Jewistan: Finally Recognizing Israel as the Jewish State

Israel’s Likudnik Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached into his bag of Zionist tricks and pulled out a brand-new demand that had never surfaced before in the history of the Middle East Peace Process going all the way back to their beginning with the negotiation of the original Camp David Accords conducted under the personal auspices of U.S. President Jimmy Carter in 1978: The Palestinians must recognize Israel as “the Jewish State.” Not surprisingly, the Zionist controlled and funded Obama administration publicly endorsed this latest roadblock to peace that was maliciously constructed by Israel.

Netanyahu deliberately shifted the goal-posts on the Palestinians. It would be as if the United States of America demanded that Iran recognize it as the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) State as a condition for negotiating and then concluding any comprehensive peace settlement with it. Of course such demands are racist and premeditated non-starters to begin with.

Netanyahu’s racist ultimatum would lead to the denationalization of the 1.5 million Palestinians who are already less than third-class citizens of Israel and set the stage for their mass expulsion to the Palestinian Bantustan envisioned by Netanyahu as the “final solution” to Zionism’s “demographic problem” created by the very existence of the Palestinians. This racist and genocidal demand would also illegally terminate the well-recognized Right of Return for five million Palestinian refugees living around the world as required by U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194(III) of 1948, by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 13(2) (1948), and by general principles of public international law, international humanitarian law, and human rights law. This would doom all prospects for peace between Israelis and Palestinians forever, and pave the way for the creation of “Greater Israel” dominating the entire former Mandate for Palestine, both of which objectives have been the intention of Netanyahu and Likud all along.

But if Netanyahu is really serious about Israel being recognized internationally as “the Jewish State” then there is a simple manner by which this universal diplomatic status can instantly be achieved unilaterally and without the consent of the Palestinians. Under basic principles of international law, every state is free to change its own name if it so desires: e.g., from Congo to Zaire then back to Congo. Therefore Israel is free to change its name to Jewistan — the State of the Jews.

Thereafter every state in the world that has diplomatic relations and treaty relations with Israel will henceforth necessarily have to recognize it as Jewistan — the State of Jews — and deal with it as such by that name on a daily basis. The name of Jewistan would automatically replace the name of Israel in the United Nations System, at all other concerned international organizations, and on all bilateral and multilateral treaties to which Israel is currently a contracting party. Indeed, in the aftermath of its serial genocidal atrocities perpetrated against the Palestinians and the Lebanese, Israel has quite understandably been seeking to “re-brand” itself. Jewistan is Israel’s perfect new moniker.

In fact, Israel has never been anything but a Bantustan for Jews setup in the Middle East by the White racist and genocidal Western colonial imperial powers in order to serve as their racist attack dog and genocidal enforcer against the Arab and Muslim world. From the very moment of Western imperialism’s genocidal conception of Israel in 1947-1948, Israel has historically always functioned as Jewistan – the world’s Bantustan for the Jews. So Israel might as well finally change its name today to Jewistan, own up to its racist birthright, and make it official for the rest of the world to acknowledge.

Of course, all the Black Bantustans in racist criminal apartheid South Africa were eventually dismantled and no longer exist. The same will eventually happen to the racist criminal apartheid Jewish Bantustan in the Middle East no matter what name they call themselves. Actually, Jewistan/Israel is more closely analogous to the genocidal Yugoslavia that collapsed as a State, lost its U.N. membership, and no longer exists as a State for that precise reason.

In either event, when this Israeli Bantustan for Jews predictably collapses as a State, all the Palestinian refugees living in their Diaspora around the world will be able to return to their homes as guaranteed by Resolution 194. Such is the ultimate solution for securing the Palestinian Right of Return under International Law. In the meantime, the Palestinians should sign nothing with Jewistan/Israel and let this Bantustan for Jews collapse of its own racist and genocidal weight. Good riddance!

