Attack on historical maps ad says Israelis have only gained land thru ‘defensive wars’

Israel/Palestine
on 46 Comments

The Journal News in New York’s Hudson Valley has published an attack on the new commuter rail ads we’ve been so excited about for describing Palestinian dispossession. “Railway ads present a skewed portrayal of Israel,” by two officials of the American Jewish Committee, Scott Richman and Larry Grossman, seems significant because it doesn’t smear the ads as anti-Semitic but is earnest and engaged. So the battle is on! Some potted history in this response:

One would never know from the ad that the area shown on the maps was the homeland of Judaism and the Jewish people; that Jews have lived there for more than 3,000 years; and that those exiled from the land never stopped praying to return there. Similarly, the ad makes no mention of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, whereby Great Britain promised the nascent Zionist movement a Jewish “national home” there, a pledge that became part of international law when endorsed by the League of Nations.

And the ad is discreetly silent about why the Palestinians have lost land. It’s not due to Israeli aggression. Rather, the Palestinian leadership has consistently refused to compromise and allow any Jewish sovereignty, of whatever size, in the land. Enlargement of Jewish territorial holdings has come in defensive wars fought reluctantly in order to stay alive…

In vain, Israel has attempted for years to reach agreement with the Palestinians, just as it did with Egypt and Jordan, so that a Palestinian state could be created that lives side-by-side in peace with Israel. Even today, the Palestinian Authority refuses to sit down with Israeli negotiators unless endless demands are met in advance. And, by the way, here’s another thing the ad conveniently ignores: More than 2 million Arabs are Israeli citizens, with equal rights.

Note that the writers’ claim is specifically contradicted by yesterday’s New York Times, in which Jodi Rudoren described Palestinian citizens of Israel as second class–“citizens of a state whose defining philosophy most find alienating at best, often considered enemies within, with a list of complaints about discrimination in employment, education and housing”– and in which Palestinians likened their status to that of blacks under Jim Crow.

46 Responses

  1. Scott
    July 14, 2012, 11:18 am

    I’m not necessarily a fan of the Balfour Declaration, but didn’t it say a homeland for the Jews should be constructed without prejudice to the rights of the indigenous inhabitants, rather specifically? (I’m sure someone here has the exact quote.) I would think virtually everything Israel has done, from ethnic cleansing in ’48 to house demolitions and denial of water today would be in violation of that statement. Can’t they find a better justification in international law? Probably not.

    • ritzl
      July 14, 2012, 11:47 am

      The ethnic cleansing started in ’47, which puts all the other legalistic and “Arab” “volatility” arguments to bed. But, yeah.

    • American
      July 14, 2012, 12:42 pm

      Here is what it said and all it said.

      link to historylearningsite.co.uk

      November 2nd, 1917
      Dear Lord Rothschild,
      I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty’s government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved, by the Cabinet:
      His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
      I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
      Yours,
      Arthur James Balfour

      I’d say zionist Israelis dropped a atomic bomb on the Palestines ‘civil’ rights.

    • Blake
      July 14, 2012, 1:11 pm

      Balfour Declaration was nothing more than a letter sent to Lord Rothschild who was the funder and creator of the secret society ‘Round Table’ to which Balfour was a member and the letter was written by Lord Rothschild for Balfour to send. After WW1 Versailles Peace conference where sanctions were imposed on Germany which saw Hitler rise to power Rothschilds used Jewish suffering to push for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

      The Command Paper of 1922:
      “Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.’ His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated …. the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine.”

      link to avalon.law.yale.edu

      “The cause of unrest in Palestine, and the ONLY cause, arises from the Zionist movement, and from our promises and pledges in regard to it.” Sir Winston Churchill- June 14, 1921, House of Commons

      Avi Shlaim, Israeli historian : “Britain had no moral or legal or legal right to promise the land that belonged to the Arabs to another people so the Balfour Declaration was both immoral and illegal.”

