US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their descendants

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 261 Comments
kids
Palestinian refugee children, now counted separately
from those “personally displaced” in 1948. (Photo: Zehra Hirji)

Today the U.S. government approved a resolution to differentiate between Palestinians “personally displaced” in 1948 and their millions of descendants. The count will be conducted by the State Department and will only include refugees who receive United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) services. Known as the “Kirk amendment” after the drafter, Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL). The bill reads:

United Nations Relief and Works Agency.- Not later than one year after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations detailing the number of people currently receiving United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) services 1) whose place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948 and who were personally displaced as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict (‘such persons’); 2) who are children of such persons; 3) who are grandchildren of such persons; 4) who are descendants of such persons and not otherwise counted by criteria (2) and (3); 5) who are residents of the West Bank or Gaza; 6) who do not reside in the West Bank or Gaza and are citizens of other countries; and 7) whose place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who were personally displaced as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, who currently do not reside in the West Bank or Gaza and who are not currently citizens of any other state.

Originally, the text of this morning’s resolution called to re-define Palestinian refugees as those who were expelled during 1948 and not their decedents. However, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) amended the text in committee. The previous draft read:

It shall be the policy of the United States with regard to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) that a Palestinian refugee is defined as a person whose place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who was personally displaced as a result of the 1948 or 1967 Arab-Israeli conflicts, who currently does not reside in the West Bank or Gaza and who is not a citizen of any other state.

Under the Kirk amendment’s category system of Palestinian refugees, the number of “displaced” persons would be reduced to a mere 30,000, and the remaining 4,700,000 listed as heirs.

The U.S. is UNRWA’s largest single donor, contributing $250 million per year. Foreign Policy‘s blog the Cable suggests the goal of the amendment is to cut UNRWA’s U.S. funding and to trim down the number of Palestinians with a legal rights of return enshrined by international law.

Yet Kirk’s office says the law is about accounting, not cuts. “The amendment simply demands basic transparency with regard to who receives U.S. taxpayer assistance,” says Kate Dickens, a spokesperson for Kirk. “A vote against this amendment is a vote to deny taxpayers basic information about an agency they are funding.”

Palestinians constitute the world’s largest refugee population. There are over seven million Palestinian refugees worldwide and over five million are registered with the United Nations.
 

261 Responses

  1. OlegR
    May 24, 2012, 9:25 pm

    /Palestinians constitute the world’s largest refugee population./
    They are actually a unique refugee population
    the only one in which the status of a refugee is hereditary.

    • talknic
      May 25, 2012, 5:47 am

      Seems our Hasbaristas are ignorant of the chronological sequence of events which show their Ziocaine addled strawmen to be nothing but disembodied Ziochaff, poor lil’ darls.

      Let’s start with their UNRWA nonsense because it’s so easily shown to be the same olde same olde BULLSH*TE pushed by Israel.

      The UNRWA definition does not cover final status. It only provides, as its name suggests, relief and works whilst people are refugees. It’s on the UNRWA site. I’m sure they and Professor Ruth Lapidoth would have found it had they actually cared for facts or really wanted to understand or shine light on the actual situation, instead of spreading their bullsh*te far and wide.

      To the chronology of official events, statements and claims; (for our straw bringing friends, chronology means one should look at the dates to see what comes before and after)

      The official Palestinian claim is based on UNGA res 194, adopted 11 December 1948, a year before any UNRWA definition could possibly have been written and before UNRWA came into existence on the 8 December 1949.

      RoR under UNGA res 194 is based on this definition, which does not include lineal descendants. It also included Jewish folk on the same basis. However any person who takes up citizenship in a country other than that of return, is no longer a refugee. There are no longer any Jewish refugees from Arab States, who were not dispossessed by the Palestinians, nor did the Palestinians vote for the leaders of those regimes. In fact, the Palestinians of today were at best small children in 1948. Unless of course one uses Ziomaths.

      Nor were Jews expelled from Palestine by the Palestine refugees of 1948. Unless of course one uses Ziologic. They’re refugees because instead of fighting, they fled, as was the right of all civilians and; as civilians have the Right to Return.

      Furthermore, UNGA res 194 was adopted before the 31st Aug 1949, when Israel made its first official claim to territories it held under occupation via the 1948/49 war. ( Israeli Govt Statements on occupation here May 22nd 1948 and here Aug 12th 1948)

      Territories “outside the State of Israel” were not recognized as Israeli territory in 1948, 1949 or ever. Territory cannot not be acquired by force, only by legal annexation or agreement.

      There has never been an agreement with Palestine and; legal annexation is only via a referendum of the legitimate citizens of the territory to be annexed, sans the citizens of the Occupying Power. The legal annexation of Texas by the US, via a referendum of the MEXICAN citizens of Texas 1845, was a precursor to legal annexation becoming Customary International Law (thru being adopted by a majority of States) before the UN Charter of 1945.

      RoR to the actual legally recognized sovereign territory of the State of Israel, applies only to about 25,000 or so Palestine refugees, (my estimate) who are all an absolute minimum age of 64 yrs , beyond the age of rampant procreation.

      RoR to territories illegally acquired by war by Israel in 1948/49 and 1967, none of which has ever been legally annexed to Israel, presents a completely different set of issues which will depend on how generous the Palestinians are in helping Israel get out of the deep dark illegal sh*t hole Israel has dug for itself through 64 years of ignoring International Law, deceiving Israelis, itself and attempting to deceive the rest of the world.

      It also presents a quagmire for the US. Because the US recognized the legal extent of Israeli Sovereignty on the 15th of May 1948 as being “an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. ” The US has never recognized any other territory as being Sovereign to Israel. Which is perhaps why the 30,000 US estimate is much the same as my own.

      It also explains why the US supports a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. Were Israel made to face the full effect of the law, the official US recognition of Israel is only “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″. So the US is left only with the option of vetoing Chapt VII resolutions against Israel.

      Were Israel made to face the law, it would be sent bankrupt for decades and likely erupt into civil war as it attempted to relocate millions of Israelis back to Sovereign Israeli territory. Unfortunately such a civil war would be fought predominantly outside of the State of Israel, as such the other Regional Powers would have a right, as they did in 1948, to intervene.

      Had Israel adhered to the Law, been satisfied with its lot, the situation would not be as it is. It has only itself to blame. It has the generosity of the Palestinians to thank for even considering the so called ’67 borders.

      • Fredblogs
        May 25, 2012, 12:26 pm

        “Territory can’t be taken by force” This will come as a surprise to Turkey. Also China, the U.S., Spain, the countries that took chunks of German territory after WWII, oh, and every other country in the world, which all took territory by force.

      • maggielorraine
        May 25, 2012, 2:27 pm

        This is international law. Period.

      • talknic
        May 25, 2012, 2:28 pm

        Fredblogs May 25, 2012 at 12:26 pm

        “Territory can’t be taken by force”

        Who are you quoting? What was actually said is still there. “acquired”

        “Also China”

        Indeed, fine company Israel keeps.

        “the U.S., Spain”

        They’ve ‘acquired’ which territories by war, post 1945?

        “the countries that took chunks of German territory after WWII”

        Under treaties and agreements and; East and West Germany were occupied, not “acquired” by the Occupying Powers.

        “and every other country in the world, which all took territory by force”

        Since 1945… AMAZING!! Got any more straw. Perhaps you should get some reading glasses for your guide dog.

        Rpt … // legal annexation is only via a referendum of the legitimate citizens of the territory to be annexed, sans the citizens of the Occupying Power. The legal annexation of Texas by the US, via a referendum of the MEXICAN citizens of Texas 1845, was a precursor to legal annexation becoming Customary International Law (thru being adopted by a majority of States) before the UN Charter of 1945 //

        You come bearing gifts of straw, combined with poor reading skills.

        But let’s say your decrepit strawmen stood up. A) How many wrongs make a right? B) If the countries you mentioned had not, as you have alleged “taken territory by force”, Israel would then turn around and return all the territory it has illegally ‘acquired’ by war, never legally annexed and illegally settled, post 1948 (which is post 1945).

        Please clarify….thx

      • ritzl
        May 25, 2012, 3:20 pm

        I see another endless Israeli-style logic/legal/hasbara opening there.

        If/When the international community finally did get serious about using international law to bring some justice to the Palestinians by using a referendum to clarify the illegality of the occupation, Israel could turn around and argue that any such referendum would be invalid because most of the participants in the referendum were not entitled to vote because they were refugees, not legal residents.

        I’d call myself cynical, if this kind of circularity wasn’t a staple of the pro-Israel argument, here and elsewhere.

      • seafoid
        May 25, 2012, 5:18 pm

        Talknic

        Poland took Silesia, Pomerania and parts of East Prussia after ww2.

        The Soviet union took the rest of East Prussia.

        The modern Polish city of Wroclaw was called Breslau before WW2 when it was part of Germany.
        link to en.wikipedia.org

        Koenigsberg was the capital of East Prussia. Now it is called Kaliningrad. It is part of Russia

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        17 million Germans were dispossessed and expelled from their homes. 800000 were murdered after the war in what the Germans call die Vertreibung. Many of the women expelled were raped.

        But there is no Vertreibung industry

      • American
        May 25, 2012, 5:19 pm

        Total waste of effort to be anything but cynical re Israel-zionism…and waste to time to provide facts to the hasbara here.

        It’s the famous ‘Pilpul’ thing…”What is Pilpul and why should I Care about It?”….link to huffingtonpost.com“…

        Pilpul is the Jewish scholars tradition of argument…meaning they ‘make up’ a Truth….and all issues/discussions revolve around that “Truth”..which cannot be denied.

        Pilpul Truth for the zionist is …Jews are exceptions and more deserving than any humans on Earth..so no matter what the argument is ..this is the basis for their illogic, claims, arguments and so forth.

        As for instance in the refugee issue….simply put… they can’t actually conceive of any people having rights except themselves, absolutely cannot grasp that idea.
        Which of course means no matter how many examples or evidence or facts you provide of their illogic or hypocriscy or contridictions between what they claim is law or just for themselves and not for others….it doesn’t make a bit of different.

        You could post thousands of links of them calling for payments to Jewish refugees who left Arab countries 100’s of years ago. Or 100’s of articles about Israel suing for Germany to provide payments to “children of holocaust survivors”. Or hundreds of articles where Israel has changed the ”definition” of who is a holocaust survivor to try and up the numbers and get more money out of Germany. Or hundreds of examples like the one below of Morocco where even if Jews weren’t living in Nazi Occupied countries, which was about the second expansion of survivor definition they made up, they just call them survivors anyway to extract money out of Germany or whoever they can.

        In the case of Moroccan Jews, Morocco was “Not’ occupied by the Germans and French Morocco was aligned with the allies even as France was occupied. So the zios added another defintion to survivor….””any kind of discrimination”” such as ‘not being allowed in parks”. Jews were not deported from Morocco.

        “For the first time since the end of the Second World War nearly 70 years ago, thousands of Moroccan Jews will be recognized as Holocaust survivors and receive compensation from the German government..

        According to the agreement drafted over the last few days between the Claims Conference and the German government they will each receive NIS 13,000 ($3,800) in compensation.

        Those eligible for the compensation are Jews whose freedom of movement was restricted in some way by the Nazis and their allies. Freedom of movement includes entrance to parks, movie theaters, and use of public transportation among others.

        At the time World War II broke out, 260,000 Jews were living in Morocco. While Jews from Tunisia, Algeria and Libya were recognized over the passing years as Holocaust survivors and received compensation, Moroccan Jews were never recognized as survivors. So far, only a small number of Moroccan Jews who made aliyah to Israel before 1953 have succeeded in achieving recognition as Holocaust survivors and receiving compensation accordingly.”

      • American
        May 25, 2012, 5:57 pm

        I particulary like this part….

        “Those eligible for the compensation are Jews whose freedom of movement was restricted in some way by the Nazis and their allies. Freedom of movement includes entrance to parks, movie theaters, and use of public transportation among others.”

        Except for the Pilpul Truth they live by, how else could they ignore that at the same time they are demanding payment for Jews restrictions of movement 65 years after the fact, this is exactly what they currently doing to Palestines and have done it for 65 years.

      • talknic
        May 26, 2012, 3:42 am

        seafoid

        I am aware of and in no way condone the population transfers, forced resettlement and expulsions visited on the various populations during and after the war.

        I was however, specifically addressing the ‘acquisition’ of ‘territory’ by war with the creation of the UN 24 October 1945 as a base line. Territories were ‘acquired’ by being ceded and annexed through treaties and agreements. Some before the creation of the UN…

        A Feb 1945 agreement where Russia would annex a portion of Eastern Poland & Poland would take part of Eastern Germany…. an Aug 1945 treaty between the Polish Govt & Russia to formally cede territories which were then annexed to Russia …. Needless to say not all were fair or worked out in the long term

      • talknic
        May 26, 2012, 4:43 am

        ritzl “a referendum to clarify the illegality of the occupation”

        Illegality is determined by Law, the UN Charter, Conventions, Armistice & Peace agreements.

        The occupation is by agreement between Israel and the various Arab States, giving Israel military control of the non-self-governing territories through Armistice Agreements or in the case of Israel/Egypt & Jordan, Peace Agreements.

        The ‘actions’ of the Occupying Power are in breach of the responsibilities of ” Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government…” (CHAPTER XI: DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES
        Article 73). Which is why there are so many UNSC Resolutions against Israel.

        As to the circular arguments put forward by Israel, of course…. As long as a legal matter is in dispute, it’s not resolved. E.g., While the argument over ‘the’ or ‘all’ in UNSC res 242 raged on, there was no resolution for Israel or anyone else to be held to.

        After UNSC res 242 was adopted, then came the bizarre arguments over what it meant, even though it took countless hours to ensure it only said exactly what it meant.

        Logic tells us “territories occupied” and never unoccupied, are still occupied territories. It’s reflected in UNSC Res 252 and its SIX reminders. Perhaps best encapsulated in its entirety in UNSC Res 476. The Israel/Egypt/Jordan Peace agreements show us the purpose of UNSC Res 242 (and 338).

        Put through the Ziofier, UNSC Res 242 comes out as ‘the Palestinians must negotiate borders with Israel’. Yet UNSC Res 242 doesn’t mention Palestine, Palestinians or contain the word ‘negotiate’. It had nothing to do with Palestinian Statehood. It was a resolution to end hostilities between already existing states, all of which had existing borders determined BEFORE Israel was declared.

      • homingpigeon
        May 26, 2012, 6:41 am

        Thank you for the pilpul reminder. I again bring to the attention of new commenters and remind old ones of what I call the eggplant phenomenon. Just when there is an intelligent discussion happening, a hasbarist can declare that Israelis were the first to develop eggplants. Then the commenters will work themselves into a frenzy looking for ancient references to eggplants in Hebrew and Arabic literature, bringing in eyewitness accounts of who was cultivating eggplants in Palestine in which year, arguing over the definition of the eggplant, and the various species thereof, and who developed which cuisine first from the the eggplant, and who was the first to market these eggplant dishes in Kansas.

        It is a powerful and effective trap. I see people falling into it all the time. Bring the discussion back to the core: A movement of immigrants came to a populated land, claimed it as theirs, displaced the majority of the inhabitants, and set up its own state with weird definitions of citizenship, and continues to displace the native inhabitants on a daily basis.

      • justicewillprevail
        May 26, 2012, 6:57 am

        Thanks, American. What an extraordinary story, and great example of the myth making machine in action. If it’s not true, hey just make it up, but make sure it can never apply to anybody else. What a farcical ideology.

      • American
        May 30, 2012, 4:20 pm

        homingpigeon,

        anonymous is doing a site listing all the hasbara lines..We should help her and expand it to include examples of all the hypocrisy in their arguments and statements and links to historical refutations of all the claims the hasbara make here.
        Or we could just ignore them…LOL
        At first i thought Fred or pfp were the old witty because of the way they just make up stuff with no basis in fact like witty did…..but then I decided all the zion activist are probably like anyway and that explains the similarity.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 30, 2012, 5:30 pm

        I again bring to the attention of new commenters and remind old ones of what I call the eggplant phenomenon. Just when there is an intelligent discussion happening, a hasbarist can declare that Israelis were the first to develop eggplants. Then the commenters will work themselves into a frenzy looking for ancient references to eggplants in Hebrew and Arabic literature, bringing in eyewitness accounts of who was cultivating eggplants in Palestine in which year, arguing over the definition of the eggplant, and the various species thereof, and who developed which cuisine first from the the eggplant, and who was the first to market these eggplant dishes in Kansas.

        i love this, just saw it. there’s an excellent example of this going on right now in another thread.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 30, 2012, 5:37 pm

        “At first i thought Fred or pfp were the old witty because of the way they just make up stuff with no basis in fact ”

        No chance. Witty’s writing was unique, to say the least. There was more than one occassion where I suspected he experienced a stroke in the middle of a sentence.

      • eljay
        May 30, 2012, 6:47 pm

        Mmmm…eggplant…oh, sorry, what were we talking about? ;-)

      • Eva Smagacz
        December 14, 2012, 10:05 am

        Seafoid, please bear in mind that majority of peasants and workers in those territories taken by Poland were not Germans, and native languages were not Germanic. Germans were settling in those territories under the settlement policy called Ostsiedlung.
        The tragedy of expelling German population was that there was no differentiation between families that settled in 18th century, and families that settled 2-3 years earlier, during the Second World War.

      • piotr
        December 14, 2012, 12:33 pm

        Actually, there is a “Vertreibung industry”., the difference is that it is not an “export”. The numbers from different sources very a lot, 10 millions is much closer to the truth than 17 millions. And there was an act of capitulation, by now followed by treaties.

        Turkey did not annex anything, but the republic of North Cyprus is essentially unrecognized puppet regime. Tibet was not a recognized independent state. Tuvans agreed to join Soviet Union and Russia.

      • Blake
        May 26, 2012, 6:19 am

        talknic: Very well said. In 1943 Gen Patrick Hurley a former Sec of war in the American admin submitted a report to the WH following a visit to Palestine & talks with David Ben-Gurion. In his report he said The Zionists in Palestine have committed themselves to (1) a sovereign Jewish state which would embrace Palestine and probably eventually Transjordan, (2)The eventual transfer of the Palestinian population from Palestine to Iraq, (3) jewish leadership for the entire ME in fields of economic development and control.

    • Hostage
      May 25, 2012, 8:33 am

      They are actually a unique refugee population
      the only one in which the status of a refugee is hereditary.

      Chris Gunness, the UNRWA’s spokesman, reponded to that myth:

      All refugee communities, whether those under the care of UNRWA or UNHCR, have their refugee status passed through the generations while their plight remains unresolved. Refugees in Kenya administered by UNHCR are a good example. In this regard, the accusation that UNRWA uniquely perpetuates the Palestine refugee problem is ignorant of international refugee law and practice.

      link to ynetnews.com

      FYI, there have been second and third generation refugees in the other UNHCR programs and those operated under the terms of the 1951 Refugee Convention. See for example the reports on camps in Thailand here and here

      • Talkback
        May 25, 2012, 10:30 am

        Hostage: “FYI, there have been second and third generation refugees in the other UNHCR programs and those operated under the terms of the 1951 Refugee Convention.”

        UNHCR Handbook:
        “184. If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, his dependants are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity.”
        link to hrea.org

      • Fredblogs
        May 25, 2012, 1:25 pm

        Totally different animal. “Head of the family” and “_DEPENDENTS_” not “DESCENDANTS”. That means that if an actual refugee has young children the young children can get help while the parents are getting help, not that refugee status passes from generation to generation without limit.

        If you are a child, the heads of the family are your parents. Once you grow up, that is no longer the head of your family, you are.

        Thank you, you just disproved your own position.

      • talknic
        May 25, 2012, 2:35 pm

        Fredblogs May 25, 2012 at 1:25 pm

        “Totally different animal. “Head of the family” and “_DEPENDENTS_” not “DESCENDANTS”. “

        All families are made up of lineal descendants.

        “That means that if an actual refugee has young children the young children can get help while the parents are getting help, not that refugee status passes from generation to generation without limit”

        A person living in a refugee camp is a refugee.

        “If you are a child, the heads of the family are your parents. Once you grow up, that is no longer the head of your family, you are”

        And if you’re living in a refugee camp, have no state, you’re a refugee. Except of course in the diseased mind of a Ziocaine addict building little strawmen everywhere they go.

      • Talkback
        May 25, 2012, 3:29 pm

        Fredblog, please allow your brain to process self-referential logic. According to the principle of FAMILY REUNIFICATION in UNHCR:

        1.) If you’re head of a family, than the refugee status can be granted to your dependants which can be your descendants, your spouse and even your aged parents.

        Now:
        2.) If you were granted refugee status as a dependant and you become head of your family then 1.)

      • Fredblogs
        May 25, 2012, 5:39 pm

        So what, the cited handbook doesn’t say “lineal descendants” it says “dependents”, that’s minor children, possibly wives, not all your descendants of whatever age wherever they are. I doubt there are very many dependents of the original refugees. Basically, it would be limited to kids born in the last 18 years, to people at least 46 when the kids were born (for 1948 refugees that is).

        A person who was kicked out of his home country is a refugee. A person who was not kicked out of his home country and lives in a refugee camp is just a resident of the camp, not a refugee. Refugee status is because you got kicked out or fled, not because you live in a camp with people who got kicked out or fled. Otherwise the volunteers who live there would be refugees too.

      • Hostage
        May 25, 2012, 6:36 pm

        Thank you, you just disproved your own position.

        But your semantic games don’t address the statement made by the UNRWA spokesman that said refugee status is passed from generation to generation in the same way in the other UNHCR programs, like the one in Kenya, or the links that I supplied which establish that there are second and third generation refugees who were born in the UN camps in Thailand who were not personally displaced.

      • Shingo
        May 25, 2012, 9:31 pm

        If you are a child, the heads of the family are your parents. Once you grow up, that is no longer the head of your family, you are.

        That’s like saying you can ‘t be Jewish because you ceased to be one when you grew up and became an adult.

      • eljay
        May 25, 2012, 10:51 pm

        >> “Head of the family” and “_DEPENDENTS_” not “DESCENDANTS”. That means that if an actual refugee has young children the young children can get help while the parents are getting help, not that refugee status passes from generation to generation without limit.

        And if a Jew actually exiled from the Land of Israel has young children the young children have a right to return to that land while the parents have a right to return to that land, not that the status of exile passes from generation to generation without limit.

        Otherwise, you end up with hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists self-righteously employing terrorism and ethnic cleansing to create an oppressive, expansionist, colonialist and supremacist state for themselves and for other Zio-supremacists to occupy and colonize (a.k.a. to “return” to).

        Ooops, too late… :-(

      • Talkback
        May 26, 2012, 3:58 am

        Fredblogs says: “So what, the cited handbook doesn’t say “lineal descendants” it says “dependents”, that’s minor children, possibly wives, not all your descendants of whatever age wherever they are. I doubt there are very many dependents of the original refugees. Basically, it would be limited to kids born in the last 18 years, to people at least 46 when the kids were born (for 1948 refugees that is). ”

        I’ve allready explained to you that if these kids become head of their own family then based on the principle of family reunification their dependants can be granted refugee status, too.

        “Refugee status is because you got kicked out or fled, …”

        NO! The refugee status can be also granted to dependants of those who got kicked out or fled.

        “… not because you live in a camp …”

        Why would a child live in a camp if it weren’t a descendant (in other words a dependant) of a refugee?

        “Otherwise the volunteers who live there would be refugees too.”

        We were talking about parent refugees and their kids, not about staff.

      • Talkback
        May 26, 2012, 4:06 am

        @ Hostage

        “Q: It is often said that UNRWA perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem by granting refugee status through the generations and that handing the refugees over to UNHCR would not allow this. Is this the case?

        A: This is not the case. As I have already noted, Palestine refugees are entitled to a just and lasting solution to their plight. In the absence of — and pending the realisation of — such a solution, it stands to reason that their status as refugees will remain.

        Questions raised about the passing of refugee status through generations stem from a lack of understanding of the international protection regime. These questions serve only to distract from the need to address the real reasons for the protracted Palestinian refugee situation, namely the absence of negotiated solution to the underlying political issues.

        UNHCR’s Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for determining Refugee Status provides in paragraph 184: “If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, [for refugee status] his dependants are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity.”

        In effect, refugee families everywhere retain their status as refugees until they fall within the terms of a cessation clause or are able to avail themselves of one of three durable solutions already mentioned — voluntary repatriation, local integration or resettlement in a third country.

        Also, Chapter 5 of the UNHCR publication, Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination under UNHCR’s Mandate is very clear that in accordance with the refugee’s right to family unity, refugee status is transferred through the generations. According to Chapter 5.1.2 “the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:” “all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years.”

        Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states “individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority.”
        link to prc.org.uk

        Link to PDF document “Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination under UNHCR’s Mandate”: link to unhcr.org

      • Taxi
        May 26, 2012, 4:38 am

        fredblogs,
        It don’t matter one iota what congress thinks about Palestinian refugees. Sooner than later, within and without, occupied Palestine will be liberated and the pressing question will be: how many zionists returning to their US and European homelands can you fit on a 707?

      • Hostage
        May 26, 2012, 5:02 am

        So what, the cited handbook doesn’t say “lineal descendants” it says “dependents”, that’s minor children, possibly wives, not all your descendants of whatever age wherever they are.

        States aren’t parties to the handbook, they’re parties to the refugee convention or its protocol.

        Under international refugee law contained in the convention, a refugee is strictly defined as a person who owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality or former country of habitual residence and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country. All of the refugees are either unable to return to Israel and Palestine because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, or are unwilling to return to life under an administrative regime that the ICJ declared illegal in its 2004 Advisory Opinion.

        Nationality was an inherited characteristic under the Palestinian Citizenship Orders, 1925-1942. Israel’s attempts to retain those laws for Jews, while retroactively revoking them for Arabs during an on-going armed conflict is powerful evidence of persecution. The disposition of the territory and nationality of the refugees is a final status issue. There’s nothing in the UNHCR definition that would limit the meaning of the term “country of nationality” to one generation, much less expire when a child reaches maturity. Nationality is conferred from parent to child under international law and the laws of most civilized countries.

