UN fact-finding mission: Israeli settlements violate intl law; Israel must ‘immediately initiate a process of withdrawal'; Governments and companies must ‘[terminate] their business interests in the settlements’

Israel/Palestine
on 146 Comments
settlements
(Photo: Reuters)

A U.N. fact-finding mission into “the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory” has issued a blockbuster report (PDF) on the Israeli settlement project warning of “creeping annexation” of the occupied territories and making the closest call yet from the U.N. for sanctioning Israel over its violation of Palestinian human rights and international law.

Reuters summarizes:

U.N. human rights investigators called on Israel on Thursday to halt settlement expansion and withdraw all half a million Jewish settlers from the occupied West Bank, saying that its practices could be subject to prosecution as possible war crimes.

A three-member U.N. panel said private companies should stop working in the settlements if their work adversely affected the human rights of Palestinians, and urged member states to ensure companies respected human rights.

“Israel must cease settlement activities and provide adequate, prompt and effective remedy to the victims of violations of human rights,” Christine Chanet, a French judge who led the U.N. inquiry, told a news conference.

The settlements contravened the Fourth Geneva Convention forbidding the transfer of civilian populations into occupied territory and could amount to war crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the United Nations report said.

“To transfer its own population into an occupied territory is prohibited because it is an obstacle to the exercise of the right to self-determination,” Chanet said.

Unity Dow, a judge and human rights activist from Botswana who served on the mission, said in a statement:

“The magnitude of violations relating to Israel’s policies of dispossessions, evictions, demolitions and displacements from land shows the widespread nature of these breaches of human rights . . . The motivation behind violence and intimidation against the Palestinians and their properties is to drive the local populations away from their lands, allowing the settlements to expand.”

The report is wide ranging and covers the history of Israeli colonization of the occupied territories, Israeli restrictions over Palestinian freedom of movement, Israeli restrictions over Palestinian freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, restrictions over access to water and economic rights, inequality and discrimination in the legal regime of the occupied territories, settler violence and intimidation, and the overarching process dispossessing and displacing Palestinians from the land. Here is an overview for the finding from the conclusion:

Conclusions
100. The facts brought to the attention of the Mission indicate that the State of Israel has had full control of the settlements in the OPT since 1967 and continues to promote and sustain them through infrastructure and security measures. The Mission notes that despite all the pertinent United Nations resolutions declaring that the existence of the settlements is illegal and calling for their cessation, the planning and growth of the settlements continues both of existing as well as new structures.

101. The establishment of the settlements in the West Bank including East Jerusalem is a mesh of construction and infrastructure leading to a creeping annexation that prevents the establishment of a contiguous and viable Palestinian State and undermines the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

102. The settlements have been established and developed at the expense of violating international human rights laws and international humanitarian law, as applicable in the OPT as notably recognised by the 2004 ICJ Advisory Opinion.

103. The settlements are established for the exclusive benefit of Israeli Jews; settlements are being maintained and developed through a system of total segregation between the settlers and the rest of the population living in the OPT. This system of segregation is supported and facilitated by a strict military and law enforcement control to the detriment of the rights of the Palestinian population.

104. The Mission considers that in relation to the settlements Israel is committing serious breaches of its obligations under the right to self-determination and “certain obligations under international humanitarian law”, including the obligation not to transfer its population into the OPT. The Rome Statute establishes the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over the deportation or transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying Power of parts of its own 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. Ratification of the Statute by Palestine may lead to
accountability for gross violations of human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law and justice for victims.

105. The existence of the settlements has had a heavy toll on the rights of the Palestinians. Their rights to freedom of self-determination, non-discrimination, freedom of movement, equality, due process, fair trial, not to be arbitrarily detained, liberty and security of person, freedom of expression, freedom to access places of worship, education, water, housing, adequate standard of living, property, access to
natural resources and effective remedy are being violated consistently and on a daily basis.

106. The volume of information received on dispossession, evictions, demolitions and displacement points to the magnitude of these practices. These are particularly widespread in certain areas and acute in East Jerusalem.

107. The Mission has noted that the identities of settlers who are responsible for violence and intimidation are known to the Israeli authorities, yet these acts continue with impunity. The Mission is led to the clear conclusion that there is institutionalised  discrimination against the Palestinian people when it comes to addressing violence. The Mission believes that the motivation behind this violence and the intimidation against the Palestinians as well as their properties is to drive the local populations away from their lands and allow the settlements to expand.

108. The Mission is gravely concerned at the high number of children who are apprehended or detained, including for minor offences. They are invariably mistreated, denied due process and fair trial. In violation of international law they are transferred to detention centres in Israel.

109. Children suffer harassment, violence and encounter significant obstacles in attending educational institutions, which limits their right to access education. Israel, the occupying Power is failing in its duty to protect the right to access education of the Palestinian children and failing to facilitate the proper working of educational institutions.

110. Information gathered by the Mission show that some private entities have enabled, facilitated and profited, from the construction and growth of the settlements, either directly or indirectly.

111. Women alone in their homes, the Bedouins and other vulnerable groups are easy targets for settler violence, creating a sense of insecurity amongst the wider Palestinian society.

Among the report recommendations the mission called for Israel to “cease all settlement activities without preconditions” and “immediately initiate a process of withdrawal of all settlers from the OPT.” In addition, the report calls for companies and governments to “assess the human rights impact of their activities” and end any connection to the settlements:

117. Private companies must assess the human rights impact of their activities and take all necessary steps – including by terminating their business interests in the settlements – to ensure they are not adversely impacting the human rights of the Palestinian People in conformity with international law as well as the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The Mission calls upon all Member States to take appropriate measures to ensure that business enterprises domiciled in their territory and/or under their jurisdiction, including those owned or controlled by them, that conduct activities in or related to the settlements respect human rights throughout their operations. The Mission recommends that the Human Rights Council Working Group on Business and Human Rights be seized of this matter.

146 Responses

  1. Ellen
    January 31, 2013, 8:53 am

    That will not happen easily. Occupation is an industry in of itself. What will replace it? It would/will cost billions to dismantle the industry and the squatter settlements.

    Guess who is going to pay for that? OK, the US deserves to pay for it as the US government enabled, even encouraged the enterprise.

    Too bad the American tax payer does not see how he/she is plundered once again. If they did, maybe it would not be so easily enabled.

    I hear that there is an uptick in jobs for immigration lawyers in New York.

    • ThorsteinVeblen2012
      January 31, 2013, 11:46 am

      Why should I have to pay for it?

      Let the people who support the lobbying efforts, the coercion and corruption of the political system in regards to Israel/Palestine. Rather saddle the entire nation with the burden of unwinding the misdeeds of a few, let those specifically responsible for it and who benefitted from it shoulder the burden.

      Our legal system doesn’t allow these people to be brought to court for their actions, though clearly they break the spirit of any sense of justice.

      Hopefully in some point in the future our times will be viewed as a dark age of justice.

    • American
      January 31, 2013, 11:52 am

      “Guess who is going to pay for that? OK, the US deserves to pay for it as the US government enabled, even encouraged the enterprise.”

      I think AIPC members, the World Wide Jewish Congress and all their other Orgs, Hagee’s group, CUI and etc. should be specially taxed to pay for it…….lol

    • James Canning
      January 31, 2013, 2:41 pm

      Ellen – – Would it be ncessary to remove the settlers? Why not put emphasis on requiring the illegal Jews in Palestine to comply with the laws of Palestine?
      Sheldon Adelson could fund the relocation of many of the illegal Jewish setters.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 31, 2013, 5:10 pm

        “Why not put emphasis on requiring the illegal Jews in Palestine to comply with the laws of Palestine?”

        And Palestine should put all settlers under martial law for exactly the same number of days, with exactly the same restrictions, which the israelis inflicted on the Palestinians after 1948.

      • James Canning
        January 31, 2013, 7:32 pm

        The more sensible course is to take the longer view and not get caught up in efforts to achieve revenge.

      • Woody Tanaka
        February 1, 2013, 9:46 am

        “The more sensible course is to take the longer view and not get caught up in efforts to achieve revenge.”

        Perhaps. But the more JUST course would be to make those who inflicted so many decades of terror on the Palestinians to get a taste of that which they did to others.

      • sardelapasti
        January 31, 2013, 9:32 pm

        “Would it be ncessary to remove the settlers? Why not put emphasis on requiring the illegal Jews in Palestine to comply with the laws of Palestine?”

        I am sure a really representative (term which is quite easyt to define but certainly cannot describe the PA) Palestinian government will decide on all that when the time comes. Meanwhile, who the hell are we to even discuss that? It’s preposterous.

        Until that happens, all illegals are under the obligation to get out PDQ, no matter where they are directed.

      • James Canning
        February 19, 2013, 7:51 pm

        Israeli officials claim they would not be able to remove the illegal settlers. So, let them stay. Provided they pay compensation etc etc.

      • lyn117
        February 1, 2013, 11:17 am

        James, what about the problem of Israel forcibly removing Palestinians from territory it claims? If Palestine is forced to accept Israelis that were illegally brought into its territory, shouldn’t Israel be forced to accept Palestinians it illegally removed from its territory?