    • Misterioso
      July 14, 2012, 7:38 pm

      To be precise, the 1917 Balfour Declaration did not call for either a “homeland” or a “state” for Jews in Palestine. It called for a “national home” which is neither a state nor a homeland. Bearing in mind that at the time Palestine was a province of the Ottoman Empire, the Balfour Declaration was also illegal, i.e., in violation of the established legal maxim Nemo dat quod non habet (nobody can give what he does not possess). Chaim Weizmann knew this full well: “The Balfour Decalaration of 1917 was built on air.”

      Furthermore, the resulting League of Nations Mandate for Palestine was a Class A Mandate, i.e., Palestine was to be administered by Britain as a whole until its citizens were able to assume democratic self-rule. There was no reference whatsoever to a Jewish state or homeland or any form of partition.

      This was made very clear in the Churchill Memorandum (1 July 1922) regarding the British Mandate: “[T]he status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status.”

      Also, regarding the British Mandate, as approved by the Council of the League of nations, the British government declared: “His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should
      become a Jewish State.” (Command Paper, 1922)

    • ColinWright
      July 15, 2012, 3:45 pm

      The bloody ‘Balfour Declaration’…

      1. It referred to a territory over which Britain didn’t even exert sovereignty at the time. If you like, I’ll agree you should own the house across the street. That hardly gives you title to it.

      2. It merely stated what the British government ‘viewed ________ with favor.’ I may well ‘view with favor’ Mondoweiss reaching his fundraising goal — that in no way obliges me to make up any shortfall. Indeed, I’m perfectly free to ‘view with favor’ some alternative use for the funds — like going to Hawaii, which I have every intention of doing this fall.

      3. It merely discussed a ‘national homeland’ — which both the attached conditions and subsequent definition by various parties including the Zionists themselves made clear was in no way synonymous with an independent state.

      4. In particular, the attached conditions made it clear that the declaration was in no way to be held to sanction a violation of the rights of the existing population — a proviso which Israel has consistently violated right from the start.

      The Zionists have persistently acted as if the Balfour Declaration was some kind of Magna Carta for Israel. It was nothing of the kind. It was a non-committal statement of good wishes for something clearly much less than the ‘Israel’ that came into being.

      At the time (1917), the outcome of World War One was still very much in doubt, and there was some fear that the Germans would endorse Zionist aspirations. The British were merely seeking to steal any potential thunder — but were taking good care not to commit themselves to much of anything in doing so. That’s all the Balfour Declaration was — a meaningless piece of fluff. It never pretended to be anything else.

      • Blake
        July 15, 2012, 4:57 pm

        I always have this handy if I see them mention that Balfour pile o’crock written by Lord Rothschild himself for Balfour to send:
        Avi Shlaim, Israeli historian : “Britain had no moral or legal or legal right to promise the land that belonged to the Arabs to another people so the Balfour Declaration was both immoral and illegal.”

  2. traintosiberia
    July 14, 2012, 11:18 am

    Israeli often trumpet through ram’s horn the claims of providing equal rights to Arab -Israeli.Its patently false. But it is no surprise to hear that from somebody who thinks Balfour declaration is a legal binding documents.Did not the British give the half of the world to themselves at one time?

  3. Avi_G.
    July 14, 2012, 11:43 am

    “[p]otted” is a euphemism that masks the truth.

    The historical record/information that the AJC mentioned in their letter is both a lie and a fabrication.

  4. Avi_G.
    July 14, 2012, 12:00 pm

    Had the same methods been utilized when writing a letter about the Holocaust, the letter would have been rejected as Holocaust Denial and Abe Foxman would have screeched at the top of his lungs.

    Anyway, as early as December 1947, Zionist forces were ethnically cleansing Palestinian villages. link to lw.palestineremembered.com

    The war — for those who are ignorant of the historical record — occurred in May 1948.

    The only war in which Israel was factually and truly acting in self-defense was the 1973 war.

    But, that war was started by Syria and Egypt with the aim of recovering territories that — ironically — Israel had captured in its expansionist and offensive war of 1967.

    We know all this because Israeli generals and politicians admitted as much after the fact.

    And anyone who needs citations and sources, can easily search the archives on Mondoweiss where this topic was already discussed several dozen times.

  5. heb
    July 14, 2012, 12:37 pm

    I recommend Victor Kattan’s book ‘ From Coexistence to Conquest’ for anything to do with I/P and international law. Excellent. Good to have to hand when zionists are around.