        The US State Department’s letter to Chairman Leahy said this was an attempt to prejudge a final settlement issue. That seems pretty obvious to me.

      • Hostage
        May 26, 2012, 6:14 am

        @ Hostage . . . “Q: It is often said that UNRWA perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem by granting refugee status through the generations and that handing the refugees over to UNHCR would not allow this. Is this the case?

        The UNHCR uses the “country of nationality” and “former country of habitual residence” standards found in Article 1 of the refugee convention or the regional conventions on refugees.

        Palestinian nationality was established on a non-discriminatory basis in international law via Article30 of the Treaty of Lausanne. Nationality was inherited by children living abroad from their parents under the Citizenship Ordinances that were in effect in Palestine during the 1948 civil war. Those laws remained in effect for Jews and the name “Palestine” was changed to read “Israel”. The minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II) safeguarded the rights of the Arab inhabitants of the Jewish State and the Jewish inhabitants of the Arab State.

        The attempt to revoke citizenship on the basis of race, nationality, or social group is an example of persecution that makes the refugee “unable” or “unwilling” to return to the country of origin. The US may cut funding, but they don’t have enough influence to change the definition of “refugee” in international law.

      • Blake
        May 26, 2012, 6:29 am

        Thank you, you just disproved your own position.

        You decided that fredblogs and we all know how irrational your mind is. They could not return to their homeland to have their offspring in the first place.

      • American
        May 30, 2012, 4:27 pm

        Fredlog

        If the parents had no state…were ‘stateless’..because they couldn’t return to their former state…then the children, no matter how old they are, had no state or citizenship to inherit other than their parents ‘former’ state ….if they can’t go to their parents ‘former’ state, the only state status they inherited, they are also refugees.

      • talknic
        December 14, 2012, 5:13 am

        OR

        Where one automatically becomes a citizens of the country of refuge by being born in the country of refuge. They then have the full protection of the state even tho their parents are refugees.

    • Woody Tanaka
      May 25, 2012, 9:07 am

      Well, comrade, if a Russian like you can claim a bullshit right to a presence in the Middle East based on heredity stretching back into antiquity, then the rights of the Palestinians ethnically cleansed a few years ago shouldn’t be too hard to figure out, even for the likes of you.

    • ahadhaadam
      May 25, 2012, 9:29 am

      that’s because we’re dealing with a unique racist exclusionary Zionist entity which has prevented them from returning to their homes for 64 years. You don’t suppose that if a thief refuses to return his booty and manages to keeps it for a certain period of time, it makes it legally his, do you?

    • American
      May 25, 2012, 2:35 pm

      “the only one in which the status of a refugee is hereditary”..Oleg

      LOL…are you kidding me?
      The Jews are now approaching their ‘fourth generation’ of ”inherited” benefits for “some” Jewish refugees flight from WWII.

    • Blake
      May 25, 2012, 3:55 pm

      OlegR: Just because you are complicit in their refugee status enjoying their land at their expense. They were never allowed to return to from where they left involuntarily. Leaving a place doesn’t make someone a refugee. It’s forbidding him or her from coming back that does it.

      “The tragedy of people of Palestine is that their country was ‘given’ by a foreign power to another people for creation of a new state. The result was that hundreds’ of thousands of innocent people were made homeless. With every new conflict their numbers increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that refugees have every right to homeland from which they were driven, & denial of this right is at heart of continuing conflict.”
      (Bertrand Russell, February 1970)

  2. Fredblogs
    May 24, 2012, 9:36 pm

    Of course they represent the worlds largest refugee population. Every other refugee group in the world gets smaller over time as people die, or find citizenship elsewhere. The Palestinians are the only refugee group in the world where descendants are counted as refugees.

    • Talkback
      May 25, 2012, 4:19 am

      @ OlegR and Fredblogs

      Could it have something to do with the fact that the Jews are the only people which were granted a state because of a refugee problem, granted citizenship without naturalization and accepted to have a nationality law which doesn’t include all residents before proclamation, but only the ones it didn’t or couldn’t expell?

      These refugees are denationalized and expelled Israelis. But that doesn’t count to Israel, because they’re not Jews.

      And comparing to other refugees regulations which don’t count descendants as refugees: Family reunification would do the same. Well, not in Israel. Because Israel is so racist it doesn’t even allow Palestinians to reunite their families.

      Do both of yuo support this disgusting racism and Jewish supremacism?

    • justicewillprevail
      May 25, 2012, 4:49 am

      right, so let’s apply the same standards to Jews who claim some mystical ‘right’ to take over Palestinian farms, land and water, yet have no direct relations who ever had anything to do with Palestine.

      • Fredblogs
        May 25, 2012, 12:29 pm

        So they don’t allow Holocaust denial, but they do allow existence-of-the-Jewish-People denial.

      • seafoid
        May 25, 2012, 1:23 pm

        The Ashkenazis never had any connection to Palestine.
        Sure I can get my kids to sing about Lima and ensure the next 20 generations continue the song but that will never turn me into a Peruvian.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 25, 2012, 2:32 pm

        “The Ashkenazis never had any connection to Palestine.”

        Whether they did or not is irrelevant. Imiagine if I and 10 million North Americans like me, could establish direct connection to the people who lived in Anatolia before the Turkic expansion — say, we’re all Hittites dreaming of returning to rebuild Hattusa — and even assume that there has been pervasive and grotesque anti-Hittite prejudice and pogroms, oppression and attempted genocides throughout Hittite history in North America. None of that would justify, in any way, an armed invasion and takeover of Asia Minor from the Turks who had nothign to do with it. Nor would it give me any right to be present in Asia Minor absent the okay by the Turks, themselves. (I know the analogy isn’t precise because we know the Turks were origianlly from Central Asia, wereas the Palestinians are the decendants of native populations who did not migrate anywhere, but you get the idea…)

      • seafoid
        May 25, 2012, 5:39 pm

        Woody

        If you and the rest of the Hittites had the luck to organise and get the ear of Congress or China or whoever and had the money to set up in anatolia there would be just the one problem.

        You would have to get the Turks off the land. There is always a level of enough violence that can do any job. But the problem is that sets the tone for the rest of the project. So you’d have to have a Hittite Defence Force. And you’d have to spend a lot of money on them. And divert resources. and build the education system around it. And family life in Hittitia would suffer. You’d have more domestic violence. And you’d have enemies because an army can’t function without enemies.

        You would need an ideology. It’s very hard to get one that works for more than 2 generations. The enemies would be a big part of the ideology .

        You would probably end up with a mess.

      • American
        May 25, 2012, 5:45 pm

        Fredblogs says:
        May 25, 2012 at 12:29 pm
        + Show content
        So they don’t allow Holocaust denial, but they do allow existence-of-the-Jewish-People denial.”

        Well count me as a “denier’. I only recognize Jews/Jewishness as a religious affiliation. ..tribal though it may be and despite the zionist takeover…Jewish is not literally a separate “people”.
        There are no racial, cultural, ethnic or national ‘peoplehood’ ties between a African Jew or Asian Jew or Caucasian European Jew and so on.
        The only legitmate connection is religion.
        You’re the one living in a house of myth beside the river of de Nile al.

      • justicewillprevail
        May 25, 2012, 5:55 pm

        Now you’re making it up, whilst indulging in existence-of-the-Palestinian-People denial.

      • Hostage
        May 25, 2012, 6:20 pm

        So they don’t allow Holocaust denial, but they do allow existence-of-the-Jewish-People denial.

        There is no legal prohibition against expressing that opinion, many Israelis have written bestsellers on the subject of the invention of the Jewish people, the myth of the exile, & etc. Some of the comments you’ve made are illegal in many jurisdictions, but are apparently allowed by Phil and Adam anyway.

        FYI, the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations mandate specifically safeguarded the rights and standing of Jews in other countries to their own nationalities. That’s why there’s no selection on your Census form for the “Jewish people”. So it was not a violation of national or international law when AJC President Jacob Blaustein obtained Ben-Gurion’s acquiescence to the 1950 “Entente” agreement.

        In an April 20, 1964 letter to Rabbi Elmer Berger of the American Council for Judaism from Assistant Secretary Phillips Talbot, the State Department confirmed that it “does not recognize a legal-political relationship based upon religious identification of American citizens. It does not in any way discriminate among American citizens upon the basis of religion or ethnicity. Accordingly, it should be clear that the Department of State does not regard the “Jewish people” concept as a concept of international law.” See Whiteman’s Digest of International Law, Volume 8, U.S. Dept. of State, U.S. Govt. Print. Office, 1967, page 35

        So STFU.

      • Fredblogs
        May 25, 2012, 7:03 pm

        @American
        Racial? No. Cultural, and national yes. A Jew from anywhere in the world is welcome to attend services in my synagogue. The Asian Jews I know would disagree with you about cultural ties, as would the black Jews, so would the white Jews. Outsiders don’t get to decide when someone else is a People. Otherwise the Palestinians wouldn’t be a People. They have chosen to be a People instead of just part of Arabs in general only since 1967, and like you and the Jews, some outsiders don’t consider them one, but they are a People nonetheless.

      • playforpalestine
        May 25, 2012, 9:55 pm

        “There are no racial, cultural, ethnic or national ‘peoplehood’ ties between a African Jew or Asian Jew or Caucasian European Jew and so on.
        The only legitmate connection is religion.”

        I’m interested in what makes you feel qualified to determine the answer to convoluted questions of identity politics, especially those regarding a sect of people who have self-identified as a nation for several thousand years; especially considering that you do not belong to it or even know much about it.

        The fact of the matter is that there are no bright lines distinguishing one race from another or any ethnicity from any other. These are ultimately social constructs lacking any objective benchmark, (outside of PERHAPS the arcane science of genetic mapping.) Would you be able to describe the categories that Arab people fall into that qualifies them to be defined as “a people” that Jews somehow fail to meet? Or are the Arabs not a people either?

        It’s actually pretty funny. The ancient question of “Who is a Jew?” has been argued for millenia amongst the most learned of Hebrew scholars without anyone ever reaching a satisfactory conclusion that defied further debate. Yet, here comes you, at long last, with the answer. You know, I gotta tell you… it takes a LOT of chutzpah to tell the members of a group (that you do not even belong to), who and what they are, which of their beliefs are not legitimate, and how to go about defining themselves from now on.

        I get the feeling that the process was made significantly easier for you by virtue of the fact that you were not hampered by too much complicated knowledge of the subject you were ruling on. Which is where that chutzpah really comes in handy.

      • Shingo
        May 26, 2012, 3:19 am

        A Jew from anywhere in the world is welcome to attend services in my synagogue

        The same is true of Catholics and Catholic churches, yet they don’t call themselves a people.

        Outsiders don’t get to decide when someone else is a People.

        You mean like you Zio fundies have been doing with the Pakedtinians all this time?

        So if the Palestinians decide they are a people, is it fair to say you have no say otherwise?

      • Shingo
        May 26, 2012, 3:24 am

        You know, I gotta tell you… it takes a LOT of chutzpah to tell the members of a group (that you do not even belong to), who and what they are, which of their beliefs are not legitimate, and how to go about defining themselves from now on.

        There are plenty of people from “your group” who have rediculous and shone a light on the fragment chain of people hood.

        Shlomo Sand has already reveled that the whole people’s old thing was invented in the 1800s, as a means of resuscitating what was otherwise a dying religion.

        You gotta hand it to them. The rebranding worked.

      • justicewillprevail
        May 26, 2012, 5:58 am

        So if you ‘self-identify’ as a group, then all the myths and prejudices of that group are valid, over the rights and lives of others? Yes, you have very deep arguments, thousands of years of justification for theft, occupation and apartheid. All those scholars and this is the best you can come up with?

      • justicewillprevail
        May 26, 2012, 7:04 am

        Fredblags, What a ridiculous and pompous crock. listen to yourself patronise the Palestinians who have been a ‘people’ in your elastic and random definition for thousands of years, yet you arbitrarily decide, for political advantage to decree 1967 as a start date. How long have zionist jews, as opposed to ordinary jews been a ‘people’? since 1948? What a stupid game you play, making up definitions as it suits your ill-disguised prejudice and bigotry. You are making yourself out to be a bigger fool than you think, with all this childish “I can make a word mean whatever I want it to”. Your ‘people’ concept is entirely bogus, and constructed to excuse the usual lies, bigotry, prejudice and hatred of the apartheid state.

      • Blake
        May 26, 2012, 8:48 am

        Clearly fredblags has never met a Palestinian if he had they could have told him a thing or two about the region instead of its lame revisionism.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 26, 2012, 8:54 am

        I’m interested in what makes you feel qualified to determine the answer to convoluted questions of identity politics, especially those regarding a sect of people who have self-identified as a nation for several thousand years; especially considering that you do not belong to it or even know much about it.
        …..

        It’s actually pretty funny. The ancient question of “Who is a Jew?” has been argued for millenia amongst the most learned of Hebrew scholars without anyone ever reaching a satisfactory conclusion that defied further debate. Yet, here comes you, at long last, with the answer. You know, I gotta tell you… it takes a LOT of chutzpah to tell the members of a group (that you do not even belong to), who and what they are, which of their beliefs are not legitimate, and how to go about defining themselves from now on.

        well, here’s what i think takes chutzpah..thinking you can speak for all jews in the very same comment you make abundantly clear all jews are not in agreement about it themselves.

        yes, it is very true many jews do think all jews are a people, and maybe there have been jews who have self-identified as a nation for several thousand years, but not all of them. in fact the concept of people as a nation is not thousands of years old.

        you’re opinion about it is no more valid than anyone elses just because you’re jewish. all the jews who do think all jews are a nation are basically placing that claim on all the ones who do not believe that. i respect the claim of peoplehood, but not more than respect the claim of those who don’t buy into that concept. your claim has no more validity than anothers. the peoplehood claim only works for those who buy into it, and it’s just not true an entire sect of people have self-identified as a nation for several thousand years. if that were the case the question of “Who is a Jew?”, argued for millenia amongst the most learned of Hebrew scholars would probably have been answered by now. maybe it’s you who should check your chutzpa at the door before you start speaking on behalf what and who jews are wrt this whole ‘nation’ concept because there are lots of jews who are still jews and not part of your ‘nation’.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 26, 2012, 9:21 am

        The Asian Jews I know would disagree with you about cultural ties, as would the black Jews, so would the white Jews. Outsiders don’t get to decide when someone else is a People.

        actions speak louder than words. why were ethiopean jews required to go thru some orthodox conversion process after immigrating to israel? white reform jews are not required to do that.

        how many jews in the world believe netanyahu is the leader of the jews vs how many who do not? jews are not even in agreement wrt if israel is there ‘homeland’. the concept of ethnicity is not interchangeable with ‘peoplehood’ or ‘nation’.

      • American
        May 26, 2012, 2:22 pm

        pfp,

        ““Who is a Jew?” has been argued for millenia amongst the most learned of Hebrew scholars without anyone ever reaching a satisfactory conclusion that defied further debate.””

        Well. …er…shouldn’t the failure to ever be able to define a Jew by your most learned scholars tell you something?..LOL
        There are only two legitimate ways to define a distinct people for ”world purposes”, legal purposes, etc.,etc.,…those are by race or country/nationality.
        Everything else, ..ethnic customs, culture, religion, etc,etc., are just sub groups or ‘descriptions’ within those two and stuff for sociologist and theologist to study, play with and publish on.
        You are right I am not hampered by complications and convolutions.
        You are….the contortions and distortions your group goes thru to try and establish Jews as some kind of official ‘third category of People’ is painful to watch.
        I think it’s part of either your group narcissism or insecurity, probably both…..this millenia old study of yourselves to define yourselves. It’s bizarre.
        You are a ”group’- some of you a religious group and some of you a zionist ‘cult’ group *within* the two definitions of what constitutes a People, you not a seperate People.

      • lyn117
        May 26, 2012, 6:46 pm

        “A Jew from anywhere in the world is welcome to attend services in my synagogue.”

        Being welcome in a house of worship is what makes it a common religion, not a common nationality or culture. For example, any Catholic can take communion at any Catholic church throughout the world (assuming they can enter the particular country), without regard to nationality or culture.

      • Hostage
        May 26, 2012, 10:21 pm

        “A Jew from anywhere in the world is welcome to attend services in my synagogue.” . . . Being welcome in a house of worship is what makes it a common religion

        The question, of course, is whether or not a Jew from anywhere in the world could conduct services in your synagogue, not whether a team of horses could be used to drag them there to attend one. The Hasidim and their enemies, the Mitnagdim enjoyed driving their opponents from pulpit to pulpit. The Jews that move to Israel from Ethiopia have to adopt different religious practices. See for example Israel putting end to millenia-old tradition of Ethiopian Jewish priests link to haaretz.com

        Askenazim and Sephardim living in Israel have their own “Chief” Rabbis and they don’t even want to share the same classrooms. link to ynetnews.com

        The individuals in ancient Israel spoke the same language and had the same temple cult and practices for a very brief period of time. They viewed themselves as an ethnic group or nation. But that was before they split into separate kingdoms, temple cults, and mutually exclusive partisan religious parties. The ancients would not allow converts to make this declaration or allow a robber to make the offering (because the scripture said “the first fruits of thy land”):

        And you shall call out and say before the Lord, your God, “An Aramean [sought to] destroy my forefather, and he went down to Egypt and sojourned there with a small number of people, and there, he became a great, mighty, and numerous nation.

        So the word that’s translated “nation” in that verse is translated elsewhere as people, gentile, and heathens. In this instance it only applied to the group that came-up from Egypt and their descendants. It did not originally include those who were converts. See Mishnah Bikkurim Chapter 1 link to halakhah.com

        The Septuagint renders the term as “ethnos”. So Judaism is no longer a common ethnicity or a common religion. People who call themselves “Jews” today have never been in a Temple, don’t perform bloody animal sacrifices, and may not have been recognized as Jews if they had tried to engage in the rituals. The notion that these ancient tribes are identical to Westphalian era ethnic nation-states is also misguided and anachronistic.

      • Fredblogs
        May 27, 2012, 7:41 pm

        @Shingo “So if the Palestinians decide they are a people, is it fair to say you have no say otherwise?” Correct (for once). The Palestinians are a people because they self-identify as a people. As I mentioned in my previous comment.

      • Fredblogs
        May 27, 2012, 7:47 pm

        @justicewillprevail
        The myths and prejudices of a group are not necessarily valid. Israel belongs to the Israelis because of military might, the same reason Spain belongs to the Spaniards and not the Muslims. The ancient claims of the Israelis to ancestry in that land happen to be true (calling them myths doesn’t make them untrue), but that’s not why Israel exists today.

      • Fredblogs
        May 27, 2012, 7:54 pm

        @justicewillprevail (2)
        The Palestinians have self-identified as a people for about 45 years now. Before that they considered themselves Arabs, southern Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, citizens of the Ottoman Empire, etc. I don’t hold it against them that their self-identification as a separate people is of recent vintage, but that doesn’t make it old.

        Jews have been a people for thousands of years. “zionist Jews” have been a separate people since anti-zionist Jews separated from them. Until then, basically all Jews said “next year in Jerusalem”. Neighborhood of 100 years or so for the anti-Zionists, about when Israel started to look like a real posibility. For a history of the breakaway anti-Zionists, ask Mr. Weiss.

      • Fredblogs
        May 27, 2012, 8:01 pm

        @Annie Robbins
        re:Ethiopian Jews
        That is a religious matter, not a matter of whether they are part of our people. The fact that they were rescued from Ethiopia at all shows that the Israelis consider them part of the Jewish people. Also, I don’t think a reform conversion is considered valid in Israel (I could be wrong). But that is one reason why some people in the U.S. go through an Orthodox conversion before settling into a Reform temple.

        Also, Bibi is the leader of the Jews in Israel. Obama is the leader of the Jews in America, just as he is leader of the rest of the country. As a People in general, we have no leader.

      • Fredblogs
        May 27, 2012, 8:15 pm

        @hostage
        The word you are talking about is goy “nation”. Or goyim “nations”. Also used in the description of the time of the Messiah “and nation shall not lift up sword against nation”.

        Of course the nation included converts, where do you think Abraham came from. The first Convert. Or Ruth (one of the matriarchs and a convert). Who are you to say it didn’t include converts?

      • Hostage
        May 28, 2012, 2:32 am

        Of course the nation included converts, where do you think Abraham came from. The first Convert. Or Ruth (one of the matriarchs and a convert).

        The scriptures do not say that Abraham became a “Jew” or that Adam was born circumcised. There is no rabbinical process of conversion between Naomi and Ruth and nothing of the kind was mentioned in the scriptures. Boaz told the witnesses that he was acquiring a Moabitess for his wife. He didn’t say that Ruth had become a Jew or an Israelite:

        And also, Ruth the Moabitess, Mahlon’s wife, have I acquired for myself for a wife, to preserve the name of the deceased on his heritage, so that the name of the deceased not be obliterated from his brethren and from the gate of his place, you are witnesses today.” — Ruth 4:10

        Who are you to say it didn’t include converts?

        I was quoting a Mishnah found in Bikkurim, Chapter 1 of the Soncino Edition of the Babylonian Talmud:

        Mishnah 4. These bring [bikkurim] but do not make the recital: the Proselyte, since he cannot say: “which the lord hath sworn to our Fathers, to give unto us.” If his mother was an Israelite, then he both brings bikkurim and recites the declaration. When he prays privately, He shall say: “O God of the fathers of Israel”; but when he is in the Synagogue, he should say: “The God of your fathers”, but if his mother was an Israelite woman, he says: “The God of our fathers”.

        link to halakhah.com

      • Shingo
        May 28, 2012, 3:04 am

        Of course the nation included converts, where do you think Abraham came from.

        It doesn’t matter wheer he came from seeing as he never existed.

      • Hostage
        May 28, 2012, 3:06 am

        The Palestinians have self-identified as a people for about 45 years now. Before that they considered themselves Arabs, southern Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, citizens of the Ottoman Empire, etc.

        There are 21 other countries that call themselves “Arab”, so let’s not dissimulate. Calling yourself an Arab from Palestine still counts as a unique national identity distinct from the other Arab peoples. The Mutasarrifyya or Sanjak of Jerusalem was an independent district with it’s own Governor and representatives in the Ottoman Parliament, e.g. Yussef Diya’uddin Al-Khalidi (1829-1907), and Ruhi Khalidi (1864-1913). link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

        The United States has posted Consuls to the country of Palestine ever since the early 19th century and treated it as a formal jurisdiction. For example, the US Government addressed the Ottoman Pasha as “his excellency Raouf Pasha Governor of Jerusalem and Palestine”. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        According to the Gale Encyclopedia of the Mideast & North Africa entry under the heading “Palestinian Arab Congresses”

        The first Palestinian Arab Congress (al-Muʾtamar al-Arabi al-Filastini) met in Jerusalem from 27 January to 9 February 1919. link to answers.com

        The leadership actually called themselves “the Arab People of Palestine” in their dealings with the British and the League of Nations from the very beginning. See Correspondence with the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Zionist Organisation, Presented To Parliament By Command Of His Majesty, June, 1922. –http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/48A7E5584EE1403485256CD8006C3FBE

      • Hostage
        May 28, 2012, 4:58 am

        re:Ethiopian Jews . . . That is a religious matter, not a matter of whether they are part of our people. The fact that they were rescued from Ethiopia at all shows that the Israelis consider them part of the Jewish people.

        The fact that State funded Haredi schools have refused to enroll them in religious schools that are required as part of their conversion process illustrates that some Israelis don’t view them as true Jews. link to jpost.com

        FYI, Cush was one of the the sons of Ham, i.e. Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan. The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that there is no nation of Israel separate from the Jewish people. If you are making the Ethiopians convert and calling them Cushi, then its both a racial and a religious matter:

        A Bnei Brak resident barred a 13 year old Ethiopian teen from going into the mikveh recenty, claiming the boy was a “stinking kushi” (a derogatory Hebrew term for black people). He then hit the boy, his brother and his aunt.

        link to failedmessiah.typepad.com

        Also, I don’t think a reform conversion is considered valid in Israel (I could be wrong).

        That’s because the state’s Orthodox religious authorities teach that Reform rabbis are another people. In response to the Neeman Commission on conversion, certain Orthodox leaders gave voice to their opinion on the subject. Rabbi Andrew Sacks in the Jerusalem Post reports:

        Rabbi Yisrael Eichler, a spokesperson in the Haredi world, wrote that “Reform Rabbis are further from Judaism than Christians and Muslims and that they should be considered as filthy, lying, shekotzim who are criminals, who brought about the holocaust on the Jewish people.”
        Rabbi Ovadia Yosef said, “Reform Jews should be vomited up…and thrown out of the country.”

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 28, 2012, 8:59 am

        Absolutely right, Hostage. The problem is that Fredblogs is a complete and incorrigible bigot of the highest order. If someone were to say about the Jews the lies he tells about the Palestinians, that person would be banned in a minute. Why Fredblogs hasn’t been likewise banned is beyond me.

      • Fredblogs
        May 28, 2012, 11:47 am

        @Shingo
        Well, neither did Jesus, but you still see people acting as though he did. And Mohammed was probably different from how he is portrayed in the Muslim holy texts. So what?

      • Fredblogs
        May 28, 2012, 11:50 am

        Consuls in the region of Palestine. Not the country. The Swiss have a consulate in Hawaii, that doesn’t make it a separate country from the USA. As for the “Arabs of Palestine”. The people of New York call themselves New Yorkers, doesn’t make that a separate country either.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 28, 2012, 12:25 pm

        “The people of New York call themselves New Yorkers, doesn’t make that a separate country either.”

        Are we talking people or country? Because if we’re talking country, then the Jews haven’t been a people for the majority of their existence. Sure, they had a tribal polity for about 15 minutes back in the bronze age, but nothing else until the coming of the zionist entity.

      • Fredblogs
        May 28, 2012, 1:21 pm

        Ok, doesn’t make them a separate people then. Still Americans.

