Opinion
Good Zionists, bad Zionists
Yoel Meltzer
Published: 15.07.09, 17:00
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
44 Talkbacks for this article
1. yutz
Ramat Gan   (07.15.09)
Maybe because the settlements created after 1948 were internationaly recognized Israeli land, while the ones created in lands conquered in 1967 have not yet received the same international recognition.
2. one reason
liron ,   ZY, israel   (07.15.09)
there is a need for Pal self-rule with a defined territory. The more settlements that dot the WB, the smaller the chances that we can separate from the Palestinians.
3. Nope-analysis is off
Kerry ,   Redlands USA   (07.15.09)
The argument against the post 1967 settlement is that Israel implemented the war by being the first to attack after the blockade. Do not misunderstand; personally I would like Israel to drive every disloyal Arab Israeli from Israel, and all Gaza and the Westbank Arabfrei. You might want to read Dershowitz (sp) analysis of the situation. Europe and most of the West run on oil, and who has the oil. Hence, the appeasement regarding Arabs.
4. Well Said!
Yonatan ,   Yershalayim   (07.15.09)
And very accurate. The "moderate" PA-run TV shows ALL of Israel as belonging to their "Homeland of Palestine". They repeatedly vow to never give the struggle to reconquer ALL of Israel for their own.
5. no such thing as a good zionist sadly
adam ,   london   (07.15.09)
what exactly is good about zionism. the purpose of zionism was to put a people without a land, on land without a people. though in principle this is very noble, the stumbling block is the fact that palestine was never free. from being the oppressed in europe, to the oppressors in the middle east that is NOT what Theodor Herzl had in mind! though it would be crazy and inhumane to suggest the jews should leave, it is the responsiblity of the "israelis" to treat the Palestinians with the rights that were denied they were denied in europe. what exactly did early zionists from the irgun and stern gang think, the palestinians wouldnt resist? wake up... it was zionism that destroyed the history of jews from arab lands, because if there was no zionism, the jews of the ME would still be there and not "expelled"
6. it is ALL Israel
ben Ish   (07.15.09)
When the Arabs attacked in 1948, THAT ATTACK NEGATES 194. Therefore, no Arabs have any right to any land anywhere between the sea and the river. It was given to them in 194, and they said "No way, we would rather kill and die then accept this law" DONE. Get out of Gaza, get out of J&S. Not yours. Go to Jordan and shut up. Attack again, and we will take Jordan too. Golan is Israel. Always has been. If Syria attacks, we annex Syria. If Lebanon attacks (since Hezbollah is legally part of Lebanon) then we annex Lebanon too. Anyone else want to play? Would you like the same hospitality you show to us? Sit down and shut up or eat Delilah missiles you clowns.
7. Good Zionist or Good Person?
Alex Nevilles ,   New York   (07.15.09)
The crux of the matter is simple! Far leftists find total assimilation, being a citizen of the world, and keeping nothing far easier than being a Jew, being a citizen of Eretz Yisroel and upholding the Torah. The former want Israel to be just another country like any other and not a Jewish state at all. They are not so much driven by a love of Palestinians as much as by a hatred of Torah and their own Jewishness; for its existence makes them feel guilty for hating or denying who they are. This explains their hatred of religious Jews, settlers, and Jews who share an ardent love for Eretz Yisroel, and their irrational justifications of Palestinian attempts to attack and murder their own fellow Jews.
8. 4th Geneva Convention Section 3 Article 49
Yael Cohen ,   TA   (07.15.09)
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Until now the Samaria and Judea are under belligerent occupation and hence the Geneva convention is applied. Unless Israel formely annexes the West Bank, all Israeli settelments are illegal.
9. All Israeli communities are illegitimate
hamuda ,   Gaza   (07.15.09)
I agree with the author that post-1967 communities are not different from other Israeli settlements, which are all illegitimate.
10. peace is a good reason?
zionist ,   são paulo, brasil   (07.15.09)
in 48 we got our own independent state. after this we don't need anymore a country, because we just have one yet. WHAT WE NEED SINCE 48 IS JUST PEACE! this is a good reason for you? another one: palestinians need a state too, where do you want them to live???
11. #1. Israel never had internationally recognized borders.
Jake   (07.15.09)
When Israel became a UN member in 1949, it did so in the unusual circumstances of not having internationally recognized boundaries or an internationally recognized capital. Go and read the 1949 Armistice Agreements, and then after that, go and read them again and again until you have understood them. These agreements expressly denied that the armistice lines constituted international boundaries or an end to territorial claims by either side. It was Israel that requested they be recognized as international boundaries, but the Arabs pointedly refused to establish recognized boundaries with a nation they did not recognize, therefore the UN acceded to the Arab position and refused to recognize Israel's pre-1967 borders. It also refused to recognize the '47 partition lines, because the resolution was rejected by the Arabs and never carried forward to the Security Council for implementation. In fact, to speak of "pre-1967 borders" is a misnomer and a fallacy. It has no legal weight, and has no intrinsic value outside the media, where it flourishes. It is a trick and a gimmick designed to force Israel to accept the pre-1967 lines as a starting point for future negociations.