    • Citizen
      July 16, 2012, 7:19 am

      Thanks, heb: Snippets from a review of Kattan’s book:
      Victor Kattan states that “the claim of Palestine’s indigenous inhabitants to self-determination was based on effective occupation and continuous habitation whereas the Zionists’ was aligned to British imperialism” (p 126) (At the time, self-determination was only a principle, not a right recognized in international law)

      Kattan also discusses the legal, moral and political grounds that informed Palestinian objections to the 1947 UN Partition Plan. He links events in Europe and their effect on Palestine and explains that the Partition Plan allocated disproportionate areas to the Jewish state in order to solve Europe’s refugee problem at a time when Western Europe and North America were refusing to resettle those refugees mainly because they were Jewish.

      Kattan’s book’s novelty lies in its use of new information, data and facts revealed in the last twenty years to update (to 2010) the legal analysis of events. This is especially evident in the chapters about the refugee problem and the 1948 war. In the latter, Kattan observes that international lawyers tend to overlook the armed conflict of 1948, instead of analyzing the chronology of events leading up to and during the war, thus creating a gap in the literature. Kattan takes international lawyers to task for adhering to a simplistic and inaccurate characterization of the 1948 war, and proceeds to fill the gap by providing new analysis that closely examines the course of the 1948 conflict and the atrocities that took place during the war. Kattan does so to “challenge the prevailing view in legal scholarship that the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states were the aggressors of 1948 who wanted ‘to throw the Jews into the sea'” (p 172).

      From Coexistence to Conquest ends with a quote by former British Foreign Secretary Sir Arthur Balfour describing the 1917 declaration which bore his name. Balfour stated that the policy of creating a Jewish national home in Palestine is a “great experiment, because nothing like it has ever been tried in the world, and because it is entirely novel” (251). While the suffering of the millions displaced ever since, the thousands killed and the further millions whose lives have been affected over the past hundred years until today calls into question the success of Balfour’s experiment, Kattan’s book successfully and methodically shows how law was used, or rather abused, in this experiment.
      link to uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.com

  6. Dutch
    July 14, 2012, 12:45 pm

    If the battle is on, I think it would be a good idea if anyone could write a piece in the same paper that refutes the article. The NYT would be a good pick too, hopefully getting a picture of the ad included.

  7. American
    July 14, 2012, 1:07 pm

    Pick out the crimes Israel has committed.

    Rome Statutes
    Article 6
    Genocide
    For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    (a) Killing members of the group;
    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

    Article 7
    Crimes against humanity
    1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

    (a) Murder;
    (b) Extermination;

    (c) Enslavement;

    (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

    (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

    (f) Torture;

    (g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

    (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

    (i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

    (j) The crime of apartheid;

    (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

    2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
    (a) “Attack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
    (b) “Extermination” includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;

    (c) “Enslavement” means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;

    (d) “Deportation or forcible transfer of population” means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;

    (e) “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;

    (f) “Forced pregnancy” means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;

    (g) “Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;

    (h) “The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

    (i) “Enforced disappearance of persons” means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

    3. For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term “gender” refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term “gender” does not indicate any meaning different from the above.

    Article 8
    War crimes

    1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

    2. For the purpose of this Statute, “war crimes” means:
    (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
    (i) Wilful killing;
    (ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

    (iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

    (iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

    (v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;

    (vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

    (vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

    (viii) Taking of hostages.

    (b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
    (i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
    (ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

    (iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

    (iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

    (v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

    (vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

    (vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;

    (viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

    (ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

    (x) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

    (xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

    (xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given;

    (xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemy’s property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

    (xiv) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;

    (xv) Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of the war;

    (xvi) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

    (xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons;

    (xviii) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;

    (xix) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;

    (xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;

    (xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

    (xxii) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;

    (xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;

    (xxiv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

    (xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

    (xxvi) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

    (c) In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:

    (i) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
    (ii) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

    (iii) Taking of hostages;

    (iv) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.

