Ms. Goldberg Has Me Nonplussed

My comment over at Open Zion today:

This part - "the inherent structural violence of the occupation. Trying to build a one-state reality in the name of “inalienable rights and realpolitik” is treacherously dishonest. The fact is, most Palestinian rights are perfectly "alienable" in the West Bank—and that is something we should never try to "normalize" "- is a bit nonplussing. Definition-wise, since "alienable" means "transferable to another's ownership", obviously, in addition to the fact that the Jewish people possess what international law declared to be a "historical connection" to the Land of Israel as a right thereby to reconsitute its homeland in the country, Ms. Goldberg now acknowledges that land can be transferred to Jews there whether, I would presume, by right of 1967 conquest or by an instrument that could stem from the latest Levy Report such as registering all land awarded by the Jordanian monarchs from state land sources and those which have not been developed, i.e., planted or built upon, should return to state land status and used, perhaps, by Jews. Moreover, since at present, both Palestinian Authority and Jordanian laws prohibit, what I would call and hope Ms. Goldberg does too, as a racist policy, Jews owning land in their territories, obvioulsy from a moral viewpoint, Arab property philosphy is definitely not 'normal' and very dishonest. That would also contribute to Jews demanding, correctly, their rights in the area.

But if we recall that Arabs arrived as conquerors, and who occupied Jewish land and worse, effectively engaged in ethnically cleansing operations over the centuries, and, paradoxically, most effectively during the British Mandate when Jews were expelled - and killed and raped - from residential locations they lived in for centuries such as Hebron, Gaza, Shchem and Jerusalem, the only treahcery here is Ms. Goldberg's defense of Arab immoral practices.

^