Denied entry by Israel, American teacher prepares to say goodbye to Palestinian students

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 119 Comments
Nour Joudah
Nour Joudah

Here is an important story from Palestine: Nour Joudah, 25, a Palestinian-American masters graduate of Georgetown who teaches at the Friends School in Ramallah, which has received millions in U.S. aid, was denied entry into Israel on Monday.

This is the second time in two months Israel has stopped Joudah from going back to her classes in Palestine. Those classes have a temporary teacher; and Joudah, who is in Amman, says she has now sent the children a letter telling them she doesn’t think she’ll be back to teach them. 

“My guess is I’m not getting back this semester. I’ve been holding back on saying this publicly without making any statement to the kids. But I recently wrote them a letter. I told them I was really sorry and really disappointed but I couldn’t come back. I’m going to have a Skype call with them on Saturday to say goodbye,” she said by telephone. 

How many students? “Ninety kids. They are mostly all 14-years old. I teach three sections of thirty. Three ninth grade classes. The last day I saw them was December 21st, the last day of finals.”

Here is the heartbreaking email Joudah sent her students on Tuesday:

First of all, I want to tell you all that your emails over the past two months have been the best parts of my day while I’ve been stuck here in Amman. The 90 of you have been such strong motivation for me to keep fighting to get back, and I would do it all over again if I had the choice, despite all of the horrible mess that has happened the past two months.

Teaching you all first semester was a joy, and I have no doubt that even if I teach for another 30 years, your class will always hold a special place in my heart.

Yesterday, I flew to Tel Aviv from Amman. I did so in coordination with the Israeli Embassy in DC, and yet despite that the security at the airport denied me again. They held me for 8 hours before they told me, and around 8pm, I was taken to a detention center. They put me on a flight back to Amman this morning, and late last night, the judge denied the request by my lawyer for an emergency hearing (court date).

It breaks my heart that I have to tell you that I won’t be back this semester to finish teaching you, or be back to Palestine – at least not any time soon.

I was hoping to see you all in person today, but that hope has been taken away. Ustaz Michael is going to help arrange a Skype date this Saturday afternoon with the classes so I can answer any questions you might have, and more importantly, so I can say goodbye to all of you. I am cc-ing him here, and he will give you all details about where to meet. (Anyone who wants to Skype with me individually later is welcome to, of course.)

I want to say a few things to you now, so maybe I can keep from being too emotional when we see each other on Skype Saturday.

1. Just because I am not your English teacher for the rest of the year, doesn’t mean you can’t come to me for help. Anything you need, you still know how to reach me. Whether you want to get in touch now or in a few years for advice or just to chat, I’m here. I’ll always be your teacher. The Israelis can’t take that from me or from you.

2. If you’re angry, that’s ok. Be angry. But don’t take that anger out on your teachers or your studies. It’s not their fault. Channel that anger or sadness or frustration into something productive. If you want to do something for me, work on your English. Work on expressing yourself beautifully in your writing, so one day you can tell the world what you know and help the people around you when you do.

3. Remember – just because I lost this small fight now, doesn’t mean it wasn’t worth fighting – and it doesn’t mean the larger fight is over. Never let anyone keep you from living in your country. It’s always worth standing up for yourself. Don’t forget that there are millions of Palestinians that would give up everything to be in your position – to even have a day in the homeland. Even if it doesn’t always feel like it because of our struggles living under occupation, remember you being in Palestine is a right that others are still fighting for. It’s your job to use the potential that I know all of you have to find a way to use your lives to help bring all of us Palestinians around the world together.

Denied Entry

Nour Joudah with her class at Friends School
Nour Joudah (center) with her class at Friends School

Joudah left Palestine for the holidays, but was denied re-entry at Allenby Bridge on January 5. After that, Congressional staffers worked with the Israeli Embassy in Washington to press for an assurance that Joudah would be admitted. She flew back on February 25. 

The case recalls that of Sandra Tamari, another Palestinian-American, who was denied entry on arbitrary grounds and deported last June.

“I really thought that on this second trip Nour would be let in,” says Samer Araabi of the Arab American Institute. “With media present, with independent observers present– that they couldn’t play the same shtik again. But they did.

“It breaks my heart to think of the students she’s left behind. It’s a microcosm of the Palestinian diaspora experience itself– never being allowed to return home,” he says.