    (d) Paragraph 2 (c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.
    (e) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

    (i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
    (ii) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

    (iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

    (iv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

    (v) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

    (vi) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;

    (vii) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities;

    (viii) Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;

    (ix) Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary;

    (x) Declaring that no quarter will be given;

    (xi) Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

    (xii) Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;

    • ColinWright
      July 15, 2012, 3:14 pm

      This is fun — even if it does lead to prodigiously long posts. I’ve put my selections in bold.

      “Pick out the crimes Israel has committed.

      Rome Statutes
      Article 6
      Genocide
      For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

      (a) Killing members of the group;
      (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

      (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

      (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

      (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

      Article 7
      Crimes against humanity
      1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

      (a) Murder;
      (b) Extermination;

      (c) Enslavement;

      (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

      (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

      (f) Torture;

      (g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

      (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

      (i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

      (j) The crime of apartheid;

      (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

      2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
      (a) “Attack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;

      (b) “Extermination” includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;

      (c) “Enslavement” means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;

      (d) “Deportation or forcible transfer of population” means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;

      (e) “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;

      (f) “Forced pregnancy” means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;

      (g) “Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;

      (h) “The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

      (i) “Enforced disappearance of persons” means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

      3. For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term “gender” refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term “gender” does not indicate any meaning different from the above.

      Article 8
      War crimes

      1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

      2. For the purpose of this Statute, “war crimes” means:
      (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
      (i) Wilful killing;
      (ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

      (iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

      (iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

      (v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power:

      (vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

      (vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

      (viii) Taking of hostages.

      (b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
      (i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
      (ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

      (iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

      (iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

      (v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

      (vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

      (vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;

      (viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

      (ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

      (x) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

      (xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

      (xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given;

      (xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemy’s property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

      (xiv) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;

      (xv) Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of the war;

      (xvi) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

      (xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons;

      (xviii) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;

      (xix) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;

      (xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;

      (xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

      (xxii) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;

      (xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;

      (xxiv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

      (xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

      (xxvi) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

      (c) In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:

      (i) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
      (ii) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

      (iii) Taking of hostages;

      (iv) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.

      (d) Paragraph 2 (c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.
      (e) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

      (i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
      (ii) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

      (iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

      (iv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

      (v) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

      (vi) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;

      (vii) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities;

      (viii) Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;

      (ix) Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary;

      (x) Declaring that no quarter will be given;

      (xi) Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

      (xii) Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict…”

      I was tempted to add some of the sections I haven’t highlighted — such as those pertaining to rape. IDF forces have raped women. However, it hasn’t been either a pervasive or a sanctioned policy. I confined myself to those violations that are clearly part of the Israeli M.O. On the whole, Israel really has managed to achieve a remarkably comprehensive violation of all civilized norms of conduct.

      • American
        July 15, 2012, 3:50 pm

        A+ Colin

        Also include this one…for Israel indefinite detentions without trials and kidnapping of children of Palestines and Gestapo snatches of whoever they feel like snatching on given any day without any real charges.

        “Enforced disappearance of persons” means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

    • asherpat
      July 15, 2012, 5:27 pm

      “For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

      (a) Killing members of the group;
      etc etc

      I contend, that unfortunately, despite the good intentions, the definition is unworkable, since “intent to destroy, in whole or in part” can be applied to irrelevant cases. For example, a local feud between Allawites and Sunnis that results in a single death can be interpreted as genocide, because there is no definition of “in part” and a single individual can be defined as “a part” of a group, therefore “Genocide”.

      • American
        July 16, 2012, 1:56 am

        @asherpat

        The statute law does go on to explain how that is determined or judged….”intent’ ..regardless of motive or what motive is offered…”pattern”…as in the repeated pattern of attacks and so forth…and of course the results.

        IOW Israel for instance could ‘claim’ everything they did in Palestine was for self protection but their ‘actions’ and the ‘pattern’ of their actions can be judged as their real “intent” by the “results” of it regardless of what “motive” they claim.

      • asherpat
        July 16, 2012, 3:15 pm

        @american,

        does the statute have any measure of “success” of “genocide”? Cos if it does, then the “genocide” that you attribute no doubt to Israel, is extrememy inefficient and really is an abject failure. Can you give us some numbers of Palestinian Arabs at recent decades where their mumber actually declined?

