If all it takes in the Commissioner’s eyes is a UN resolution to determine legitimacy, without regard for context or reality, then shouldn’t all the Palestinians expelled by the ‘legitimate’ Israeli state in 1948 be allowed to return, as per UN resolution 194? Why doesn’t the Commissioner intervene and ask outwardly Zionist witnesses that question - putting aside their Zionist beliefs for a second to answer the question of course!
It has been clear from the outset that this RC has been set up to placate the Zionist lobby, so nothing useful can be expected of it. But even in that context Virginia Bell's question is a doozy. Smacks of getting a murderer off on a legal technicality. Arguably the Jewish state is the result of a series of unfortunate technicalities, starting with the 1917 Balfour declaration.
Thanks for your informed commentary, which always helps to better frame our arguments when considering the settler, colonial circumstances, past and present, in which Palestine has come to be occupied and ethnically cleansed. I want to add that another response to Bell would simply be to ask what borders she has in mind when evoking the UN's partition plan? For example, both Jaffa and al-Majdal (among other Palestinian towns and cities) were not included in the occupier's part of the partition. Majdal was ethnically cleansed by Zionist forces, and became what is called Ashkelon. This is why there is no basis to restrict understanding of occupied Palestine to the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.
Lawrence crystalises the problem. (I would add the apartheid laws in place for Palestinians living within Israel’s borders). It defines the battle we are in, to change what is inside the Overton window.
The commissioner has shown a marked lack of interest in interrogating the underlying assumptions of people presenting to the commission.
Her immediate acceptance of the IHRA definition without discussion and a glaring lack of submissions from non Zionist Jews makes me wonder how she is going to address “social cohesion” when she seems only interested in one side of the story.
I do hope I have missed something and she surprises us all, but Albo would not choose a commissioner that is going to make life hard for him.
If all it takes in the Commissioner’s eyes is a UN resolution to determine legitimacy, without regard for context or reality, then shouldn’t all the Palestinians expelled by the ‘legitimate’ Israeli state in 1948 be allowed to return, as per UN resolution 194? Why doesn’t the Commissioner intervene and ask outwardly Zionist witnesses that question - putting aside their Zionist beliefs for a second to answer the question of course!
It has been clear from the outset that this RC has been set up to placate the Zionist lobby, so nothing useful can be expected of it. But even in that context Virginia Bell's question is a doozy. Smacks of getting a murderer off on a legal technicality. Arguably the Jewish state is the result of a series of unfortunate technicalities, starting with the 1917 Balfour declaration.
How is it that the legitimacy of the State of Israel has come to be the talking point of this enquiry?
The Commission is turning into a farce which I think will only stoke anti-Semitism.
Thanks for your informed commentary, which always helps to better frame our arguments when considering the settler, colonial circumstances, past and present, in which Palestine has come to be occupied and ethnically cleansed. I want to add that another response to Bell would simply be to ask what borders she has in mind when evoking the UN's partition plan? For example, both Jaffa and al-Majdal (among other Palestinian towns and cities) were not included in the occupier's part of the partition. Majdal was ethnically cleansed by Zionist forces, and became what is called Ashkelon. This is why there is no basis to restrict understanding of occupied Palestine to the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.
https://normansaadinikro.substack.com
Lawrence crystalises the problem. (I would add the apartheid laws in place for Palestinians living within Israel’s borders). It defines the battle we are in, to change what is inside the Overton window.
No
I think your instinct is correct.
The commissioner has shown a marked lack of interest in interrogating the underlying assumptions of people presenting to the commission.
Her immediate acceptance of the IHRA definition without discussion and a glaring lack of submissions from non Zionist Jews makes me wonder how she is going to address “social cohesion” when she seems only interested in one side of the story.
I do hope I have missed something and she surprises us all, but Albo would not choose a commissioner that is going to make life hard for him.