« "...Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs" | Main | When the hurly-burly's done - Kieran Wanduragala »

01 December 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Charles I

The main thing to watch for here is that the GOI directly undertook to the U.S. (Palestinians - who dey?)not to build in the announced areas, so one is interested in the U.S. response to such a renege. Hilary called it "not helpful to the peace process".



Mr. Lang,
... 'helotry', what an elegant way to put it.

Helots, wiki elaborates, "... occupied a status "between free men and slaves". Tied to the land, they worked in agriculture as a majority and economically supported the Spartan citizens. They were ritually mistreated, humiliated and even slaughtered: every autumn, during the Crypteia, they could be killed by a Spartan citizen without fear of repercussion."



Remember how 'Representative' Ron Paul has always been a anti foreign dalliance type, and in particular the schmoozing that D.C. does with Tel Aviv on a too frequent basis. Well it turns out that his sonny boy 'Senator' Rand Paul is fixing to pay homage to the international porcelain queen known as Israel.

Wonder how many times that Ol Natanyahoooo will use his hickory stick on Rand to beat him into line to put the porcelain queen Israel first and foremost on his U.S. Senatorial to-bow & scrape to-list. Or has AIPAC already done that with Rand, used their AIPAC or IPAC hickory stick that is.

Oh well, guess we'll have to sit and watch as the Israeli porcelain queen continues its flush, and flush, and flush.



Here's my question.

Palestine could now conceivably re approach the ICC on the Rome Statue war crime of Israel transferring it's people into the occupied Palestine lands. If Palestine is smart they will stay away from any other war crime statutes like targeting or killing of civilians because both sides can be accused of that.
So let's say Palestine does that at the ICC. The ICC is limited to prosecuting "individuals" for war crimes. So even if the ICC prosecuted and found guilty the Israel leaders under who the illegal settlements took place or were ordered all they can do is issue arrest warrants for those individuals--should they set foot outside of Israel and some country was willing to arrest them. Iow, the ICC has no "enforcement" power to send to actually retify the crime of land confiscation (to remove the Israelis settlers)and return the land to Palestine.
I don't know if there is any mechanism at the UN to marshal any military force to carry out a ICC finding that the now recongized "observer State of Palestine' has a legal right to the return of their land by force if necessary. If there is one no doubt it would involve the UN-SC and the US would veto it.
So then it becomes a situtation where the UN has recongized some legal status for Palestine and the ICC has confirmed the legal status of Palestine as a state by accepting their Rome Statute case against Israel settlements in Israeli occupied Palestine.
That would leave Palestine with the 'legal right' to take back their land by force if necessary...but they have to have the military support of Arab states willing to take on Israle by going into Palestine and ejecting the illegal settlers and re establishing Palestine jurdisction of the land.
So let's imagine (in our dreams) that Egypt, Turkey, some others were willing to engage Israel militarily on the basis of the ICC acceptence of Palestine as a state having legal status and recourse and a finding against Israel. In point of fact the ICC has already issued findings on the illegality of the settlements as well the Wall but refused the case once before on the basis of the uncertainly of Palestines statehood....which the UN vote now helps turn around.
So the question is, if force is the only way left for Palestine to regain their land and they had military support for doing it from other ME states----what would the US do if Arab forces entered the now recongized Palestine State to remove Israeli settlers and settlements?

Alba Etie

Rand Paul will be running for the GOP nomination 2016 . Thus the trip to see the Likudniks.

r whitman

The alternative to the two-state solution is the one-state solution. Abbas is the last survivor of the two-state era. Any sucessor will be forced to push for a one state solution to be effective with the Palestinian population. I can envision the day when a delegation of Palestinians show up with TV cameras on and ask to be seated in the Knesset, claiming "one person one vote".

Al Spafford


As Cole points out, there might well be some effective strategy by Palestine to limit Israeli agri products sold to Europe. The West Bank settlers in particular market their produce there in high volumes. With the large majority of European countries now having swung Palestine's way, a boycott might be in the works


This building project will be a death knell to a viable Palestinian state. This is the reason the U.S. has always strongly opposed this move. Building in the E-1 corridor will connect Ma'ale Adumim to Jerusalem completely filled with Israeli buildings. The municipal boundries of Ma'ale Adumin will then extend from Jerusalem all the way east to Jericho. Since Jericho is in the Jordan Valley which is under Israel military control, this move may completely cut the West Bank in half and making Palestinian travel almost impossible.

This is the Likud dream, a Palestine of multiple "reservations" populated by autonomous non-citizens completely and totally under Israeli control.

FB Ali

Much is made in the West about the fear of the one-state solution as a lever with the Israelis. I don't see them as at all worried about this; in fact their recent policies are all designed to torpedo all chances of a two-state outcome.

They have already proven in Gaza -- to themselves and the world -- that a Bantustan is a feasible proposition. The West Bank is another one in all but name. With the backing of the US assured, and their military preponderance over the Arabs, they obviously believe they can continue to rule the Palestinians as second-class citizens for ever.