      • American
        July 16, 2012, 4:02 pm

        @asherpat

        ,yawn,yawn, yawn……and no I don’t do errands for zios ……look it up yourself, after all you only have to go hasbara central to quote something… whereas we non zios have to actually find the real documents and facts…..lol.

      • Cliff
        July 16, 2012, 6:12 pm

        Who cares Asherpat.

        The slow-ethnic cleansing of Palestine is enough for Israel to achieve it’s strategic goals. That is the point – to steal the best land and to maintain a demographic majority which translates to political power (Jewish ZIONIST majority).

        So the entire notion of decreased Arab populations is a non-issue. It’s just an exotic argument to make by propagandists and liars like yourself to portray Israel as a benevolent occupier.

        As if the Palestinians should be thanking Israel for only ethnically cleansing them. Things could be worse, right? Blah blah Syria, blah blah China (oh wait, China is IN now!)!

      • asherpat
        July 18, 2012, 4:24 pm

        @Cliff

        where exactly i am “liars like yourself”? Can you show me a liar? If not, please apologise.

        But my comment will be moderated anyway, so dont worry.

      • Mooser
        July 18, 2012, 5:58 pm

        No asherpat, it says “intent”. Even if, as you say, “success” is absent you just admitted intent, by indicating what you think “success” will be- genocide. Intent will not be very hard to prove. In fact, Zionists like yourself will trumpet it to the heavens, because you have no understanding of civilised and legal norms.
        Now if you want to blame the Gentiles for that, go ahead. You could probably make a very good case for it. But it’s like this Asherpat: I don’t care if somebody can prove to me that they are blind due to the viscious or negligent actions of somebody else, I still won’t hire them as a bus driver.
        Do you understand that?

  8. radii
    July 14, 2012, 1:20 pm

    yeah, and when new IDF soldiers were sent out to break the arms of Palestinians to “blood” these new soldiers (inure them to the cruelty they’d be asked to exact), that was defensive training

  9. American
    July 14, 2012, 1:25 pm

    Richman and Grossman’s come back just reminds those of us who know a little something of what absolute liars the US pro Israel community is…it’s sickening really.
    Now who wants ‘to discourse’ or ‘communicate” with inveterate liars? Not any practical people…we have better ways to waste our time. The only thing they should be given in the way of acknowledgement is ridicule.

  10. AllenBee
    July 14, 2012, 1:43 pm

    can anyone help me figure out —

    Are Karmeil and Misgav in Occupied territory or in pre-1967 Israel?

    link to en.wikipedia.org In 1956, about 1,275 acres (5.16 km2) of land in the Israeli Arab villages of Deir al-Asad, Bi’ina and Nahf were declared “closed areas” by Israeli authorities. This area, near the main road between Acre and Safed, had been an important marble quarrying site. In 1961, the Israeli authorities expropriated the land to build Karmiel. The **villagers** {which villagers, Jewish or Arab?} offered “equally good land” in the area, but when Moshe Sneh (Maki) and Yusef Khamis (Mapam) brought the case to the Knesset on behalf of the villagers, the Knesset established that there was no such land.[7] According to the Haredi newspaper She’arim, about 10 square kilometres (3.9 sq mi) (394 lots) were confiscated by a court order on 4 March 1963, at the request of the Israel Development Authority. However, the land was rocky, uninhabited and unfit for agriculture.[8] In 1964, when local Arabs applied for permission to move into the town, Minister of Housing Yosef Almogi replied that “Karmiel was not built to solve the problems for the people in the surrounding area.”[9] In February 1965, 400 protesters marched from Tel Aviv to protest against “discrimination of a group of **our citizens**”.{who is “our”?} Representatives went to a local police station, informing the police that **they** {??} were staying in the area without permission. Eventually the perceived leaders were arrested and tried before a military tribunal.[10] “

  11. talknic
    July 14, 2012, 2:06 pm

    Scott Richman and Larry Grossman do Hasabra 101.

  12. Eva Smagacz
    July 14, 2012, 3:37 pm

    Gaining land in a defensive war is like defending England and ending with Rotherdam, or defending USA and inadvertently owning Tokyo.