Joudah, whose parents are from Gaza and who has family in Gaza, says that she believes she is being denied entry because of an arbitrary decision on the part of the Allenby officials that the Israeli system is now struggling to justify. “They’re trying to save face.”

She learned that she was denied entry on Jan. 5, officially because she “refused to answer questions.”

“That was a lie. I answered every single question at Allenby. They weren’t even asking them in an accusatory tone. And every question they asked, I knew they had the answer to. So there was nothing for me to be coy about,” she said from Amman.

Then when she entered Ben Gurion airport on Monday, the officials’ tone was different, “fishing” for information.

“They pushed for the names and phone numbers, and a list of young Palestinians I have come across,” she says. “They were in essence asking me to become an informant on every Arab I’ve met since last August. That’s outrageous– that I would be expected to betray the trust of people who took me into their homes.”

In a later email, Joudah explained the nature of the negotiations with the Israelis ahead of time:

The Israeli Embassy never gave an assurance of my entry. They simply were assisting in that I would be questioned and considered for entry on my visa. They contacted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and my interrogators were aware of this (I was directly told so). Congresswoman Jackson Lee’s office [Sheila Jackson Lee represents the Texas district where Joudah’s parents live] inquired on my behalf and indeed is still in touch with the Israeli Embassy and my lawyer… The Judge’s reason for denying my lawyer’s request for an emergency hearing when I was in detention was that by flying to Tel Aviv I “took the law into my own hands” by not waiting for my appeal - despite the fact that I traveled in coordination with Israeli government officials.

Haaretz reported the case yesterday:

When inquiries were made on her behalf by attorney Emily Schaeffer, the Border Crossing Administration representative said the [Allenby] decision was made for security reasons, but did not elaborate.

While Schaeffer was preparing an appeal, Joudah contacted U.S. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who represents the district of Texas where Joudah’s parents live. Jackson Lee contacted the Israeli Embassy in Washington, which suggested that Joudah try to re-enter through Ben-Gurion airport to give the authorities a chance to reconsider their position.

After landing at the airport on Monday, she was questioned twice, once for half an hour and once for 20 minutes, and then held in custody for several more hours. On Monday evening, she was told that she was being refused entry and would be put on a plane back to Amman Tuesday morning….

She was also asked if she knew any prisoners, a question she had not answered previously. When she said she did not, the Shin Bet members asked her whether she knew anyone who had a relative in prison.

Ramallah Friends School

The Ramallah Friends School (palfriends.org) is, I am told by a supporter of Joudah’s, an American-owned Quaker school in Ramallah that has received about $7 million from USAID since 1995. Here is a photo of Howard Sumka, the former USAID West Bank/Gaza Mission Director,  cutting the ribbon for a new USAID-funded building at the school. That supporter continues:

A bipartisan congressional delegation with Reps. Nita Lowey (now ranking member of the appropriations committee), Kay Granger (chair of the state and foreign operations appropriations subcommittee), Steve Rothman, Adam Schiff and Jesse Jackson, Jr. visited the school in April 2009. It is considered the best school in the Palestinian territories and graduates students to Ivy League universities each year. 1/3 of its students are Christian, 2/3 are Muslim. It teaches students Quaker values of non-violence, tolerance and equality; world religions, including Judaism; and the Holocaust, including the Diary of Anne Frank in recent years.

After she was kept from returning to classes, Joudah sent out an appeal to the Friends School community:

I have been teaching now at the Friends Boys School in Ramallah since September 2012, and have worked tirelessly and with devotion to help prepare talented 9th graders for their upcoming years in the International Baccalaureate program. I have bonded with these students and seen so many of them, frustrated and bored of old English curriculums, come alive with the projects and discussions we have undertaken in just this first semester.

After mid-year exams were over, I crossed over to Jordan to spend Christmas and New Years with a friend in Amman, and upon my return to the West Bank (at the Allenby bridge), I was denied entry by Israel – despite the one year multiple entry visa I had been issued by the Israeli Ministry of Interior. I was given no reason other than “security” and was put on a bus back to Jordan….

So many of my students have emailed me, upset and wondering if and when I am returning to class, if we will read the novels I promised I would walk them through, or the projects they were excited to start. I continue to assure them as much as I’m able that things will work out shortly and ask them to focus on their studies and be mindful of their substitute, but I do so with a heavy heart.