12. #2 impossible
(07.15.09)
There is no "separation". There is not enough water and not enough land for two separate states. That is why all Arabs call for the destruction of Israel.
13. #8 - Yael, The territory is no longer "occupied"...
Joe ,   Ramat Gan   (07.15.09)
... because there is no other sovereign claimant to it. In 1967, Jordan still claimed it as part of the kingdom, but it rescinded that claim in the 1980's. The text you quote has nothing to do with the legal reality of Judea and Samaria because that region is no longer under "occupation". It's considered Terra Nullius- having no sovereign claimant.
14. "the silly Jews"
Asher ,   Jerusalem   (07.16.09)
I am not so sure you can use the word "Jews". I do not know who these people are. I have a hard time believing that these people are Jews.
15. Preemptive War...Israel struck first
J ,   USA   (07.16.09)
First, ever since the end of WWII and the creation of the Geneva conventions not one single country on Earth believes that it can invade a foreign country, start a war and be rewarded with geographic concessions--even it is the winner of said war. This line shows you need a dose of reality: "One of the unwritten laws of war is that the winning side is allowed to do as it pleases after the cessation of hostilities. Second, Israel was the attacker. It may not have been the one to heighten tensions like Sadat did, but it was the initial invader...you guys pulled the trigger first. See my first point, then read this--"This law is even more relevant when the victor turns out to be the side that didn’t initiate the war, or didn’t want the war to occur in the first place"--and then take another dose of reality
16. All trust Adam from (Finsbury mosque) londistan, after all..
Ami ,   Yisrael   (07.16.09)
Good "perfect" people are like the "multiculturalist" progressive regimes of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Korea, etc... lets not forget Londistan, Ange'lia where multicuturalism and progressivness reign supreme that public schools and prisons serve only Halal food. Twit, if you want to be a dhimmi its fine with us. Go on ranting in your miserable "PC Utopia" But us here in Tzion will continue with the tradition of Zionism, the right to self determination for the Jewish people.
17. The war is not over
Adam Keller ,   Holon   (07.15.09)
The war is not over, and Israel did not win. Israel won one battle in 1967 but the war continues. We can go on fighting - and builing settlements is oine form of fighting - and it is by no means sure who will win in the end, Or we can end the war by getting out of the territories,
18. Yael #8 is 100% right
Avi-former Sruggie ,   Israel   (07.15.09)
Furthermore the pre-'67 territory is internationally recognized and accepted Israel, the Shtachim are most definitely not.
19. #8
Yonatan ,   Yerushalayim   (07.16.09)
While that argument is popular, it is also profoundly wrong. The stated purpose of that Article is to address the specific actions taken by Germany in Czechoslovakia were they Forcibly removed the population, and also by force moved German speaking people into their towns and homes. Unless force is used on either population, or at least the "Occupying Power" in question doing the actual physical transport, the Article has not been violated. Encouraging people to relocate, and even providing incentives, does not meet the legal definitions of "deport or transfer". Is there an "Occupying Power" in Yesha according to the LEGAL definition and not populist propoganda? The ONLY legal document clearly defining the "National Jewish Homeland in Palestine" is the League of Nations Palestinian Mandate introduced in 1920 and formally ratified by all member nations in 1922. The borders encompass ALL of Israel including Yesha, and Gaza, and natural defensible borders on the EAST BANK of the Jordan River (you can look this up and check the map). This document's validity is reaffirmed in Article 80 of the UN Charter which all nations must ratify to become members. Since the UN Charter may not be violated by any subsequent resolutions, even the UN Partition Plan was illegal by the UN's own standards. When Jordan invaded in 1948 and conquered Yesha and Jerusalem, they STOLE the land that LEGALLY belongs to Israel. That means they were an "Occupying Power". When Israel reclaimed the land in 1967, we returned the land to it's LEGAL OWNER. If you own a car and have the title, and someone steals it from you and locks it in their secure garage, do they then legally own it? If you go to the police and they won't help you does that mean the car legally belongs to the thief? When you manage to get the car back did you steal it from it's rightful owner and should you be forced to give it back? Just because people scream "illegal" loudly, doesn't mean it meets the LEGAL definitions of the Law.
20. "OCCUPIED TERRITORIES"
PETER A. CSANGO ,   SKIEN, NORWAY   (07.15.09)
What about the Kaliningrad oblast, Eastern Karelia and pre-war Eastern Poland? Transylvania, the Banat? Norway too has a legitimate interest in the Shetland Islands. North America? Does Mrs. Hillary Clinton make any effort to give these territories back to the original inhabitants?