      • Hostage
        May 28, 2012, 2:10 pm

        Consuls in the region of Palestine. Not the country.

        The Sanjak was an independent administrative district of the Ottoman Empire that functioned as a state.

        In addition, the United States operated its own Consular Courts there under the system of capitulations. They exercised civil and criminal territorial jurisdiction over US citizens living in the country from Consulates in cities, including Jerusalem, Haifa, Acre, and Jaffa. –See Ruth Kark, American consuls in the Holy Land, 1832-1914, Wayne State University Press, 1994

        By the late 19th Century, the Consuls in “Jerusalem, Palestine” submitted Daily, Annual, and Special reports on the Trade and Commerce of the Country of Palestine to the US Bureau of Foreign Commerce, e.g.:

        “Fruit Culture in Palestine Report By Consul Merrill of Jerusalem”

        In answer to the circular from the Department of State dated December 4 1883 respecting fruit culture in this country, I have the honor to make the following report on the culture of olives, oranges, grapes, and figs in Palestine:” . . . & etc.

        Consul report for 1884.

        Here is an extract from a regional report which mentions the responsible local authorities of the countries visited, including Palestine:

        Commerce Of The East And Of North Africa And The Share Of The United States Therein Report of Minister Noyes Of Paris

        I have the honor to report that in compliance with instructions contained in State Department dispatch No 178 of date August 29 1879 I left France on tbe 16th day of October last and returned on the 27th day of February 1880 I should have arrived in Paris at least three weeks earlier but for unavoidable delays occasioned by severe and almost unprecedented storms on the Mediterranean Sea which interrupted the various steamship lines During my absence I visited Genoa, Pisa, Florence, Rome, Naples, and Brindisi in Italy; the islands of Corfu, and Syra, the Piraeus and Athens in Greece; Mytelene, Constantinople, Smyrna, Rhodes, and Cyprus; Beyrout and Damascus in Syria; Jaffa and Jerusalem and the neighboring places of interest and importance in Palestine; Alexandria, Cairo and the other principal points for several hundred miles up the Nile . . .
        . . . At all the points visited by me I conferred freely with the diplomatic and consular representatives of the United States wherever such were to be found regarding the subject matter of my special mission consulted many private persons of business capacity and prominence in commercial affairs and had many interviews with the responsible local authorities of the several countries. Among the latter may be mentioned the leading members of the Sultan’s government at Constantinople, the governors general at Beyrout, Damascus, and the Lebanon district in Syria, the governor general of Palestine at Jerusalem, . . .

        –Commercial relations of the United States: Reports (Nos. 1, 2, and 3) 1880 By United States Bureau of Foreign Commerce link to books.google.com

        Here is an extract from a monthly report:

        Jaffa Jerusalem Railroad Report By Consul Merrill of Jerusalem

        I have the honor to report that the formal opening of the Jaffa and Jerusalem Railroad occurred on the 26th of September, on which date the company that had contracted to construct the road gave it over into the hands of the company which owns it. The event was celebrated on the part of the Mohammedans by an address from an imam one of their priests of high rank in Jerusalem . . . it was celebrated by a dinner given in the evening under tents at the Jerusalem station Djelal Pasha aide de camp to the Sultan was present from Constantinople to represent the Sultan in the opening exercises M. Collas the president of the road and several eminent engineers from Paris were also present likewise the governor of Jerusalem and Palestine together with the civil and military authorities and the members of the diplomatic and consular corps.

        — Monthly consular and trade reports, Volume 41, Issues 148-151
        By United States. Bureau of Manufactures, United States Bureau of Foreign Commerce (1854-1903)., United States. Dept. of Commerce and Labor Bureau of Statistics link to books.google.com

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 28, 2012, 2:16 pm

        “Ok, doesn’t make them a separate people then. Still Americans.”

        But again, so what? The fact that the Palestinians didn’t view themselves as a people in the same exact way as citizens of a Western nation-state do is not something that should come as a surprise to anyone who isn’t a hopeless bigot, and is wholly irrelevant to their self-image as a people. They were a people within a larger Arab people, with a unique culture that was and is different than the cultures of other Arab peoples. Their self-image changed in response as the larger world around them changed. That should a surprise to no one, as all cultures do this.

        Unless you are out of your mind, you would have to admit that Jews today have a self-image that has changed repeatedly over the last 3,000 years, yet you have no problem conceptualizing them as being a people throughout that time, but are unwilling to view the exact same process by the Palestinians as being irrelevant to the historicity of their self-image as a people is nothing less than a demonstration of your disgusting anti-Arab bigotry.

      • Fredblogs
        May 28, 2012, 2:49 pm

        Despite all your cut and pasted info, nothing in there makes Palestine a country. I’ve visited Austin “in Texas” that doesn’t make Texas a country any more than some old travel log about visiting places “in Palestine” makes that a country. Particularly since it was clear that it was a Governor, not a head of state in charge of Palestine. (which included Jordan back then IIRC).

      • Hostage
        May 28, 2012, 3:48 pm

        Ok, doesn’t make them a separate people then. Still Americans.

        The Ottoman governors had the power the make life or death decisions within their jurisdictions. On at least one occasion, the Governor of Palestine demanded that the western consuls expel their Jewish subjects from Palestine. So it was treated as a formal jurisdiction:

        Though Jews belonging to other nationalities have been expelled from Jerusalem and Palestine, no American citizen has been expelled during my connection with this consulate. In all communications with the local authorities I have invariably and decidedly held the position that I could in no wise consent, much less render aid to expel from Palestine citizens of the United States who are Jews; that a fundamental principle of our Government was involved, which positively forbids any ‘discrimination made for or against American citizens on account of their race or religion.

        In this connection, I herewith inclose copy with translation of a communication received from his excellency Raouf Pasha, governor of Jerusalem and Palestine, dated September 10 last, a copy of which was transmitted by me to the Department of State at Washington, with my dispatch No. 26, dated September 28, 1887. This was followed by a verbal message from the governor informing me that of the ten consuls in Jerusalem I was the only one who had not assented and promised to render aid in carrying out this decree (iradeh) regarding the expulsion of the Jews. To this I simply affirmed my former declaration, informing the governor that I had made the matter the subject of a special dispatch to our Government and awaited the decision.

        As my dispatch to the Department (No. 26, above referred to) inclosing the copy of the governors letter was, as usual, transmitted through the consulate-general, I did not consider it necessary to otherwise inform Mr. Pringle regarding the matter, especially as the local Turkish authorities were tacitly consenting to await the decision of our Department of State, and their relations with me, both personally and as the representative of our Government, have always been of the most friendly and conciliatory character.

        I may add that when the verbal message of the governor was delivered to me the chancellor of the British consulate was present in this consulate, and expressed his surprise at my friendship for the Jews. When I took the occasion to ask him what the action of the British consulate was in such cases, he replied they invariably rendered the required aid to the Ottoman authorities in carrying out the decree, as did the other consulates.

        One peculiar phase of the case is that large numbers of the resident Jews share in this dislike to the coming here of more Jews. This is explained by the fact that it tends to the increase in price of all articles of living, adds little or nothing to the wealth of the city, and reduces the proportion of the charitable aid sent here by their wealthy co-religionists from abroad.

        You will at once perceive, therefore, that the position I have taken, and that I am obliged to take, is a thankless one, exposing me on one side to the disapproval of the Ottoman Government, and on the other to the animosity of many of the resident Jews, not to take into the account the feeling on the subject entertained by the representatives of the various foreign governments.

        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        FYI, the actual text of Basle Program of the First Zionist Congress did NOT use the term “Eretz Israel”, it used the term “Palistina”. link to upload.wikimedia.org

        So the 19th century Jews certainly knew where Palestine was located. The documentary record proves that they repeatedly asked the US Consuls in Palestine and Constantinople for help in immigrating to Palestine. For example, The Ottoman Sultan had issued a firman that encouraged the establishment of large Jewish settlements in Syria, but it prohibited Oriental and European Jews from settling in Palestine. Palestine was marked on the maps of the era. The first Jewish Aliya was carried-out in violation of that prohibition on mass Jewish immigration. In 1882, the American Consul summed up an immigration request from a group of Romanian Jews living in the Ottoman Empire this way:

        In conclusion, there is nothing to prevent all the Israelites on the earth from settling in Asiatic Turkey. They shall not settle in Palestine-’that is the only prohibition.

      • Fredblogs
        May 28, 2012, 8:02 pm

        Lots of Governors in America have the right to make life or death decisions (commute someone’s death sentence). None of that makes something an independent country. Give it up, there has never been an independent country of Palestine. If the Palestinians ever decide that peace is a better option than forever demanding a RoR that they are never going to get then there might someday be an independent Palestine. Barring that, its the status quo for the foreseeable future.

      • Hostage
        May 28, 2012, 8:13 pm

        If someone were to say about the Jews the lies he tells about the Palestinians, that person would be banned in a minute.

        I don’t see any difference between a confederation of tribes and clans governed by Torah in the era of Judges, Priests, and Levites and a confederation of tribes and clans governed by Sharia in the era of Sheikhs, Emirs, and Imams. Why would families in Asia choose to govern themselves through a Westphalian State bureaucracy when their own system of government had been successfully used for centuries and was adequate for their own purposes.

      • Hostage
        May 28, 2012, 8:26 pm

        Despite all your cut and pasted info, nothing in there makes Palestine a country.

        It certainly does. The country we are talking about was part of an Empire composed of other administrative districts that were considered countries too, including Romania, Serbia, Kuwait, Syria, etc. Palestine had a defined population that was represented in the central government, a defined territory that was closed to Jewish immigration, and a local government that engaged in foreign relations and trade relations with a number of western consuls. The people who called it a country exercised civil and criminal jurisdiction. that fulfills all of the definitions of a state.

        I’ve visited Austin “in Texas” that doesn’t make Texas a country

        Texas fulfills the definition of a state too. It still retains sovereign immunity except in areas, like foreign relations, that have been delegated to the federal government. See for example Alden v Maine or Medellín or Avena v. Texas
        *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alden_v._Maine
        *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas

      • Hostage
        May 29, 2012, 3:33 am

        Lots of Governors in America have the right to make life or death decisions (commute someone’s death sentence). None of that makes something an independent country.

        I wasn’t talking about independence, the Ottoman Empire itself was no longer independent, once the foreign bondholders took over and operated its tax collection system and its inhabitants were placed under the protection of European public international law. See for example paragraph 20 on page 7 of International Law: Achievements and Prospects link to books.google.com

        The Permanent Court of International Justice and a Court of Arbitration established by the League of Nations both ruled in 1925 that Palestine was one of the Allied successor States of the Ottoman Empire, despite the fact that it was under British tutelage. Since you brought-up the subject, Palestine had been provisionally recognized as an independent nation under the terms of Article 22(4) of the Covenant of the League of Nations. That entered into force in January of 1920. Palestine assumed responsibility for it’s share of the Ottoman debt, plus interest, as one of the successor States, effective 1 March 1920 in accordance with the terms of Article 245 of the Treaty of Sevres and Article 52 of the Treaty of Lausanne. Those dates were several years prior to the visit of the Delegation to London in June of 1922. The Delegation quite obviously was engaged with the British Government in foreign relations on behalf of the Arab People of Palestine. See the ICJ advisory opinion on the legal significance of Article 22(4) of the Covenant at paragraph 70 on pdf page 63 of 139. FYI, the current Governor of Texas has not been recognized as the leader of an independent nation, provisional or otherwise. link to icj-cij.org

        The Ottoman’s had a multinational Empire and Palestine was one of the many countries that were incorporated in it. Turkey had to agree to a clear relinquishment of sovereignty once again in the Treaty of Berlin when the Holy sites and communities in Palestine were placed under international protection. See paragraph 129, page 109 of the ICJ opinion. The suzerainty of Turkey was still recognized, but the foreign powers began dealing with the local governors directly and entered into treaties and trade agreements.

        Sp why would I accept your lame argument, when the readers can see for themselves that Palestine 1) had a Governor that engaged in foreign relations with the United States and other powers; 2) had its own representatives in the Ottoman Parliament; 3) was included in State Department requests for country reports; 4) US Counsels included it in enumerated lists of countries they visited in the region along side Italy, Greece, Syria, Turkey, and Cyprus; 5) held its own Palestinian Arab Congress in 1919; and 6) had leaders who conducted foreign relations on with the British Government and League of Nations in the name of “the Arab People of Palestine”?

      • Bing Bong
        May 29, 2012, 10:31 am

        What definition of state are you using that makes Texas a country?

      • playforpalestine
        May 30, 2012, 1:16 am

        “Shlomo Sand has already reveled that the whole people’s old thing was invented in the 1800s, as a means of resuscitating what was otherwise a dying religion.”

        And his research has since been debunked.

        link to thedailybeast.com

        link to nytimes.com

        link to news.sciencemag.org

      • playforpalestine
        May 30, 2012, 1:30 am

        “well, here’s what i think takes chutzpah..thinking you can speak for all jews in the very same comment you make abundantly clear all jews are not in agreement about it themselves.”

        When did I do anything like that?

        My entire post was spent refuting American’s offensive belief that imbued him with the qualifications to determine the definitive answer to thorny questions that are intrinsic to Judaism and ultimately, without any easily described explanations. He clearly approached the question with an agenda that he worked backwards from, building an “answer” based on what would fit his existing, offensive ideology.

        “you’re opinion about it is no more valid than anyone elses just because you’re jewish. ”

        No, you’re wrong there. My opinion is far more valid than American’s. Not merely because I know what I’m talking about while he has no idea. But because I’m right, and his belief is absurd.

        “maybe it’s you who should check your chutzpa at the door before you start speaking on behalf what and who jews are wrt this whole ‘nation’ concept because there are lots of jews who are still jews and not part of your ‘nation’.”

        Can you please point out where in my post I insinuated anything like what you are going on about here? I have my own opinion, which I express and back up with historical evidence. American posits an objective truth and accuses those who disagree of being in denial. Considering his lack of expertise in this subject I feel entitled to the argument I wrote. Not necessarily the one you imagined I wrote.

      • Shingo
        May 30, 2012, 1:45 am

        And his research has since been debunked.

        No it hasn’t.

        First of all, none of your links discuss the fact that the whole people’s old thing was invented in the 1800. Secondly, Kazars themselves iroginated from Turkey, so they would be considered Middle Eastern.

        Geneticist Prof. Mazin Qumsiyeh (Yale, Duke), in chapter three of his book, Sharing the Land of Canaan (“Biology and Ideology”), explains that such studies generally fail to adequately examine genetic similarities between Ashkenazi Jews and Turkic/East-European populations. Markers present in “Middle Eastern” populations are generally present in Turkic or East European populations as well. Iraqi Jews could thus have the same markers as say German Jews, but from different sources – Iraqi Jews from their genetic similarity to Arabs, and German Jews from their genetic similarity to Turkic or East-European populations. An Italian study (Poloni et al., 1997) that did take such factors into account showed Ashkenazi samples to be closer to Turkic than to Sephardic samples.

        Prof Qumsiyeh also writes:

        In any event, the dispossession of the native Palestinians by Ashkenazi immigrants from Europe cannot be justified by population genetics. After all, one woud have to be blind to the basic elements of justice to allow the dispossession of people who are native in every sense of the word and whose ancestors farmed the land for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Further, it is even more unacceptable for natives to be dispossessed to favor members of a particular religion and converts to that religion, but not converts from that religion to other religions. To use genetics, however accurate or deceptive, to justify an ingathering of people of the Jewish faith while denying Palestinian people the right to their homes and lands is a travesty. Genetics and eugenics [discussed earlier in the chapter - shmuel] have been used in many other instances to support unjustifiable acts of oppression and human rights violations. We should learn the lessons of history.

      • playforpalestine
        May 30, 2012, 2:50 am

        “There are only two legitimate ways to define a distinct people for ”world purposes”, legal purposes, etc.,etc.,…those are by race or country/nationality.”

        That is so untrue it’s laughable. Seriously, how could you have thought that this absurdity would just be accepted on its face? What do you think a “world purpose” is anyway? Where’d you come up with that?

      • playforpalestine
        May 30, 2012, 3:09 am

        “First of all, none of your links discuss the fact that the whole people’s old thing was invented in the 1800. Secondly, Kazars themselves iroginated from Turkey, so they would be considered Middle Eastern.

        Shingo, you’re using a book published in 2004 that relies on data from 1997 to try and refute new studies using techniques that are far more precise than the ones you are citing. These newer studies determined the explicit differences between these similar sects.

        And if you look up Sand, there is no lack of prominent researchers who reject his work as ridiculous while there are very few who are willing to support it.

        Nor does anything he says weaken any aspect of modern Zionism anyway.

        “In any event, the dispossession of the native Palestinians by Ashkenazi immigrants from Europe cannot be justified by population genetics.”

        Which has nothing at all to do with what we are talking about.

      • Taxi
        May 30, 2012, 3:27 am

        You can argue your so-called rights to Palestine till you’re blue in the face mister ‘playforpalestine’ – won’t make any difference to your heritage which is clearly NOT ARAB and Palestine IS ARAB.

        “The suitcase or the coffin”.

        I bet my farm you’ll choose the suitcase. Chickenhawk!

      • Shingo
        May 30, 2012, 4:48 am

        you’re using a book published in 2004 that relies on data from 1997 to try and refute new studies using techniques that are far more precise than the ones you are citing

        Judging by the links you provided, the data from the studies is kargy open to interpretation.

        Interestingly, one if your links even argues that these studies suggest the lineage is only 2000 years old, which implies Judaism is no older than Christianity.

        And if you look up Sand, there is no lack of prominent researchers who reject his work as ridiculous while there are very few who are willing to support it.

        I have, and the reviews are either hysterical polemics accusing Sand of Jew hatred or they agree with some if Sand’s findings and refute others.

        Nor does anything he says weaken any aspect of modern Zionism anyway.

        True, but then it would be pretty difficult to make Zioni look any macabre and sadistic than it looks today.

      • Shmuel
        May 30, 2012, 5:09 am

        The assertion that Sand has somehow been “debunked” by genetic research is rather silly. Sand does not argue that Ashkenazi Jews are the descendants of Khazars, but questions the “traditional” account of the origins of Eastern European Jews, and points out that certain theories have been promoted while others have been suppressed, for political and ideological reasons. He also offers a summary of existing research concerning the possible Khazar origins of Eastern European Jews. Whether the Khazar theory is correct or not is completely irrelevant to the main theses of Sand’s book.

      • talknic
        May 30, 2012, 2:37 pm

        Fredblogs
        May 28, 2012 at 8:02 pm

        ” there has never been an independent country of Palestine”

        So what? Palestine was a Provisional State according to the LoN Charter Article 22 , reiterated in the LoN Mandate for Palestine, FIRST line of the text.

        Israel wasn’t anything, didn’t exist until we were granted, completely free the ‘territory’ for a state.

        Palestine has been under occupation in part or whole for over 2,000 years from the Roman era. Israel is the last Occupying Power in a long list of Occupying Powers. A country cannot declare independence whilst under occupation in part or in total and Israel has occupied parts of Palestine since 1948 . All the while illegally claiming Palestinian territory for itself.

        “If the Palestinians ever decide that peace is a better option than forever demanding a RoR that they are never going to get then there might someday be an independent Palestine. Barring that, its the status quo for the foreseeable future”

        While Israel keeps breaking International Law, illegally acquiring territory, illegally annexing, illegally settling, there will be no peace.

        Only Israel’s refusal to end the occupation and end it’s vile land grabbing policies prevents Independent Palestinian Statehood. Only the US veto vote in the UNSC protects Israel from the law.

        The Jewish state was granted recognition whilst it was waging war on what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine, per UNGA res 181 which Israel considered “binding”

        Israel was granted recognition while Jewish terrorists were operating “outside the State of Israel”, in Palestine.

        The Law actually comes down on the side of the Palestinians. It has been Israel collecting hand over fist numerous UNSC resolutions. Not the Arab States.

        The only thing Israel has is the US veto vote in the UNSC. Nothing else. All them precious eggs in one precious basket which is slowly being unwoven by the power of the internet, where people can read factual information

        Drip by drip, step by step, the Hasbara is having it’s loose ends pulled apart, only to find there’s nothing there but bullsh*te!

      • Hostage
        May 30, 2012, 5:16 pm

        “Shlomo Sand has already reveled that the whole people’s old thing was invented in the 1800s, as a means of resuscitating what was otherwise a dying religion.” And his research has since been debunked.

        Not by the study that you cited. It mentions the Khazars, but it simply assumes that they were not a people of Middle Eastern origin. It provides no evidence from any genetic sampling to support that conclusion. Furthermore, it cites Hammer’s estimates of up to 12.5% cumulative local Y-chromosome admixture and speculates that 1) it might have included the Khazars and 2) that Hammer’s figure is probably an underestimate. If you use an a priori assumption that isn’t based genetic evidence, then it should at least be grounded in some historical source regarding Khazar origins.

        None of the literature that they cite in connection with the Khazars contains a genetic study of the origins of that people:
        *B. Weinryb
        A History of the Jews in Poland
        Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia (1973)
        *P. Wexler
        Two-Tiered Relexification in Yiddish: Jews, Sorbs, Khazars, and the Kiev-Polessian Dialect
        Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York (2002)
        *A. Koestler
        The Thirteenth Tribe
        Random House, New York (1976)

        Some of that literature does cite historical and linguistic sources which report that the inhabitants of the Caucasus area and more specifically the Khazar people, like the Carthaginians, were descendants of the Canaanites. Some of the inhabitants of the region claimed to be members of the Lost Tribes of Israel. Travelers reported people living in the region had made those claims about themselves.

        One of the studies cited notes that people who self-identify as Ashkenazi Jews are genetically distinct and can be identified as people of possible Middle Eastern origin:
        *A.C. Need, D. Kasperaviciute, E.T. Cirulli, D.B. Goldstein
        A genome-wide genetic signature of Jewish ancestry perfectly separates individuals with and without full Jewish ancestry in a large random sample of European Americans
        Genome Biol., 10 (2009), p. R7

        How do we know that wouldn’t also be true of the Khazars, who self-identified as a people of Middle Eastern origin? The Rabbinical Authorities of the State of Israel make people of known Jewish descent undergo conversion. How do we know that didn’t happen to the Khazars? You obviously can’t determine a person’s religious beliefs from a DNA test or that sort of thing wouldn’t be necessary.

      • Hostage
        May 30, 2012, 5:28 pm

        Shingo, you’re using a book published in 2004 that relies on data from 1997 to try and refute new studies using techniques that are far more precise than the ones you are citing.

        In fact the study you’re citing contains zero test results on genetic samples taken from ancient Khazar remains or modern-day people who self-identify themselves as descendants of the Khazars. How does this method achieve any precision at all?

      • Hostage
        May 30, 2012, 8:20 pm

        A country cannot declare independence whilst under occupation in part or in total

        In 1973 the General Assembly condemned all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples, notably the peoples of Africa still under colonial domination and the Palestinian people.

        The League of Nations had long since adopted the policy that the ability to stand alone did not include the capacity to repel aggression committed by another state. See The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, Luther Harris Evans, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758
        Stable URL: link to jstor.org

        In fact the Allied governments-in-exile made a regular habit of declaring their independence. Professor L.C. Green pointed-out the examples of the Polish and Czech National Committees during WWI in an article about the [then] anticipated unilateral declaration of independence of the State of Palestine. See the text in the last paragraph on page 135 and the first paragraph on page 136. link to books.google.com

        The General Assembly and the majority of UN member States (104) acknowledged the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine and 93 extended formal recognition.

    • Hostage
      May 25, 2012, 6:00 am

      The Palestinians are the only refugee group in the world where descendants are counted as refugees.

      Of course the descendants of the Jews of the Galut have only multiplied for 3,000 years. But who’s counting? Certainly not the US government. Data on Jews isn’t even collected by our own Census wonks. BTW, the refugee status of parents is passed along from generation-to-generation in every other UNHCR program, e.g. See YNet’s “Don’t blame UNRWA”. link to ynetnews.com

    • ahadhaadam
      May 25, 2012, 9:32 am

      Your quip ignores the fact that Israel has prevented them from returning to their homes for 64 years. You don’t suppose that if a thief refuses to return his booty and manages to keeps it for a certain period of time, it makes it legally his, do you? The same is true for refugees. If my father owned a house that you stole from him, I still have a claim to that house and you are still a thief.
      Just look at the Holocaust lawsuits as an example.

      Also, it’s funny that people who claim to “return” after 2000 years and 100 generations are making this accusation against the Palestinians whom they have displaced only 64 years ago and prevented their return. There’s no end to the Zionist logic bending arguments.

      • playforpalestine
        May 30, 2012, 3:14 am

        ahadhaadam,

        Based on your argument does that mean that you also support the rights of settlers to repopulate formerly Jewish areas within the OPT?

      • talknic
        May 30, 2012, 2:42 pm

        playforpalestine May 30, 2012 at 3:14 am

        “Based on your argument does that mean that you also support the rights of settlers to repopulate formerly Jewish areas within the OPT?”

        LOL The arguments become more and more bizarre

        You mean Israeli citizens in “territories occupied” and never unoccupied, “outside the State of Israel”?

        The UNSC says your ‘settlers’ are illegal.

    • Blake
      May 25, 2012, 3:59 pm

      Fredblogs: Illegal immigrant Zionist terrorist gangs caused refugee problem. Israel alone is responsible for their displacement. Strawmen hasbara propaganda whines like “they’re the ones who ran away!” without mentioning they weren’t allowed back. Or “The refugees aren’t original refugees & are Syrian, Lebanese, or Jordanian” which is ridiculous. They live in refugee camps, it is not up to other nations to grant them citizenship no more than Canada should to a draft-dodging American.

      • Hostage
        May 25, 2012, 9:02 pm

        They live in refugee camps, it is not up to other nations to grant them citizenship no more than Canada should to a draft-dodging American.