    • tokyobk
      July 14, 2012, 8:08 pm

      though the US did in effect own Tokyo till the 50’s and Okinawa till the 70’s and still has significant military presence.

      • ColinWright
        July 15, 2012, 3:01 pm

        However, I have never heard us describe our entire participation in World War Two as a ‘defensive war.’ In fact, we openly got off the defensive and onto the offensive as soon as possible. Made a point of it, in fact.

      • Light
        July 15, 2012, 4:03 pm

        Nonsense. The US never owned Tokyo. The American Army occupied Japan after WWII. Unlike the Israeli occupation in Palestine, The US did not confiscate land, property or businesses nor did the US try to annex or colonize Japan.

  13. DICKERSON3870
    July 14, 2012, 9:31 pm

    RE: “Enlargement of Jewish territorial holdings has come in defensive wars fought reluctantly in order to stay alive…” ~ the hasbarists at the American Jewish Committee

    MY COMMENT The Six-Day War was not a defensive war, and all the hasbara in the world can’t change that!
    “The trouble with lying and deceiving,” Arendt explains, “is that their efficiency depends entirely upon a clear notion of the truth that the liar and deceiver wishes to hide. In this sense, truth, even if it does not prevail in public, possesses an ineradicable primacy over all falsehoods.”

    FROM WIKIPEDIA [Origins of the Six-Day War]:

    (excerpts) . . .On May 25, 1967, Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban landed in Washington “with instructions to discuss American plans to re-open the Strait of Tiran”. As soon as he arrived, he was given new instructions in a cable from the Israeli government. The cable said that Israel had learned of an imminent Egyptian attack, which overshadowed the blockade. No longer was he to emphasize the strait issue; he was instructed to ‘inform the highest authorities of this new threat and to request an official statement from the United States that an attack on Israel would be viewed as an attack on the United States.” . . .
    . . . Despite his own skepticism, Eban followed his instructions during his first meeting with Secretary Rusk, Under Secretary Rostow, and Assistant Secretary Lucius Battle. American intelligence experts spent the night analyzing each of the Israeli claims.[116] On May 26, Eban met with United States Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, and finally with President Lyndon B. Johnson. In a memo to the President, Rusk rejected the claim of an Egyptian and Syrian attack being imminent, plainly stating “our intelligence does not confirm [the] Israeli estimate”.[118] According to declassified documents from the Johnson Presidential Library, President Johnson and other top officials in the administration did not believe war between Israel and its neighbors was necessary or inevitable.[119] . . .

    ♦ SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

    • DICKERSON3870
      July 14, 2012, 9:46 pm

      P.S. ALSO SEE: “Rethinking Israel’s David-and-Goliath past”, by Sandi Tolan, Salon.com, 6/04/07
      Little-noticed details in declassified U.S. documents indicate that Israel’s Six-Day War may not have been a war of necessity.

      [EXCEPTS] . . . Little-noticed details in declassified documents from the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, indicate that top officials in the Johnson administration — including Johnson’s most pro-Israeli Cabinet members — did not believe war between Israel and its neighbors was necessary or inevitable, at least until the final hour. In these documents, Israel emerges as a vastly superior military power, its opponents far weaker than the menacing threat Israel portrayed, and war itself something that Nasser, for all his saber-rattling, tried to avoid until the moment his air force went up in smoke. In particular, the diplomatic role of Nasser’s vice president, who was poised to travel to Washington in an effort to resolve the crisis, has received little attention from historians. The documents sharpen a recurring theme in the history of the Israeli-Arab wars, and especially of their telling in the West: From the war of 1948 to the 2007 conflict in Gaza, Israel is often miscast as the vulnerable David in a hostile sea of Arab Goliaths. . .
      . . . A key discrepancy lay between U.S. and British intelligence reports and those conveyed to the administration by the Israelis. On May 26, the same day Eban met with Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, Dean Rusk, the secretary of state, relayed a message from Israel indicating “that an Egyptian and Syrian attack is imminent.” In a memo to the president, Rusk wrote: “Our intelligence does not confirm this Israeli estimate.” Indeed, this contradicted all U.S. intelligence, which had characterized Nasser’s troops in the Sinai as “defensive in nature” and only half (50,000) of the Israeli estimates. Walt Rostow, the national security advisor, called Israeli estimates of 100,000 Egyptian troops “highly disturbing,” and the CIA labeled them “a political gambit” for the United States to stand firm with Israelis, sell them more military hardware, and “put more pressure on Nasser.” As for the Egyptian president, there was a huge difference between his public and private signals. . .
      . . . privately Nasser was sending strong signals he would not go to war. On May 31, he met with an American emissary, former Treasury Secretary Robert Anderson, assuring him that Egypt would not “begin any fight.” Two days later, Nasser told a British M.P., Christopher Mayhew, that Egypt had “no intention of attacking Israel.” The same day he met again with Anderson, agreeing to dispatch his vice president, Zakariya Mohieddin, to Washington, in an apparent last-ditch attempt to avoid war. (Anderson and Johnson had also spoken of a visit to Cairo by Vice President Hubert Humphrey.) . . .