21. #6 ben Ish lol
adam ,   london   (07.15.09)
arabs attacked in 48 because jewish terrorists like irgun and stern groups intimidated the british into granting them a state then when the UN vote came, all the countries surrouding palestine, from morroco to india rejected the idea, but countries like the States, UK Australia Canada voted yes. (there should be another vote like that held today, a vote for the creation of a native american state in europe, and all the muslims should vote in favour, and against the wishes of the europeans, see how they like it then. after all a votes a vote) the arabs attacking was more justified then giving away ARAB land to european asknazi jews. the arabs tried defending there land, and lost, mostly becoz "israel" had the uk and states backing it. israels birth was illegitimate, and hense everything it does there after is wrong. the arabs will conquer the land again, mark these words!!, if not in this generation, but it will happen... "israel" would have to kill every muslim in the world for it to survive the way it is nw. but unlike the european nazis, the arabs will allow the jews safe passage away from the land, and the ones thats stay would be part of the Arab Palestine howd you like that... the muslims are crazy, they defeated the all mighty christian crusaders, and recaptued jerusalem, and it will happen again israel, start counting sit down and eat some humus...peace hwd you like that
22. #8 thank you
ben Ish   (07.15.09)
Good suggestion, except I already suggested that solution. Formally annex all of J&S. Simple.
23. #7 hmm..
ben Ish   (07.15.09)
That gives me an idea. How about allowing everyone that wants to be a "citizen of the world" to do so. Give them a card or temporary visa or whatever is necessary, because obviously they won't be a citizen of Israel anymore. Whenever the visiting "citizens of the world" visa expires, fly them back to UN in New York or Ellis Island, or Heathrow, or more hospitable places like Riyadh, Tehran, Yemen, etc.,
24. Adam, we knews that we needed to throw the occupiers out
Genuine Tosefta ,   Tveria   (07.16.09)
that stole our lands and the land of many other peoples in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, whose name most of them no one remembers now. Fortunately we survived the onslaught of the barbarian pagans from F. Arbia, became refugees for a while to regroup and came back to reclaim what is rightfully ours. If you do not like our true narrative stop reading here, and return back the biblical name you too stole from us without asking our permission.
25. #15. It was not Sadat, it was Nasser
Jake   (07.16.09)
And though Israel technically did strike Egypt first in 1967, it was in response to a naval blockade by Nasser of the Straits of Tiran, which was an Act of War per the terms of the 1956 armistice, which involved Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai and Egyptian guarantees to recognize the Straits as an international waterway. Moreover, Israel only preemptively struck one Arab country - the initiator of the illegal blockade, Egypt. It gave specific and repeated guarantees to its other Arab neighbors that it would not attack them, provided they would not join the war. Syria, Iraq, and Jordan opted to join the war and attack Israel, by air, artillery, and cross-border attacks. That is a ironclad, well documented fact of history. Therefore, they lost the immunity you describe. Israel has since returned to Egypt the Sinai. So, following your rational about striking first, Israel does not owe so much as a grain of sand to the other Arab belligerents involved in the '67 war, since they attacked Israel first. Just another dose of reality. Consult 'Six Days of War', by Michael Oren for more.
26. Actually ....
Sarah ,   New York City, USA   (07.16.09)
It's written law. Check out the Hague Second and Third Conventions. He who loses ..... loses all. He who wins .... wins it all. Really. Look it up! Who set the terms of surrender following World War II? Was it the Germans? Was it the Japanese? THERE YOU GO !!! See how easy that was? The rules haven't changed.
27. #21 is another brain donor
ben Ish   (07.16.09)
Rather than waste my time teaching a pig to sing, I will ask you to explain to everyone *HOW* do you figure Israel is *Illigitimate* when it was CREATED BY LAW??? In fact the ONLY nation created by law, when all other nations, including yours were created by the edge of sword. UK, US, etc ALL nations are Illigitimate except Israel. Start singing.
28. Actually #15, Israel didn't attack first, history ignoramus!
Genuine Tosefta ,   Tveria   (07.16.09)
Jordan and Syria attacked first and bombarded Israel for days before Israel started the offensive and pushed them back taking Jewish Yehuda VeShomron back from Jordan illegal occupier and Jewish Bashan back from Syria illegal occupier. Israel did attack Egypt first, but since then it has returned back all Egyptian territory All this happened in 1967 and Egypt's dictator at the the time was Nasser and not Saadat Dictator, IDIOT!
29. #7
Cheryl ,   Chicago   (07.16.09)
Your remarks are perceptive.and accurate. The leftist rejection of Zionism and eagerness to give their land to and live beside those who would destroy them despite their being Israelis and Jews is crazy and illogical. It is all the more so as it is clearly in exchange for nothing but more aggression! What other explanation can there be other than self hatred as Jews and self loathing as Israelis?
30. #8
Prof. H. Winkelmann ,   Berlin   (07.16.09)
As do Arab countries seeking to destroying Israel, you quote Section3Article 49. Your application is based on the entirely erroneous premise that the land belonged to the Palestinians in the first place. Virtually any reading of the history of the region written by any non-Arab discloses that the West Bank was never conquored by or ever mandated to the Palestinians - ever. The Palestinians occupied and now occupy land that was once Trans-Jordan. They have absolutely no legal right to the land apart from living on it (i.e. occupying it) - which is exactly what the settlers are doing. The Fourth Geneva Convention on Rules of War was adopted in 1949response to Nazi atrocities during World War II. Since its adoption, this Convention was convened solely [and inappropriately] to discuss Israel. It has never met to deal with world atrocities including those in Kosovo, Sudan, Congo, Tibet, Bosnia, Rwanda, China, etc.
Next talkbacks
Back to article