        Let me help to clarify that point. UN Security Council resolution 242 has been enshrined in international law and international agreements like the Camp David Accords, the Oslo Accords, Quartet Road Map, and terms of reference of the Annapolis Conference. The Kirk amendment would violate both the content and intent of this particular clause:

        Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

        In international law the term “territorial integrity” is employed to refer to an area and the relationship with the population that inhabits it. Territory is a synonym for jurisdiction. Here is an example which helps to illustrate the integral nature of the relationship:

        When the Arab Socialist party refused to accept the principle that Israel was the state of the Jewish people, the Central Election Commission of the Knesset decided to disqualify the list on the grounds that it was “an unlawful association, because its promoters deny the territorial integrity of the state of Israel and its very existence”

        –See David Kretzmer, The Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel, Boulder: Westview, 1990, page 24.

        The Kirk amendment admits that Palestinian refugees were displaced, but doesn’t give a damn about the existence of the receiving states or the right to have their territorial integrity recognized and respected.

        It would never be acceptable to the Senator for America’s neighbors to deport parts of their populations to the US and expect us to resettle them here and grant them citizenship, much less allow the UN to set-up refugee camps on our sovereign state lands and operate them for the benefit of others for six decades.

    • seafoid
      May 25, 2012, 5:27 pm

      I find it profoundly depressing when Zionist Jews diss international law as if Jews do not have and will never have any need of it. It is wonderful to have an IDF( that can firebomb Gaza) and the ear of the US Congress, the most powerful political force in the world.

      But this is not typical of the Jewish experience. Look at the Jewish holidays and read the struggle of a people marginalised by power over the centuries . Even just look at Erez Israel and count how many years it has been independent over the last 3 millennia.

      Days that match the historical mean will come back again sometime and Jews will need law that protects the minorities. There won’t always be the IDF and Eric Cantor.

      • Fredblogs
        May 25, 2012, 7:24 pm

        What you call “international law” I call “changing the rules of the game just to screw the Jews”. For thousands of years, and even since then for anyone who isn’t Jewish, land was taken by force. The Arabs even approved of that since they tried to take Jewish land by force after rejecting partition that would have left a slight majority of Jews in the Jewish areas. But as soon as Jews get some land, suddenly and retroactively its “international law says no”.

      • justicewillprevail
        May 26, 2012, 12:33 pm

        You have a great penchant for changing the meaning of words whenever it suits your purpose. The usual cliched hasbara about the Arabs and partition just to spice the nonsense up.

      • Talkback
        May 26, 2012, 5:35 pm

        Fredblogs says: “For thousands of years, and even since then for anyone who isn’t Jewish, land was taken by force. … But as soon as Jews get some land, suddenly and retroactively its “international law says no”.”

        The law changed in 1945 because of the Nazi’s criminal try to take land by force, you paranoid self-pitying ignoramus.

      • seafoid
        May 26, 2012, 6:04 pm

        Fred

        The UN was founded after WW2 to protect the rights of groups like the Jews. The UNDHR would have prevented the madness of the 1930s that led to ww2. Jews are no better or worse, no deserving or less deserving than any other group of people and it is a pity that this fact has been forgotten.
        The Zionists never paid for anything. The land isn’t theirs.
        YESHA is slowly strangling Israel.

        Force is not going to deliver Moshiach.

      • lyn117
        May 26, 2012, 7:04 pm

        “changing the rules of the game just to screw the Jews”

        Right, next you’ll be arguing that genocide is OK because it was practiced for 1000s of years, but now the rules are being changed retroactively just to screw the Jews because they aren’t allowed to practice genocide.

        … suddenly and retroactively its “international law says no”

        What, are you saying the UN was formed after Israel? Or how do you figure the rules saying no to conquest of territory by force (which are in the UN charter) are being applied retroactively?

        Nor was most of Israel formed on “Jewish” land, the vast majority of what became known as green-line Israel either legally belonged to Palestinian Arabs or was used in a traditional manner by them (e.g. nomadic grazing). At most about 6% of Palestine could legally be considered “Jewish” land prior to 1948 (or after), and that because the JNF put racist covenants on land they bought stating that it could be used or sold only to Jews.

        The Arabs fought a defensive war in 1948. Most Arab armed forces never entered that part of Palestine recommended by the UN as part of the Jewish state, most of the fighting (as well as most of the major massacres by Zionist forces) were outside of the proposed Jewish state.

      • Hostage
        May 26, 2012, 7:21 pm

        What you call “international law” I call “changing the rules of the game just to screw the Jews”.

        The Stimson Doctrine and League of Nations Lytton Commission report reflected established principles of international law that had been enunciated and agreed upon in the Kellogg–Briand Pact and the Declaration of the First International Conference of American States, in 1890.

        Those principles were subsequently applied to the Mukden Incident which led to the Empire of Japan’s illegal seizure of Manchuria. Nonetheless, Abba Eban complained to Ambassador Goldberg years later that the doctrine regarding the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war was a doubtful regional or Latin American principle that was not well suited to application in Palestine where the realities were different. Of course, Manchuria and Palestine are both located in Asia, not Latin America.

        The Nuremberg Principles were codified to protect humanity. They were based in large part on the work of notable Zionist legal scholars working on the staff of the International Tribunal, like Raphael Lemkin, Hersh Lauterpacht, and Jacob Robinson.

        Lemkin defined the crime of genocide in international law while working for the Carnegie Endowment during the war. He had written a column in Haynt, a leading Zionist daily newspaper before the war. An interview published in Unzer Weg (Our Way), the Displaced Persons journal, on 28 June 1946 stated that he had been the general secretary of a Zionist organization in pre-War Poland. link to aapjstudies.org

        Hersh Lauterpacht was instrumental in the insertion of the notion of “crimes against humanity” in the London Charter of the International Tribunal. He served as a legal advisor to the Jewish Agency for Palestine on the matters of Royal trade preferences and the UN partition proposal. He established the Annual Digest of International Law (aka the International Law Reports), edited Oppenheim’s International Law, taught at the London School of Economics, was elected to the Whewell Chair of International Law at Cambridge, served as Chairman and Rapporteur of the International Law Commission, and served as a Judge on the International Court of Justice. link to lcil.cam.ac.uk

        Jacob Robinson was a staff legal advisor to the Jewish Agency for Palestine during the UNSCOP hearings. He had previously served as leader of the Minorities Block of the Lithuanian Parliament and was a champion of the movement responsible for the League of Nations minority rights treaties. He was the chief legal adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania, and represented Lithuania in several cases before the Permanent Court of International Justice. He helped in the establishment of the United Nations Human Rights Commission and served as a member of the State of Israel’s mission to the United Nations. link to hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de

        So, the Nuremberg principles were rule changes developed by Zionists that disadvantaged the Axis leadership of Germany and Japan. The same principles governed the subsequent tribunals established for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and the permanent ICC tribunal. You are attempting to make an underhanded appeal based upon Jewish exceptionalism.

      • Shingo
        May 26, 2012, 8:20 pm

        What you call “international law” I call “changing the rules of the game just to screw the Jews”.

        What rules were changed to “screw the Jews” Fred? As Hostage has pointed out, UN resolutions are bound by the rules customary international law, which exited before Israel was invented.

      • eljay
        May 26, 2012, 9:51 pm

        >> What you call “international law” I call “changing the rules of the game just to screw the Jews”. For thousands of years, and even since then for anyone who isn’t Jewish, land was taken by force. … But as soon as Jews get some land, suddenly and retroactively its “international law says no”.

        I love how Zio-supremacists strive to emulate the worst in human behaviour. Reach for the bottom, boys!

        And I think it’s funny as hell that Zio-supremacists are all tough talk and swagger when they tell you it’s perfectly acceptable to acquire land by force, but if they think someone’s going to do it to them, they hypocritically whine, bitch and moan about how unjust it all is. :-(

        Too much…

      • Shingo
        May 26, 2012, 10:42 pm

        The law changed in 1945 because of the Nazi’s criminal try to take land by force, you paranoid self-pitying ignoramus.

        Like Tony Judt said, because Isael missed out on the 19th century, it feels as though it should be entitled to behave as though it were the 19th century.

        For thousands of years, people practiced slavery and human sacrifice. No doubt that too has been prohibited to “screw the Jews”.

      • Shingo
        May 26, 2012, 10:44 pm

        Or how do you figure the rules saying no to conquest of territory by force (which are in the UN charter) are being applied retroactively?

        If that were true, Israel’s bordes would still be along the 181 partition. frotiers.

      • Shmuel
        May 27, 2012, 2:42 am

        What you call “international law” I call “changing the rules of the game just to screw the Jews”… But as soon as Jews get some land, suddenly and retroactively its “international law says no”.

        An anti-Semite might have said that international law is really a Jewish plot to control the world (UN, one-world government, etc.), but the logic is the same: everything is always about “the Jews”.

      • talknic
        May 27, 2012, 6:28 am

        Fredblogs May 25, 2012 at 7:24 pm

        “For thousands of years, and even since then for anyone who isn’t Jewish, land was taken by force”

        Since at least 1945 it has been against the UN Charter and International Law

        “The Arabs even approved of that since they tried to take Jewish land by force after rejecting partition that would have left a slight majority of Jews in the Jewish areas”

        Can you cite any UNSC resolution condemning any Arab UN Member State for invading or attacking ‘Jewish’ land or Israeli territory?

        “But as soon as Jews get some land, suddenly and retroactively its “international law says no””

        Strange, 1945 is BEFORE 1947, 1948, 1967

      • playforpalestine
        May 30, 2012, 6:11 am

        “Can you cite any UNSC resolution condemning any Arab UN Member State for invading or attacking ‘Jewish’ land or Israeli territory?”

        Aren’t you proving his point here? Why isn’t there any resolution?

      • Shingo
        May 30, 2012, 7:09 am

        Aren’t you proving his point here? Why isn’t there any resolution?

        You’re a master of ignoring the obvious.

      • playforpalestine
        May 30, 2012, 9:18 am

        Feel free to elucidate me.
        Do you believe that no Arab state has ever initiated an attack on Israel.

      • playforpalestine
        May 30, 2012, 9:45 am

        “The Arabs fought a defensive war in 1948.”

        You realize that the Arab states attacked Israeli settlements within what was the Mandate Palestine area, right? Israel never invaded those states. IOW they were not fighting a defensive war.

      • eljay
        May 30, 2012, 10:15 am

        >> Feel free to elucidate me.

        OK, here goes: He can enlighten you by elucidating, but he can’t elucidate you.

        There. Hope that helps. :-)

      • playforpalestine
        May 30, 2012, 10:36 am

        Seriously dude? Fine.

        Feel free to elucidate for me.

      • talknic
        May 30, 2012, 2:49 pm

        playforpalestine May 30, 2012 at 6:11 am

        //“Can you cite any UNSC resolution condemning any Arab UN Member State for invading or attacking ‘Jewish’ land or Israeli territory?”//

        “Aren’t you proving his point here? “

        He has no point

        “Why isn’t there any resolution?”

        The Arab States didn’t invade Israel according to this web site… they invaded “Palestine”…. don’t you trust it?

        You want the UNSC to pass a resolution on the Arab States for something they didn’t do?

      • Hostage
        May 30, 2012, 6:38 pm

        “Can you cite any UNSC resolution condemning any Arab UN Member State for invading or attacking ‘Jewish’ land or Israeli territory?” . . . Aren’t you proving his point here? Why isn’t there any resolution?

        The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to
        the Secretary of State
        SECRET US URGENT NEW YORK, May 9, 1948-6: 43 p. m.:
        Parodi called meeting of British, Belgian, American, French representatives last night to discuss situation regarding truce and possible action which SC may be called to take following May 15. Hare and I attended. Parodi said time fast running out and essential to make up minds now regarding certain problems.

        He said that as of May 15 we would be faced by declarations two states of Palestine coupled with entrance of Abdullah. Regarding latter two ideas are current. The first is that if Abdullah moved beyond own frontier it might constitute an”act of aggression”. The second idea was that if he entered on invitation of Arab population of Palestine his act might not constitute aggression. Parodi said he was inclined to second theory and thought conclusion to that effect would avoid endless argument.
        — Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, page 946

        Memorandum by the Director of the Office of United Nations
        Affairs (Rusk) to the Under Secretary of State (Lovett)
        SECRET [WASHINGTON,] May 4, 1948:

        “The Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership. The question which will confront the Security Council in scarcely ten days’ time will be whether Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council. The situation may be made more difficult and less clear-cut if, as is probable, Arab armies from outside Palestine cross the frontier to aid their disorganized and demoralized brethren who will be the objects of Jewish attack. In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside Palestine which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.

        The internal memo was published in the Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa , Volume V, Part 2, page 848

        Analysis of the memos is contained in “The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951″, William Roger Louis, Oxford University Press, 1984, ISBN: 0198229607, page 545; Zionism and the Palestinians, Simha Flapan, Croom Helm, 1979, ISBN: 0856644994, Page 336; and Fallen pillars: U.S. policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945, Donald Neff, 2nd Edition, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1995, ISBN: 0887282598, page 65.

      • Shingo
        May 30, 2012, 8:15 pm

        Do you believe that no Arab state has ever initiated an attack on Israel.

        There was 1973 technically , but that was blowback for 1967.

      • Shingo
        May 30, 2012, 8:18 pm

        You realize that the Arab states attacked Israeli settlements within what was the Mandate Palestine area, right?

        There might have been as a consequence of fighting close to the border, but they certainly didn’t launch any kind of invasion on Israel.

        Israel never invaded those states.

        Israel was already in the Arab territory of the UNGA181 partition, so yes, it was a defensive war. Jordan made a pact with Britain to defend the Arab territory and not invade Israel. Britain agreed to those terms and we have proof in the form of the Armistice line, which lies outside of the ISraseli 1048 border.

      • Shingo
        May 30, 2012, 8:21 pm

        As always Hostage, it’s immensely satisfying wathing you shredding PFP’s and Oleg’s sophomiric BS.

        If only your incredible posts weren’t wasted on such amateurish drek!!

      • playforpalestine
        May 30, 2012, 9:25 pm

        “The Arab States didn’t invade Israel according to this web site… they invaded “Palestine”…. don’t you trust it?”

        Your link was to a statement from the Arab League. No I don’t trust it, almost nothing they said in that document ended up being true at all.

        “You want the UNSC to pass a resolution on the Arab States for something they didn’t do?”

        I don’t care personally. Just be aware that a lack of a UNSC condemnation is not evidence supporting the legality of Arab state actions.

      • playforpalestine
        May 31, 2012, 3:55 am

        “The Arab States didn’t invade Israel according to this web site… they invaded “Palestine”…. don’t you trust it?”

        Semantics. You admit that they attacked Jewish settlements, whether they were within the land allocated to Israel or not, it did happen, correct?

        “You want the UNSC to pass a resolution on the Arab States for something they didn’t do?”

        The UNSC is meaningless. I don’t care if they pass a resolution about this or not. The UNSC does not dictate reality.

      • Shingo
        May 31, 2012, 4:54 am

        Semantics. You admit that they attacked Jewish settlements, whether they were within the land allocated to Israel or not, it did happen, correct?

        No, they attacked Israeli forces based in Palestine. The forces were stationed around the settlements.

        The UNSC is meaningless. I don’t care if they pass a resolution about this or not. The UNSC does not dictate reality.

        Yeah, UNSC meaningless. And reality is whatever you are able to pull out of your a##

        Youve become a joke here PFP. Maybe it’s time you moved on to turf where you can get away with peddling your BS.

      • playforpalestine
        May 31, 2012, 7:25 am

        “No, they attacked Israeli forces based in Palestine. The forces were stationed around the settlements.”

        I’m sorry, in what way does your statement differ from what I wrote? The Jewish forces were generally within the settlements when they were attacked by Arab armies, and the settlements were in both Palestine and Israel proper. Whatever, you at least agree that those Arab armies attacked Jewish forces, yes?

        To be more specific… As Arab forces invaded Israel, the Egyptian Air Force bombed Tel Aviv. On 18 May, the Tel Aviv Central Bus Station was bombed, killing over a hundred people. For the first few weeks of the war, Egyptian warplanes bombed Tel Aviv without risk to themselves.

        Kibbutzes Kfar Darom, Nirim, and Yad Mordechai were all attacked. At Yad Mordechai, 100 Israelis armed with rifles, a single machine gun and one anti-tank weapon, famously held up a column of 2,500 Egyptians, (despite their having armor, artillery and air units), for five days. The Egyptians suffered 300–400 casualties while only 26 Israelis were killed there.

        Are you able to agree that this stuff happened?

        “Youve become a joke here PFP.”

        To whom? You? That’s sweet. I’m not going to insult you back btw, until you are able to come up with an insult worth a response. (I have faith in you. Good luck!!!) In the interim, please try and focus on answering my questions. There’s just one or two, but you’ve been somewhat less than straightforward lately.

      • playforpalestine
        May 31, 2012, 7:46 am

        “There might have been as a consequence of fighting close to the border, but they certainly didn’t launch any kind of invasion on Israel.”

        Are you serious? Of course they did. Jerusalem was attacked for example. That is how Jordan attained part of it. But Tel Aviv was bombed a lot. Kibbutzes in the Galilee (within Israel’s area) were frequently attacked.

        “Israel was already in the Arab territory of the UNGA181 partition, so yes, it was a defensive war.”

        Actually, that doesn’t make it a defensive war unless Israel was actively attacking Arab villages or cities when the Arab states engaged them. Which is not what occurred. Israel WAS holding territory in land the Partition agreement allocated for the Arab state, sure. But after declaring independence Israel just held its positions. It was the Arab armies that chose to engage with Israeli forces. Not vice versa.

        In other words, it was not defensive. The Arabs chose to attack the Israelis. Alternatives might have included: going to the UN to broker a dialogue with Israel. Or using Arab forces to hold positions, ensuring that Israel could not take any more land while avoiding any engagement with them. Or attempted to defuse the situation by offering negotiations with the goal of peace terms. Point being, if your side attacks, even for a super good reason, then it’s not a defensive war.

      • Shingo
        May 31, 2012, 9:40 am

        I’m sorry, in what way does your statement differ from what I wrote?

        You did not mention the presence of Israeli force, which is an entirley different argument. The forces were illegally stationed there. Their presence was an act of agression.

        To be more specific… As Arab forces invaded Israel, the Egyptian Air Force bombed Tel Aviv.

        False. There was no invasion of Israel, so you are lying. The bombing of a Tel Aviv Central Bus Station is not an invasion. Hamas rockets striking Sderot do not constitute an invasion.

        For the first few weeks of the war, Egyptian warplanes bombed Tel Aviv without risk to themselves.

        Rubbish. Israel alrady had an airforce and aitni aircraft artillery.

        Kibbutzes Kfar Darom, Nirim, and Yad Mordechai were all attacked.

        Not an invasion either. After the cross border skirmish in 2006, Israel began bombing Southern Lebanon for 2 weeks before there was any invasion.

        In the interim, please try and focus on answering my questions.

        Right after you provide the legal evidence that the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was illegal. It’s been weeks so I am getting a little impatient.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 31, 2012, 9:46 am

        Or using Arab forces to hold positions, ensuring that Israel could not take any more land

        you mean the land zionists were stealing when they were merely defending themselves outside of israel. and then one day they declared independence and were merely holding the stolen area, defensively. and this is how israel came to be invaded, on the land outside their borders, on the land they were stealing. uh huh.

      • Shingo
        May 31, 2012, 9:53 am

        Are you serious? Of course they did. Jerusalem was attacked for example.

        Sio what part of Israel was Jerusalem in 1948? Oh that’s right, none of it, so thanks for proving my point.

        But Tel Aviv was bombed a lot. Kibbutzes in the Galilee (within Israel’s area) were frequently attacked.

        Bombing is not an invasion. Try harder.

        Actually, that doesn’t make it a defensive war unless Israel was actively attacking Arab villages or cities when the Arab states engaged them.

        Which is precisely what Israel had been doing since December 1947.

        Israel WAS holding territory in land the Partition agreement allocated for the Arab state, sure.

        An act fo war and agression. Again proving my point. This is too wasy.

        But after declaring independence Israel just held its positions.

        Outide it’s borders, which made the holding of those positions abn act of agression, and anyway, they were seizing more territory, not holding.

        It was the Arab armies that chose to engage with Israeli forces. Not vice versa.

        They chose to engange them, bevasue the Israelis militias had been engaging Palestinians for 5 months and expelling them and destroying their villages.

        So yes, it was very much defensive. The Israelischose to attack the Arabs and as Ben Gurion predicted, the Arab armies came to their aid.

        Alternatives might have included: going to the UN to broker a dialogue with Israel.

        Alternatives might have included Israel not starting a war, but then again, Israel had alrady been bombing the British and gave the bird to the UN when they suggested revisting the UNGA181 plan.

        Or using Arab forces to hold positions, ensuring that Israel could not take any more land while avoiding any engagement with them.

        That’s exactly waht Jordan did, as per the agreement with the British.

        Or attempted to defuse the situation by offering negotiations with the goal of peace terms.

        Or Israel could have done that, but that might have meant allowing the refugees to return, and that would have spoiled Ben Gurion’s plans to “expell the Arabs and take their places”.

        Point being, if your side attacks, even for a super good reason, then it’s not a defensive war.

        Point being, as the Director of the Office of United Nations
        Affairs (Rusk) has predicted:

        “The Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership. The question which will confront the Security Council in scarcely ten days’ time will be whether Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council. The situation may be made more difficult and less clear-cut if, as is probable, Arab armies from outside Palestine cross the frontier to aid their disorganized and demoralized brethren who will be the objects of Jewish attack. In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside Palestine which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.”

      • Shingo
        May 31, 2012, 10:00 am

        and this is how israel came to be invaded, on the land outside their borders, on the land they were stealing. uh huh.

        And that remains the logic to this day.

      • eljay
        May 31, 2012, 10:25 am

        >> Point being, if your side attacks, even for a super good reason, then it’s not a defensive war.

        Someone might want to make Israel and Zio-supremacists aware of this tidbit of information.

      • Hostage
        May 31, 2012, 3:33 pm

        “No, they attacked Israeli forces based in Palestine. The forces were stationed around the settlements.” . . . I’m sorry, in what way does your statement differ from what I wrote? The Jewish forces were generally within the settlements when they were attacked by Arab armies, and the settlements were in both Palestine and Israel proper.

        Resolution 181(II) established “Israel proper” and “Palestine proper” under the guises of a Jewish and Arab state. It only authorized the authorities in each state to raise militias from their own inhabitants for internal security purposes and to prevent frontier clashes. The militias were specifically excluded from the general grant of transit through the territories of the two states contained in the partition plan. The use of Jewish militias to launch offensives against Arab villages in Israel proper, or to link-up with and supply watchtower and stockade military bases in the Arab state was illegal. So was the use of probes and attacks across the border as outlined in Plan Dalet to deny Arab authorities access to their own State’s territory for use as bases for their own militia.

        Once Israel refused to agree to a cease fire and began conducting massacres in Arab villages that had been allocated to the Jewish State, the members of the Security Council viewed it as an aggressor. That view was only reinforced when its forces conducted military operations from settlements in territory allocated to the Arab State. The fact that Israel expelled the Arab inhabitants of the Syrian and Egyptian DMZs after the Armistice Agreements were concluded is a strong indication that those villages did need protection.

      • Hostage
        May 31, 2012, 6:18 pm

        Are you serious? Of course they did. Jerusalem was attacked for example. That is how Jordan attained part of it.

        You know perfectly well that Jerusalem was not part of the Jewish State under the UN plan of partition.

        But you might not know that the Hashemites have a secured interest in the government of Jerusalem. The British government made several declarations and came to agreements with the Muslim inhabitants of its India colony, the Sharif of Mecca and the Arab Sheikhs, and the Muslim notables of Egypt and the Sudan regarding the absolute immunity of the Muslim Holy Sites and Waqfs.

        *The 3rd paragraph of the Sykes-Picot Agreement required the Allies to consult with the Sharif of Mecca on the form of government in the brown area of international administration in Palestine.

        *The Muslim Holy Places in Hebron and Jerusalem had been completely excluded from the territory of the brown, “International Enclave”, shown on the map attached to the Sykes-Picot Agreement in accordance with the Government of India’s Proclamation No. 4 to the Arab and Indian Sheikhs and the Sharif of Mecca. The remainder of Palestine was included in the area pledged for Arab Independence. See for example paragraph 4 (c) on pp 4 (pdf page 5) and paragraph 6 (a), (d), & (e) on pp 8-9 (pdf page 9-10) CAB 24/72, “The Settlement of Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula” (Former Reference: GT 6506) , 21 November 1918 and the collection of small and large detailed maps of Palestine in CAB 24/72 “Maps illustrating the Settlement of Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula”, (Former Reference: GT 6506A) 21 November 1918.
        Former Reference: GT 6506A
        Title: Maps illustrating the Settlement of Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula.
        Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
        Date 21 November 1918
        Catalogue reference CAB 24/72
        link to nationalarchives.gov.uk
        Former Reference: GT 6506
        Title: The Settlement of Turkey and the Arablan Peninsula.
        Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
        Date 21 November 1918
        Catalogue reference CAB 24/72
        link to nationalarchives.gov.uk

        The boundaries of Palestine were established in an “Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919″. It was handed by Mr. Lloyd George to M. Clemenceau and placed before the Versailles Peace Conference. It divided the territory between the British, French, and Arab administered OETAs on the basis of the principles of the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Sykes-Picot lines. The Sykes-Picot agreement granted the Sharif of Mecca a special position in determining the form of government in Palestine and excluded the Muslim holy places from zone of international The memo is available in the FRUS and in J. C. Hurewitz collection.

        The “existing rights” of the Muslim community and the immunity of their Holy Places and wafqs were preserved by the San Remo resolution; Article 13 of the Palestine Mandate; and an entire Chapter of the UN Partition Plan.

