–Mark Koerner

1. The world should be divided into clearly delineated, mutually exclusive “nation-states,” each one with a “government” having exclusive control.

2. No nation-state should attack any other on the theory that the other has no right to exist. When one does, the subject of the attack has a right to defend itself.

3. There should be no stateless people. In situations where stateless people exist, the governments of the world have a strong moral obligation to take them in, and, ceteris paribus, put them on a fast track to citizenship.

4. Internally, every nation-state should grant its citizens the same set of rights, regardless of race, creed, or ethnic origin. (I use “creed” rather than religion to include secular ideologies as well.) This is generally called “equality before the law.” It does not require that all rights be the same in every country. (In one country, for example, alcohol might be forbidden for all citizens, while in another the government might deliver a free bottle of champagne once a year to everyone.)

5. In the ongoing battle over which religion is the one true religion, or as some would have it, which religions are better than others, no government should take sides. Governments should remain above the fray, letting their citizens argue this out. In other words, no government should declare itself to be a “Christian state,” for example.

6. Different countries may establish different immigration and naturalization policies, but these policies should conform to the “equality before the law” principal.

7. No individual has the right to move to any particular part of the world simply because his or her ancestors used to live there. For example, although I am a German-American, the German government should be under no obligation to let me move to that country. (I can’t imagine why they would want me, anyway.)

Principal 2 is a clear endorsement of the notion that the country called “Israel” has a right to defend itself. It is also clearly implies that any richer country dispensing foreign aid should give some to Israel, assuming Israel needs it and assuming the money is used for defensive purposes.

Principals 4, 5, 6, and 7 are anti-Zionist principals. The fact that I believe them explains exactly why I am an anti-Zionist. I hope that someday, I could move Israel without having to check a box on the application form indicating that I’m not Jewish. More important, I hope that someday Israel ceases to be a Jewish state and becomes a place where all religions are treated with equal indifference by the state, and, most important of all,where Israelis have equal rights, including Arab Israelis. It may take a century to achieve this, but certain steps could be taken in the more immediate future.
Before anyone rushes headlong into the argument that Israel needs to be a Jewish state in order for Jews to survive, or that Jews need a homeland in the Middle East, I would point out that Jews are surviving quite nicely in the United States, and have done so since the beginnings of this country. Jewish Americans have served as Justices on our highest court, as heads of some of our major businesses, as prominent labor leaders, as movers-and-shakers in the highest reaches of our political parties, and so on. Gentiles who have engaged in anti-Semitic violence have been punished to the full extent of the law. Opinion polls show no rising tide of anti-Semitism. The Jews who live in the so-called promised land are in greater danger of being wiped out by anti-Semitic thugs than are American Jews.
I could be wrong, of course. Perhaps someday the Grand Kleagle of the KKK will get himself elected President of the United States. . . .

Yours for the Diaspora,

Mark Koerner

Any focus on past migrations or historic injustices is a return to the ethnic paradigm of the fascists and their forbears. Any equitable solution must be considered only with regards to the needs and rights of those presently living, by whatever universal rights you profess, be they economic, socio-political or an awkward combination thereof.

The point I made was that historically speaking, the land has always been associated to Jews. Many other people may have transiently passed through (much like renters) but always looked to other lands as their home. The owners, who were forced out, mearly returned home to claim was has always been recognized as theirs

If every single Arab victim of the Naqba had been an immigrant, had that justified their violent expulsion any better – expulsion by people most of whose ancestors hadn’t set foot in the land for generations?
If, hypothetically, tomorrow the US decided to expel all American Jews, they would not be refugees, according to your definition. After all, no one can claim ancestry in America going back to Moses.

“Clearly, making a claim of being an Arab from Judea is quickly dismissed.” – By whom? Not me, no more than I’ll dismiss someone’s claim of being a Jew from Germany.
The terms “Judea” and “Samaria” are contentious not because they’re historically inaccurate but because they are politically misused by the Gush Emunim crowd.

The claim that the Arabs “controlled much of Europe for 400 years” is wildly overstated. Much of the Iberian peninsula, yes.
The Ottomans who ruled part of SE Europe were Turks, not Arabs.
And furthermore, the fact that Jews had a kingdom between river and sea some millennia ago gives them no rights over the land today either.

However, there is the status quo which (for me) is unsatisfactory because in order to keep it going it is necessary for Israel and the US to cooperate in the setting-aside (dis-empowering) of the international law of occupation. Israel and the US have become and continue to be, in this regard, light-extinguishers-to-the-nations. And human-rights abusers, of course.

For me, the “solution” to the present problem is to abandon the search for peace in favor of a search for a lawfully-conducted occupation — that is to say, an occupation without the wall or the settlers and an occupation in which the settlements and highways were either turned over to the PA for unrestricted use or, at Israel’s option, destroyed and the rubble removed behind the green line (with the rubble from the wall and with the settlers). And don’t forget the water. Never forget the water.

Achieving this might not influence the search for peace, but it would re-enshrine international humanitarian law and make the US and Israel (in the sense that they had become to this extent law-abiding) “lights unto the nations”

Is this a program which any Zionists could favor? Or does Zionism require illegality, as some have of course been saying.

1) The majority of todays so called Palestinian Arabs are immigrants, or descendents of immigrants, to the “land between the river and the sea” in the early 1900. Demographic records clearly showed the rate of Arab immigration was higher than the rate of Jewish immigration prior to the 1940′s. That is why they need a different definition of “refugee” from 99% of refugees in the world. That definition is based on a 2 (two) year residence in the land.

2) Prior to 1948, when people referred to Palestinians, they meant Jews.

3) What has been renamed the “west bank” by the Jordanians (during the Jordanian occupation and attempted annexation 1948-1967), historically is known as Judea. There are still Judean hills and a Judean dessert. Clearly, making a claim of being an Arab from Judea is quickly dismissed. Historically, prior to the 6th century, all Arabs lived in Arabia. The fact that they controlled much of Europe for 400 years gives them no more rights over Spain than over Israel. The only reason Spain is not predominantly Muslim today was Sharia in reverse…..the Inquisition (What a show…..)

4) Nationality is based on language, culture, religion and geography. Jews are a nation based on Hebrew, Jewish culture, Jewish religion, and there longing return to their own country that was re-inforced yearly during Passover, in liturgy, and scripture.

On the other hand, the Palestinian Arabs are an amalgamation of regional dialects of Arabic, a mixture of Christians, Muslims, and pagan practices, and have no historical allegiance to a nation, but rather to clan and family.

Mr. Brooks’s country’s policies helped starve my relatives out of northern Ireland in 1847 and now he’s weeps at the thought of injustices suffered by the Palestinians when in truth – he could care less about their situation.

I appreciate that Zionist settlement was mostly carried out legally. That does not make it morally right. The Zionists were coming to displace and, in a sense, to dispossess the existing population. (Note, that’s a real population, not some mythical Palestinian Volk.) Sometimes one is justified in breaking the law, even by terrorism. I think this was one of those cases. This was an existential issue for the local population. The State of Israel similarly would be right to violate international law if its existence were at stake.

I still don’t see what’s nonsensical about a prescriptive “right” of a people to land. I’m talking about actionable claims. Prescription cuts both ways: whatever you think of the settlements now, after some time Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria will be every bit as legitimate as those Jewish communities inside the Green Line, if they all still exist. Denying the principle of prescription entails endless war, exile, and dispossession.