      • James Canning
        February 13, 2013, 1:53 pm

        lynn117 – – Independent Palestine would of course enable Palestinians expelled by Israel from the West Bank or Gaza Strip, to return.

        The perhaps brutal logic behind the 2002 Saudi peacce plan, was simply the recognition by virtually all Arab leaders, that Israel cannot be forced to accept an inflow of large numbers of non-Jews. (Israel does accept non-Jews, provided they agree to at least pretend they are Jews.)

  2. American
    January 31, 2013, 8:58 am

    “Among the report recommendations the mission called for Israel to “cease all settlement activities without preconditions” and “immediately initiate a process of withdrawal of all settlers from the OPT.”

    Who’s gonna ‘make’ Israel withdraw all their settlers?
    You could cover Israel from one end to the other with all the paper from reports and condemnations issued by the UN and EU,etc..
    But so far —all talk, no action…

    • Hostage
      January 31, 2013, 11:14 am

      Who’s gonna ‘make’ Israel withdraw all their settlers? . . . You could cover Israel from one end to the other with all the paper from reports and condemnations issued by the UN and EU,etc..

      There aren’t very many that call for the immediate imposition of economic and criminal sanctions. The Advanced Unedited Version of the Report of the International Fact-Finding Mission on Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is available here link to ohchr.org

    • pabelmont
      January 31, 2013, 11:18 am

      American: who’s gonna make Israel withdraw? Exactly. UNSC 465 (1980) made the same demand — as I read it — remove settlers and dismantle settlements (there was no wall yet) and Israel ignored it, because it had no teeth.

      The problem is [1] no nation has much in the way of motivation to act and [2] the USA and trade-relations and AIPAC-like opposition make reasons for nations NOT to act. Nothing will work until one or more nations actually ACT and preferably with non-negligible actions, and preferably together so that the USA cannot “knock off” the single actor, because it is a multiple actor.

    • yourstruly
      January 31, 2013, 11:23 am

      lots of talk, little or no action, yet, but with the drumbeat getting ever louder.

    • seafoid
      January 31, 2013, 11:29 am

      link to haaretz.com

      “A UN Human Rights Council fact-finding mission on Thursday released its harshest report over Israeli policy in the West Bank since 1967, urging governments and private corporations across the world to consider economic and political sanctions against Israel over its construction in the settlements. This is the first time such a call has been made from within the United Nations”

    • James Canning
      January 31, 2013, 2:39 pm

      Many well-informed observers think the illegal Jewish settlers in the West Bank might very well in large part leave Palestine. If they are obliged to comply with the laws of Palestine.

    • lyn117
      February 1, 2013, 11:01 am

      All the settlers are also committing a war crime. They should all be tried & convicted. I don’t actually favor jail time, but a hefty yearly fine. To be collected by any other nation they travel to. Also, any soldier who has served in the occupied territories protecting settlers.

      Settler leaders, Israelis who participate in authorizing them to be there or anyone above the lowest rank in the armed forces should get jail time.

      • mondonut
        February 1, 2013, 12:16 pm

        lyn117 says: All the settlers are also committing a war crime
        =======================================
        What nonsense. There is nothing in International Law or Geneva that precludes an individual from choosing to reside in a territory under occupation.

      • sardelapasti
        February 13, 2013, 2:22 pm

        mondonut: That may be true as to the possibilities to prosecute them for a war crime (while of course whoever sent them, authorizes, facilitates or funds the settlements is fully guilty of it). The level at which the law is preventatively effective is in making everyone aware that this is a war crime. So even if not all settlers can be prosecuted for it (Hostage is an excellent source about this), the law would only be effective if it can prevent the people who physically commit the crime from committing them. Hanging people after the fact doesn’t help anyone.

        So in summary we are looking for opprobrium, shame and general disgust to be heaped on the low-level criminals. This will protect them from the private justice that some people may one day have recourse to, if they are denied justice for too long. You can’t be too optimistic, of course, seeing how this crowd takes pride in its lawbreaking.

      • Hostage
        February 13, 2013, 4:51 pm

        What nonsense. There is nothing in International Law or Geneva that precludes an individual from choosing to reside in a territory under occupation.

        One of the foremost authorities on the laws of occupation was Raphael Lemkin. He disagreed with your view and held that civilian colonists were liable to penal sanctions for aiding the enemy in time of war. That certainly applies to civilians who serve as Israeli officials, like the settlement mayors or the members of the city or regional councils, and other public employees. See “The Problem of the Colonists” in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. link to books.google.com

        Israel itself adopted a Nazi Collaborators Law and held that it wasn’t an ex post facto enactment, since the range of activities it addressed had always been considered illegal.

        As a matter of customary international law, every state has the right to deport illegal aliens residing on its territory. That’s particularly true of “enemy” aliens who must be repatriated to the territory of their own states under the explicit terms of Article 6 of the 4th Geneva Convention. Repatriations are not included in the prohibition against forcible transfers contained in Article 49(6).

    • James Canning
      February 13, 2013, 1:54 pm

      American – – Why demand the removal of the illegal Jewish settlers? Instead, insist those settlers comply with the laws of Palestine.

      • sardelapasti
        February 13, 2013, 2:38 pm

        Canning – “Why demand the removal of the illegal Jewish settlers?”
        Because “illegal” should mean something. Because there are no laws of Palestine yet and because you or me are not authorized to decide for a properly constituted, totally sovereign and representative Palestinian state; because no one is under the obligation to suffer the presence of this unspeakable riffraff. Remember that other situations were resolved differently, as in Algeria where citizenship to the colonial settlers was not automatic. Anyway, imagining that settlers, by definition mainly fanatical racial supremacists freaks, would accept to be subject to Palestinian laws instead of moving to their countries of origin is not even acceptable science-fiction.

      • James Canning
        February 13, 2013, 6:57 pm

        Sardelapasti – – Provided they adhere to the laws of Palestine, which would be enacted, and assuming adequate compensation is paid, the continuing presence of Jews in the West Bank is regarded by at least some Palestinian leaders as acceptable.

      • sardelapasti
        February 13, 2013, 3:14 pm

        Canning – Look at your incredible insistence in pushing down everyone’s throat your exigence to have everyone recognize and accept illegal invasion and colonial settlements. No answer from you to the discussion of it. Any explanation for such dogged insistence?

      • James Canning
        February 13, 2013, 7:04 pm

        Sardelapasti – – 57 Arab and other Muslim countries accepted the 2002 Saudi peace plan (calling for recognition of Israel within its pre-1967 borders). And you claim to know better what is in the interests of those countries and their people?

      • sardelapasti
        February 16, 2013, 3:09 pm

        Canning – Even thousands of “Arab and other Muslim” governments (not countries) still do not amount to just one, but representative, independent and sovereign Palestinian nation, which in this sense has nothing to do with “Arab”, and certainly nothing with “Muslim”. In fact, these “Arab and Muslim countries” are entirely worthless, used as an irrelevant Zionist argument that you are peddling with insistence. And my question was about this insistence, not the arabicity or religion of some irrelevant governments.

      • James Canning
        February 17, 2013, 1:30 pm

        Sardelapasti – – Hamas and Fatah endorsed the 2002 Saudi peace plan, calling for recognition of Israel within pre-1967 borders.

  3. Walid
    January 31, 2013, 9:04 am

    WOW!!!!! Finally.

  4. seafoid
    January 31, 2013, 9:48 am

    Little Jewish boxes on the Palestinian hillsides

    link to youtube.com

    And they all look the same
    And are painted in sin

    • john h
      January 31, 2013, 3:49 pm

      link to youtube.com

      link to youtube.com

      Sin all boxed up and Palestinians fenced out.

    • Sue Wood
      January 31, 2013, 10:06 pm

      There’s a cream one with a red roof, and another one, and another one! And they’re all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.
      Little boxes on the hillTOP………yes, I’ve been meaning to rework this song for quite some time but have never got round to it: too busy reading Mondo and such like!

      • seafoid
        February 1, 2013, 5:27 am

        Little boxes on the Palestinian hillside,
        Little boxes supported by tacky Congress trickery,
        Little boxes on ALL the hillsides,
        Little boxes all the same.

        There’s a Jewish one and a Zionist one
        but you’ll never ever see a Palestinian one ,
        The whole thing is so irredeemiably tacky
        And the justifications are all the same.

        And the people in the houses
        they are all Jewish (but probably didn’t go to the university)
        They only know their Zionist boxes
        And they came out all the same,
        And there’s border policemen and penpushers,
        And “pioneers”, WTF
        And they’re all made out of ticky tacky
        And they all think just the same
        (but sadly very few goys do these days) .

        And they all play on the golf course
        Fed by stolen Palestinian water ,
        And they tend to have lots of children
        And the children go to school,
        And the children go to summer camp
        And in their early 20s give handjobs to the birthright Americans ,
        Who they want to put in boxes
        So they too can come out all the same.

        (Except for the hilltop youth who rebel against the petit bourgeoisie with the backing of the IDF)

        And the boys go into the Army
        And torture Palestinians while raising a family with decent Zionist values
        In boxes made of tacky ideology
        And they all look just the same.
        There’s a Zionist one and a Jewish one
        But you’ll never ever see a Palestinian one
        And they’re all made out of ticky tacky
        But they are going to bring down Zionism all the same.