University of Illinois Law Professor Francis A. Boyle served as Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization on the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence; to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993; and to H.E. Chairman and President Yasser Arafat. The story is told in his book Palestine, Palestinians and International Law (Clarity Press: 2003). He can be reached at: FBOYLE@LAW.UIUC.EDU. Read other articles by Francis A..

5 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. bozh said on October 21st, 2010 at 9:54am #

    As for francis’ generalization and thus vagueness of “genocidal yugoslavia”, we need more info from him.
    it seems he has in mind the four serb aggressions? As for kosovo, it has belonged to albanians for 2.5kyrs.
    it makes no difference whether serbs have conquered kosovo or simply moved in; either after the first ?conquest 7th c. or recent ’18 reconquest, kosovo has as much right a pal’ns do to reclaim their ancestral lands. And i assert by any means whatever!!!
    and of course, this pertains to zunis, apaches, irish, chechens, kurds, pashtuns, baluchis, assamis, et al.
    There is another method available: sanity! it had never been applied by many and it may not ever!
    We know that sanity prevailed in s.tyrol. How about in US? tnx

  2. shabnam said on October 21st, 2010 at 10:09am #

    Joanne Landy from Campaign for peace and democracy (CPD) has issued another phony petition to spread US imperialist and zionist agenda, aims at regime change, like in Iraq to keep fools like herself on board.

    www dot

    The following is the opinion of Stephen Gowans against phony ‘anti war’ activist and member of Council on foreign relations community, Joanne Landy, and her co signers, the closet zionists, who are signing these phony petitions where their primary purpose is to organize the ‘progressive’ behind the US imperialists and zionists agenda for the ‘New Middle East” to expand the interest of Israel. The co signers are the same closet Zionists along with their stooges like Hamid Dabashi, an Iranian, and Assaf Kfoury, a Chomskyte.

    Stephen Gowans in “Gilding Imperalism’s Friendly Mask” in 2004 writes:

    {Joanne Landy, an editor of the journal New Politics, is emblematic. She’s one of the driving forces behind a petition that calls for a “democratic” US foreign policy, but amounts to nothing more than a public display of wrapping oneself in the flag of virtue. Landy and her co-signers are for democracy and freedom, and one guesses, for puppy dog tails, children’s smiles, long walks along the beach, and that second cup of coffee on a lazy Sunday morning. She’s also against nasty people and dictators and tyranny and grimy bathtub rings, and, well, just about anything bad, really.

    Washington’s conspicuously genuflecting to Mars offered Landy occasion to put her moral purity on display. She deplored the Bush cabinet’s march to war, but at the same time, in a consummately safe and politic act, loosed a broadside against the reviled Iraqi leader. What Saddam’s failings had to do with Washington’s aggressive intentions was unclear to anyone not besotted by Washington’s PR fantasy that Saddam and his mythical WMDs lay at the root of the planned takeover. Indeed, Landy and her co-signers made a point of skewering the story. No, they said, it wasn’t Saddam’s failings that were at issue. His worst crimes were committed while he was a client of Washington, and nobody at the White House or State Department seemed to particularly care. The problem was that Saddam had later chosen to step outside the orbit of US control.

    Okay. So if Saddam’s failings had no legitimate connection to the US policy of regime change, why was Landy conspicuously denouncing Saddam? Wasn’t this raising the volume on the core justification Washington could use for war (we got rid of a nasty brutal dictator and the world’s now a better and safer place)?

    The most prominent of Landy’s co-signers had argued that liberals, while being portrayed as occupying a pole on the political spectrum opposite that of conservatives, could be shown to share core assumptions with their conservative opponents, differing only in tactical considerations. Political diversity, they argued, amounts to nothing more than a disagreement over how to achieve the same agreed upon goals.

