The article embodies a contradiction. The author is for individual human rights and also for self-determination. Self-determination has meant drawing a political boundary around a subset of the human race on the basis of some particular ethnic or religious consideration. That means those who don't share that consideration are second-class citizens unless the state is ethnically or religiously homogenous.

Either individual human rights or self-determination can be the basis on which a state is formed. One cannot have both. If individual human rights are instituted the state must not discriminate on the basis of religion or ethnicity among its citizens.

Israel is a Jewish state. Hamas is an Islamic organisation which gives precedence to Muslims over Christians. To serve individual human rights we cannot have Jewish, Christian, Muslim or any other states based on religion or ethnicity. The population of most states are a majority of a particular religion or ethnicity. However, those not belonging to the majority must have equal rights with those who are part of the majority if there is to be individual human rights.

To be for both individual human rights and self-determination is contradictory nonsense.

Jeff Halper asks, “But what is a human “right”?

I was looking forward to his definition. People are always talking about ‘human rights’ but never has there been a satisfactory definition of just what those rights are or, in fact, whether these ‘rights’ are really just undefined things which we believe we are entitled too, but which can be removed at any time, deliberately or accidentally.

Jeff Halper does not help at all; he says: “First of all, it is a condition so fundamental to one’s very humanness that it defines us as human beings.”

So, a human right is a “condition”. But, what is that condition?

Moving along he says: “Resting on the principle of human dignity, human rights assert that a life lived in their absence is not a life worthy of a human being. Your human rights are therefore inalienable, universal and extralegal.”

So, living in “their absence is not a life worthy of a human being.”

Still no definition get your ‘human rights’ because ‘they’ are extralegal. You get only that which is statutory. of ‘human rights’.

Any attempt to define human rights almost immediately descends into the sort of waffle people talk when they have nothing to talk about. Jeff Halper tells us that ‘rights’ are “extralegal” (outside the legal system), but then goes on to say that: “They cannot be taken from you, nullified, denied or compromised by laws or government policies. On the contrary, governments, armies and any other organ of power, together with their officials, are absolutely obligated to respect them. That means that you are entitled to your rights. You don’t simply have them; you also have the right to demand them.”

He doesn’t know what these ‘things’ are, but “they cannot be taken from you, nullified or compromised by laws of government policies…you also have the right to demand them.”

You have the right to demand anything at all; but that doesn’t mean you are going to get it. The law won’t help you.

Cont..

...cont

Human rights are in ‘the mind of the beholder’, which makes the idea of solving anything with them a nonsense.

In the case of Israel/Palestine, it would be a particular farce. If a Bill of Rights were to be imposed on Australians, that would also be a farce, with a committee deciding what was right and wrong, and the elected Government not being able to block them because they had been given the right to make decisions on what was right and wrong for all of us.

Israel "will find itself faced with the demand to transform itself and the Occupied Territories into a single state of all its residents",a demand by whom, the US,(Ha,ha) the UN(who cares)the World Conscience, the Israeli conscience? The article seems remarkably naive, Israel understands only violence, and will use it,with impunity, until the Palestinians disappear from history,or the Americans acquire a moral compass. Which will come first?

Keep up the good work, Mac, apparently even as a historian I'm regarded by some as just a hayseed, and too near 88, anyway, to handle it.

But you can bet your life, mate, I'm still going to stick in an opinion.

The whole situation with Israel and the Arabs would have been fixed up years ago if America after taking over had followed the original British plan for Palestine.

But not then, because for too many years the Jewish Neo-cons were pretty well running the White House as well as the UN.

But with George W Bush as Pres' it was no better with Condoleeza Rice jumping in first whenever the UN was asked for.

And very sadly not very much so right now under Obama, for only last week surely the new Pres' had been wondering what'n hell he will do about Hillary Clinton all smiles and pretty well with her arms round Israel's Netanyahu?

Cheers, BB, WA.

bushbred,

I agree, the US is the key to the Palestinians survival, however America shows no sign of bringing Israel to heel. Why it doesn't baffles me, whether the reason is capture of the political elites by Zionists, a deluded attempt to prove they are not anti-semitic by allowing Israel to get away with murder or an equally deluded belief that Israel is an ally in the war against jihad. That's why, under the circumstances, the article seems more of an essay on ethical philosophy than a realistic proposal.
By all means "stick in an opinion",you won't get any personal attacks from me.