  5. amigo
    January 31, 2013, 9:49 am

    Every Israeli leader is guilty of aiding and abetting the illegal settlement expansion.

    The Palestinians need to go immediately to The ICC and have these vile criminals dragged before a war crimes tribunal and dealt with as severely as legally allowed.

    It is too bad the Death Penality is not possible.

    • James Canning
      January 31, 2013, 2:37 pm

      Probably better strategy is to work with European diplomats in effort to set up further effort to gain UN recognition as full member.
      Emphasis should be on pre-1967 borders. Illegal Jewish setters can be dealt with down the road.

      • amigo
        January 31, 2013, 4:08 pm

        James , no point in working with European diplomats as they are all talk and no action.

        Get the ICC to make a ruling and ensure Israel,s criminal leader,s ability to travel is severely crimped.

        Then the Europeans might take some action to be seen to support international Law.

        Agree, settlers can be dealt with later.A dose of their own medicine would work wonders in convincing them that their illegal activities are at an end and making aliyah to wherever they crawled out form would be the sensible route to take.

    • mondonut
      February 1, 2013, 12:21 pm

      amigo says: It is too bad the Death Penality is not possible.
      =============================================
      Bloodlust?

      • Hostage
        February 13, 2013, 4:56 pm

        amigo says: It is too bad the Death Penality is not possible. . . . mondonut says: Bloodlust?

        Perhaps, but it’s an excellent summary of the applicable Jewish religious law (pending the re-establishment of the Sanhedrin;-)

  6. Walker
    January 31, 2013, 10:01 am

    The NY Times story on this is a piece of work. It does not mention the very longstanding and universal international opposition to settlements on legal grounds. It doesn’t mention that (AFAIK) the official US position based on prior US votes in the UNSC is that all settlements violate the Geneva Convention. It basically blandly frames the issue as one on which reasonable people can disagree. Finally, the story is poorly placed.

    In contrast, the Guardian posts its story much further up, and forthrightly points out this reality:

    “The UNHRC report broadly restated international consensus on the illegality of Israeli settlements.”

    • Citizen
      January 31, 2013, 11:39 am

      @ Walker
      I’m watching Hagel get grilled by US congressmen. So far, nobody is asking him about those settlements. I’m sure, none will. They are dragging out every shred of Hagel’s past long political record that in the slightest way contradicts or implies something besides total rubber-stamping of Israel’s slightest desires.

    • James Canning
      January 31, 2013, 2:35 pm

      NYT piece seems to make clear Israel illlegally is growing colonies of Jews in the West Bank as a means of annexing (or attempting to annex) portions of Palestine.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      January 31, 2013, 3:03 pm

      Don’t put too much faith in The Guardian. It used to be quite good, but has been steadily morphing into the New York Times for about a year or so, with coverage of Palestine basically vanishing from its pages. Look at its ‘Middle East live blog’ today, with a photo of a grinning Israeli soldier carrying a gas mask because Israelis are ‘in fear’ (they certainly don’t look it, going by that photo).

      Pure Israeli PR, pure NYT.

  7. yourstruly
    January 31, 2013, 10:59 am

    for centuries of committing similar crimes in conquered lands?

    same applies to spain, england, france et al?

    as to the u.s. of a. for its ongoing iraq/afghanistan conquests?

    no matter how well camouflaged?

    puppet governments & such?

    then why israel & not the others?

    the united nations is responsible for israel’s existence?

    so it’s just following through?

    by making sure its creation abides by the rules?

    plus getting prosecuted for its gross violations of human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law and justice for victims? –

    members of the jury?

    on the charges against israel, have you reached a verdict?

    guilty as charged!

    • ThorsteinVeblen2012
      January 31, 2013, 11:49 am

      You and I know that if there was ever a popular referendum on continuing aid and support for Israel it would fail.

      Israel’s support will never see the light of day of a popular vote or a national poll.

      It is no more the will of the people that commands monetary support of Israel than there would be to reinvade Iraq. Probably less.

    • Obsidian
      January 31, 2013, 1:57 pm

      Yeah!
      And put China, Morocco and Turkey in the docket too!

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 31, 2013, 2:39 pm

        “And put China, Morocco and Turkey in the docket too!”

        Absolutely. No State actor should be exempt, regardless of who they are, what their ethnicity or how many senators and congresscritters in Washington they can bribe through intermediaries.

      • agatharchides
        January 31, 2013, 10:21 pm

        The cases are not identical, legally speaking.

        Israel is transferring its population to occupied territory, defined as a war crime in the Geneva Conventions.

        China is not an occupying power anywhere I know of, Tibet etc are universally recognized as being part of the sovereign state of China. The fact the inhabitants are of a different ethnic group does not change that. You may not approve of what it does there, but it doesn’t fall under the Geneva Conventions or the jurisdiction of the ICC.

        Turkey has also not transferred Turkish citizens into N. Cyprus, it claims it is supporting an independent republic, others claim it is occupying territory but in any event Turkish Cypriots aren’t being displaced to make room for Turks from Turkey. They are not in violation of the Geneva conventions the way Israel is.

        The Morrocan case I can’t say I am familiar enough with to comment on.

      • Woody Tanaka
        February 1, 2013, 9:38 am

        @agatharchides: If there are defenses to the charge, that’s fine. The problem is simply that the zios point to other states to excuse their crimes. (All apart of their abject horsecrap that israel is “targeted” because they’re Jews and not because of thier crimes.) If there is evidence that any of these states commited crimes, they should all (and the leaders involved) be put on trial. Those with valid defenses should get off.

      • agatharchides
        February 1, 2013, 5:26 pm

        I’m not intimately familiar with the ICC but at least in the US you need “reasonable suspicion” that a crime has been committed and that the defendant committed the crime in order to arrest or try somebody. At least in the cases mentioned I don’t think that exists. You don’t haul people in front of court for no reason just to prove your even handedness. That’s politics, not law.

      • Hostage
        January 31, 2013, 2:53 pm

        Yeah! And put China, Morocco and Turkey in the docket too!

        Cyprus already is an ICC member state. So I’m sure they will be watching the Palestinian case with a great deal interest and asking the Prosecutor what’s she waiting for? The answer is to indict those who are responsible for crimes on the territory of member states and non-members who have referred situations to the Court if that’s where the evidence leads.

    • James Canning
      January 31, 2013, 2:32 pm

      The US has not created illegal colonies of Americans in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

      • Walid
        January 31, 2013, 3:33 pm

        “The US has not created illegal colonies of Americans in either Iraq or Afghanistan.”

        No colonies in Iraq, but it totally destroyed the country and caused the death of about 1.5 million Iraqis and created 2 million refugees that fled the country of which half a million were Christians. But no colonies.

      • Hostage
        January 31, 2013, 6:05 pm

        But no colonies.

        The hell you say. I’ve heard you can see the State Department complex in the Green zone from outer space and that they involuntarily transferred US employees there in violation of Article 49(6). So the forced population transfer worked both ways.

      • James Canning
        January 31, 2013, 7:30 pm

        Yes, the idiotic and illegal war caused great hardship, and worse, for milions of people.

      • James Canning
        January 31, 2013, 7:30 pm

        Hostage – – I assume you are not claiming the US intended to annex the Green Zone in Iraq.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 31, 2013, 7:38 pm

        it’s effectively annexed already isn’t it?

      • James Canning
        January 31, 2013, 7:40 pm

        Idea for the idiotic war was to protect Israel. And enrich certain insiders who helped to set up the idiotic war.

      • James Canning
        January 31, 2013, 7:56 pm

        Annie – – Didn’t the Soviet Union purport to annex Estonia? And move hundreds of thousands of Russians into that country, to try to “Russify” it? Programme failed.

        Why should presence of Jews change borders?

      • Hostage
        January 31, 2013, 7:56 pm

        Hostage – – I assume you are not claiming the US intended to annex the Green Zone in Iraq.

        I was being facetious, annexation would be an exaggeration. But US protectorate or trucial state would have more accurately described the situation:

        U.S. Embassy in Iraq Largest, Most Expensive Ever

        The 104-acre compound, bigger than the Vatican and about the size of 80 football fields, boasts 21 buildings, a commissary, cinema, retail and shopping areas, restaurants, schools, a fire station, power and water treatment plants, as well as telecommunications and wastewater treatment facilities.

        The compound is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the size of the National Mall in Washington.

        link to foxnews.com

      • dionissis mitropoulos
        February 23, 2013, 3:16 pm

        @ Hostage

        I recently came upon an article by Kontorovich. He suggests that those settlers who were born in the West Bank are not illegally there, according to the Geneva Conv., because there is no sense of the term “transfer” (direct or indirect) under which these people can be considered as having been transferred in the West Bank – they were simply born there.

        What is the counterargument to this?

      • Hostage
        February 24, 2013, 5:27 am

        I recently came upon an article by Kontorovich. . . . He suggests that those settlers who were born in the West Bank are not illegally there, according to the Geneva Conv

        I think the shortest answer came from Dr Micheal Kearney:

        Yes, you are right that settlers having babies is not a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Congratulations for refuting an argument that NO ONE is making. Your perseverance in attempting to confuse the issues is truly impressive.