What that will ensure are revolutions in the Arab states against their Quisling elites over the next decade or two.


r whitman,
"one person one vote" is not acceptable for Likud. Sharing power with Palestinian is irreconcilable with the ideal of a Jewish state. That said, I would prefer that solution, but sadly, it is unrealistic.

Accepting "one person one vote" would be the end of the Zionist project, and it would be a cataclysmic end, with Israeli right wingers resorting to violence against anybody who pursues it. It would throw Israel into turmoil. Think of Algeria, France and the Organisation de l'armée secrète.

There is increasing frustration on the Israeli part that they cannot solve the problem with the unruly Palestinian in the Ghetto. Israeli right-wingers are already and habitually calling for the equivalent of the Madagaskar plan (i.e. expelling the Palestinians to Jordan or Egypt). If that doesn't materialise, they'll be debating final solutions. The Israelis sure don't moderate themselves.

It's fortunate that with the world watching, there is a limit to what Israel can do to the Palestinians, for now.


Cuts two ways. If the Palestinians are helots, then the Israeli's are Spartans, doomed to spend their lives in perpuetual military training and service.

I dont fancy Israels chances of surviving another 100 years if this is the way they plan on going.

Charles I

Well in a hundred years they'd be a fundamentalist theocracy for sure, which, with Shas and United Torah Judaism - ultra-orthodox parties - holding the balance of power, they Shas and United Torah Judaism may effectively be now.

They are exempt from military service, have a 4X fertility rate above non-orthodox, and collect state funds for every child born.



When I read that last week, there was a detail near the end that shocked me:

"...German authorities declined to allow the British firm Brita to import mineral water tariff-free into Germany because they believe it originated with a squatter company in the West Bank."

Are they REALLY exporting WATER from the West Bank to Europe!?!?!!?


Bibi has decided to chastise Merkel for daring to abstain in the Palestine vote at the UN.

In an interview with the conservative daily «Die Welt» Bibi stated that the German abstention in the vote has 'thrown back' the peace process, and that he is personally disappointed with Merkel.

Similarly, Hillary Clinton has said that Palestinians have to directly talk with the Israelis in the peace process. Why on earth?

All this assumes there is a peace process to begin with, and that the Isralis are interested in it. Where? I can't see anything remotely resembling that. Maybe the settlement expansion is a part of it? Or the assassination of the guy who was about to sign a truce with Israel? Or maybe the bombing of Gaza?

The Izzies have shown absolutely zero inclination to negotiate over anything but an unconditional Palestinian surrender. They like the status quo, except for the nuisance that are the missiles and that probably there are still not enough settlements. Except for that, Israel enjoys a comfortable superiority in about every field. They are well aware of that and they want to keep it that way. They are confident that, walled in and under constant drone surveillance, they can occupy the Palestinians from afar.

Just as disturbing: I heard an interview with one of the Israeli intermediaries in the negotiations with Hamas, and he suggested that the Israelis wanted to send a message by assassinating the military chief of Hamas - if we can get him, we can get anyone. If that reflects reality, then the Israelis are idiots who watch too many movies and try juvenile BS like replaying the Godfather.

Back to Berlin:

Predictably, in Netanyahu's talks with Merkel she'll get the guilt play in addition to this public love deprivation. Bibi will try to squeeze some money out of her, probably along the following lines:

"Your lack of submission is to blame for our international isolation, which makes our position in the world ever more perilous, and in face of the looming threat posed by Iran, and in face of your historical responsibility ... and as penance for your impertinence and as a just compensation for my distress I thus demand three more submarine for free!"


It can't have been all that different than I thought.

I found something on the history of Germany's vote at the UN on the Palestinian's observer status. In brief, Merkel was put off by Bibi seeing the German vote not as an expression of Germany's national interest but as a bargaining chip to be used as Bibi pleased.

From "Is Israel Losing Germany?" by Jacob Heilbrunn:

"Initially, Netanyahu counted on Merkel to stop the major European countries from assenting to the resolution. But then it became clear that this would not succeed. So the Israelis asked Merkel to switch tactics: they wanted Germany to push for a general abstention.
What happened next enraged Merkel. The Israelis insisted that Berlin now vote no on the resolution. Merkel refused. She was miffed that Israel saw Germany's vote as a bargaining chip that it could dispose of at it pleased. At the UN, Germany did not vote no. Instead, it abstained.

Germany is increasingly irked by the adamant refusal of Netanyahu to engage in serious negotiations with the Palestinians."

What ... but doesn't Hillary Clinton say that the Palestinians must talk with Israel directly? IF they refuse to engage in serious negotiations with the Palestinians, and the Palestinians are asked by the US to talk directly to them anyway, that would task the Palestinians with an exercise in futility. Clinton's uttering then merely is a talking point to cover up that the US is unwilling to do anything for the Palestinians and that such utterances are an exercise in US cynicism and complicity with Bibi's policies.

An honest broker no more, and a dishonest accomplice instead.

Nothing says 'modern day Warsaw ghetto' quite as pointedly like The Wall, with remote controlled gun turrets, manned by kids who have been toying with their Playstation an hour ago:




That doesn't make it hard to see why Palestinians perhaps may have a point when they are angry with the Izzies.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad