted in 1953, is founded on the rabbinical definition whereby "Whosoever is born to a Jewish mother or has converted to Judaism is a Jew". The ultra-orthodox claim that this conversion must take place according to their own definition of religious law (Halacha), thereby excluding all the conservative, liberal and reform synagogues to which two-thirds of the faithful across the diaspora belong - and as many as 90% in the United States.
The Law is racism, say the Palestinians. They are not alone. Can it be legitimate to grant citizenship to Jews who have never set foot on the land, and refuse - or even withdraw - nationality to an Arab who was born there, but has temporarily lived abroad or happened to be absent at the time of the occupation of the Palestinian territories in 1967?...
In the last few years there has been the unprecedented phenomenon of the wide-scale arrival of non-Jewish workers. Some 300,000 East Europeans, Asians and Africans fill unqualified, poorly-paid jobs, until now reserved for the Palestinians. These latter-day slaves are miserably housed. But what bothers the guardians of the "purity of the race" is the fact that they are not Jews. Their worry is that sooner or later they will integrate into the country through marriage and naturalization. Their voices will perhaps be heard one day in Israel's pluralist concert. In the meantime, it is nationalism and intolerance that reigns.
When will Israel become the state of all its citizens and transform itself into a multicultural society in which all its communities, Jewish and non-Jewish, can live in harmony?'
Regarding Germany: "German law allows persons of German descent living in Eastern Europe (Aussiedler/Spätaussiedler ("late emigrants"; de:Aussiedler), see History of German settlement in Eastern Europe) to return to Germany and claim German citizenship. As with many legal implementations of the Right of Return, the "return" to Germany of individuals who may never have lived in Germany based on their ethnic origin has been controversial. The law is codified in Article 116 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which provides access to German citizenship for anyone "who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of December 31, 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person"."
Regarding Greece: "Various phenomena throughout Greek history (the extensive colonization by classical Greek city states, the vast expansion of Greek culture in Hellenistic times, the large dominions at times held by the Greek-speaking Byzantine Empire, and the energetic trading activity by Greeks under the Ottomans) all tended to create Greek communities far beyond the boundaries of modern Greece.
Recognizing this situation, Greece grants citizenship to broad categories of people of ethnic Greek ancestry who are members of the Greek diaspora, including individuals and families whose ancestors have been resident in diaspora communities outside the modern state of Greece for centuries or millennia([10])
"Foreign persons of Greek origin", who neither live in Greece nor hold Greek citizenship nor were necessarily born there, may become Greek citizens by enlisting in Greece's military forces, under article 4 of the Code of Greek Citizenship, as amended by the Acquisition of Greek Nationality by Aliens of Greek Origin Law (Law 2130/1993). Anyone wishing to do so must present a number of documents, including "[a]vailable written records ... proving the Greek origin of the interested person and his ancestors.""
Language - Hebrew. No matter where in the world Jews have always shared Hebrew as a common language. Though for thousands of years Hebrew was not a spoken language it was universally used by Jews as a language for prayer and ritual observance, as well as study. There are letters between wide-flung Jewish communities and rabbis written in Hebrew, since that was the language they shared. For example there are letters from communities in Europe asking rabbis in what is now Iraq questions about matters of ritual observance. The letters were written in Hebrew, and clearly the correspondents were able to understand each other.
Culture - Judaism. Judaism is not simply a religion wherein you go to synagogue on Saturday, say a few prayers and call it a day. It is an all encompassing way of life. It defines virtually every aspect of a person's daily existence. It is, quite simply, a culture, and it was shared by Jews the world over. Some communities developed different particular customs, or interpreted certain laws in different ways, but the foundations were the same everywhere.
History - clearly the histories of Jewish communities diverged in the diaspora, but we all share the same history up to the Roman exile. Not to mention the fact that many Jewish communities maintained contact with other communities around the world, and that the history of the Jewish people, at least in Europe, is marked by repeated migrations, such that the histories of many of these communities are incredibly intertwined. As for Israel, Israel is actually the central thread running through all three things discussed here. Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people. Hebrew arose in Israel, Judaism arose in Israel, and the shared ancient history of the Jewish people the world over is the history of the Jews in Israel.
Converts become part of the Jewish people through learning. One cannot simply be tapped on the head and declared Jewish. You study for conversion. You learn Hebrew, you learn Judaism, you become part of the culture, and in doing so you become another link in the unbroken chain of Jewish history. I'll grant you that there are some sketchy things that go on today, and perhaps this Peruvian thing is one of them.
I actually find your position kind of humorous. Your argument against the existence of a Jewish people is that there were converts to Judaism who were therefore not ethnically Jewish. And yet you keep accusing me of racism, when you are the one who is trotting out arguments based in race. There is no unitary Jewish race. There is a Jewish people, or nation if you prefer.
Even if you don't accept the fact of shared Jewish history, language, and culture (in which case I would simply say that you clearly don't know the first thing about Judaism, and perhaps if you're interested in having informed opinions you should find a university with a good Jewish Studies Department), the Jewish people exist by virtue of the fact that we recognize ourselves as a nation.
so is your name really laura ? :? and are you a soccer dad
In Israel Citizenship and nationality are two different things. Citizenship (ezrahut) may be held by Arabs or Jews. Nationality (le'um), bestows much greater rights than citizenship, is for Jews alone. In 1972 the Supreme Court that non-Jews cannot qualify for nationality rights in the state of Israel because there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people.
http://soccerdad.baltiblogs.com/archive ... _turn.html
The difference being that very few Jewish people have any ancestral connection to the land of Israel, apart from the small number living there at the turn of the 20th century.
But just simply converting to Judaism gives someone the 'right' to emigrate there. Though Palestinians are excluded from returning to their homeland by Israels racist laws.
What a ridiculous article.
+1 BUMP whatever the fuck else people add, I agree Byrnzie