        There were several more lengthy responses to Kontorovich’s Transfers and Deliveries article: link to opiniojuris.org

        I’ve commented in several online discussions about Kontorovich’s straw man arguments regarding the I/P conflict. I don’t think that he’s very persuasive. He’s far removed from the mainstream of opinion and writing partisan articles in the well-worn tradition of Eugene Rostow, Julius Stone, and Alan Baker. The Geneva Conventions are obviously not the only controlling legal authority on the subject. They simply prohibit an occupying power from colonizing another territory during an armed conflict or occupation.

        Here are a few more examples from Opinio Juris and The European Journal of International Law: Talk! (See both the articles and the comments – including a few of my own):
        link to opiniojuris.org
        link to ejiltalk.org
        link to opiniojuris.org

        The insurmountable problem that Kontorovich fails to address is that in most cases, Jews born in the West Bank are legally considered “Israeli nationals” or “enemy civilians” and can be dealt with according to the terms of the Geneva Conventions like any others born elsewhere.

        The terms of Article IV(3) of the 1949 Armistice Agreement with Jordan stipulated that

        Rules and regulations of the armed forces of the Parties, which prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement with application to the Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI.

        –http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm03.asp

        UN Security Council resolutions 62 and 73 require the State parties to the conflict to implement and observe that agreement until it is replaced by a mutually agreed upon final settlement. Israel still routinely shoots persons it considers to be “enemy civilians” when they so much as approach its frontiers or security fences.

        So lets sum up:
        *Israelis born in the West Bank are “nationals” of a State bound by the Geneva Conventions; the Armistice agreements, and Security Council resolutions.
        *Israel is a party to an on-going armed conflict and a military occupation;
        *Any Israeli nationals on the territory of Palestine are enemy combatants, enemy civilians, or both according to the explicit terms of the Geneva Conventions.
        *Nothing prevents the Palestinian authorities from repatriating, or resettling enemy nationals elsewhere according to the terms of Article 6 of the 4th Geneva Convention after the conflict or occupation has ended.
        *Nothing prevents the Palestinians from applying penal sanctions to illegal immigrant or resident alien enemy nationals on its territory.
        *After WWII, Israel itself adopted an ordinance which criminalized collaboration with the Nazis retroactively. Nothing prevents Palestine from doing the same thing to settlers who serve in the IDF or civil administration.

      • dionissis mitropoulos
        February 25, 2013, 7:16 am

        @ Hostage

        *Nothing prevents the Palestinian authorities from repatriating, or resettling enemy nationals elsewhere according to the terms of Article 6 of the 4th Geneva Convention after the conflict or occupation has ended.*

        Hostage thanks for your (usual) clarity and detail of the answer.

        When i asked the question i had in mind (wishfully) the idea that if Israel waits long enough so that all settlers are West Bank-born, then she can say that they may stay there legally, and that there is no legal justification for any settlement to be dismantled. Your answer refutes my idea.

        I haven’t yet read the links with your comments.

      • Shingo
        February 25, 2013, 7:53 am

        Hostage,

        I have a question for you regarding the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the West Bank.

        You’re previous pointed out that the ICJ rules that the GC’s did protect the Palestinians in the WB due to Jordan being the signatory to the GC, but some are arguing that since November 2012, when the State of Palestine was recognized by the UN, this protection ended and will only resume once the State of Palestine becomes a signatory to the GC.

        Is this true?

      • Hostage
        February 25, 2013, 8:52 am

        When i asked the question i had in mind (wishfully) the idea that if Israel waits long enough so that all settlers are West Bank-born, then she can say that they may stay there legally, and that there is no legal justification for any settlement to be dismantled.

        No, Judge Higgins cited the Namibia case and noted 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.” She also cited the Haya de la Torre case and noted that a determination of an
        illegal act “entails a legal consequence, namely that of putting an end to
        an illegal situation”. That’s exactly what the majority opinion had to say regarding Israel’s obligations to all of the parties concerned.

      • Woody Tanaka
        February 25, 2013, 9:17 am

        ” i had in mind (wishfully) the idea”

        Wow. Pretty evil wish.

      • Hostage
        February 25, 2013, 10:03 am

        but some are arguing that since November 2012, when the State of Palestine was recognized by the UN, this protection ended and will only resume once the State of Palestine becomes a signatory to the GC.

        Is this true?

        Not at all. The ICJ’s brief legal analysis noted that Palestine had deposited its own instrument of accession to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols in 1989. link to icrc.org

        Paragraph 91 of the majority opinion noted that, for its own part, the Swiss Government had always considered it a valid legal undertaking.

        The 2012 General Assembly resolution on the status of Palestine specifically acknowledged that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization had been entrusted with the powers and responsibilities of the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine in 1988. link to unispal.un.org

        Under the rules of customary international law, when the government of a country is recognized by another party, that recognition is retroactive in effect and validates all the actions and conduct of the government in question from the commencement of its existence. See for example:
        *Tinoco Claims Arbitration (Great Britain v. Costa Rica) (1923) 1 R.I.A.A. 369; link to untreaty.un.org
        *Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. , 246 U.S. 297 (1918);
        link to caselaw.lp.findlaw.com
        *Ti-chiang Chen, “The international law of recognition, with special reference to practice in Great Britain and the United States”, Praeger, 1951, “Introduction” page 4 and “the doctrine of the retroactive effect of recognition” on page 34 “Recognition of States”: link to archive.org

        The General Assembly resolution noted that Palestine has been recognized by 132 UN member states over the years.

        The resolution also noted that Palestine enjoys full membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). The PLO was admitted to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) regional group for Asia (now ESCWA) as a full member State in 1977 over US and Israeli objections. The General Assembly resolution effectively acknowledged and validated that existing status.

      • yourstruly
        January 31, 2013, 3:43 pm

        conquering & then installing puppet governments?

        not equivalent to the colonies of yesteryear?

        yes?

        more or less?

        updated & reappraised?

        perpetually?

        a what sort of world?

        & how to get there sort of thing?

      • James Canning
        January 31, 2013, 7:42 pm

        A number of foolish neocon warmongers, “liberal interventionists”, and other supporters of Israel in the US, thought the US would be able to control the governemnt of Iraq. Or, perhaps, this was just a ruse used to dupe George W. Bush?

      • Walid
        February 1, 2013, 6:39 am

        The Baghdad Embassy is the biggest in area but at $750 million it’s not the most expensive. This honour goes to the $1 billion London Embassy that has a 100-foot wide perimeter moat. There are several big ones around the world with one planned for Beirut including cultural center, library and so on @ over $500 million. Great for local businesses that build these things. Stephen M. Walt said the US had to build “embassies that resemble fortresses, and that convey an image of America that is at odds with our interests and our own self-image, and especially with the image that we would like to convey to foreign peoples.”

  8. ritzl
    January 31, 2013, 11:02 am

    The other day, Hostage pointed out that it is the ICC prosecutors that are dragging their feet on this. That the PA has already submitted the request that it be looked into by that org.

    Does this result make the ICC prosecutors more likely to do something? Or is it yet another ignorable report? Are these two things (this report and the pending ICC investigation) connected in “black letter,” or some other form of causal terms?

    Also, I wish these reports would say “occupied Palestine” instead of “OPT.” Palestine is now a recognized (if non-member) state, at least according the the UNGA.

    • Obsidian
      January 31, 2013, 2:01 pm

      “the ICC prosecutors that are dragging their feet on this”

      No. The ICC goes after mass murderers who’ve committed crimes against humanity and who’ve eluded prosecution in the homeland.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 31, 2013, 2:38 pm

        “The ICC goes after mass murderers who’ve committed crimes against humanity and who’ve eluded prosecution in the homeland.”

        Exactly. Which describes israeli military and policial leadership since 1947. Glad we agree. So let’s get those bastards!!

      • Hostage
        January 31, 2013, 3:27 pm

        No. The ICC goes after mass murderers who’ve committed crimes against humanity and who’ve eluded prosecution in the homeland.

        Why don’t you visit the ICC website and count the number of defendants charged with excessive expropriation or destruction of property and forced displacement or transfer of people? It’s actually pretty commonplace for the ICC to go after people like the Israeli military and civil occupation administrators.

    • James Canning
      January 31, 2013, 2:31 pm

      Yes, “occupied Palestine”.

  9. pabelmont
    January 31, 2013, 11:21 am

    “private companies should stop working in the settlements if their work adversely affected the human rights of Palestinians, and urged member states to ensure companies respected human rights”.

    This is good but insufficient. who’s to know whether or not a “private company” adversely effects H/R? The proper distinction is whether the private company is essentially Palestinian in ownership and management, or essentially Israeli, although weven that question is wishy-washy. Why should AHAVA be allowed to continue to MINE Palestinian resources for its manufactures simply because doing so does not adversely affect Palestinian H/R? If the “private company” operates on confiscated land, it should be removed, just like the settlement buildings.

  10. Mondowise
    January 31, 2013, 11:26 am

    This just made my day!!! Despite the complaints of this report being ‘all talk, no action’ this report leaves one seriously horrendous gigantic stain on izrael which izrael can never bleach out..not one iota..no matter what it says & does..or doesn’t. instead, this stain will remain exactly what it is: an indelible, atrocious deeply embedded shameful blotch now smeared all over every pro-zionist face. yes, yes, THIS report is indeed a historical marker for the face of zionism. ohhhh for the evil of zionism to be so grotesquely disfigured by TRUTH!! well, all i can say is: BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO!!!

  11. Hostage
    January 31, 2013, 11:29 am

    The other day, Hostage pointed out that it is the ICC prosecutors that are dragging their feet on this. That the PA has already submitted the request that it be looked into by that org.

    The let me make another point. The Mavi Marmara was flagged in Comoros – a state party to the Rome Statute. There has already been a UN HRC fact finding report chaired by a retired ICC Justice which concluded the IDF attack on the flotilla in international waters was illegal and criminal. If Comoros is unable or unwilling to prosecute the IDF for those crimes onboard a ship flagged by its authorities, that triggers the ICC’s Prosecutor’s responsibility under the Rome Statute to step-in and exercise jurisdiction.

    The UN HRC also appointed another panel to assess the Israeli and Palestinian investigations of Operation Cast Lead. The experts concluded that the investigations were inadequate, and that the matter needed to be addressed by the ICC – which already has a mandate from the PA to investigate crimes committed during Operation Cast Lead .

    • Hostage
      January 31, 2013, 12:16 pm

      P.S. By way of comparison. Here is the reaction of the Prosecutor to rumors about events in Mali:

      Statement : 28/01/2013

      28/01/2013
      Yes
      Translations Links

      Statement by ICC Prosecutor concerning Mali

      My Office is aware of reports that Malian forces may have committed abuses in recent days, in central Mali. I urge the Malian authorities to put an immediate stop to the alleged abuses and on the basis of the principle of complementarity, to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the alleged crimes. I remind all parties to the on-going conflict in Mali that my Office has jurisdiction over all serious crimes committed within the territory of Mali, from January 2012 onwards. All those alleged to be responsible for serious crimes in Mali must be held accountable.

      link to icc-cpi.int

      She’s had similar jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of Comoros – and in Palestine too ever since the General Assembly removed any doubt as to whether or not Palestine is a “State”, and thus capable of making a declaration under the terms of Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute.

      Is she really the only person on the planet who didn’t hear about the attack on the high seas or the thousands of new settlement units announced by Netanyahu & Co. in retaliation for the UN vote? Are Israelis who are responsible for committing violations of Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute on the territory of Palestine ever going to get a similar warning or be held accountable?

      I don’t think its ever gonna happen until the BDS and Palestinian Solidarity movement realize that the “S” includes criminal sanctions and that they can conduct protests and demonstrations in the Hague against the Prosecutor for inaction without much risk of serious injury or death.

    • MRW
      February 1, 2013, 3:20 am

      Watching Israel Shahak at MIT in 1994 (a recently uploaded find on YouTube) where he appeared with Noam Chomsky really clarified some things for me, even though I read Shahak’s book years ago. I cited it here, but the comment was held up in moderation for a long time, so I think many missed it.
      link to mondoweiss.net

      The talk was in two parts. Long. But check into Part 1 at the link above, and listen from 50 minutes to 1:08:00. So, 18 minutes (although I would suggest you go further). But he gets into the salient part at 56 minutes and explains it for 7 minutes. GREAT stuff.

      Shahak explains how Jews for 2,000 years were controlled by rabbis in their closed communities–all Jews worldwide were orthodox until the end of the 18th C–and how that is how they existed in their host countries. As a block. As long as the rabbis paid taxes, which were never individually assessed on Jews by the monarch or ruler, Jews could function as an autonomous group within the host country and impose its own rules without complaint by–moreover, with the approval of–the ruler. So, Jews within Poland could punish or execute fellow Jews to maintain control. And no one complained. It was the way it was. (Shahak gives more detail in his book.)

      As explained in another post and thread here at MW, France became a nation after the 1789 revolution. Jews (again, in their closed community as Shahak frames it) asked for two provinces in the new France in which to exist alone and untouched by the rest of France. The new French rulers said no. They said they welcomed Jews qua individual, but not Jews qua nation. The French were not about to carve out any group for special consideration.

      What struck me after listening to Shahak’s talk is how Israel is still at its ancient and medieval rabbi-structure ways. It can’t get this out of its system. It wants to exist in the world as a nation state with separate rules and mores that don’t have to conform to any global norm, just as it wanted to carve out a separate existence for itself in France (with all the benefits of living in France), and as it did in Poland and other eastern European countries for centuries.

      This is why it thumbs its nose at the UN, the ICC, and the other orgs it will take advantage of when it behooves them, but not otherwise. Israel has no problem ghettoizing itself in the world (or, apparently, taking other people’s land). It feels entitled. It did it for 2,000 years, and sees no reason to stop now. It also has 2,000 years of practice coming up with reasons for the monarchs why it should prevail the way it wants. This is why the punishment and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is of no consequence in their national thinking. Israel is simply a 20th C enactment of a religiously-led community operating as it has for centuries, done on a large scale, and mumbling the appropriate BS to get the Diaspora to buy it. . . and pay for it. And mythologizing the so-called persecutions the community experienced during its various expulsions into political and financial capital for their weep-effect in the present time.

      In other words, they went from local or regional, to global. Same game, different size.

      • MRW
        February 1, 2013, 3:33 am

        P.S. I would suggest, however, that the time Jews spent under Islamic rule was entirely different. Jews in Spain for 400 years (or was it 700?) before 1492 did not live a ghettoized life. Nor did they experience that in Constantinople when Isabella kicked the Muslims and Jews out and they landed in the Ottoman empire.

      • Ellen
        February 1, 2013, 7:20 am

        MRW, interesting post. And yes the very long period of a strong and integrated position of Jewish culture and life Jews had in Spain (until the Church got all crazy and paranoid) and in the Ottoman empire is a repressed history.

        That does not fit the narrative. Sadly, for all, and especially for Jews, this history is repressed.

      • agatharchides
        February 1, 2013, 10:13 am

        This is untrue as far as the Ottoman Empire goes. All the religious communities in the Ottoman Empire had their own laws and often paid taxes en bloc under the millet system.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • sardelapasti
        February 1, 2013, 10:41 am

        MRW. You have to be more precise than “ghettoized life”. Especially in the Ottoman empire, under their “millet” (nationalities) system, rabbis were the almost-absolute rulers of their flock, responsible toward the emperor, in exchange for their support of the emperor in all circumstances (for instance massacres of the Greeks during their war of independence, of Armenians in the late 19th C., etc.) So yes, ghettoized to the profit of the rabbis.

      • Ellen
        February 1, 2013, 11:10 am

        The millet system imposed on all groups was not specific to Jews. That is the point. And Jews were offered refuge and protection (even sponsorship) into what is now called the Balkans.

      • Klaus Bloemker
        February 1, 2013, 9:44 pm

        MRW – thanks for the link to the MIT lecture of Shahak and Chomsky.
        ———————————————————————————————————–
        Shahak, as a born Eastern European Jew, has still their charm and mellowness, unlike Chomsky who comes across as more American.

        At one point in the Q&A section Shahak tells the joke about the secular Israeli Jews: “They don’t believe in God but they believe he gave them the land.”
        ————————————
        He also says in his lecture: Israel’s colonial project is different IN KIND
        from traditional colonial porjects. – Something I’ve been saying all along.

  12. jimby
    January 31, 2013, 12:25 pm

    Every American Zionista is up to their eyeballs in this shit….

  13. FreddyV
    January 31, 2013, 12:57 pm

    OK, goodo, fantastic and all that. If Israel does nothing, will it be tried in the ICC?

    If found guilty, what will the punishment be? The entire population would be at risk of war crimes through IDF conscription and therefore unable to travel (aside from to the US, of course). What about International sanctions?

    The UN should start explaining the consequences of a guilty verdict to the Israeli public. They might think about things.

    • Hostage
      January 31, 2013, 6:30 pm

      If Israel does nothing, will it be tried in the ICC?

      Article 25 of the Rome Statute limits its jurisdiction to “natural persons”. It does not try legal persons, like States or Corporations. It prosecutes the responsible state officials or individuals for whatever criminal acts they’ve personally committed.

  14. DICKERSON3870
    January 31, 2013, 1:33 pm

    RE: “U.N. human rights investigators called on Israel on Thursday to halt settlement expansion and withdraw all half a million Jewish settlers from the occupied West Bank . . .” ~ Reuters

    MY COMMENT: Fat chance of that!