        The government of Jordan called attention to the fact that the Commission appointed by the Council of the League of Nations had determined that the Wailing Wall and pavement in front of it were constituted a Muslim Waqf by Afdal, the son of Saladin, in about the year 1193 A.D. and were under the sole proprietorship of the Supreme Muslim Council of Palestine. King Abdullah appointed a Palestinian citizen of Jordan to the position of Grand Mufti, Hussam al-Din Jarallah. He had served on the Supreme Council throughout the Mandate era. In fact he had received more votes than Al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni in the election to the post of Grand Mufti, but British High Commissioner Herbert Samuel had intervened and overturned the results of the election.
        *See (3) The Ownership of the Wall and of its Surroundings
        link to unispal.un.org
        *See Philip Mattar, The Mufti of Jerusalem: Al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni and the Palestinian National Movement, Columbia University Press, 1988, page 25.

        *President Johnson obtained King Hussein’s consent to the terms of resolution 242 by guaranteeing that Jordan would retain its special position in Jerusalem and that the bulk of the West Bank territory would be returned to the Arabs. For example, Secretary Rusk stressed to the Government of Israel that no settlement with Jordan would be accepted by the world community unless it gave Jordan some special position in the Old City of Jerusalem. The US also assumed Jordan would receive the bulk of the West Bank as that was regarded as Jordanian territory.
        See:
        Foreign Relations of the United States Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, Documents 411, 506, 513, 515, and 521.

      • talknic
        May 31, 2012, 10:15 pm

        playforpalestine May 30, 2012 at 9:45 am

        “You realize that the Arab states attacked Israeli settlements within what was the Mandate Palestine area, right?”

        Impossible. The Lon Mandate for Palestine expired BEFORE the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel came into effect. The Arab States attacked Jewish forces outside of the State of Israel”. They also fought armed (belligerent) Jewish settlers. Innocent Jews were also caught up in the conflict and as with any war there were undoubtedly some atrocities and collateral.

        “Israel never invaded those states”

        Odd, under the Egypt/Israel Peace treaty, Israel was required to first WITHDRAW from EGYPTIAN territories before peaceful relations resumed. Egytpt was not required to withdraw from ANY Israeli territories. No Israeli territories have ever been under the military control of any other entity.

        UNSC Res 497 Israel is the Occupying Power over the Golan, territory sovereign to Syria

        “IOW they were not fighting a defensive war”

        So where is the UNSC resolutions condemning the Arab States for attacking Israel? The moment Israel was Declared, the civil war pre declaration became a war waged by the State of Israel on what remained of Palestine. Under the UN Charter, the Arab States had every right as Regional Powers to defend Palestine from Jewish forces “outside of the State of Israel”.

  3. dbroncos
    May 24, 2012, 9:56 pm

    “The amendment simply demands basic transparency with regard to who receives U.S. taxpayer assistance”

    Mind boggling logic. Seriously, Mr. Kirk, don’t you think your time would be better spent in demanding a transparent accounting for what has done with nearly 200 billion in US taxpayer financed aid to Israel. UNRWA receives a few brown pennies of our pocket change, which none the less feeds the mouths of millions of hungry children, while Israel enjoys a blank check – no questions asked.

    • playforpalestine
      May 25, 2012, 9:48 am

      “Mr. Kirk, don’t you think your time would be better spent in demanding a transparent accounting for what has done with nearly 200 billion in US taxpayer financed aid to Israel. ”

      What do you mean? We know exactly where all of the aid to Israel went. It’s almost all used to buy American goods and weapons. It’s as much a form of corporate welfare as it is foreign aid.

      • Shingo
        May 25, 2012, 9:40 pm

        What do you mean? We know exactly where all of the aid to Israel went. It’s almost all used to buy American goods and weapons. It’s as much a form of corporate welfare as it is foreign aid.

        Where did all those grants, forgiven loans and loan gurantees (loans Israel has never repaid) gone PFP?

      • playforpalestine
        May 30, 2012, 6:13 am

        “Where did all those grants, forgiven loans and loan gurantees (loans Israel has never repaid) gone PFP?”

        Which one?
        And who says the loan guarantees aren’t repaid? Who would have been paying them?

      • American
        May 30, 2012, 3:32 pm

        pfp, how many times must this be rammed up the hollow space in your head?

        Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel’s often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan.

        U.S. policy since 1984 has been that economic assistance to Israel must equal or exceed Israel’s annual debt repayment to the United States. Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest.

      • playforpalestine
        May 30, 2012, 10:48 pm

        American,

        Look at what I wrote. I am discussing loan guarantees. NOT US military loans, but US loan GUARANTEES. Those are loans given by someone other than the US.

        Do you understand the difference?

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 28, 2012, 8:40 am

        “It’s as much a form of corporate welfare as it is foreign aid.”

        Better to just give it to Americans than to let one of those ingrate israeli bastards benefit from it.

    • Fredblogs
      May 25, 2012, 12:51 pm

      We know what was done with the money given to Israel. Most of it went to U.S. weapons manufacturers.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 25, 2012, 1:06 pm

        “Most of it went to U.S. weapons manufacturers.”

        Like Caterpillar.

      • Fredblogs
        May 25, 2012, 1:29 pm

        I didn’t say all of it went to weapons manufacturers.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 28, 2012, 8:37 am

        Caterpillar is a weapons manufacturer.

      • talknic
        May 26, 2012, 9:57 am

        Fredblogs May 25, 2012 at 12:51 pm

        “We know what was done with the money given to Israel. Most of it went to U.S. weapons manufacturers”

        And Israel doesn’t get anything. AMAZING!!! I’d have thought Israel would have received like …. weapons or something.

      • Fredblogs
        May 27, 2012, 7:12 pm

        @talknic
        dbroncos wanted an accounting of what happens to the money. I told him what happens to most of it. It buys weapons from the U.S. Of course Israel receives weapons. Wouldn’t be much point buying them if they didn’t receive them. All he wanted was to know what the money went for, maybe he thought Israel blew it on fast women and slow horses.

      • talknic
        May 30, 2012, 2:52 pm

        Fredblogs May 27, 2012 at 7:12 pm

        “It buys weapons from the U.S. Of course Israel receives weapons. Wouldn’t be much point buying them if they didn’t receive them. “

        Couldn’t ‘buy’ them at all if there was no US military aid. You’re arguing around in circles.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 30, 2012, 3:21 pm

        arguing in circles is what he specializes in, it’s called clogging the discourse. yesterday (i can’t recall which thread) he said something to the effect of ‘of course the loan guarantees are good (that’s why we have them)’ zzzzzz.or maybe it was oleg, same difference same function. say nothing and pt score.

        i was just thinking of this reading american’s comment about loan guarantees

        link to mondoweiss.net

        whoops, i just did a search…it was in this very thread and it was pfp here: link to mondoweiss.net

      • American
        May 30, 2012, 3:38 pm

        “Fredblogs says:
        May 25, 2012 at 12:51 pm

        We know what was done with the money given to Israel. Most of it went to U.S. weapons manufacturers.”‘

        Who cares?….drop in the bucket for the US defense industries….in 2009-2010 Saudi bought 32 BILLION in aircraft and weapons from the US……with THEIR OWN MONEY. US defense firms don’t need Israel…we could make a shit pot more with no US taxpayer money spent by selling to Iran.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 30, 2012, 4:28 pm

        Most of it went to U.S. weapons manufacturers

        we could also just give the money to U.S. weapons manufacturers without them having to produce anything. or we could give it to the american public in free health care. there’s no reason it has to be filtered thru israel with them ending up with millions on free weapons.

      • playforpalestine
        May 30, 2012, 9:28 pm

        “we could make a shit pot more with no US taxpayer money spent by selling to Iran.”

        Hell, why not just sell Iran some nukes while we’re at it?

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 31, 2012, 9:58 am

        “Hell, why not just sell Iran some nukes while we’re at it?”

        I second that notion. Better if no one has them, but if we are going to let the zionist entity have them, might as well give them to everyone and rely on MAD.

      • talknic
        May 31, 2012, 10:24 pm

        playforpalestine

        “Hell, why not just sell Iran some nukes while we’re at it?”

        Oh, you’re not Israeli?

  4. gingershot
    May 24, 2012, 10:21 pm

    The Israelis and their Lobby are consistent about one thing – they will screw the Palestinians every which way but loose …

    Gee – if Sen Kirk and Israel wait another 30 yrs they can declare the Refugee Problem solved since there will be no more living personally displaced Refugees – as if that wasn’t the plan all along

    • Hostage
      May 25, 2012, 6:31 am

      Gee – if Sen Kirk and Israel wait another 30 yrs they can declare the Refugee Problem solved since there will be no more living personally displaced Refugees – as if that wasn’t the plan all along

      They tasked the US State Department to provide another report that can be waived if it would adversely affect our national interests or the interests of our allies in Lebanon or Jordan ZZZzzzzzz. . . .

      The West Bank and East Jerusalem have been held in a state of belligerent occupation since 1967, and there has been no peace treaty. Refugee status is determined on the basis of exclusion from your country of nationality. The PA should simply take a page from the Knesset and adopt a homestead law that grants the refugees citizenship on the basis of its in personam jurisdiction and the right to take-up legal residence in the settlement blocks of occupied Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem. When the Occupying Power predictably refuses to grant them entry, they will legally be “refugees”, not “descendants of refugees” – and then we can go back to doing “whatever” – secure in the knowledge that all of the UNRWA refugees are refugees.

      • playforpalestine
        May 25, 2012, 10:00 pm

        Hostage,

        I thought you were arguing that Palestine is now its own nation, as it was recognized by several dozen nations in 1988? If that’s the case, that Palestine gained independence when Jordan dissolved their union, then why would any of its inhabitants still be considered refugees? Isn’t the generally accepted rule that one ceases to be a refugee once citizenship and residency in a new state is obtained?

      • Hostage
        May 26, 2012, 2:56 am

        I thought you were arguing that Palestine is now its own nation, as it was recognized by several dozen nations in 1988? If that’s the case, that Palestine gained independence when Jordan dissolved their union, then why would any of its inhabitants still be considered refugees?

        International law recognizes internally displaced persons as refugees requiring repatriation under the terms of Article 6 of the Geneva Conventions. In any event, Israel is currently Judaizing East Jerusalem and is in flagrant violation of the Article 49(6) prohibition of transfer and deportation. When Bibi allows citizens of Palestine the right of residency in East Jerusalem and elsewhere in their own state, and permits deportees to return from Europe and Gaza, then many of them will no longer be considered refugees. Until that happens, your absurd proposition sounds like an amateurish attempt to prejudge a so-called “final status issue” with non-sequitur logic.

        Israel was created by its own act of secession on a portion of the territory of the Mandated State of Palestine. Every inhabitant has the right to leave and return to their own country of origin. The union between the successor states of Arab Palestine and Transjordan does not waive the continuing legal obligations of Israel and the UN Organization under the terms of their separate agreements on minority rights and refugees. Mr. Eban’s declarations and undertakings regarding the implementation of resolutions 181(II) and 194(III) applied to the inhabitants and refugees of the Jewish State, not the Arab one.

        FYI, several countries have recognized Israel too. But Israel has failed to respond to requests and deadlines from the Middle East Quartet asking it to provide a map of its proposal on the final borders. States are territorial entities. The right of the inhabitants to residency, return, or compensation depends heavily upon on the location of the final frontiers.

        For example, the US State Department insists that Jerusalem was part of the mandated state of Palestine, and that, in a de jure sense, Jerusalem has not subsequently become part of any other sovereignty. Many of the States that recognize the State of Palestine have done so on the basis of the 1967 boundaries, including East Jerusalem. See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Vol. Xviii, Near East, United States. Dept. of State, G.P.O., 1995, ISBN 0160451590, page 341.

      • talknic
        May 26, 2012, 11:35 am

        playforpalestine May 25, 2012 at 10:00 pm

        “I thought you were arguing that Palestine is now its own nation, as it was recognized by several dozen nations in 1988?”

        There’s no such thing as official recognition of ‘nation’ and; recognition of statehood is not the same as recognition of independent statehood.

        Palestine has never in its entire history been free of some form of occupation in whole or in part, thus, never independent. Contrary to the Hasbara bullsh*te, there has never been an opportunity for Palestine to declare independent statehood. Never an opportunity to miss.

        It has in fact been the Zionist Federation and its agencies who have missed (#&*ked up) every opportunity for Jewish folk to live anywhere in their ‘historic homeland’ by demanding a separate Jewish state. Missed opportunity after missed opportunity, because now a part of the ‘historic homeland ‘ is Palestine and Israel is less than the ‘historic homeland’. Which means the ‘historic homeland’ is just that, an ‘historic’ homeland.

        The territory of Israel on the other hand, was free of all occupation when the Israeli Declaration came into effect May 15th 1948, AFTER the LoN Mandate for Palestine (British Occupation) expired 14th May 1948, and by the 15th May 1948 Jewish forces were already in control of territory allocated for the Arab State, outside of that allocated to the State of Israel.

        The Arabs had until Oct 1948 to declare Independence if they wished, it wasn’t nor could it ever have been obligatory on them or anyone else to declare ‘independence’. Israel is still the occupying Palestinian territories. Until occupation ends, independent Palestinian statehood cannot be seen as effective.

        ” If that’s the case, that Palestine gained independence when Jordan dissolved their union…”

        Uh? Israel became the Occupying Power over the non-self-governing territory of Palestine in ’67. Still no ‘independence’ for Palestine

        “Isn’t the generally accepted rule that one ceases to be a refugee once citizenship and residency in a new state is obtained?”

        Uh? If they’re refugees in Palestine, A) Palestine is NOT the country of return so; B) why should they accept citizenship elsewhere, even in Palestine, if they wish to return as is their right, to their former place of residence?

        Anything else you need to distort, lie about, deny, feign ignorance or obfuscate on? Because I can guarantee, what ever it is, it will be full of holes, seeping Zionist bullsh*te.

      • Hostage
        May 26, 2012, 5:29 pm

        There’s no such thing as official recognition of ‘nation’

        Thomas Musgrave explains that only formally recognized “peoples” have the right to self determination. A “people” cannot be defined in terms of ethnic identity alone, because if it were, participation in the political process would then be determined solely on the basis of ethnic characteristics. That’s contrary to Article 1(3) of the UN Charter and customary minority rights to equality under international law. A new state or people in the modern era will always include all of the indigenous groups inhabiting a territory. Self determination can be exercised by establishing an independent state, union with another existing state, or confederation.

        For example, the right of the Palestinians to self determination and a state of their own has been recognized, but similar demands made by the French Canadian people have not been met with approval. Musgrave wrote a book-length treatment devoted to the very complex subject. See Self-determination and National Minorities, Oxford Monographs in International Law, Oxford University Press, 1997

        In general the recognition of the right of the Jewish people to self determination has always been limited in scope to incorporation in the mandated state of Palestine; or the establishment of an independent democratic state with a sizable Palestinian minority population living under UN guarantees.

        The Mandate did not prejudice the rights and standing of “Jewish people” living in other countries and only granted Jews the right to immigrate to Palestine under “suitable conditions”. The UNSCOP majority report also noted that Palestine could not be used to solve the problems of world Jewry without depriving the other inhabitants of their rights and access to the natural resources of the country. The UN never authorized Israel to expel the other ethnic groups inhabiting the country and replace them with Jewish immigrants. So the Israeli/Zionist concept of a universal “Jewish people” with boundless discretion to do as they see fit under the heading of “self determination” is simply not supported by the applicable principles of international law.

        Years before the 1988 Declaration, the PLO had been officially recognized as the sole representative of the Palestinian people and invited to participate in the business of the United Nations along with other national liberation movements as observers. In its advisory opinion (para 118), the ICJ noted that in connection with the right of self determination, the existence of a Palestinian people was no longer in doubt because Prime Minister Rabin had exchanged letters with Chairman Arafat on the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people.

        There is also a very good explanation of the differences between nations, states, and nation states in volume 1 of Whiteman’s “Digest of International Law”, 1963. Basically nations are spacial entities, not Diasporas. Some nations have territorial autonomy, but not independent statehood, while others are recognized as independent states.

        Palestine has never in its entire history been free of some form of occupation in whole or in part, thus, never independent.

        True enough, but the UN has had many member states that were occupied or were not independent. They were all considered juridically equal with the same inherent rights and obligations. Syria and Lebanon were still considered mandates when the became members. India was still a colony months away from independence. The Philippines had not been fully emancipated. Belarus and the Ukraine were part of the Soviet Union and did not formulate their own foreign policy. Israel was the classic example of an entity whose statehood was the subject of considerable doubt.

        That’s why our own State Department Digest of International Law explains that independence is not a requirement of statehood

        “A state in the international sense is generally described as a recognized member of the family of nations, an international person. Authorities differ in respect to the qualifications for such statehood, but there is general agreement on certain basic requirements. Independence is not essential. The requisite personality, in the international sense, is seen when the entity claiming to be a State has in fact its own distinctive association with the members of the international society, as by treaties, which, howsoever concluded in its behalf, mark the existence of definite relationships between itself and other contracting parties” Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 223

        So the fact that the PLO concludes international agreements on behalf of the PA or the fact that Israel is an occupying power has nothing to do with whether or not Palestine con be considered a state that enjoys sovereign equality or the right of self determination.

      • talknic
        May 27, 2012, 2:28 pm

        Hostage May 26, 2012 at 5:29 pm

        Gracias y sí

        To my mind the UN has put it in as close as one can get in lay man’s language in Chapt XI, with no mention of ‘nation’

        CHAPTER XI: DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES
        Article 73

        Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:

        Non-self-governing territory (could be an autonomous province / an undeclared territory / Provisional State / protectorate / under occupation in part or whole)

        It is only the US UNSC veto vote preventing UN admission of Palestine and the end of occupation in both Palestine and Syria. Then and only then will Deuteronomy 20:15 be finally put to rest.

      • Hostage
        May 27, 2012, 6:04 pm

        To my mind the UN has put it in as close as one can get in lay man’s language in Chapt XI, with no mention of ‘nation’

        That Chapter is like the senescent provisions of the US Constitution regarding the practice of slavery. After the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Peoples, the trusteeship system was phased-out and shutdown. There is no possibility that the UN will ever again appoint a state to govern another people’s territory. In the modern era, Kosovo and East Timor were administered by the UN Organization directly, and even that situation led to charges that the UN had violated the basic human rights of the inhabitants and the content and intent of the UN Charter.

      • Hostage
        May 27, 2012, 11:50 pm

        P.S. The topic of the possible abuse of the principles of international law by international organizations comes-up more and more frequently. Actions that have been questioned include: the legality of the Palestine Partition Plan; the violation of the right of self defense by the Security Council’s arms embargo on Bosnia; and possible human rights violations committed by UN organs when they exercise the powers of a state government (e.g. the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (‘UNMIK’).

        The Security Council imposed an arms embargo on Palestine in 1948 that had a much greater impact on the Arabs than the Jews. The General Assembly delegated supervisory powers of government to its own Palestine Commission. So Palestine during the transition period is an interesting example of how “emancipation” shouldn’t be handled.

        Here is a link to a talk about the UNMIK delivered by one of the members of the UN Mission to Gaza, Prof Christine Chinkin. link to chathamhouse.org

      • talknic
        May 30, 2012, 3:34 pm

        Hostage May 27, 2012 at 6:04 pm

        “That Chapter is like the senescent provisions of the US Constitution regarding the practice of slavery. After the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Peoples, the trusteeship system was phased-out and shutdown. There is no possibility that the UN will ever again appoint a state to govern another people’s territory.”

        They’re different Chapters. Chapt XII ” The United Nations shall establish under its authority an international trusteeship system for the administration and supervision of such territoriesas may be placed thereunder by subsequent individual agreements

        Not military occupation

        Chapt XI is “Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-governmentrecognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end… etc etc”

        Israel has assumed and has the role of Occupying Power via various Armistice and Peace Agreements. None with the Palestinians.

        UNSC res 476 – 3.“Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power…”

        Yes, East Timor had huge problems, never the less East Timore’s sovereignty over its territories were eventually restored.

        (diversion)
        It would appear through a deal with Indonesia, Australia and the US, whereby Australia would get to exploit East Timore gas for sale to the US, receiving huge US investment in the infrastructure for both the East Timore gas fields and the infrastructure for exporting uranium, gas from Australia. A railway line from Adelaide to Darwin, Port rebuilding and facilities in Darwin etc etc and various arms deals. It also played a big part in Australia following the US into Afghanistan and Iraq, under the Howard Government. Without gas from the East Timore Sea gas fields, Australia’s aggregate output was worth the US considering investment. With the ET gas fields, Australia is able to supply Japan, the US and China.

        In return for getting to be able to deal with East Timore and exploit the East Timore Sea gas reserves, both the US and Australia would turn a blind eye to Indonesian atrocities in West Papua.

        At the time China was making offers to East Timore. The US desired to keep the Chinese out of the region. Very advantageou$ for Au$tralia.

        Sorry, I’m not familiar with Kosovo. Never the less I don’t think either East Timore or Kosovo were under the United Nations Trusteeship Council.

        To your PS. Yes. It ain’t pretty.

      • Hostage
        May 30, 2012, 7:38 pm

        They’re different Chapters

        The General Assembly terminated the mandate and emancipated the Palestinian people in response to demands from the individual Arab States, the Mandatory Government, the Jewish Agency, and the Arab Higher Committee.

        The General Assembly specifically applied the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial peoples to the people of Palestine and created a subordinate UN organ to monitor the Palestinian people and assist them in the exercise of their inalienable right of self-determination and sovereignty over the natural resources of their territory. On 30 November 1973 it reaffirmed the applicability of the granting of independence to colonial peoples and said it:

        “Condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples, notably the peoples of Africa still under colonial domination and the Palestinian people;

        — See GA resolution 3070 (XXVIII)

        Not military occupation

        The General Assembly is entrusted with secondary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and has held more emergency special sessions on the Israeli-Arab conflict than any other issue. The General Assembly demanded that Israel immediately and unconditionally withdraw its armed forces from all of the Arab occupied territories. It also determined that any military occupation that violates the provisions of the UN Charter constitutes the crime of aggression. The General Assembly subsequently determined that Israel’s continued occupation of the Arab territories captured in 1967 violates the terms of the UN Charter and satisfies the UN’s Definition of Aggression.
        *General Assembly Resolution ES-9/1 link to un.org
        *General Assembly resolution 39/146 link to un.org

      • talknic
        May 31, 2012, 8:19 am

        Hostage

        Thx for the Kosovo inf

        Here’s an interesting dialogue … Rabbi SILVER (Jewish Agency for Palestine) addressing the Security Council S/PV.26 25 March 1948 on General Assembly resolution 181 (II)

        “Nevertheless, reluctantly but loyally, we accepted the decision which appeared fair and reasonable to the United Nations”

        Later

        “We feel under the obligation to make our position unmistakably clear. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision. of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision. Under the plan, there are dates to be met. We must assume that these dates will be met. We fully respect the authority kef the United Nations, but if it is unable to carry out its own decisions and, as a consequence, the Jewish community of Palestine is confronted with the threat of annihilation, it will be compelled by the considerations of sheer survival, not to speak of the preservation of its rights, to take all necessary measures which the situation will call for.”

      • Hostage
        May 31, 2012, 8:59 pm

        “We feel under the obligation to make our position unmistakably clear. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision. of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision.

        Rabbi Silver was the representative of the Jewish Agency who said that the Jewish people only supported ten of the eleven recommendations unanimously adopted by UNSCOP. The exception was Recommendation VI on “Jewish Displaced Persons”. He said the 12th recommendation adopted by the UNSCOP majority, i.e. that the international community could not use Palestine to solve the question of World Jewry, was “unintelligible”. See the the UN Yearbook 31 December 1948

        He also deployed the special Jewish Agency version of Acceptance™ with modifications and reservations. The FRUS reports that:

        Rabbi Silver deemed the minority report unacceptable; nor did the majority report satisfy the Jewish people because of the limited area of the proposed Jewish state and the exclusion of Jerusalem from that state. Nevertheless, the Agency was willing to accept the majority report since it made possible the immediate reestablishment of the Jewish State. This acceptance was made subject to further discussion of constitutional and territorial provisions (pages 15-17).

        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        The General Assembly resolution stipulated that provisions to establish the Economic Union of Palestine and provide for other matters of common interest should be put into effect by the Palestine Commission acting on their behalf on 1 April 1948 – whether or not both of the Provisional Councils of Government had formally entered into the undertaking.

        At a subsequent meeting of the Security Council on 19 March 1948 Rabbi Silver mischaracterized a discussion about that particular provision of the plan to claim that the resolution the Jewish Agency had “accepted™” did not require the establishment of an Arab State at all:

        The statement that the plan proposed by the General Assembly is an integral plan which cannot succeed unless each of its parts can be carried out is incorrect. This conception was never part of the plan. Indeed, it is contrary to the statement made by the representative of the United States during the second session of the General Assembly. The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State. Mr. Herschel Johnson, representing the United States delegation, speaking in a sub-committee of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question on 28 October 1947, stated, in discussing this very matter in connection with economic union: “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.”

        — See the extract from Rabbi Silver’s remarks at the MFA web site link to mfa.gov.il

        Rabbi Silver brushed aside the requirement that the Commission implement the plan of Economic Union. It called for redistribution of revenues from the Jewish state that were essential to the viability of the Arab state. He explained that the Jewish Agency did not consider it essential to the Jewish state. He once again deployed the special Jewish Agency understanding of the terms “acceptance™” and “integral™” and ignored the fact that the overwhelming majority of the General Assembly had adopted a plan for the establishment of a Corpus Separatum. That plan fulfilled the obligation contained in Article 28 of the Palestine Mandate that a regime of perpetual international safeguards for Jerusalem and the Holy sites be established when the mandate was terminated. He claimed that Jewish cooperation with the setting up of the Corpus Separatum would be conditional and based upon the establishment of the Jewish state:

        The Agency does not consider the principles of the proposed economic union essential to the economic life of Palestine as a whole or to creation of the Jewish State. The Agency considers that economic union should not be an obstacle to the creation of the Jewish State.

        The representatives of the Jewish Agency stated that the Jews would co-operate in the administration of Jerusalem by the United Nations considered however, as part of the partition plan, but that United Nations administration of Jerusalem apart from the plan would create a serious obstacle to such co-operation.

        See the verbatim minutes of the 271st meeting of the Security Council, 19 March 1948 link to un.org

    • Woody Tanaka
      May 25, 2012, 8:59 am

      “Gee – if Sen Kirk and Israel wait another 30 yrs they can declare the Refugee Problem solved since there will be no more living personally displaced Refugees – as if that wasn’t the plan all along”

      This is in keeping with the approach of the KKK-GOP (I keep getting mixed up as to which is the nickname of the Republican Party…) to say that the problem of slavery and Jim Crow is fixed because those things don’t exist anymore. Why should thier racist attitude change because we’re talking about their fellow bigots in Zio-land??

      • Fredblogs
        May 25, 2012, 7:28 pm

        No, it’ll be another 50 years at least, since there are the 1967 refugees too. Although, I suppose in 30 years there might be few enough actual refugees alive that they will let in all the actual refugees. They will never let in the descendants, so either make peace without that or just prepare to be at war forever. I don’t think it’s in the Palestinians’ best interest to be at war with Israel forever. It doesn’t seem to be going too well for them. But they can suit themselves.

      • justicewillprevail
        May 26, 2012, 10:08 am

        What deluded nonsensical condescending platitudes. apparently you have no concept of who the aggressor is, in your blinkered world.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 28, 2012, 8:35 am

        I hold out hope that the evil at the heart of you demonic zionists will change and you will see the evil of your ways, get some well need humility and beg the forgiveness of those who you have oppressed for generations.

      • Mooser
        May 31, 2012, 9:49 pm

        “What deluded nonsensical condescending platitudes. apparently you have no concept of who the aggressor is, in your blinkered world.”

        Anything Fredblogs (and the others) to convice people that Jews are not fit to live with, he will do. Anything he can do to stir up hatred or mistrust towards Jews may lead to something good for Israel, in his view.

    • lyn117
      May 26, 2012, 7:12 pm

      If the quote from David Ben-Gurion is accurate “the old will die and the young will forget,” it was part of the Israeli plans from early on to escape the consequences of their crime by waiting for the original victims to die.

      Certainly before a lot of the refugees had been expelled, the zionists had stated plans to start a propaganda campaign to get them resettled elsewhere, as well as preventing cultivation by Arabs and destroying villages.

  5. Citizen
    May 24, 2012, 10:23 pm

    The USA was the largest donor in 2009 with a total contribution of around US$268 million, followed by the European Commission (US$232.7 million). These contributions made up 53 per cent of the total income UNRWA received for its regular budget. However, in terms of donations relative to population size and GDP per capita, the Scandinavian countries top the list.

    2011 budget was $1.2 B; increased needs due to events like OP Cast Lead; the organization is currently underfunded.

    • Citizen
      May 24, 2012, 10:33 pm

      Beneficiaries had to have lived in the British Mandate of Palestine for at least two years before fleeing Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, and must have lost both their home and livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, or 1967 War, or be the descendant of someone who had. In 2010, about 5 million Palestinians were registered under, this UNRWA’s working definition of who’s entitled to benefit from the program.

  6. justsayin
    May 24, 2012, 10:33 pm

    all the illegal activities, policies, crimes against humanity make a relevant state irrelevant & criminal. Just as it would anywhere in the world. It all seems to be comming to a head.

  7. Citizen
    May 24, 2012, 10:50 pm

    Israel would love it if UNHCR took over care of the Palestinian refugees, so the Palestinians would have no control themselves at all, or if the Arab countries with Palestinian camps would just absorb them as citizens. UNRWA was set up in the first place as separate from UNHCR because unlike other groups of refugees, they were stateless.

    • OlegR
      May 25, 2012, 5:16 am

      UNRWA was set up yo help the refugees rehabilitation
      but over the years it become a tool that perpetuates their suffering as refugees
      that wait indefinitely for the end of the conflict.
      This suits perfectly the Arab countries in which they are residing since
      it absolves them from any kind of responsibility for people (their Arab brothers )that live in their territories for 60 years now without even a semblance of
      any kind of rights (Hello Lebanon , Syria).

      • Talkback
        May 25, 2012, 10:37 am

        OlegR, being the Zionist hypocrit that you are, you don’t have any problems that it’s Israel which denies them their right to return to their home(land). And even in Israel Palestinians are not allowed to return to their home. Is it because people like you moved in after it has been confiscated by your “democracy”?

      • talknic
        May 25, 2012, 11:32 am

        OlegR May 25, 2012 at 5:16 am

        “UNRWA was set up yo help the refugees rehabilitation”

        UN General Assembly Resolution 302 (IV), of 8 December 1949 tells us exactly why it was set up. (No results for: “rehabilitation” “rehabilitate” “rehabilitated” “rehabilitating” “rehab”)

        “This suits perfectly the Arab countries in which they are residing since it absolves them from any kind of responsibility for people (their Arab brothers )that live in their territories for 60 years now without even a semblance of any kind of rights”

        Your Hasbarrow has a huge gaping hole, eaten away by the crap you load it up with ….

        The very fact that they are residing in the Arab States as refugees, shows the Arab States are abiding by at least their basic responsibilities and obligations to refugees. They’re not asylum seekers or seeking to immigrate. The host countries for refugees are not obliged to offer refugees citizenship.

        No one gets full citizenship rights in ANY COUNTRY unless they take up citizenship in that country and; if they take up citizenship in any country other than the country of return, as Jewish refugees did in Israel and many other countries around the planet, people are no longer considered refugees and they lose their Right of Return.

        The Arab States have voluntarily hosted Palestine refugees for 64 years at enormous costs. They have changed their legislature to accommodate the Palestine refugees desire to maintain RoR.

        The Arab States have fought wars on behalf of the Palestinians against the ‘peace loving’ neighbour who has illegally acquired Palestinian territory by war, illegally annexed Palestinian territory and illegally settled Palestinian territory.

        The Arab States for 27 years from 1920 to 1947, fought the legal battle for self determination for all of Palestine’s legitimate citizens, including Palestinian Jews until circa 1936, when the Zionist Federation first set foot in the region. (the Zionist Federation and its founders were not even from the region even though at the time the federation was founded, Jewish folk could have gone to Palestine, immigrated, bought land, settled anywhere in Palestine. Not even Herzl bothered)

        Even on the 15th May 1948 in the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine, the Arab States guaranteed democracy and freedom of religion almost word for word with the LoN Mandate for Palestine, esp Article 7

        “the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed.”

        There is nothing in your Hasbarrow olde chap. There is no valid justification for Israel’s illegal behaviour, nor has there ever been. There is only the US veto vote in the UNSC. All of Israel’s illegally acquired eggs are in one precious basket.

      • playforpalestine
        May 25, 2012, 10:48 pm

        talknic,

        Where did you get this revisionist history from? I’m not being rude, I’m genuinely curious. It is just SO wildly different than anything I have ever read about the conflict, and I’ve read a fair amount of books and articles on the subject from both sides of the conflict.

        “if they take up citizenship in any country other than the country of return, as Jewish refugees did in Israel and many other countries around the planet, people are no longer considered refugees and they lose their Right of Return.”

        Well, first of all, there is no such thing as an actual RIGHT of return. They lose their refugee status, true. But Israel is under no obligation to allow them a right of return. That said, a large amount of the refugees in question were Jordanian citizens between 1950 and 1988. They should have lost their refugee status then, but the UNRWA allows Palestinians to become citizens of another state while retaining their refugee status.

        “They have changed their legislature to accommodate the Palestine refugees desire to maintain RoR.”

        The Palestinians don’t want to keep the status quo in the hopes of one day attaining RoR. Polls suggest they would be very happy to have citizenship wherever they are currently.

        “Even on the 15th May 1948 in the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine, the Arab States guaranteed democracy and freedom of religion almost word for word with the LoN Mandate for Palestine, esp Article 7 ”

        While I think it’s great that they said these things, when they actually invaded they immediately ethnically cleansed all of the Jews from territory they held on to. Jordan expelled all of the Jews and then got to work demolishing the Jewish Quarter and all of the ancient synagogues and the cemetery at the mount of Olives, which was mined for raw materials (gravestones.) Jews and Christians were barred from entering East Jerusalem and having access to any of the holy sites under Jordan’s control.

        That document also said this: “The Governments of the Arab States recognise that the independence of Palestine, which has so far been suppressed by the British Mandate, has become an accomplished fact for the lawful inhabitants of Palestine. They alone, by virtue of their absolute sovereignty, have the right to provide their country with laws and governmental institutions. They alone should exercise the attributes of their independence, through their own means and without any kind of foreign interference, immediately after peace, security, and the rule of law have been restored to the country.”

        Obviously we know that Jordan remained and annexed the WB and EJ for itself, denying the Palestinians the self-determination it had assured them of.

        Basically nothing you cited here has any validity.

      • Hostage
        May 26, 2012, 5:36 am

        Well, first of all, there is no such thing as an actual RIGHT of return.

        Well Duh! Of course the argument that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to the displaced refugees of East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Canada Park, & etc. and their descendants is the hasbara hogwash that you’re here to peddle. But the ICJ has ruled that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies. Article 6 and 49(6) continue in force until the displaced persons are repatriated. `A US appropriations bill isn’t going to change the definition of the term in pre-existing UN resolutions or in Artile 1 of the 1951 refugee convention. If AIPAC thinks Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria are going to fund the refugees or grant more of them citizenship, they’re delusional.

      • talknic
        May 26, 2012, 6:01 am

        playforpalestine May 25, 2012 at 10:48 pm

        “Where did you get this revisionist history from?”

        Can you point to precisely what I have actually ‘revised’?

        “there is no such thing as an actual RIGHT of return”

        I see… I guess no Jewish folk had a right of return to the Arab States then and; Germany’s legislation giving RoR for Jewish folk even though they are no longer refugees, AND their lineal descendants, is meaningless. Meanwhile the UN disagrees with your unsourced opinion… link to unispal.un.org …. link to unispal.un.org

        ” Israel is under no obligation to allow them a right of return”

        Israel signed Armistice Agreements and; Peace Treaties with Jordan and Egypt and; Israel is a UN Member State… No?

        “a large amount of the refugees in question were Jordanian citizens between 1950 and 1988. They should have lost their refugee status then”

        Jordan annexed what became officially known as the West Bank as a temporary trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950) at the instance of the Arab States. As such Jordan offered temporary citizenship whilst it was the trustee and; agreed to relinquish its role to Israel in the ISRAEL-JORDAN PEACE TREATY

        “UNRWA allows Palestinians to become citizens of another state while retaining their refugee status”

        UNRWA ‘s mandate doesn’t extend to such matters

        “Polls suggest they would be very happy to have citizenship wherever they are currently”

        Are these neutral polls? Put them up…. thx … I’ll wait …

        “While I think it’s great that they said these things, when they actually invaded”

        They didn’t invade Palestine to create a state. Poor reading are obviously a prerequisite for propagandists

        “they immediately ethnically cleansed all of the Jews from territory they held on to”

        The US, the UK, Australia deported or interred Japanese, Germans during the war. It’s quite common, those countries either released or allowed their return after the war.

        Meanwhile under Plan Dalet, Jewish forces ethnically cleansed in the weeks BEFORE Israel was declared and Israeli/Jewish forces PERMANENTLY ethnically cleansed areas “outside of the State of Israel” after Israel was declared.

        “Jordan expelled all of the Jews”

        None fled the violence to the safety of Israel of their own volition? AMAZING!!

        ” and then got to work demolishing ..”

        How much was actually destroyed in the normal course of warfare? How much was partially destroyed and a danger and as a consequence was demolished?

        Jews and Christians were barred from entering East Jerusalem and having access to any of the holy sites under Jordan’s control”:

        Israeli emergency ordinance attached to the law of entry of 1948 (still in force) prevented/s Israeli residents and citizens from entering the territory of a hostile state. How many Japanese were allowed to enter the US in WWII? Germans allowed to enter Britain were they? A common occurrence in war.

        “That document also said this: “The Governments of the Arab States recognise that the independence of Palestine…. They alone should exercise the attributes of their independence, through their own means and without any kind of foreign interference, immediately after peace, security, and the rule of law have been restored to the country.”

        Obviously we know that Jordan remained and annexed the WB and EJ for itself, denying the Palestinians the self-determination it had assured them of.”

        Odd … The West Bank as it is now known, was legally annexed at the request of the Palestinians and; as I have shown above, only as a temporary trustee at the insistence of the other Arab States. They didn’t invade to form a state. They invaded to protect and restore order in what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine. There is no UNSC resolution condemning the Arab States invasion of Palestine BTW. Certainly no UNSC resolution condemning them for invading Israel.

        “Basically nothing you cited here has any validity”

        Uh huh .. I’ve actually ‘cited’ and provided sources. You have ‘cited’ NO THING. Providing only unsourced opinion.

      • Shingo
        May 26, 2012, 6:35 am

        Where did you get this revisionist history from? I’m not being rude, I’m genuinely curious. It is just SO wildly different than anything I have ever read about the conflict, and I’ve read a fair amount of books and articles on the subject from both sides of the conflict.

        So you’ve read all those books and yet when I simply asked you to produce a legal ruling or UN resolution supporting your repeated allegation that  Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank and EJ was illegal, you came up empty.

        All you could do was ask us to prove it was legal, which in itself stands as a deficit admission you were wrong.  So what books have you been reading?

        Is it any surprise that Talknic’s revelations are “SO wildly different than anything” you’ve “ever read about the conflict”?

        Well, first of all, there is no such thing as an actual RIGHT of return

        Do you ever stop to think before you type the first piece of garbage that comes to your head, or do you get a perverse thrill from being repeatedly humiliated in this forum?

        “The term right of return refers to a principle of international law, codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, giving any person the right to return to, and re-enter, his or her country of origin”
        link to en.m.wikipedia.org

        The right of return is also a customary norm of international human rights law and can be found in a plethora of international conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights  and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as regional human rights treaties. The general prohibition against forcible expulsion is also incorporated into international human rights law.

        Finally the right of return is also a very important element of refugee law. The principle of refugees’ absolute right of return to their place of origin (including their homes) is central to the implementation of durable solutions. According to UNHCR Executive Conclusion No. 40, “(a) The basic rights of persons to return voluntarily to the country of origin is reaffirmed and its is urged that international cooperation be aimed at achieving this solution and should be further developed.”

        The US-sponsored Dayton Accords is a very good example of a treaty that makes strong provisions for the return of people displaced by armed conflict. Following three years of interethnic civil strife between Serbs, Muslims and Croats, the warring parties initialled a peace agreement on 21 November 1995, in Dayton, Ohio (the final agreement was signed in Paris on 14 December 1995).

        The right of almost 2 million Bosnian refugees to return to their properties, or to receive compensation if this was not possible, was enshrined in the peace agreement.

        The most significant provision of the Dayton Agreements for the purposes of this discussion is contained in the Annex VII Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons.

        Article I of this Annex states that:

        1. All refugees and displaced persons have the right freely to return to their homes of origin. They shall have the right to have restored to them property of which they were deprived in the course of hostilities since 1991 and to be compensated for any property that cannot be restored to them. The early return of refugees and displaced persons is an important objective of the settlement of the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Parties confirm that they will accept the return of such persons who have left their territory, including those who have been accorded temporary protection by third countries.

        2. The Parties shall ensure that refugees and displaced persons are permitted to return in safety, without risk of harassment, intimidation, persecution, or discrimination, particularly on account of their ethnic origin, religious belief, or political opinion.

        The Palestinians don’t want to keep the status quo in the hopes of one day attaining RoR. Polls suggest they would be very happy to have citizenship wherever they are currently.

        Which polls are you referring to?

        Jordan expelled all of the Jews and then got to work demolishing the Jewish Quarter and all of the ancient synagogues and the cemetery at the mount of Olives, which was mined for raw materials (gravestones.)

        Putting aside the fact that Israel has leg to stand on (given it destroyed hundreds) of villages, then burrows them in pine Forrest plantations.

        Jews and Christians were barred from entering East Jerusalem and having access to any of the holy sites under Jordan’s control.

        This is simply rubbish of course.  Jews and Christians were barred from entering East Jerusalem, the ban applied to citizens and residents of Israel, including Muslims.  I personally know a Jewish couple to travelled to EJ in 1965.

        Obviously we know that Jordan remained and annexed the WB and EJ for itself, denying the Palestinians the self-determination it had assured them of

        Obviously you’re a pathological liar.  First you criticized the Jordanians for cutting the Palestinians lose when it dissolved the joint union, now you’re alleging the denied them self-determination for offering the Jordanian citizenship.

        FYI. Self determination can be exercised by a minority group within a state – if that state permits it.

         Is there anything you’re not prepared to lie about?

      • Djinn
        May 28, 2012, 5:32 am

        “So what books have you been reading?”

        Shngo, my money’s on “See Zionism run” and “Miffy goes to a settlement”

      • playforpalestine
        May 30, 2012, 12:46 am

        “I guess no Jewish folk had a right of return to the Arab States then and; Germany’s legislation giving RoR for Jewish folk even though they are no longer refugees, AND their lineal descendants, is meaningless.”

        Correct, they did not. Especially since they have since become Israeli citizens. Germany’s RoR is a decision they made, it doesn’t indicate mandatory international law, so yes, it is meaningless.

        “Meanwhile the UN disagrees with your unsourced opinion”

        From your link:”They do not, in particular, enjoy the right to return to their homes, as other nationals would do.”

        “Israel signed Armistice Agreements and; Peace Treaties with Jordan and Egypt and; Israel is a UN Member State… No?”

        Yes.

        “As such Jordan offered temporary citizenship whilst it was the trustee”

        I’m sorry, “temporary citizenship?” Where does anything regarding this event mention “temporary citizenship? Jordan rejiggered its Parliment, nothing about it was intended to be temporary. And the whole “trustee” thing came after the annexation as part of a deal Iraq brokered because the Arab League wanted to expel Jordan for its behavior. Jordan certainly never intended for its annexation to be temporary nor did it do anything to advance the cause of Palestinian nationalism. The PLO in its original charter even relinquished any claim to the West Bank, (presumably as per Jordan’s instructions.) Does that sound “temporary” to you?

        “agreed to relinquish its role to Israel in the ISRAEL-JORDAN PEACE TREATY”

        What are you saying here? Relinquish what role?

        “UNRWA ‘s mandate doesn’t extend to such matters”

        That was just a link to UNRWA’s website. At any rate, do the math. UNRWA counts previous Jordanian citizens as refugees. It counted them as refugees even while they were citizens. If you look at the mandate it does not disqualify Palestinians from claiming their refugee status merely because they gain alternative citizenship, putting their standard of “refugee” at odds with the generally accepted UN definition.

        “Are these neutral polls? Put them up…. thx … I’ll wait …”

        Excuse me, I recalled the poll incorrectly. The poll I thought of supported the idea that most Palestinians would not be truly interested in an Israeli RoR but would rather have a Palestinian state with Palestinian citizenship. This is borne out by the fact that so few East Jerusalem Palestinian permanent residents have applied for Israeli citizenship even though they have the right to do so.

        link to meforum.org

        “The US, the UK, Australia deported or interred Japanese, Germans during the war. It’s quite common, those countries either released or allowed their return after the war.”

        In this case they were not.

        “Meanwhile under Plan Dalet, Jewish forces ethnically cleansed in the weeks BEFORE Israel was declared…”

        There was ethnic cleansing on both sides. In the case of Hebron, for instance, the entire native Jewish population was either killer or expelled in 1929, far before the war or any violent acts perpetrated against Palestinians.

        “… and Israeli/Jewish forces PERMANENTLY ethnically cleansed areas “outside of the State of Israel” after Israel was declared.”

        “Outside of the State of Israel?” How so? No borders to the state were declared at that point. Regardless, I’d like to point out that again, this occurred on both sides, and more importantly that only Israel still has a significant population of the “other side’s” ethnicity/nationality/whatever you want to call it living as citizens within its state.

        “None fled the violence to the safety of Israel of their own volition? AMAZING!!”

        Of course they did. Most of the Palestinian refugees left under identical circumstances. Are you actually implying that this somehow makes them less qualified to be regarded as refugees, because they merely fled out of fear for their lives and not at the point of a gun barrel?

        “How much was actually destroyed in the normal course of warfare? How much was partially destroyed and a danger and as a consequence was demolished? ”

        I don’t have exact percentages. However, whatever was not destroyed out of wanton shelling during the actual war was then systematically dismantled afterwards. Here is an excerpt from a letter from the permanent representative of Israel to the UN secretary general:

        “Colonel Abdullah el-Tal, one-time commandant of the Jordanian Arab Legion, in describing the destruction of the Jewish Quarter, wrote in the volume of his Memoirs (Cairo, 1959):
        “… The operations of calculated destruction were set in motion…. I knew that the Jewish Quarter was densely populated with Jews who caused their fighters a good deal of interference and difficulty…. I embarked, therefore, on the shelling of the Quarter with mortars, creating harassment and destruction…. Only four days after our entry into Jerusalem the Jewish Quarter had become their graveyard. Death and destruction reigned over it….”

        “As the dawn of Friday, May 28, 1948, was about to break, the Jewish Quarter emerged convulsed in a black cloud – a cloud of death and agony.”

        After the cease-fire had entered into force and normal civilian administration had been restored in Jerusalem last June, a shocking picture was unfolded of the results of this policy of wanton vandalism, desecration and violation perpetrated during the period of Jordan occupation from 1948 onwards. In the Jewish Quarter all but one of the thirty-five Jewish houses of worship that graced the Old City of Jerusalem were found to have been wantonly destroyed. The synagogues had been razed or pillaged and stripped and their interiors used as hen-houses and stables. In the ancient historic Jewish graveyard on the Mount of Olives, tens of thousands of tombstones had been torn up, broken into pieces or used as flagstones, steps and building materials in Jordanian military installations and civilian constructions. Large areas of the cemetery had been levelled and converted into parking places and petrol-filling stations.”

        link to unispal.un.org

        “How many Japanese were allowed to enter the US in WWII? Germans allowed to enter Britain were they? A common occurrence in war. ”

        The 1949 Armistice Agreement Jordan signed supposedly allowed “free access to the holy sites and cultural institutions and use of the cemeteries on the Mount of Olives.” Not only were all Israelis barred from entering Jordan, but Jews from any country were also barred.

        “The West Bank as it is now known, was legally annexed”

        What about Jordan’s siege and eventual annexation of East Jerusalem would you consider legal? IOW, why is it legal for Jordan to invade EJ, kill or expel all of the Jews there, erase almost all of their religious and cultural sites (some dating from 2000 years ago), BUT it is considered illegal for Israel to allow Jews to return to that area some 20 years later?

        “They didn’t invade to form a state. ”

        According to the Arab League all Arab states were supposed to immediately leave all Palestinian territory once the war with Israel was completed. Jordan’s refusal to do so almost got them expelled from the Arab League and only after negotiating this “temporary trustee” thing were they allowed to stay. If the Palestinians wanted them there so badly they probably wouldn’t have assassinated their King, or continuously fought them for independence.

        “They invaded to protect and restore order in what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine.”

        And they kept the Palestinians in fetid refugee camps out of respect? Or did the Palestinians also request those?

        “There is no UNSC resolution condemning the Arab States invasion of Palestine BTW.”

        Is that supposed to mean something? The UN is ultimately a political organization. Please don’t pretend that they make their decisions according to some sort of ethical guidelines that are evenly applied to all member states. Just one example: in 2006-2007 the UNGA passed 22 resolutions condemning Israel. They passed none that even mentioned Darfur. Since its inception, the Human Rights Council has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other states combined.

        “Uh huh .. I’ve actually ‘cited’ and provided sources. ”

        Yes, but none of your citations or links actually directly proved any of your assertions. At least one of them offered evidence refuting what you wrote.

      • Shingo
        May 30, 2012, 4:48 am

        Germany’s RoR is a decision they made, it doesn’t indicate mandatory international law, so yes, it is meaningless.

        According to what evidence PFP? You don’t do yourself any favors by making stuff up and refusing to source it.

        From your link:”They do not, in particular, enjoy the right to return to their homes, as other nationals would do.”

        Actually, the word used in property, not homes, and it certrainly does not say they do not enjoy the right to return to their country.

        Jordan rejiggered its Parliment, nothing about it was intended to be temporary.

        How do you know what was “intended”? How do you know Jordan never intended for its annexation to be temporary? You make all these blatant statement without so much as producing a single link or citation.

        BTW. Hostage pointed out that the Jordan became a trustee trustee only at the instance of the Arab States.

        The PLO in its original charter even relinquished any claim to the West Bank, (presumably as per Jordan’s instructions.) Does that sound “temporary” to you?

        Please stop being such a lying idiot. You’re not even reading the entire passage of Artilce 24, which reads:

        This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.

        There was no relinquishing, it stipulated that it would not “exercise any territorial sovereignty” while Jordan was holding it. There is no mention that anything was relinquished.

        This is borne out by the fact that so few East Jerusalem Palestinian permanent residents have applied for Israeli citizenship even though they have the right to do so.

        Your link does not even mention how many East Jerusalem Palestinian permanent residents have applied for Israeli citizenship.

        There was ethnic cleansing on both sides. In the case of Hebron

        Sorry, but you’re just making a fool of yourself by including the Hebron Massacre, which took place nearly 20 years ealier as evidence of systematic ethnic cleansing. The evacuation of Jews from Hebron wasn’t even carried out by Palestinians, but by the British.

        “Outside of the State of Israel?” How so? No borders to the state were declared at that point.

        Was it not AFTER the Zionist leaders have accepted the partion of UNGA181? The borders were very clear, and Israel’s letter to the US explicitly referred to these borders.

        Regardless, I’d like to point out that again, this occurred on both sides, and more importantly that only Israel still has a significant population of the “other side’s” ethnicity/nationality/whatever you want to call it living as citizens within its state.

        First of all, the Palestinians that remained were not allowed out of kindness on the part of Israel so much as pressure from the Vatican and secondly, the Jewish population in Jerusalem and the West Bank was tiny compared to the Palestinian population originally inside Israel.

        What about Jordan’s siege and eventual annexation of East Jerusalem would you consider legal?