My number one priority is returning to my students, to finish my work for them for the year. If I had thought there would be any problem with my re-entry, I would have never left for the holidays for that one week. I am not asking now for any extraordinary measure to be taken. I am simply asking for the multiple entry visa that I was granted to be honored so I can go back to my work.

As it stands now, all of my belongings are in my apartment in Ramallah. My students’ exams are there, as well, waiting to be graded, though I am trying desperately to arrange for someone to send me the exams to grade while I am waiting and stranded in Amman.

The double standard in U.S. policy

Araabi at the Arab American Institute says that the “other side of this is the big push” by some Congresspeople to end the visa requirement for Israelis to visit the U.S. 

He mentions a bill pushed by Brad Sherman and Ted Poe called HR 300, with 65 cosponsors:

“Dear Colleague, Please join us as a cosponsor of H.R.300, the Visa Waiver for Israel Act. The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) allows nationals from certain countries to enter the United States as temporary visitors (non-immigrants) for up to 90 days without first obtaining a visa from a U.S. consulate abroad. There are 37 countries currently in the Visa Waiver Program, including western and central European countries, as well as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Brunei, Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand. Adding Israel to the Visa Waiver Program would not only strengthen ties with our closest friend and democratic ally in the Middle East, but would also boost business, tourism, and job creation in the U.S. as well.”

Araabi comments, “It’s one thing for the Israeli government to be so intransigent, it’s another for our government to be so blase. No one seems to care.”

Last June the head of the Arab American Institute, James Zogby, issued a statement on the Tamari case: 

 ”I have been dealing with issues of this sort for 35 years. And I have, myself, been personally subjected to hours of frustrating and humiliating interrogations by Israeli officials. Since the 1970’s we have logged with the State Department the complaints of hundreds of American citizens of Arab descent traveling to or within Israel and the Occupied Territories who were: detained for hours of humiliating questioning; denied entry, turned away at airports and made to buy tickets to return home; forced to surrender their American passports and to secure, against their will, a Palestinian ID document; denied permission to exit; strip searched; or had property stolen or deliberately destroyed by airport inspectors. The stories are hurtful and have caused great distress to many. There are many Palestinian Americans who, because of their concern with this treatment, have simply stopped going to visit their families.

“Sadly, instead of protecting its citizens, the U.S. has all too often feigned powerlessness, thus enabling Israel to continue to violate the rights of Arab Americans with impunity. This is unconscionable since it relegates Arab Americans to the status of second class citizens. I have been assured by many Secretaries of State that there is but one class of U.S. citizenship, that our rights, as Arab Americans, will be protected and that this matter will be taken up with Israeli authorities. And yet, after the initial protest is ignored by Israel, our government shrugs its shoulders as if to say “there is nothing more we can do.” Well there is something more they can do. They just either cannot or will not muster the political courage to protect the rights of the Arab American community when Israel is involved.”

119 Responses

  1. Woody Tanaka
    February 28, 2013, 4:32 pm

    What do we think the odds are that the donkey fellators in Washington are going to take the israelis to talk for their disgusting actions against an American??

  2. kayq
    February 28, 2013, 4:45 pm

    The sad part about this is the US cares more about covering up Israel’s mishaps, rather than protecting its own US Citizens.

  3. doug
    February 28, 2013, 5:06 pm

    Russia has a Visa Waiver program with Israel but the US doesn’t.

    And Americans have this bizarre idea Israel is somehow not on friendly terms with Russia.

    Israel isn’t on our list because they don’t meet the 3% rule we apply to other countries. Israel’s passports also lack biometric standards we require for inclusion.

    As for why Russia allows it, there are a lot of Russian expats in Israel and both countries probably use the access for spying.

    • AbeBird
      March 7, 2013, 11:53 am

      Israel doesn’t meet the 3% rule because most of these 3% are Arab Israelis. So check yourselves first. Americans are free to enter Israel (but as we see Israel as any other peace loving democracy hold back any foreign warmonger intruders).

      Israelis have free pass to all European countries including Russia. They have free pass to main not Islamic Eastern Asian states and South America.

  4. Cliff
    February 28, 2013, 5:22 pm

    Security reasons?

    How often do Zionists blame the Palestinians for their condition?