    WATCH: BBC – The Ultra Zionists – [FULL DOCUMENTARY] (VIDEO, 58:28) – link to vimeo.com

    FROM WIKIPEDIA [The Ultra Zionists]:

    The Ultra Zionists is a British documentary that was televised on 3 February 2011. Louis Theroux goes to East Jerusalem, Hebron and Nablus. The documentary follows Theroux as he investigates ultra-nationalist Jewish settlers. He follows and visits several Jewish settlers and also is shown around the Muslim quarter of Jerusalem by Daniel Luria of the Ateret Cohanim Zionist Movement. Theroux says:

    I was making a documentary about these ultra-nationalist Jewish settlers, called The Ultra-Zionists. For several weeks I’d been spending time in some of the most hardcore and uncompromising sections of the Israeli nationalist community – the Jewish enclave in Hebron, in the hilltops in the north of the West Bank, and in the crowded Arab neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem – choosing to come at a time when peace talks were ongoing and the extreme settlers were therefore more embattled…
    …It might be easy to write off these “ultra-Zionists” as people on the fringe of a fringe in terms of their outlook and beliefs. And it is true that many, if not most, Israelis say they would be happy to pull out of most of the occupied territories if they were confident it would lead to peace.
    But what makes the extreme settlers more troubling is that they also enjoy a degree of support from the Israeli state. Surprising as it may seem, many illegal outposts like Yair’s are protected by the Israeli army. And in East Jerusalem and Hebron the Jewish presence is fully legal under Israeli law and underwritten and guaranteed by a vast security force.[1]

    SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

    • James Canning
      January 31, 2013, 2:44 pm

      Perhaps the international community should focus on full UN recognition with pre-1967 borders. Presence of Jewish settlers should not change borders.

      • lyn117
        February 1, 2013, 11:15 am

        Expanding borders has always been one of the reasons Israel installed the settlers.

        I don’t quite grasp why focusing on full UN recognition with the pre-1967 borders will help the situation, it seems more of a deflection. As I know, Israel has full recognition. Could you explain how it isn’t recognized?

      • James Canning
        February 13, 2013, 1:49 pm

        Israel has full recognition, by the UN. Palestine does not, thanks to the ISRAEL LOBBY in the US.

        Simply put, Israel needs to be told, time and time again, that growing illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank does not change the borders of Palestine. Full stop.

      • Hostage
        February 13, 2013, 4:17 pm

        I don’t quite grasp why focusing on full UN recognition with the pre-1967 borders will help the situation, it seems more of a deflection.

        In international law “recognition” means that you accept the rights and responsibilities of a government to exercise legal jurisdiction over its territory.

        That means that 130 countries do not accept the Israeli Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to decide questions regarding Palestine. When claims are made against Israelis in the courts of those countries, it’s only necessary to determine that legal remedies have been exhausted in the Palestinian legal system and to note that Israel illegally employs its own municipal laws as an excuse to avoid its obligations under the applicable international law.

        For decades Palestinians have been improperly instructed to seek remedies in Israeli Courts. See The legal tsunami is on its way
        link to haaretz.com

      • James Canning
        February 13, 2013, 6:59 pm

        And let’s remember the UN recognised Israel when its borders were a bit vague.

      • Hostage
        February 13, 2013, 9:12 pm

        Israel has full recognition, by the UN. Palestine does not, thanks to the ISRAEL LOBBY in the US.

        No, Israel only has full “representation” in the UN. There are various UN treaties, like the Vienna Conventions, which require state parties to treat both Israel and Palestine as States.

        On the other hand all of the primary UN organs have invoked the duty of members not to ‘recognize as lawful’ the illegal territorial situations created by Israel through the illegal use of force or other serious breaches of its jus cogens obligations. So the status of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights is one of non-recognition and the credentials committee of the General Assembly does not recognize the validity of Israel’s credentials to represent the inhabitants of any territory captured in 1967.

      • James Canning
        February 14, 2013, 3:11 pm

        Absolutely, Israel has no UN recognition or acceptance of its “annexations” of Golan Heights and parts of West Bank.

      • Hostage
        February 16, 2013, 12:53 pm

        And let’s remember the UN recognised Israel when its borders were a bit vague.

        Every time the subject came up during the dozens of hearings on its membership application, the Soviet Union, United States, and others said that Israel’s recognized borders were on a map attached to resolution 181(II) that every concerned party could consult at any time.

        The status of any territory beyond the partition lines is provisional under the terms of the armistice agreements and Article 40 of the UN Charter. It’s final status can only be settled by mutual agreement in a final negotiated settlement. See for example John McHugo, Resolution 242: A Legal Reappraisal of the Right-Wing Israeli Interpretation of the Withdrawal Phrase With Reference to the Conflict Between Israel and the Palestinians, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, October 2002, vol 51, pp. 858–9. link to web.archive.org

      • James Canning
        February 16, 2013, 1:34 pm

        Hostage – – So, what are the borders of Israel, in your view? 1949 Armistice line? Or 1947 UN partition plan?

      • Hostage
        February 16, 2013, 1:45 pm

        P.S. Here’s an example of the positions expressed in the Security Council during the hearings on Israel’s membership application:

        Mr. Malik (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): The USSR delegation has in the past frequently explained its views on the question of the admission of Israel to the United Nations, both in the Security Council and in the Committee on the Admission of New Members. My delegation cannot agree with the assertion that the territory and frontiers of the State of Israel have not been established, are undetermined and vague. It holds the view that the territory of the State of Israel has been defined by an international document, namely, the General Assembly’s resolution of 29 November 1947, which is still in force.

        Not only does this resolution define precisely the territory of the State of Israel, but it even includes an appended map, which can be seen at any time by any member of the Security Council. The question is, therefore, beyond dispute.

        See the verbatim minutes S/PV.384 page 22 of 45 link to un.org

        There were hundreds of similar statements made by representatives from dozens of countries during the hearings in the Security Council and General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee. All concerned seemed agreed that Israel had either been created by the United Nations or “summoned into existence” by the decision taken by the United Nations. It was only afterward that the representative of Israel change his previously stated view and claimed that Israel was created by its own independent action.

      • talknic
        February 16, 2013, 4:11 pm

        James Canning “And let’s remember the UN recognised Israel when its borders were a bit vague”

        The UN doesn’t recognize states. The process is thus.

        A state is declared. It is then recognized (or not) by a majority of “the comity of nations” (the International Community of Nations. Not the UN) before being recommended (or not) as an already recognized state by the UNSC for UN Membership. The UN then votes to accept (or not) the already recognized state as a UN Member.

        Further more Israel was recognized as it asked to be recognized

        USA 15 May 1948 “… as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947…”

        Russia 17 May 1948
        Letter from Mr. Molotov stated: “Confirming receipt of your telegram of May 16, in which you inform the Government of the USSR of the proclamation, on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29,1!>47, of the creation in Palestine of the independent State of Israel and make re-quest for the recognition of the State of Israel and its provisional government by the USSR. I inform yon in this letter that the Govern-ment of the USSR has decided to recognize officially the Stale of Israel and its Provisional Government.”

        British 27 April 1950 The British Foreign Office issued a statement on May 17 to the effect that Great Britain would not recognize Israel for the time being because it had not fulfilled the “basic criteria” of an independent state. The British waited until a political party was elected to Govern the State of Israel, then granted de jure recognition, with conditions. The territories Israel had acquired by war, outside of it’s declared Sovereign Boundaries, were considered to be ‘occupied’. I.e., NOT Israeli Sovereign territory.
        “His Majesty’s Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points corresponding to those described above in regard to the case of Jordan. These points are as follows. First, that His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements, or of any final settlements which may replace them.” Thus far nothing has replaced them.

        Australia 28 January 1949 “… on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947…”
        Links to primary source documents here link to wp.me

        Israel confirmed its sovereign extent May 22nd 1948 link to wp.me

        “‘vague” is the Hasbara nonsense served up by the Israeli propaganda machine

        The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (entered into force on December 26, 1934), requires ” b ) a defined territory;” The signatories would have required the same lest they breached the convention themselves by recognizing a state without a defined territory.

      • James Canning
        February 17, 2013, 1:33 pm

        Talknic – – Are you saying Israel needs to be reduced in size, to accord with the 1947 UN partition plan?

      • James Canning
        February 17, 2013, 1:47 pm

        Great post.

      • American
        February 17, 2013, 1:54 pm

        James Canning says:

        Talknic – – Are you saying Israel needs to be reduced in size, to accord with the 1947 UN partition plan?>>>>>

        I dont’ know what Talknic will say but I say that is exactly what needs to be done. What the UN awarded Israel is the only portion of Israel that is legal…and that wasn’t really legal in the sense that the UN had any actual legal right to divide a land.

      • Hostage
        February 17, 2013, 2:00 pm

        The UN doesn’t recognize states.

        It does, and it doesn’t. In the “Reparations” case, involving the assassination of Count Bernadotte, the ICJ noted that the UN member states had created an organization with its own legal personality and the capacity to conclude treaties, admit members, enter into relations with individual states on its own behalf, or pursue claims against states.

        The members are required to respect those decisions under the terms of the Charter, but they are not bound to recognize those same states or enter into relations with them for their own part. The UN decided to treat Israel as a state and pursue international claims against it, in the form of reparations, despite the fact that its statehood was disputed or denied by some of the members.

        In 1950 the Secretary General submitted a legal opinion to the Security Council which concluded that an amendment to the Charter would be necessary in order to empower the Organization to perform collective recognition of states on behalf of all the members. It explained the difference between binding decisions on “representation” in the UN and non-binding decisions on “recognition” by the UN.

        No amendment to the UN Charter has been adopted. But the signatories to the various UN Vienna Conventions (on the Law of Treaties, Maintenance of Diplomatic Relations, Consular Relations, & etc.) have voluntarily accepted a treaty obligation to recognize the statehood of any full member state of one of the UN specialized agencies, the IAEA, or parties to the ICJ statute. They have also obligated the General Assembly and the Secretary General to invite those same States to any of its Diplomatic Conferences of Plenipotentiary Powers or to accept accessions to treaties from them.