    The same analysis applies to the anti-war stand of the same, radical dissidents, who articulated it. They agree with conservative forces on the goal (get rid of the monsters) but disagree on the means (regime change without US force or regime change engineered by the Pentagon or regime change by some other means?) Yet, it should be clear that once you’ve agreed there’s a monster the world would be better off without, military intervention, or something equally, or more devastating, like sanctions and blockades, are likely to strike most people as being about the only realistic options.
    It could be objected that while indeed this may be so, the objective in supporting a policy that advances US imperialism, is not to support US imperialism per se, but to rid the world of a monster and to improve the human rights situation. The implication is that given a choice between Saddam and an imperialism that offers some measure of democracy and civil and political liberties (as US imperialism, in its mildest guise, does), imperialism is the lesser of the two evils; that US domination of Iraq is preferable to Saddam. For Washington and the corporations whose profits grow with each cruise missile, tank and bomber delivered to the Pentagon, not to speak of each reconstruction contract they secure, this is surely so. For ordinary Iraqis, the equation isn’t so lopsided.}

  3. mary said on October 22nd, 2010 at 2:58am #

    The ADL’s ltop ten list of organisations that they do not like and which they perceive as being anti-Israel!!

  4. Rehmat said on October 22nd, 2010 at 1:41pm #

    On October 11, 2010 – Benji Netanyahu said that he will restrict new Jewish settlements in the West Bank if the Palestinian recognize Israel as the Jewish national homeland.

    A day later, US State Department spokesman, Pillip Crowley, said that the Middle East should “accept the existence of Israel as homeland of Jewish people”.

    Now, one can ignore the rant of a non-practicing Jew – but what one can say about the acute ignorance of Ben Obama’s senior foreign policy official of US history.

    It was President Harry Truman who crossed out the word “Jewish state” on the draft cabled him (see image on left top of this post) from Israel and substituted “State of Israel”. He had been assured by the Zionist leadership that the new state created by blackmailing some of United Nation Security Council’s non-permanent members would not be a theocracy but a secular state. Truman’s Secretary of State, Gen. George Marshall, was the last person to trust the Jewish leaders. He had advised Truman not to recognize Israel.

    It was Truman’s chief consul Zionist Clark Clifford, who blackmailed the President on behalf the Jewish Lobby. The story of Truman’s Christian conscience behind the support for Israel is another of many hoaxes created by the Zionists. According to records, out of the 1.2 million European displaced persons (DP) wandering in Europe after the WW II – only 100,000 were Jewish. By 1948, the displaced persons remaining in European camps were estimated at 800,000 – of whom 140,000 were Jews. According to US Holocaust Memorial Museum report – of the 170,000 Jews who migrated to British Mandate Palestine, many were not the Nazi camps survivors.

    While Zionists and their poodles are busy distorting the history – a Senior PA lawmaker Mustafa Barghouthi has called on the Palestinian Authority (PA) on Wednesday to immediately declare “an independent democratic Palestinian state,” including all the territories occupied by Israel during and after the Six-Day War in 1967 and with East al-Quds (Jerusalem) as its capital.

    Personally, I hate to tell Mustafa Barghouthi that he is calling for a miracle by expecting from a western stooge like Mahmud Abbas to take such an ‘anti-Semitic’ action.

  5. mary said on October 24th, 2010 at 2:11pm #

    The Occupier has the total gall to tell the Occupied what they can do and not do. Is that called chutzpah?

    ‘Separately, Israel’s prime minister has called on Palestinians not pursue independence without peace talks.

    [Israel and the PalestiniansMid-East talks: Where they stand
    Q&A: Resuming direct talks
    Confusion surrounds Arab summit
    Hope and anger as freeze expires]

    Frustrated that direct talks with Israel have stalled over the issue of Jewish settlement construction, Palestinians have suggested they could ask the United Nations to recognise an independent state beyond the Green Line – territories occupied by Israel since the 1967 Middle East war.

    Speaking before the start of Israel’s weekly cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said face-to-face talks were the best option.

    “I think any attempt to circumvent it by going to international bodies isn’t realistic and won’t advance true peacemaking in any way. Peace will be achieved only through direct talks.” ‘