      ♦ SOURCE – link to salon.com

  14. ColinWright
    July 15, 2012, 4:30 am

    “Attack on historical maps ad says Israelis have only gained land thru ‘defensive wars’

    Aside from everything else, that’s a frigging non-sequitur. By definition, you cannot gain land through defense — to gain land is to attack.

    The only authentically ‘defensive’ war Israel has ever fought was in 1973. All the others were wars of aggression, were intended as wars of aggression, and were fought as wars of aggression. Even in 1948, all one has to do is to look at Israel’s initiation of organized, large-scale ethnic cleansing in February to realize the true nature of that war.

  15. ColinWright
    July 15, 2012, 4:38 am

    “The trouble with lying and deceiving,” Arendt explains, “is that their efficiency depends entirely upon a clear notion of the truth that the liar and deceiver wishes to hide. In this sense, truth, even if it does not prevail in public, possesses an ineradicable primacy over all falsehoods.”

    Hannah Arendt may not have studied Israel in enough depth.

    Her point is accurate enough when it comes to ordinary, simple lies. However, Israel builds entire structures of lies, in which each lie rests on another lie. The truth becomes completely forgotten, and each new lie exists solely in reference to other lies.

    IsraelLies do not ‘depend on a notion of the truth’ at all. They occur in a mental universe of lies, in which the truth simply does not exist. Consider some of the foundations.

    Palestine once consisted solely of a Jewish state.

    The Jews were expelled from Palestine.

    The Arabs told the Palestinians to flee. That’s why they left.

    The Palestinians are not a people.

    The Palestinians are descended from Arab invaders.

    The Palestinians weren’t there at all.

    In Israel, Palestinians enjoy equal rights.

    The occupied territories are not occupied.

    Israel believes in the rule of the law.

    The IDF has the finest human rights record in the world.

    Obviously, I could go on, and equally obviously, the relationship of all these components to each other should be analyzed — but the essential point is clear.

    Arendt notwithstanding, nothing here is dependent on the truth. Truth doesn’t enter into it. It is a complete and self-sufficient structure of falsehood.

    • Dutch
      July 15, 2012, 11:28 am

      Colin — You forgot one: Israel wants peace.

      • edwin
        July 15, 2012, 12:05 pm

        Israel is a democracy is even a bigger one.

  16. ColinWright
    July 15, 2012, 2:58 pm

    The one I immediately realized I’d forgotten is that the Old Testament is a historically useful account of actual events. That’s actually the granddaddy of them all. Dump that, and Zionism becomes pretty hard to justify.

    • Dutch
      July 15, 2012, 11:05 pm

      So, Levy argues, as to be able to ‘rightfully return to the land’. The trick actually works.