        The signatories to the various Vienna treaties include most, but not all, UN member states. They were originally drafted as codifications of the rules of customary international law which are considered binding on non-signatories. Many publicists agree that the UN does play a role in collective recognition going forward, since those treaties have entered into force. That belief is reflected in the practice of the Secretary General acting as a depositary for multilateral treaties using the so-called “Vienna formula”.

      • Hostage
        February 17, 2013, 4:45 pm

        Hostage – – So, what are the borders of Israel, in your view? 1949 Armistice line? Or 1947 UN partition plan?

        Israel really has no undisputed borders, since its bilateral treaties with third parties aren’t binding on the other successor to the Mandated State of Palestine. Israel can’t cede territory to others, unless Palestine also agrees. The PLO, the State of Palestine, and the Arab Peace Initiative have all offered to negotiate a border with Israel on the basis of the so-called “4 June 1967 lines” established by the withdrawal clause of Security Council resolution 242. That actually differs in some respects from the armistice lines and DMZs contained in the agreement with Syria. But those proposals have been angrily rejected by Israel.

        Israel explicitly assumed the role and claims of “Palestine” during the UN Mediator’s Conferences at Rhodes and Lausanne in 1948-9 and the first Camp David Summit in 1978. It refused to negotiate with other Palestinian parties, which it impudently claimed were not sovereignties like itself.

        The armistice lines established frontiers of varying widths and demilitarized zones as a provisional measure which was supposedly based entirely upon military considerations. They were adopted under the auspices of Article 40 of the UN Charter by the Security Council. So, they are legally binding on the UN member states that concluded them, i.e. Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Those parties have an obligation to observe and implement them so long as the UN resolutions remain in effect, unless they have agreed upon another frontier or border through negotiations with all of the parties concerned – including Palestine. That has never happened yet.

        The armistice agreements rely on the Security Council for enforcement. Its legal authority over a non-member state, like Palestine, is somewhat limited. For its part, the Council has delayed attempts by Palestine to become a signatory of the UN Charter and assume the related legal obligations.

        The General Assembly resolution was adopted under the auspices of its functions and powers regarding territories subject to a mandate or international trust, i.e. Article 10, 18, 80, and 85 of the Charter. The resolution only established frontiers (zones of varying width) and delegated the job of final delimitation and demarcation of the boundary lines to its Palestine Commission, which never completed the task.

        According to the principles of customary international law affirmed in the “Frontier Dispute” case (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali) in 1986 those are still the legal frontiers of the Jewish and Arab States. Both Israel and the PLO “accepted” resolution 181(II) and it remains the only source of their international legitimacy. So both sides have implicitly recognized the competence of the UN General Assembly to lay down the final boundaries. Disputes over the interpretation of the parties rights is subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ under the terms of a compromissory clause contained in the resolution itself. For example, only the Supreme Court of the respective State can establish the rates for compensation regarding expropriated private property. The Israeli Supreme Court obviously could not set the rate for the Palestinian property given to the JNF or authorize its expropriation for public purposes if it was located beyond the frontiers contained in the UN plan of partition.

        We’ve already had one ICJ case as a result of the Security Council’s failure to enforce its resolutions 62, 73, 242, 338, and 1515. I think that the rights that were placed under the protection of the UN General Assembly by resolution 181(II) and the compromissory clause could be used in line with the 1986 “Frontier Dispute” case to impose a non-negotiated border settlement.

        Israel is obviously hoping that it can force the Palestinians to sign an agreement for Bantustans. But I’ve explained elsewhere that Article 8 and 49(6) of the 4th Geneva Convention and Articles 52 and 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties would render any agreement concluded during a belligerent military occupation null and void.

      • James Canning
        February 17, 2013, 6:41 pm

        As a practical matter, Fatah and Hamas agreed to accept the 1949 armistice line as the border of Palestine with Israel, when they endorsed the 2002 Saudi peace plan.

        Great post.

      • James Canning
        February 17, 2013, 6:56 pm

        Your point is one reason I think Israel should accept the 2002 Saudi peace plan, with some modifications.

      • Hostage
        February 17, 2013, 11:57 pm

        As a practical matter, Fatah and Hamas agreed to accept the 1949 armistice line as the border of Palestine with Israel, when they endorsed the 2002 Saudi peace plan.

        Not quite. Between 1952 and 1956 Israel drove the Palestinians out of the DMZs that were created under the 1949 armistice agreement with Syria and claimed sovereignty over the areas. So the wording of the Arab Peace Initiative would not require Israel to withdraw to the armistice line, just the territory captured during the 1967 conflict in line with UNSC resolution 242:

        Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon;

      • James Canning
        February 18, 2013, 1:32 pm

        I take it Israel’s agreement to accept the 2002 Saudi peace plan would, in your view, not be sufficient from the point of view of the Palestinians?
        Syria very nearly got Israel to agree to withdraw from the Golan Heights, in 2008.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 18, 2013, 3:43 pm

        Syria very nearly got Israel to agree to withdraw from the Golan Heights, in 2008.

        oh please. very nearly?

      • James Canning
        February 18, 2013, 5:06 pm

        Yes, the Turks were furious that their efforts to achieve peace between Israel and Syria were wrecked by Israel’s rampage in Gaza.
        Did Obama operatives ask (or encourage) Israel to smash Hamas (or attempt to do this) before Obama took office?

      • Hostage
        February 18, 2013, 7:21 pm

        I take it Israel’s agreement to accept the 2002 Saudi peace plan would, in your view, not be sufficient from the point of view of the Palestinians?

        I think Israeli intransigence will result in the Palestinians turning to the ICJ, ICC, or extraordinary regional international tribunals. That’s what normally happens in such cases. In the “Frontier Dispute” case, the ICJ relied upon principles of international law that date back to the 19th century to rule that colonial era administrative boundaries were transformed into international ones at the moment of independence and that they could not be altered by fratricidal wars. The provisional measures adopted by the Security Council violated that principle and have not been strictly enforced.

        My opinion on the question doesn’t really matter. The post WW-II peace treaties and the lack of continuing links to the territories in question have not extinguished the legal claims of displaced Jews. They are still entering into voluntary or adjudicated settlements for billions of dollars and assigning their claims to third parties.

        More to the point, the Israeli Supreme Court itself has evicted Palestinians in order to allow Jewish third parties who are the legal successors in interest to Ottoman-era titles to take possession of properties in Israel. Under those circumstances, it’s difficult to argue that Palestinians can’t assign their claims or that they have lapsed due to the passage of time, the arrival of new generations, or the lack of links to the territory.

      • sardelapasti
        February 18, 2013, 7:34 pm

        Canning – “Great post”. Absolutely. So if you did read it, how come you continue harping –for the Nth time, and really tiring– on some “agreement” to this and that armistice line by organizations that are as yet irrelevant, and fully during belligerence? Did you read the thing?

      • James Canning
        February 19, 2013, 2:09 pm

        Sarelapasti – – You tell me what you think is an achievable resolution of the Israel/Palestine problem.

      • James Canning
        February 19, 2013, 2:10 pm

        Hostage – – I am interested in what YOU think is an achievable resolution of the Israel/Palestine problem.

      • Hostage
        February 19, 2013, 11:06 pm

        Hostage – – I am interested in what YOU think is an achievable resolution of the Israel/Palestine problem.

        There are tens of thousands of victims who are either dead or permanently disabled. Talking about a “solution” is just that – talk.

        So long as the US government is controlling the agenda, there won’t be any progress towards peace or justice for the victims and their loved ones. In that case, the only achievable solution will be to let the apartheid regime and its enablers have their day, spend all of their political capital, and destroy their own legitimacy and means of support while we keep shining a light on the spectacle for all to see. We’re already a long way down that path.

      • sardelapasti
        February 20, 2013, 2:02 am

        Canning – You read Hostage. I fully agree with him. What I think is, first, that nobody needs your continuous insistence on giving away the rights of the Palestinians, owners of all the land and all the rights (even if you belonged to them you wouldn’t representative and authorized), and that you’ve done more than your share that way. That no one is going to give any presents to the Palestinians. That both the Zionists and we, their US helpers, are too damn stupid and have lost all democratic mechanisms to ever let things get adjusted without very major damage. One can only hope that there will be survivors. On the other hand, one cannot live without justice anyway.

      • James Canning
        February 20, 2013, 1:57 pm

        Hostage – – So, your opinion is that there is no achievable resolution of the Israel/Palestine problem. Or, that you think the world should watch Israel create the Bantustans, in hopes a major war in the Middle East can later on bring about the destruction of Israel?

      • James Canning
        February 20, 2013, 2:21 pm

        What “rights of the Palestinians” do you claim I wish to “give away”?

      • Annie Robbins
        February 21, 2013, 10:08 am

        oh my jc, hostage hoping for a major war? that sounds out there.

      • sardelapasti
        February 21, 2013, 10:32 am

        Do you also think people’s only wish here is to waste all day answering to endless sneak questions whose answers are obvious and plastered all over the web site in a one-on-one discussion with Mister Canning? Why don’t you read where it says: ask a fully independent, fully sovereign and representative Palestinian government, not a slave delegation or a besieged municipal administration? Who the hell are you to decide what to give away? Who the hell are you to tell people what they want to resist against?