        Cut the BS PFP. Either come up with a ruling that the annexation was illegal or shut up. You’ve had long enough to think about it.

        IOW, why is it legal for Jordan to invade EJ, kill or expel all of the Jews there, erase almost all of their religious and cultural sites (some dating from 2000 years ago), BUT it is considered illegal for Israel to allow Jews to return to that area some 20 years later?

        Because the area it outside of Israel’s border and doing do is a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. Furthermore, ISrael is not simply allowing Jews to return to that area, it is trasporting it’s population to the area, while simultaenously expelling Palestinians.

        If this was about “allowing” Jews to return to Jerusalem, then logic would dictate they allow Palestinians to also return home.

        According to the Arab League all Arab states were supposed to immediately leave all Palestinian territory once the war with Israel was completed.

        That was not the agreement Jordan had with Britain.

        If the Palestinians wanted them there so badly they probably wouldn’t have assassinated their King

        If Israelis wanted peace so badly, I guess they wouldn’t have assassinated Rabin, much less elected the man who incited the hostility against him – Netenyahu.

        And they kept the Palestinians in fetid refugee camps out of respect?

        Just like Israel did to the Mizrahi Jews from the Arab States right?

        Or did the Mizrahi request those?

        Is that supposed to mean something? The UN is ultimately a political organization.

        Don’t make more of an idiot of yourself, of course it means something:

        1. The Arab League had informed the UN ahead of tone if their intentions. The UN entered no objection and neither did the British

        2. This was 1948 and tgr same UN had just voted to give the Jews 56% of Palestine, do your line argument that they were biased against the Jews fails at the first hurdle.

        Just one example: in 2006-2007 the UNGA passed 22 resolutions condemning Israel.

        First of all, that doesn’t prove anything one way or the other about the UN in 1948, secondly, Israel had shot itself in the foot by bombing UN targets in Lebanon, so put that down to typical Zionist monumental stupidity.

        the Human Rights Council has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other states combined.

        That’s because Israel has been in the business if human right violations for a lot longer.

      • playforpalestine
        May 30, 2012, 9:55 pm

        “when I simply asked you to produce a legal ruling or UN resolution supporting your repeated allegation that Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank and EJ was illegal, you came up empty.”

        Since when do UN rulings determine the legality of anything? You aren’t seriously going to take the stand that anything that the UN refrained from condemning is de facto legal, are you? Clearly Jordan had no right to annex any land taken by force, which EJ obviously qualifies as. Under whose authority do you find that this act could have possibly been legal?

        “The right of return is also a customary norm of international human rights law and can be found in a plethora of international conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”

        The treaties you mentioned don’t guarantee an unlimited right of return. Neither even mention the phrase. Additionally, neither gained any semblance of legal authority until decades after the war we’re discussing, so they clearly wouldn’t apply here anyway.

        They would apply though WRT Palestinians who desired to return to Jordan, wouldn’t they?

        “Finally the right of return is also a very important element of refugee law.”

        And yet it is not a law.

        “According to UNHCR Executive Conclusion No. 40…”

        Not a law.

        “The US-sponsored Dayton Accords is a very good example of a treaty…”

        Treaty regarding a specific conflict. aka: not a law.

        “Putting aside the fact that Israel has leg to stand on (given it destroyed hundreds) of villages, then burrows them in pine Forrest plantations.”

        Why’d you change the subject so abruptly to a completely unrelated topic? Does it have anything to do with the fact that what I wrote was 100% correct regarding the Arab’s failure to uphold even a single aspect of their Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine?

        “Jews and Christians were barred from entering East Jerusalem, the ban applied to citizens and residents of Israel, including Muslims”

        Ah good. So then you admit that Jordan stood in violation of the Armistice Agreement.

        “First you criticized the Jordanians for cutting the Palestinians lose when it dissolved the joint union, now you’re alleging the denied them self-determination for offering the Jordanian citizenship.”

        Which makes me a pathological liar how?

        “FYI. Self determination can be exercised by a minority group within a state – if that state permits it.”

        Except that Jordan responded by massacring tens of thousands of Palestinians.

        ” Is there anything you’re not prepared to lie about?”

        Disagreeing with you is not the same thing as lying. For the record, I don’t think that you are lying about anything. I think you are just greatly misinformed.

      • talknic
        May 31, 2012, 12:15 am

        playforpalestine May 30, 2012 at 12:46 am

        Max Abrahms / Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Is not a neutral organization.

        Your UN Link is to a letter containing accusations. Accusations are not evidence nor are they a UNSC resolution.

        ” none of your citations or links actually directly proved any of your assertions”

        Show how you reach this conclusion

        “At least one of them offered evidence refuting what you wrote:

        Cherry picking is cute..

      • Hostage
        May 31, 2012, 2:44 am

        Since when do UN rulings determine the legality of anything?

        Article 13 of the UN Charter provides that one of the functions of the General Assembly is to promote the progressive codification of international law.

        The General Assembly was the first international body to define and declare that genocide is an international crime. It also directed that a treaty be drafted and opened for signature by its member states, e.g. link to un.org

        The General Assembly was also the first international body to declare that apartheid is a crime against humanity. It also directed that a treaty be drafted and opened for signature by its member states. link to un.org

        The General Assembly ordered that a treaty be drafted on “The Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity” and opened it for signature by its member states. link to un.org

        I could go on, but you get the idea. 90 percent of the Post-WWII international conventions on international crimes were written and promulgated as annexes to General Assembly resolutions.

        The International Court of Justice has ruled in several contentious and advisory cases that the organs of the United Nations are competent to make legal determinations within the scope of their Charter functions and in fulfillment of their Charter purposes. The Security Council has adopted criminal statutes and created a number of ad hoc international criminal tribunals which function as its subsidiary organs to prosecute crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, & etc.

        The ICJ is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations and it can also determine that situations are illegal:

        That an illegal situation is not to be recognized or assisted by third parties is self-evident, requiring no invocation of the uncertain concept of “erga omnes”. It follows from a finding of an unlawful situation by the Security Council, in accordance with Articles 24 and 25 of the Charter entails “decisions [that] are consequently binding on all States Members of the United Nations, which are thus under obligation to accept and carry them out” (Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970, Advisory Opinion, I. C. J. Reports 1971, p. 53, para. 115).The obligation upon United Nations Members not to recognize South Africa’s illegal presence in Namibia, and not to lend support or assistance, relied in no way whatever on “‘rga omnes”. Rather, the Court emphasized that “A binding determination made by a competent organ of the United Nations to the effect that a situation is
        illegal cannot remain without consequence.” (Ibid, para. 117.) The Court had already found in a contentious case that its determination of an illegal act “entails a legal consequence, namely that of putting an end to an illegal situation” (Haya de la Torre, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 82). Although in the present case it is the Court, rather than a United Nations organ acting under Articles 24 and 25, that has found the illegality; and although it is found in the context of an advisory opinion rather than in a contentious case, the Court’s position as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations suggests that the legal consequence for a finding that an act or situation is illegal is the same.

        — Judge Roslyn Cohen Higgins, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory link to icj-cij.org

      • Shingo
        May 31, 2012, 4:50 am

        You aren’t seriously going to take the stand that anything that the UN refrained from condemning is de facto legal, are you?

        Stop fillibustering. I asked you for anything that proves the annexation was illegal, be it UN resolution, ICJ ruling or any ruling by an equally legitimate legal body.

        You said it was illegal. How do you know if you have no basis for that conclusion? You’d think that the Zionists, with all their resources, would have found a legal basis to accuse Jordan of behaving illegally. They’ve had 64 years to come up with one.

        Clearly Jordan had no right to annex any land taken by force, which EJ obviously qualifies as.

        It’s only clear and obvious once it’s been established by a legal body, so who ruled that Jordan had no right?

        It’s not incumbent upon me to prove legality. You’re the one claiming it was illegal. So where is your proof?

        The treaties you mentioned don’t guarantee an unlimited right of return. Neither even mention the phrase.

        That might be relevant if there was mention of limited right of return.

        Additionally, neither gained any semblance of legal authority until decades after the war we’re discussing, so they clearly wouldn’t apply here anyway.

        You’re still flying by the seat of your pants PFP. These findings did no set precedent . They were based on customary law, which was in place in 1948.

        And yet it is not a law.

        What are you babbling about? Refugee law is a law. What else do you think it is?

        <blockquote< Treaty regarding a specific conflict. aka: not a law.

        Dayton was based on refugee and customary international law, so yes it is.

        Does it have anything to do with the fact that what I wrote was 100% correct regarding the Arab’s failure to uphold even a single aspect of their Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine?

        What do you mean failure to uphold even a single aspect? You only cited one alleged violation.

        Ah good. So then you admit that Jordan stood in violation of the Armistice Agreement.

        Perhaps, but that is not evidence that the annexations was illegal.

        Except that Jordan responded by massacring tens of thousands of Palestinians. .

        Rubbish. The massacre took place AFTER Jordan has lost control of the territory.

      • OlegR
        May 31, 2012, 5:07 am

        I have been reading your exchange with Hostage for awhile now
        and i have to take my hat off to you.
        It takes a lot of patience and time do dig through the tons of his mostly irrelevant copy-paste and refute it while trying to stay focused when he tries to divert left and right.

        Not to mention dealing with the rest of the bunch
        putting in their little irrelevant contributions.

        It’s like watching a chess Grandmaster giving a simultaneous exhibition.

      • playforpalestine
        May 31, 2012, 6:00 am

        “Stop fillibustering. I asked you for anything that proves the annexation was illegal, be it UN resolution, ICJ ruling or any ruling by an equally legitimate legal body.”

        Hahahaha! Awesome. So you’re just retreating to demanding an absurdly specific benchmark before you’ll recognize any violation of law. Yeah, no one will figure that one out. The UN isn’t even a legal body, you’re just picking qualifications based on who is most biased against Israel.

        “It’s only clear and obvious once it’s been established by a legal body, so who ruled that Jordan had no right?

        It’s not incumbent upon me to prove legality. You’re the one claiming it was illegal. So where is your proof?”

        Thank you. By resorting to such blatantly dishonest debate you’re making this very easy. If Israel were actually in the wrong here I imagine you would not have to resort to such ridiculous tactics.

        “They were based on customary law, which was in place in 1948.”

        I’m sorry, but no. You have zero evidence because you are wrong.

        “What are you babbling about? Refugee law is a law.”

        Actually, you are just saying “refugee law” over and over again. There isn’t an actual law like you are describing.

        “Dayton was based on refugee and customary international law”

        No, Dayton is a treaty. The “refugee and customary international law” you’re mentioning is non-existent. Which is why you spent so much time describing Dayton… because the supposed actual law that it’s based on is imaginary.

        “Perhaps, but that is not evidence that the annexations was illegal. ”

        Well, unless you believe that any nation can legally invade, ethnically cleanse and then unilaterally annex territory outside of its own borders, whenever it wants, then you have to admit that Jordan’s annexation of EJ is illegal.

        “Rubbish. The massacre took place AFTER Jordan has lost control of the territory.”

        So? It still happened as I described.

      • playforpalestine
        May 31, 2012, 6:10 am

        “Max Abrahms / Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Is not a neutral organization.
        Your UN Link is to a letter containing accusations. Accusations are not evidence nor are they a UNSC resolution.”

        Do you refute the content of either link? Both are easily verifiable elsewhere.

        “Show how you reach this conclusion ”

        Example: “agreed to relinquish its role to Israel in the ISRAEL-JORDAN PEACE TREATY” The peace treaty said nothing about relinquishing its role to Israel re: palestinians.

      • Cliff
        May 31, 2012, 8:38 am

        Talknic,

        Doesn’t PFP remind you of Michael LeFavour? BTW did you ever hear from him again on your blog?

        I believe he showed up on MW for a time briefly and harassed Phil in email, then was subsequently banned. He told me this over YouTube, where he was spamming his usual nonsensical verbiage. I personally believe that that persona (LeFavour) reappeared here in the form of a one, Robert Werdine (this time pretending to be half-German, half-Arab and Muslim). Whereas LeFavour was apparently a Native American (lol) – both had the same M.O. of using ‘ethnocred’ to give themselves a backstory to their MW personas.

        PFP seems more mysterious but the verbiage is quite similar. Although, he seems to copy and paste Wikipedia articles. That is one thing I believe Werdine/LeFavour would not do because in spite of the fact that the latter was full or shite, they were at least experts at bloviating.

      • Shingo
        May 31, 2012, 8:49 am

        So you’re just retreating to demanding an absurdly specific benchmark before you’ll recognize any violation of law.

        You’re certifiably insane. I asked you a very simple question. You declared that Jordan’s actions were illegal. Now assuming you have not been appointed a world court judge, one has to assume you came to this conclusion based on what you read with regard to it’s legality.

        What is so absurdly specific about asking proof of illegality? Hostage has already debunked your claim that the UN isn’t a legal body – the fact that the UNSC can pass enforceable resolutions proves you wrong – but he ICJ certainly is, so let’s start there. In fact, let’s lower the bar even further, how about citing any court ruling anywhere!!

        The UN isn’t even a legal body, you’re just picking qualifications based on who is most biased against Israel.

        You’ve clearly given up even trying to make sense, and are just retreating into your bubble of paranoid delusion. It’s beyond ridiculous that anyone can claim that the same body that gave 56% of Palestine to 30% of the population (who only had ownership of 7% of land at the time), and admitted them as full members, can accuse it of being biased against it. In fact, Israel was admitted to the UN a year after Jordan took control of the West Bank and EJ. If the UN was so biased against Israel, why did they admit them as members, especially seeing as Israel’s militias were already situated beyond Israel’s declared borders?

        Thank you. By resorting to such blatantly dishonest debate you’re making this very easy. If Israel were actually in the wrong here I imagine you would not have to resort to such ridiculous tactics.

        What tactics? Israel’s intransience is there is black and white within the preamble of UNSC 242. You really are making an utter spectacle of yourself.

        I’m sorry, but no. You have zero evidence because you are wrong.

        Prove it. No one believes a thing you say, so you’d best back it up with a source.

        Actually, you are just saying “refugee law” over and over again. There isn’t an actual law like you are describing.

        Yes there is. Hostage has already explained this to you, but here goes again:
        All refugee communities, whether those under the care of UNRWA or UNHCR, have their refugee status passed through the generations while their plight remains unresolved. Refugees in Kenya administered by UNHCR are a good example. In this regard, the accusation that UNRWA uniquely perpetuates the Palestine refugee problem is ignorant of international refugee law and practice.
        link to ynetnews.com

        No, Dayton is a treaty.

        Yes, it’s a treaty based on customary intertional law. Treaties that violate customary intertional law are DOA.

        Well, unless you believe that any nation can legally invade, ethnically cleanse and then unilaterally annex territory outside of its own borders, whenever it wants, then you have to admit that Jordan’s annexation of EJ is illegal.

        It would if that’s what Jordan did, but that’s not the case. Jordan didn’t invade anyone. It entered territory (as per the agreement with the British), to defend the Arab portion of Palestine, just as the US did with Kuwait when it was invaded by Iraq. Jordan then put the annexation to a vote. Invasions require a military force to arrive without the consent of the resident population.

        Again, if it was illegal, then cite the proof. Don’t just stamp your feet and expect to be taken seriously.

        So? It still happened as I described.

        No it didn’t. You described it in context of the 1948 war, not something that took place 22 years later and 3 year after Jordan had lost control of the West Bank and EJ. It was not a massacre to quell Palestinian independence in the West Bank.

      • Hostage
        May 31, 2012, 12:42 pm

        Clearly Jordan had no right to annex any land taken by force, which EJ obviously qualifies as.

        You keep talking about the joint entity Jordan as if it were merely Transjordan. There never was a political entity named “Jordan” prior to January 1949. Jordan always included the inhabitants of Arab Palestine in accordance with the resolutions of the Palestinian Arab Congress held at Jericho in December of 1948. Unlike Israel, “Jordan” was created by Palestinian and Transjordanian bodies that represented the majority of the population. The King retained the laws that had been in effect during the mandate era until a Jordanian national plebiscite was conducted and the newly elected representatives of the joint government adopted the Act of Union in 1950. Volume 2 of the US State Department’s Digest of International Law, M. Whiteman (ed), pages 1163-1168 outlines all of the steps taken, starting with the Jericho Congress and ending with the Act of Union as a textbook example of how sovereignty over territory is acquired through a legal act of annexation brought about as a result of the will of the two peoples.

        Those same steps were outlined in the written and oral submissions of the State of Jordan to the ICJ during the course of the Wall case in 2003-4.
        link to icj-cij.org

        The Court’s legal analysis of the status of the Palestinian territory included a determination that it was part of the territory of Jordan, a High Contracting party to the Geneva Conventions in 1967. There was no finding that Jordan had been established illegally or that portions of its population had been illegally implanted in the territory.

        The Court determined that Israel captured Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem and held them in a state of belligerent occupation. It noted the 1988 declaration of independence from Jordan, but held that nothing had subsequently changed the status of the occupied Palestinian territory since 1967 and that Israel had illegally transferred portions of its own population into the territory in violation of its obligations under Article 49(6) of the Geneva Conventions. See paragraphs 70-134 link to icj-cij.org

      • Hostage
        May 31, 2012, 2:49 pm

        I’m sorry, “temporary citizenship?” Where does anything regarding this event mention “temporary citizenship?

        The 1950 Act of Union between the two banks stipulated that it did not prejudice any final settlement of the question of Palestine. Some people interpret that to mean the arrangement was provisional or temporary. But Transjordan itself was one of the two states established within the boundaries of the Palestine mandate. Its legal status depended upon reaching a final settlement of the question of Palestine too.

        The PCIJ and a League of Nations Court of Arbitration had ruled in 1925 that Palestine, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq were states under mandate to Great Britain and France. Their status was governed in accordance with the treaties between the Allied and Central powers that ended WWI and the terms and conditions imposed by the Council of the League of Nations.

        When Transjordan applied for membership in the UN in 1946, the Jewish Agency and several members of the Security Council claimed that it was an integral part of the Palestine Mandate which had not yet been legally terminated. The Council of the League of Nations had established the formal requirements regarding the termination of a mandate regime in 1932. The Council required that all of the territories subject to a mandate regime be emancipated at one and the same time.

        The Jewish Agency and their allies on the Security Council asked that any UN decision on Transjordan’s international status be delayed until the UN could address “the status of the Palestine Mandate as a whole”. The frontier between Palestine and Transjordan was subsequently treated as an interstate boundary (i.e. not an international boundary) during the deliberations by the UN. After the mandate itself was terminated by the General Assembly, the emancipated Arab inhabitants took steps to maintain the status quo ante in-line with the recommendations of the UN Mediator on a final settlement of the “Palestine Question”.

        Folke Bernadotte had proposed that a union be established between the former Arab territories of the mandate under UN auspices. The General Assembly decided that it no longer had any authority to impose such a solution on the inhabitants of an emancipated territory without their consent. When the UN failed to take any action, the inhabitants took the necessary steps themselves. The final settlement between Israel and Jordan contains a reservation that safeguards the status of all the territory that came under the control of the Israeli military in 1967.

        Accepting citizenship in a successor state by operation of law does not alter the status of a refugee who is still internally displaced or who finds him or her self outside their former country of habitual residence. That’s especially true in situations where the successor government cannot offer the refugees protection against persecution if they were to return to their former homes in accordance with the applicable UN General Assembly resolutions that govern their final disposition.

        You can play Three Card Monty all that you’d like, or engage in semantics with the various meanings of the term “Jordan” over time, but the former Transjordan isn’t Palestine. At times it has been part of the Palestine mandate or part of one of the mandated State of Palestine’s legal successors in interest. The UN determined that refugees from the former Palestine that were exiled by the new government of the State of Israel did not loose their Palestine refugee status by accepting citizenship in Jordan, since it was Palestine’s successor in interest.

      • Taxi
        May 31, 2012, 3:22 pm

        Heck my goldfish’s got more mystery than pfp!

        Namaste cliffy!

      • Hostage
        May 25, 2012, 3:37 pm

        UNRWA was set up yo help the refugees rehabilitation
        but over the years it become a tool that perpetuates their suffering as refugees that wait indefinitely for the end of the conflict.

        Paragraph 3 of Resolution 194(III) tasked the Security Council P5 with the job of picking three member states that would make-up the Palestine Conciliation Commission.

        The United States was one of the three member states selected. It in-turn helped developed the definition of the term “Palestine refugee” used by the UNRWA, because several definitions were in use at the time. It also decided that it was “premature” to carry-out its mandate to determine which refugees wished to return and live in peace and which preferred compensation instead:

        17. The Technical Committee felt that it was premature to enter into a detailed study of the question of “which refugees wish to return to their former homes and which do not”, because this question involves ultimate political decisions. The Committee felt that, beyond the sampling of opinion in various camps, a detailed study of this question could not be made at present.

        link to unispal.un.org

        So the US has been instrumental in the adoption of a strategy that has indefinitely postponed the payment of compensation by Israel to countless Palestinians. That compensation would have enabled them to lead normal lives elsewhere. That has left them and their host countries impoverished and dependent on the UNRWA for relief. Israel has been the beneficiary of the tax dollars spent on the UNRWA, because it would have been pressed to disgorge the stolen assets from the JNF and its custodian of abandoned property decades ago.

    • playforpalestine
      May 29, 2012, 10:19 pm

      Citizen,

      All refugees, by definition are stateless. Once a refugee becomes a citizen of a state they lose their status as a “refugee.” Right now many, if not most UNRWA workers are themselves Palestinian, which would violate the rules were they cared for by the UNHCR instead. There are excellent reasons that the UNHCR doesn’t allow members of refugee groups to administer aid to themselves, and they have everything to do with preventing the distribution of aid and resources from becoming tied up in regional political conflicts.

      Most Israelis would welcome the creation of a Palestinian state provided that its existence brought more stability and security to the region. Few Israelis support the settlers or their goals and would be delighted to engage in some kind of land for peace deal, provided that they actually got some peace in exchange for their concessions.

      • Shingo
        May 30, 2012, 1:47 am

        Most Israelis would welcome the creation of a Palestinian state provided that its existence brought more stability and security to the region.

        False. Netenyahu was elected on a platform opposing a Palestinian state. This plicy remains central to the Likud Chater.

        Few Israelis support the settlers or their goals

        False again. The majority support the settlements.

      • playforpalestine
        May 30, 2012, 4:57 am

        “False again. The majority support the settlements.”

        I’m sorry, what you wrote here is absurd. Do you have anything at all to back it up with? Netenyahu was elected on a platform opposing a Palestinian state? OK, so show me.

      • Shingo
        May 30, 2012, 7:05 am

        I’m sorry, what you wrote here is absurd. Do you have anything at all to back it up with?

        It’s absurd that you believe that and yes I do.

        link to haaretz.com
        link to ynetnews.com

        Bibbi only agreed to a butchered concept of a Palestinian state in May/June 2009 after much arm twisting.

        link to msnbc.msn.com

      • Cliff
        May 31, 2012, 8:18 am

        Bibi Yahoo is expanding the settlements (like every other Israeli PM) in defiance of the American proposal for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. This implies a meaningful settlement freeze (i.e., indefinite) – in spite of the overlap of Israeli-firsters in our government who’d say otherwise (as if some other country’s colonial enterprise in the worlds powder keg, benefits us somehow, HA).

        So no “playforpalestine” or whomever you are since you apparently posted on MW previously under a different identity – the Israeli public do not care about a 2SS. Nor does the Israeli government or Bibi. The Palestinian people have nothing to trade but their dignity and their ‘sumud’ – which they will never yield.

        Hence, what will likely happen is the same old: Israel will slowly continue its colonial project over time with distractions in the periphery like Iran’s nuclear program. And in the US, Jewish Establishment/Israel Lobby will continue to propagate the image of this conflict as one between a still Holocaust-traumatized Jewish piñata surrounded by a horded of intolerant Arab Islamic fundamentalist mixed in with some ‘good’ Arabs (but not really), i.e., the States that happily sold out to American regional interests.

        Palestinian non-violence will continue to be simultaneously downplayed in its frequency and profundity (no Palestinian Gandhi meme) as well as equating the BDS movement with the Nazi boycott on Jewish economy pre-WW2.

        These histrionics are designed to alienate the already cowardly and uninterested observers in ‘the middle’ – because this is America and in America we are terrified of identify politics. We are terrified of being called racists or bigots or antisemitic (it’s own unique identifier; which is an example of the self-fulfilling prophecy of the existence of identity politics in the American theater).

        Things will just get worse. But at the same time, there are forces working against trolls like you, PFP. The ISM – who are in Palestine and who have DIED reporting from the ground.

        The Israelis and Palestinians, together side by side, protesting together. The American and British intellectuals who are educating their students. The social media which has changed minds greatly in the past few years.

        Things happen slow but things happen nonetheless.

        We don’t have much I guess but we never did anyway. So I suppose there is no point in getting hopes up now. All one can say about the Israel-Palestine tragedy is that we must hold on to the truth with all our might and never lose hope. That’s all we can do. We are fragile. This is real life. Not some movie. In real life. People who hold firm, die. Like Rachel Corrie. Or Tom Hurndall.

        Me? Or Hostage? or Phil? Or Shmuel? Or Danaa? Or all the ther regulars here? They are so much more informed and experienced than I am. AND they are Jewish too. That must be special. To be Jewish and to feel this connection, this outrage at this ideology and what it has wrought.

        But they are aren’t dead. And we are all thankful we are not Rachel Corrie. Or Tom. Or so many others. May they never be forgotten.

        Hold on to the truth and do your part, however small or large or in-between it is. Thank god for MW (and I say that as a devout atheist).

        Long live House Palestine.

      • eljay
        May 30, 2012, 8:14 am

        >> Few Israelis support the settlers or their goals and would be delighted to engage in some kind of land for peace deal, provided that they actually got some peace in exchange for their concessions.

        Of course they would be delighted. Criminals would love nothing more than to return only a minute fraction of the vast sums they have stolen from their victims in exchange for absolution for their crimes.

        The arrogance of preyonpalestine’s statement is impressive. Coming from a hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist, however, it’s not at all surprising.