  17. jonah
    July 15, 2012, 9:20 pm

    Who really owned the land in Palestine 1880-1948? A necessary corrective to the distortions of the ‘maps of contention':

    Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880-1948
    by Moshe Aumann
    “A great deal has been spoken and written over the years on the subject of land ownership in Israel—or, before 1948, Palestine. Arab propaganda, in particular, has been at pains to convince the world, with the aid of copious statistics, that the Arabs “own” Palestine, morally and legally, and that whatever Jewish land ownership there may be is negligable. From this conclusions have been dr awn (or implied) with regard to the sovereign rights of the State of Israel and the problem of the Ar ab refugees. The Arab case against Israel, in the matter of Jewish land purchases, rests mainly on two claims: (1) that the Palestinian Arab farmer was peacefully and contentedly working his land in the latter par t of the 19th century and the early par t of the 20th when along came the European Jewish immigrant, drove him off
    his land, disrupted the normal development of the country and created a vast class of landless, dispossessed Arabs; (2) that a small Jewish minority, owning an even smaller proportion of Palestinian lands (5 per cent as against the Arabs’ 95 per cent) , illegally made itself master of Palestine in 1948. Our purpose in this pamphlet is to set the record straight by marshalling the facts and figures pertaining to this very complex subject, on the basis of the most reliable and authoritative information available, and to trace the history of modern Jewish resettlement purely from the point of view of the sale and purchase of land ……….”

    link to wordfromjerusalem.com

    • seafoid
      July 16, 2012, 9:34 am

      “This, then, was the picture of Palestine in the closing decades of
      the 19th century and up to the First World War : a land that was
      overwhelmingly desert”

      LMFZAO

      Jews owned all of the land because er they prayed next year in Jerusalem and this prayer transcends all property rights.

      Americans- watch out. If the chosen ones start to pray next year in Vegas the game is up.

      • Mooser
        July 18, 2012, 6:08 pm

        I’m telling you, I could never work in a psychiatric hospital. The Ziocaine amnesia victims around here give me the heebie-jeebies. Poor guys, wandering around muttering the same crap that’s been proven wrong a hundred times before. It’s pitiful.

  18. Citizen
    July 16, 2012, 6:46 am

    Re the metro train station ads showing the sequence of maps displaying progression of Palestinian dispossession–Israel has now ignored its latest promise to stop settlement expansion, and is proudly expanding again: link to news.antiwar.com

    This in the face of Hillary’s looming visit to Israel. Didn’t Israel already poke Beiden in the eye when he visited there? What will it take to make our mainstream press take up this persistent defiance of America’s long-held position that the settlements are poison to any realistic peace negotiations? And shouldn’t our mainstream media tell the public that Obama is losing Jewish donations and votes precisely because he dared to say so in public once upon a time? And shouldn’t our voters know that Israel has ignored and defied US official stance on settlements for decades yet has never paid the slightest penalty, but rather, the US chooses to reward Israel with ever more fat carrots?

  19. seafoid
    July 16, 2012, 9:31 am

    “In vain, Israel has attempted for years to reach agreement with the Palestinians”

    link to telegraph.co.uk

    When Mr Erekat asked Ms Livni: “Short of your jet fighters in my sky and your army on my territory, can I choose where I secure external defence?”. She replied: “No. In order to create your state you have to agree in advance with Israel – you have to choose not to have the right of choice afterwards. These are the basic pillars.”

    “Israel takes more land [so] that the Palestinian state will be impossible . . . the Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we’ll say that is impossible, we already have the land and we cannot create the state”. She conceded that it had been “the policy of the government for a really long time”.

  20. Klaus Bloemker
    July 17, 2012, 1:27 am

    American Jewish Committee, Scott Richman and Larry Grossman write:
    – “the homeland of Judaism” -” never stopped praying to return there.”-

    Interestingly enough, there is no mention of the Holocaust as a reason to “return”.

    The whole argument is metaphysical pathological: a people prayed for 2,000 years to return to its Promised Land (as its original indigenous people, God’s ‘holy people’).

  21. Citizen
    July 20, 2012, 11:58 am

    Here, the ivy league Zionist insiders club that invited Phil to their den once to stalk him out, whine about the ads being anti-semitic because they say the maps conflate all jews with the state of Israel. How insane can they be? Who conflates the Jewish people with the state of Israel more than Israel itself and its 5th column in the USA? And, isn’t that the symbol of Judaism in the middle of the Israeli flag? Might as well say Israel and AIPAC are the most anti-semitic organizations in existence. link to algemeiner.com

Leave a Reply