      • James Canning
        February 21, 2013, 1:08 pm

        Sardelapasti – – You appear to be claiming that Hamas and Fatah are not representative of “the Palestinians”. Both groups endorsed the 2002 Saudi peace plan.

      • James Canning
        February 21, 2013, 1:11 pm

        Annie – – Do you seriously expect Jews to give up control of the Israeli army, security services, courts, police, diplomatic service, etc etc etc?

      • Annie Robbins
        February 21, 2013, 1:35 pm

        why no not at all, what would give you that impression? have you seen this video james

        link to mondoweiss.net

        Resistance to oppression always alienates the oppressors. It’s a rule in any resistance to colonial oppression throughout history and the colonial community is never fond of it, of this resistance. They would like us to be complacent slaves who just take injustice as fate and just live with it, move on. Well we won’t move on. We’ll continue resisting and it will continue bothering them because it promises to deprive them of their colonial privilege and no one is happy to give up, simply, their colonial privilege as you know very well in Britan.It has to be pulled out from the colonial masters that you can no longer be our colonial masters.

        i find your framing offensive: ..there is no achievable resolution..or you think the world should watch Israel create the Bantustans, in hopes a major war in the Middle East can later on bring about the destruction of Israel

        it indicates you are not interested in a serious conversation. the summation you’ve made of hostage’s comment involves an alleged ‘hope’ of war and destruction he never expressed, if he doesn’t agree with your assessment. and my query leads you to further rhetorical games such as “Do you seriously expect Jews to give up” blablabla and yet you’re seriously expecting palestinians to give up their rights under international law.

        hostage never said there were no achievable options. he said the only achievable solution will be to let the apartheid regime and its enablers have their day, spend all of their political capital, and destroy their own legitimacy and means of support while we keep shining a light on the spectacle for all to see.

        so what happens when israel has no political capitol left, with anyone? limited minds see limited options. your questions reveal a lot about the limits of your conceptions.

      • sardelapasti
        February 21, 2013, 1:55 pm

        James Canning – you can’t read or you do a very good imitation of it.

      • James Canning
        February 21, 2013, 2:06 pm

        Annie – – The Palestinian unity governemnt of Hamas and Fatah did endorse the 2002 Saui peace plan. Which Israel foolishly failed to accept (with some changes).

        Clearly you are sincere in believing that the Jews in Israel will voluntarrily give up their control of the army, navy, air force, police, secret services, courts, diplomatic service, etc etc etc etc. I see this as “pie in the sky”.

        The larger problem, in my view, is that powerful interests seeking to “protect” Israel, will bring about a US war with Iran in furtherance of their programme.

      • James Canning
        February 21, 2013, 2:43 pm

        Annie – – I think the power of the Israel lobby actually is growing, in both the US and Europe.

      • Hostage
        February 21, 2013, 6:36 pm

        hostage never said there were no achievable options. he said the only achievable solution . . . .

        I pointed out that tens of thousands of victims who are either dead or permanently maimed and disabled. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians have one or more family members who have been wrongfully imprisoned, tortured, and humiliated – often for years on end. There are hundreds of thousands who have lost the ancestral lands that they cultivated for a living. They have been denied the fundamental right to return and enjoy quiet possession of their own homes and properties.

        There is no such thing as a just “solution” that will bring back a murdered loved one; restore missing limbs or heal permanent developmental disorders caused by malnutrition and untreated medical problems; make-up for the years of deprivation and family separation; and loss of homes, lands, society and an entire way of life that has vanished forever.

        During the siege on Gaza it became very obvious that the civilized world had abandoned the inhabitants to their fate and given Israel a free hand to pursue a policy of grand apartheid, persecution, random murders and massacres, destruction of vital infrastructure, and a denial of basic shelter and daily sustenance.

        At one and the same time, all the western powers have armed Israel “to the teeth” with billions of dollars in aid, while denying Palestinians even the most rudimentary means of self-defense. Israel has been allowed to veto Palestinian statehood; the deployment of an international peacekeeping force; and the Arab Peace Initiative, which is simply a restatement of the criteria contained in UN Security Council resolution 242. While all of that has been going on, Israel has been arrogantly proclaiming the ancient right of Jews to illegally occupy and colonize any part of Palestine they so desire.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 21, 2013, 7:01 pm

        Clearly you are sincere in believing that the Jews in Israel will voluntarrily give up their control of the army, navy, air force, police, secret services, courts, diplomatic service, etc etc etc etc.

        i get it, you asked me a question, i answer, and then you override my answer and tell me “clearly” i ‘sincerely’ believe the opposite of what i just said.

        i’m over playing rhetorical games with you james. when i say no, it means no.

        one more time:

        James Canning says:
        February 21, 2013 at 1:11 pm

        Annie – – Do you seriously expect Jews to give up control of the Israeli army, security services, courts, police, diplomatic service, etc etc etc?

        Annie Robbins says:
        February 21, 2013 at 1:35 pm

        why no not at all, what would give you that impression? have you seen this video james

        and then i went on to provide a video/blockquote and bold my explanation.

        goodbye james, not discussing something w/someone so myopic and full of his own opinion he can’t hear others.

      • James Canning
        February 22, 2013, 1:40 pm

        Annie – – So, you believe Jews will keep control of Israeli army, air force, navy, intelligence services, courts, etc etc etc?

      • Citizen
        February 23, 2013, 10:09 am

        @ James Canning
        I agree that is the larger problem, and that “protect” should be inside quote marks, but it’s rooted in conducted Zionist policy towards the Palestinians. Agree?

      • Citizen
        February 23, 2013, 10:15 am

        @ James Canning
        Unlike the former apartheid white regime in S Africa, the Jews in Israel will not voluntarily give up their control and the means to it. Historic slavery guilt in the US is not capable of overcoming Holocaust guilt in the US, even though the Holocaust did not happen in America, or by Americans. The apartheid whites of the former S Africa were not so lucky in terms of justifying retaining their power.

      • James Canning
        February 23, 2013, 1:22 pm

        Citizen – – Yes, there is no doubting that many of those American leaders conspiring to set up war with Iran, do so with a view toward “protecting” Israel.
        Meaning, to enable Israel to continue its insane illegal colonisation programme in the West Bank.
        Philip Stephens has a fine piece on this point in yesterday’s Financial Times (that Netanyahu apparently prefers war with Iran to peace with the Palestinians).

      • James Canning
        February 23, 2013, 1:28 pm

        Citizen – – Democratic politicians in the US, who depended for electoral success on the “black” vote, needed to pressure South African “whites” to relinquish power to the “blacks”.

        Those same politicians depend upon Jewish campaign finance, for electoral success.

        Whites in SA knew the blacks could kill so many whites that the country would be engulfed in total chaos. If power was not voluntarily relinquished.

        Jews in Israel would not relinquish control of Israeli army, police, security services, courts, etc etc etc etc. Full stop. Arab leaders comprehend this fact.

    • DICKERSON3870
      January 31, 2013, 6:48 pm

      P.S. COMING SOON
      New Ziocaine Über-Xtreme Ultra®: It’s guaran-damn-teed to blow your effing mind or double your money back!™

      • Annie Robbins
        February 1, 2013, 12:53 am

        omg dickerson, we’ll have to check with mooser about your link.

  15. James Canning
    January 31, 2013, 2:30 pm

    Bravo. Israel has trampled on international law, and grown its illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank. With continuous encouragement of the foolish US Congress.

  16. jimmy
    January 31, 2013, 10:44 pm

    I wont be surprised if the US and its ME buddy withdraw from the UN…

    then fox noise will say we should bomb it

  17. jimmy
    January 31, 2013, 10:45 pm

    Why I’m Boycotting SodaStream

    Shalom Rav
    A Blog by Rabbi Brant Rosen

    Israel’s settlement juggernaut continues at full speed, creating apartheid conditions on the occupied West Bank while making a mockery of any hope of a two state solution. Since no nation or institution seems willing to hold Israel accountable, it seems to me the least any concerned citizen can do is to refuse to patronize companies that directly profit from this brutal and unjust occupation.

    link to rabbibrant.com

    • MRW
      February 1, 2013, 2:17 am

      Today CBS banned Soda Stream’s ad for the Superbowl.

      • mondonut
        February 1, 2013, 12:40 pm

        MRW says: Today CBS banned Soda Stream’s ad for the Superbowl.
        ========================================
        It was not politically motivated, CBS has huge deals with Coke and Pepsi.

  18. Tzombo
    February 4, 2013, 1:44 pm

    Meanwhile in the land of the ICC, the daily NRC reported today that Unilever has moved a pretzel factory from the Barkan industrial zone which is part of the Ariel settlement to an industrial zone inside the Green Line near Safed. Not in response to the UN report, apparently it was moved some time around New Year’s day. It says in the article that the French Carrefour and British Harrods were alreadyboycotting the pretzels over the West Bank connection. The article also states there are other Unilever companies registered in the Netherlands that are still active in the occupied WB. NRC is one of the major newspapers, so this brings talk about BDS in the mainstream media here too.

Leave a Reply