      • Hostage
        May 30, 2012, 1:39 pm

        All refugees, by definition are stateless. Once a refugee becomes a citizen of a state they lose their status as a “refugee.”

        That’s totally incorrect. Refugees are simply persons who find themselves outside their country of nationality who can no longer rely on their own governments for protection. That’s why the refugee convention and protocol are completely separate from the UN Conventions on Statelessness.

        The 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol
        *http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html
        UN Conventions on Statelessness
        *http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4a2535c3d.html

        Try reading article 1 of the Refugee Convention. Refugees remain eligible for UN benefits until their status is resolved in accordance with the applicable resolutions of the General Assembly. That will not change as a result of a Senate request for a statistical report.

      • gamal
        May 30, 2012, 6:33 pm

        would Palestinians better be described as displaced persons?

  8. Citizen
    May 24, 2012, 11:14 pm

    Total US contributions to UNRWA since 1949 Is a bit over $4 Billion, the same as what US will give Israel in October.

    Imagine if Israel had to service Gaza and the West Bank instead of UNRWA doing it. Gee, imagine that plus Israel getting cut off from US foreign aid. Imagine loan guarantees were actually called in; imagine Israel’s credit rating if US did not underwrite Israeli debt.

    In the end, the 5 million Palestinians remain stateless, and impoverished. If they are not refugees, what are they?

    • OlegR
      May 25, 2012, 5:18 am

      You are forgetting the rest of the countries Citizen.
      Lebanon , Jordan ,Syria that should also be over.

    • playforpalestine
      May 25, 2012, 9:51 am

      “Imagine loan guarantees were actually called in”

      What do you mean? The US gives Israel loan guarantees, sure. But the loans are taken out and repaid by Israel. Not the US.

      • tree
        May 26, 2012, 11:57 am

        What do you mean? The US gives Israel loan guarantees, sure. But the loans are taken out and repaid by Israel. Not the US.

        The loan guarantees save Israel considerable money in the form of reduced commercial interest rates, since the US loan guarantee greatly reduces the risk of default on the loan. As for Israel repaying its debts to the US government itself:

        The United States has not canceled any of Israel’s debts to the U.S. government, B> but the U.S. government has waived repayment of aid to Israel that originally was categorized as loans. Following the 1973 war, President Nixon asked Congress for emergency aid for Israel, including loans for which repayment would be waived. Israel preferred that the aid be in the form of loans, rather than grants, to avoid having a U.S. military contingent in Israel to oversee a grant program. Since 1974, some or all of U.S. military aid to Israel has been in the form of loans for which repayment is waived. Technically, the assistance is called loans, but as a practical matter, the military aid is grant. From FY1974 through FY2003, Israel has received more than $45 billion in waived loans.

        link to fas.org

        (The above is from the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress)

        Also, from the same source above:

        Of the more than $90 billion in aid the United States has provided Israel through FY2003, about $75 billion has been grants and $15 billion has been loans.

        Grants are by nature not repaid.

        In addition, among all countries, Israel is the only one that is allowed to spend over 25% of its military aid procurement in its own country or elsewhere. In other words, the aid money is not required to be spent on US manufactured military equipment. Thus over a quarter of all US military aid to Israel provides no direct or indirect benefit to US companies.

        Other special benefits Israel receives:

        ! ESF cash transfer: The United States gives all ESF [Economic Support Funds] funds directly to the government of Israel rather than allocating funds for specific projects. There is no accounting of how the funds are used. (Israel does send an annual letter describing Israeli payments to the United States for debt servicing.) A number of other nations receive part of their ESF as cash transfers, but not under such flexible conditions.

        ! FMF offsets: Israel receives offsets on FMF purchases (contractors agree to offset some of the cost by buying components or materials from Israel). Although offsets are a common practice in commercial contracts (countries dealing directly with U.S. firms), GAO said offsets on FMF sales were “unusual” because FMF is intended to sell U.S. goods and services. [my note: this is over and above the 25% of FMF(Foreign Military Funding) that Israel can spend outright to purchase materials made in Israel,]

        ! Early transfers: In 1982, Israel asked that the ESF funds be transferred in one lump sum early in the fiscal year rather than in four quarterly installments, as is the usual practice with other countries. The United States pays more in interest for the money it borrows to make lump sum payments. AID officials estimate that it cost the United States between $50 million and $60 million per year to borrow funds for the early, lump-sum payment. In addition, the U.S. government pays Israel interest on the ESF funds invested in U.S. Treasury notes, according to AID officials. It has been reported that Israel earned about $86 million in U.S. Treasury note interest in 1991.

      • playforpalestine
        May 29, 2012, 10:30 pm

        “The loan guarantees save Israel considerable money in the form of reduced commercial interest rates, since the US loan guarantee greatly reduces the risk of default on the loan. ”

        Very true. (That’s the whole point of doing it.) As is the rest of your post, I don’t dispute any of the facts you mentioned here. My earlier point was in regards to loan guarantees made by the US to Israel for non-US loans. If it was a US loan then there would be no reason for a loan guarantee, obviously. Whatever tricky accounting was utilized to lessen oversight of how Israel used US loan money, those loans were, for all practical purposes, grants, not loans. Obviously that’s not what I’m talking about when I reference non-US loans to Israel that the US effectively co-signed for.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 30, 2012, 1:23 am

        save Israel considerable money (That’s the whole point of doing it.)

        if you are an israel firster. but as an american firster how is it beneficial?

      • playforpalestine
        May 30, 2012, 4:58 am

        “if you are an israel firster. but as an american firster how is it beneficial?”

        How does it hurt us?

      • Annie Robbins
        May 30, 2012, 3:37 pm

        i noticed you diverted from answering my question, so i will assume you’re acknowleging, at a minimum, you understand it is not to our benefit. it can hurt us the same way securing a loan for someone can be not in your benefit. iow, if they do not pay it back you’re stuck with the note.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        In a perfect world, they wouldn’t cost the United States a cent. Israel—or Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan, all of which snagged loan guarantees as postwar rewards—could borrow on the international markets, then pay off the loans completely, leaving the United States with no financial obligation. But Israel has already received nearly $10 billion in loan guarantees from the United States since 1992, and while it has yet to default on any of those loans, this new round of guarantees is intended in part to help Israel pay off the old debt. Which means the United States could be stuck with a bill ranging anywhere from zero to $9 billion plus interest.

      • playforpalestine
        May 31, 2012, 7:54 am

        “i noticed you diverted from answering my question, so i will assume you’re acknowleging, at a minimum, you understand it is not to our benefit. ”

        I believe it is to our benefit in the same ways that keeping Israel as a close ally offers both states mutual advantages. As far as aid to Israel goes loan guarantees offer a great return on our investment. It doesn’t cost us anything (so far) while it saves Israel a lot of money. And relatively speaking the amount of risk we are incurring is miniscule. 9 billion dollars? That’s really nothing for the US, even assuming the worst case… a total default. Which seems very unlikely.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 31, 2012, 9:57 am

        It doesn’t cost us anything (so far)

        did you read tree’s link? link to fas.org

        From FY1974 through FY2003, Israel has received more than $45 billion in waived loans.

        how does waiving 45 billion in debt not amount to it costing the US anything? or were you referencing israel when you say ‘us’, because i would agree with you there, it is costing israel nothing. as usual they are always on the receiving end with their hand out.

      • Shingo
        May 31, 2012, 9:57 am

        As far as aid to Israel goes loan guarantees offer a great return on our investment.

        How so? Meir Dagan and Anthony Codersman have both stated that Israel is a strategic liability.

      • Shingo
        May 31, 2012, 9:59 am

        how does waiving 45 billion in debt not amount to it not costing the US anything?

        Especially when you factor in the interest the US pays on that money (which is borrows) and the interest it then pays to Israel on that money when Israel uses it to buy treasuries.

  9. Henry Norr
    May 25, 2012, 2:26 am

    Did the “U.S. government” really approve the Kirk amendment? My understanding was that it was just the Senate Appropriations Committee that was scheduled to debate it on Thursday, as part of the 2013 appropriation for the State Department and foreign operations. If true, that would mean it still has to go to through the full Senate, then get reconciled with the House version, then get signed by Obama.

    I’m not saying it won’t go all the way through, but I don’t think that has happened yet.

    • Hostage
      May 25, 2012, 6:44 am

      No, you are correct. As I understand it the Kirk amendment was watered-down and a provision was added that allowed the State Department to waive the collection of the data if it would adversely impact our relations with other governments in the region, like of Jordan or Lebanon.

      The State Department’s objections were provided in a letter here which said that the measure won’t end-up saving the US any money. link to scribd.com

  10. Michael Levin
    May 25, 2012, 3:38 am

    A good time to revisit the video “Which Side are You On, Kirk?”:

    The video was produced by The Committee for a Just Peace in Israel and Palestine; for more information about Kirk’s extreme views on Israel see: link to twopeoplesonefuture.org

  11. Taxi
    May 25, 2012, 6:17 am

    And them euro zionists who falsely claim a hereditary refugeedom as old as 2000 years?! When are we gonna ‘expose’ their vast real estate swindle?

  12. pabelmont
    May 25, 2012, 7:08 am

    Interesting that the concept of “refugee” is defined as people “whose place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948 and who were personally displaced as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict”. This requires BIRTH before May 1948 inside Palestine (maybe as early as June 1946) and DISPLACEMENT after May 1948. But we know that many were displaced before May 15, 1948.

    Wonder if this brilliant piece of legislation defines “1948 Arab-Israeli” conflict and whether it includes the fighting between November 1947 and May 15, 1948 — before the State of Israel had been declared.

    • maggielorraine
      May 25, 2012, 12:28 pm

      That is a really, really good point. I wonder if it is just the result of US politicians utter lack of understanding on the situation, or something purposefully sinister.

    • seafoid
      May 25, 2012, 1:26 pm

      Ultimately the republicans want to defund UNRWA.
      The decision could be the end of Israel.

      “History is a record of effects, the vast majority of which nobody intended to produce.” Joseph Schumpeter

  13. Talkback
    May 25, 2012, 10:38 am

    Exploding Myths about Palestinian Refugees: UNRWA, UNHCR and the Palestine refugees
    link to prc.org.uk

  14. John Smithson
    May 25, 2012, 12:50 pm

    Just sent this by email to Senator Kirk:
    His website: link to kirk.senate.gov

    Just a quick note regarding your recent legislation proposal: “It shall be the policy of the United States with regard to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) that a Palestinian refugee is defined as a person whose place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who was personally displaced as a result of the 1948 or 1967 Arab-Israeli conflicts, who currently does not reside in the West Bank or Gaza and who is not a citizen of any other state.”

    Did you really intend to not count the children and grandchildren of persons displaced in 1948 or 1967 as refugees?

    This thinking could be applied to the Jewish claim on Israel thru a similar ‘refugee’ status lasting hundreds to even thousands of years.

    Seems a bit one-sided, but I would like to hear what you have to say about this question.

    Sincerely,

    • Fredblogs
      May 25, 2012, 1:05 pm

      Bad analogy. I don’t think anyone counts the Jews in general as refugees. Any country that wants to is free to offer Palestinians, or Muslims generally, automatic citizenship. Just as any country that wants to is free to offer automatic citizenship to Christians, or Buddhists, or Atheists. Israel chooses to offer citizenship to Jews, not because they are refugees, but simply because Israel wants to.

      • talknic
        May 25, 2012, 3:05 pm

        Fredblogs May 25, 2012 at 1:05 pm

        “I don’t think anyone counts the Jews in general as refugees”

        Correct. Having taken citizenship in countries other than that of return, they are no longer refugees.

        Any country that wants to is free to offer Palestinians, or Muslims generally, automatic citizenship”

        Indeed. If they want it. The Palestinians have maintained a desire to return.

        <em"Israel chooses to offer citizenship to Jews, not because they are refugees, but simply because Israel wants to"

        The operative word now is more likely “needs” to. A) In order to maintain a Jewish majority B) to keep feeding the illegal settlement industry. Where a state sells territory OUTSIDE of it’s recognized sovereign extent, to developers and duped illegal Israeli settlers who think, or want to believe, they’re living in Israel.

      • Talkback
        May 25, 2012, 4:00 pm

        “Any country that wants to is free to offer Palestinians, or Muslims generally, automatic citizenship. Just as any country that wants to is free to offer automatic citizenship to Christians, or Buddhists, or Atheists.”

        But Israel is obliged under international law and human rights law (and even Resolution 181) to automatically transfer it’s nationality to all citizens of Palestine habitually residing inside Israel’s territory before 15 may 1948. The same automatic nationality transfer happenend in 1925 when all former Ottoman subjects in Palestine’s territory became citizens of Palestine. The same also happened in Kosovo.

      • playforpalestine
        May 30, 2012, 6:00 am

        “But Israel is obliged under international law and human rights law (and even Resolution 181) to automatically transfer it’s nationality to all citizens of Palestine habitually residing inside Israel’s territory before 15 may 1948. ”

        Haha. No it wasn’t. By all means, show me.

      • Shingo
        May 30, 2012, 7:18 am

        No it wasn’t. By all means, show me.

        “THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open to the immigration of Jews and for the Ingathering of the Exiles from all countries of their dispersion; will promote the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; will be based on the precepts of liberty, justice and peace as invisaged by the prophets of Israel; will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex; will guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture; will safeguard the sanctity and inviolability of the shrines and Holy Places of all religions; and will dedicate itself to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

        link to brijnet.org

      • playforpalestine
        May 30, 2012, 9:24 am

        That’s lovely. All countries should strive for such goals.

        Now, where does it say that Israel had to “automatically transfer it’s nationality to all citizens of Palestine habitually residing inside Israel’s territory before 15 may 1948″ by which I assume you mean all of the Palestinians who were expelled or fled during the war?

      • Hostage
        May 30, 2012, 6:07 pm

        Haha. No it wasn’t. By all means, show me.

        Resolution 181(II) contained precise steps to handle the transfer of sovereignty, including the subsections under section “C. Declaration”, including:
        *Chapter 1: Holy Places, Religious Buildings and Sites
        *Chapter 2: Religious and Minority Rights
        *Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations.
        *Chapter 4: Miscellaneous Provisions

        The new states were required to grant citizenship, not only to the citizens of Palestine, but any non-citizens who had established residency in the territory of either the Arab or Jewish states during the mandate era. FYI, that included about 200,000 of the Jews living there according to the Survey of Palestine that had been performed for the Anglo-American Commission in 1946.

        According to customary international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.” See Ian Brownlie, “The Relations of Nationality in Public International Law,” The British Year Book of International Law, 1963, p. 220.

        The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People submitted a report on Israel’s continuing legal obligations to the Security Council that said:

        19. In this respect, it was pointed out that Israel was under binding obligation to permit the return of all the Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the hostilities of 1948 and 1967. This obligation flowed from the unreserved agreement by Israel to honour its commitments under the Charter of the United Nations, and from its specific undertaking, when applying for membership of the United Nations, to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, safeguarding the rights of the Palestinian Arabs inside Israel, and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, concerning the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or to choose compensation for their property. This undertaking was also clearly reflected in General Assembly resolution 273 (III).

      • Blake
        May 27, 2012, 9:16 am

        fredblags: A squatter with delusions of grandeur.

    • Citizen
      May 25, 2012, 3:18 pm

      Thanks for sharing, John Smithson. I just followed suit.

    • Hostage
      May 25, 2012, 6:02 pm

      This thinking could be applied to the Jewish claim on Israel thru a similar ‘refugee’ status lasting hundreds to even thousands of years.

      Correction: Resolution 194(III) has always applied to “Palestine refugees”, not Palestinian refugees. That’s because 17,000 Jewish refugees were registered with the UNRWA and its predecessor and filed claims for lost or destroyed property and assets in accounts with the Palestine Conciliation Commission. FYI, everyone knows that the Israeli Supreme Court has awarded properties to Jews on the basis of pre-1948 titles without benefit of any negotiations, while the other Palestinians are being denied a legal remedy.

  15. eljay
    May 25, 2012, 1:40 pm

    >> Israel chooses to offer citizenship to Jews, not because they are refugees, but simply because Israel wants to.

    Israeli chooses to offer citizenship to Jews because Israel was created – by means of terrorism and ethnic cleansing – to be a supremacist Jewish state.

  16. Light
    May 25, 2012, 2:28 pm

    Exactly Fred. Israel government policy is inherently discriminatory.

  17. American
    May 25, 2012, 2:56 pm

    Look, this move to defund Palestine refugees has been going since 2006 and it is entirely ‘US Israel -Firster- Fifth -Column in Congress’ led. Go to thomas or govtrack and look up all the bills prior to this one. They have been submitted and resubmitted every year for years .

    Their are multiple purposes in this…..

    # To reduce the official number of Palestine refugees because of the right of Return Claim.
    # To reduce the numbers of refugees in the event any kind of reparations would have to be paid in lieu of right of return.
    # To force the countries the Palestine refugee camps are located in to absorb them as citizens or as non citizen residents making them no longer “Palestines’.
    # To destroy any kind of identification with Palestine or movement aligned with Palestine among the refugees so they will not be a’ unified group’ and will have to seek out other ways of survival in other countries.

    IOW..erase Palestine and Palestines.

    Personally my vote would be to erase Israel- Zios and the Israel Firsters..the sooner , the better.
    Before they erase any more of the US or Palestine.

    • Citizen
      May 25, 2012, 3:19 pm

      Well said, American.

    • seafoid
      May 25, 2012, 5:54 pm

      # To force the countries the Palestine refugee camps are located in to absorb them as citizens or as non citizen residents making them no longer “Palestines’.

      And the Lebanese are just dying for this to happen. This kind of delusion is what led the US to Iraq. And what happened ?

      # To destroy any kind of identification with Palestine or movement aligned with Palestine among the refugees so they will not be a’ unified group’ and will have to seek out other ways of survival in other countries.

      And this is really going to work . After 6 months they will reinvent themselves, start speaking English and launch tech companies with the goal of listing on Nasdaq.

      I can’t believe the Jews behind this have so little understanding of their own tortured history and how identity and belonging make sense for people who have nothing.

  18. American
    May 25, 2012, 6:59 pm

    I was looking around to see what Zios are currently doing (using or meddling in) in other countries and found this example….interesting for the fact that ”The European Jewish Congress”… is actually trying to dictate to another country what kind of political parties they can have and what ones to ‘ban’.

    link to timesofisrael.com

    ”European Jewish Congress pushes for ban on far-right Greek party
    Group urges ‘emergency measures’ to protect the continent’s Jewish communities from violent hate crimes”
    May 17 2012

    May 17, 2012, 5:16 pm

    The party in question is not a neo nazi party and did well in the recent elecions, it’s mostly a right wing party against immigration that Israel calls ‘far right’ which it is or may be …but so what?
    Hummm…telling another country what political parties they have to ban?….real gall.

    I was ruminating yesterday on how the world was trending into splitting into self protecting tribes and since there is currently no more well known or recongized or resented political tribal group than Israel and the Zios, how they think they will escape what they have sowed and helped sow is beyond me. Maybe the tribes will confine it to fighting it out in their own countries…..however if it gets big enough they could chose up sides like countries did in WWI and make it a world war….come to think of it, isn’t that the Zios wanted wanted all along?…a world wide clash of cultures war.

    • Fredblogs
      May 25, 2012, 7:39 pm

      “real gall” says the man telling Israel to dissolve itself.

      • Djinn
        May 28, 2012, 5:42 am

        No dissolving neccesary, just give equal rights to all those living under Israeli rule. Does it really not bother you to think the ONLY way Israel can exist as a state is as an institutionally racist (AKA apartheid) one?

    • playforpalestine
      May 30, 2012, 5:54 am

      “I was ruminating yesterday on how the world was trending into splitting into self protecting tribes and since there is currently no more well known or recongized or resented political tribal group than Israel and the Zios, how they think they will escape what they have sowed and helped sow is beyond me. Maybe the tribes will confine it to fighting it out in their own countries…..however if it gets big enough they could chose up sides like countries did in WWI and make it a world war….come to think of it, isn’t that the Zios wanted wanted all along?…a world wide clash of cultures war.”

      Except this article had nothing at all to do with Israel or Zionism. It was about Jews and anti-semitism. Do you really think that you can just replace the word “Jew” with “Zionist” in ANY situation and no one will ever notice?

  19. American
    May 25, 2012, 8:33 pm

    Still looking at overseas political trends.

    Guardian has it right, deny people justice and fairness and they will get it by simpler and uglier methods.

    link to guardian.co.uk
    Rise of the far right: simpler and uglier
    Democracy matters. When Brussels or Berlin loses sight of that simple fact, voters reach for simpler and uglier solutions

    And what could be more typical than this. World Jewish Congress…who has done everything possible to create hatred of Muslims and Arabs in their self serving ‘partnership” with the US on the GWOT and supported every Israeli atrocity….is now so worried about the rise of right wing anti-ethnics and nationalist parties that they have had to hold their noses and grab onto the Muslim skirt tails to decry…”we are in this together..all right wing parties have to be destroyed”.
    What they are afraid of is that Israel, Jews, Zionist will get swept up by the same foaming at the mouth national purist parties they helped create.
    Tell me these aren’t the stupidest people on earth…they eat, sleep and breath the holocaust, they brush their teeth and gargle with it every morning….and yet?….they have no grasp whatsoever that once you foster tribalism, ethnic hatreds or resentments it spreads, you can’t always control it or aim it like a smart precision bomb, it doesn’t stay confined to one ‘different’ group or target, it’s all differents.

    link to worldjewishcongress.org

    Muslims, Jews warn Europe: Mainstreaming of far-right parties is unacceptable
    07 March 2011

    Prominent Muslim and Jewish leaders from across Europe gathered in Paris have pledged to stand together against the rise of far-right xenophobic and racist parties that represent an escalating peril to ethnic and religious minorities across Europe, including Jews and Muslims. Members of the Coordinating Committee of European Muslim and Jewish Leaders, including top communal leaders from Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the US, announced plans for a series of public events in European capitals, on 9 May (Europe Day). The leaders expressed deep concern about the emergence into the political mainstream of extremist parties in many European countries and declared that it was “totally unacceptable” that several of these parties had been accepted by governing coalitions as tacit partners where they are allowed to help shape the agenda.”

    Contending that “Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and racism must never be allowed to become respectable,” the leaders expressed disquiet over recent pronouncements by European statesmen including President Sarkozy of France, Chancellor Merkel of Germany and Prime Minister Cameron of Britain, characterizing multiculturalism as a failure; comments that have been cited by far-right parties as evidence that they are winning the battle for public opinion in Europe. Promising to press European decision-makers not to co-operate in any way with extremist parties, the Jewish and Muslim leaders vowed: “We will not allow ourselves to be separated, but will stand together to fight bigotry against Muslims, Jews and other minorities. An attack on any of us is an attack on all of us.”
    ‘’Citing studies which show that anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are both growing rapidly in countries across Europe, the communal leaders affirmed that “Jews and Muslims are equal stakeholders in Europe, not expendable guests, and must therefore enjoy the same rights as everybody else. Appeasing those that sow the seeds of hatred and division is not only morally wrong, but will have disastrous consequences for Europe if allowed to continue.”

    Well, all I can say to the WJC is, you called down the thunder boys, now ride the whirlwind.

    Or for the religious among us…Galatians 6:7, 8 – for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.”

    • American
      May 25, 2012, 8:44 pm

      And can they please come up with new slogan instead of “An attack on any of us is an attack on all of us.”

      They used that with the Jewish Holocaust was an ‘attack on the world.’
      They used it with Islam is ‘threat to the world and all of us.’
      They used it with Iran is “a threat to the world and all of us.”

      There are very few groups or people in the world who could be less ‘us’ or less part of the world than the zios. They opted out of the world community long ago.

  20. Blake
    May 26, 2012, 3:05 am

    “Yet, culpable though the Lebanese govt undoubtedly is, the real culprit is the Israeli govt, which by refusing to come to a settlement with the Palestinians, is directly & horrendously responsible for the plight of those immured in the camps [in Lebanon]. It makes me more determined than ever to fight for the rights of the Palestinian people & to campaign against the deliberate decision of the Israeli govt to perpetuate the hell in which so many Palestinians are living”. – Sir Gerald Kaufman, son of Holocaust survivors, and veteran UK MP.

    • playforpalestine
      May 30, 2012, 9:31 am

      “Yet, culpable though the Lebanese govt undoubtedly is, the real culprit is the Israeli govt, which by refusing to come to a settlement with the Palestinians, is directly & horrendously responsible for the plight of those immured in the camps [in Lebanon].”

      Nooooo. Really. Lebanon is who is directly responsible.
      In no way is Israel forcing Lebanon to treat those Palestinians so horribly. Do you actually agree with this guy?

      • Taxi
        May 31, 2012, 7:59 am

        playforpalestine,
        The very conception of israel is a crime in itself. Under immense zionist bribery, bullying and international political arm-twisting, the League of Nations voted to give EUROPEAN jews half of historic Arab Palestine without the consent of either the Palestinian natives or the ENTIRE REGION. The nation of Palestine did NOT belong to the LN in the first place to give away so it’s perfectly understandable that the ethnic-cleansing european zionist swindlers would be counter-attacked by the Arabs. Any reasonable mind would call this a defensive measure. The creation of this racist white colony (israel) created some 800,000 brown-skinned Palestinian refugees and imprisoned the rest under a colonialist militancy. So like where do you get off, being a white euro/yank, telling us that Apartheid israel is the victim in this picture? You’ve been provided with fact after fact demonstrating the criminal irresponsibility and illegitimacy of Apartheid israel but it seems that you are suffer from acute intellectual bulimia. You ain’t nowhere as smart or informed as Hostage, Shingo etc and ALL your pathetic arguments have been refuted on this site a zillion times. In other words: you’re a real bore and a hack – and you’re a Nakba denier who should be banned from this site same as a holocaust denier.

  21. seafoid
    December 14, 2012, 8:39 am

    I think we need to distinguish between the property rights of Jews personally displaced by the Romans and those who are their descendants.

Leave a Reply