    And here is a teacher trying to get back to her students IN PALESTINE, and Israel prevents it.

    Like Sara Roy documented in Gaza – the de-development of the Gazan economy by Israeli occupation – Israel continually attacks Palestinian mobility/agency/survival.

    Security reasons? Bullshit. As. Usual.

  5. piotr
    February 28, 2013, 6:38 pm

    This is despicable, making children suffer for a bureaucratic sadistic whim.

    Besides, this is against American national interests. Institutions like Friends School project an image of American society that no PR campaign can provide. Conversely, by staying away from such cases, State Department and Homeland Security project the image of American state as subservient to Israel. I mentioned Homeland Security because a standard diplomatic response is to use rules of reciprocity. If an Israeli is send back for every American arbitrarily sent back, such situations would not happen.

    For example, Turkey at some point applied the same procedures to Israeli passengers as Israel applies to Turkish passengers.

  6. W.Jones
    February 28, 2013, 7:04 pm

    Nice picture of the students. They look very American.

    • Citizen
      February 28, 2013, 8:18 pm

      Yeah, the crew of the USS Liberty looked very American too. So did Rachel Corrie and the young Turkish American murdered on that Gaza flotilla boat. Israel obviously thinks it can do whatever it wants in this world so long as the American Jewish Establishment bribes our smarmy Congress critters. Since there’s no sign of a revolutionary change in US campaign financing, Israel won’t change because they never get handed a stick, only endless carrots. Guess who’s the wily wabbit stealing the delicious carrots, and who’s Elmer Fudd?

    • Ellen
      March 1, 2013, 12:20 am

      How the students “look” is irrelevant. What do you mean?

      And besides, being in the middle of the United States as I write this and being around lots of students of the same age, they — as a group — sure do not “look” like my kids here in the middle of the country.

      So what is it about these kids that make you say that?

      • ToivoS
        March 1, 2013, 3:26 am

        Interesting point Ellen. Also being around a lot of students that age I didn’t notice that much difference. But on a second look you are right. Sprinkled in that group would have been more blonds and definitely more Asians. But then I work in California (of course the Hispanic students could be confused with the Palestinians).

      • W.Jones
        March 3, 2013, 12:07 am

        ToivoS,

        Palestinians are Asians.

      • sardelapasti
        March 3, 2013, 4:31 pm

        Not really. Mediterranean and “Asian” as seen by USans are different things. You and Toivo somehow are unaware of the degree to which all Mediterranean people are thorougly mixed, ancestry-wise. Palestinians are additionally from an ex-Macedonian, ex-Crusader kingdom.

      • piotr
        March 4, 2013, 12:40 pm

        My favorite on Asians and Europeans is a video of an European girl visiting an Asian nation and singing their folk (patriotic) song. Europe and Asia, Islam and Christianity, but they are all Caucasians (hint: some Georgians are Caucasian, and some are Appalachian).

      • W.Jones
        March 1, 2013, 4:20 pm

        ((And besides, being in the middle of the United States as I write this and being around lots of students of the same age, they — as a group — sure do not “look” like my kids here in the middle of the country. ))
        I think they could pass for a group of Italian American school kids in Catholic school except the girls aren’t in skirts and their shirts are out.

        They are cute kids wearing American-style clothes and dress.

      • Ellen
        March 2, 2013, 10:07 am

        I think they could pass for a group of Italian American school kids in Catholic school except the girls aren’t in skirts and their shirts are out. Jones, do you live in the US? have you spent much time there. The homogenity of the “look” of these kids is atypical.

        And your statement is outdated, stereotypical. Girls stopped wearing skirts in most Catholic all schools a long time ago. Show me one Italian American school.

        Ok the shirts out….that is still a no no.

        But what was really your point about the American Look? Was it to trivalize the subject of this article?

      • W.Jones
        March 3, 2013, 12:23 am

        “Jones, do you live in the US?” Yes.

        “The homogenity of the “look” of these kids is atypical.” OK. America has diversity, and that includes atypical kids.

        “your statement is outdated, stereotypical.” Outdated? No. Stereotypical? Yes, and rightly so: Catholic schools still promote “uniformity”, wherein one may make broad generalizations about what students must wear and still have a legitimate expectation of being right.

        “Girls stopped wearing skirts in most Catholic all schools a long time ago.” Not sure if that’s true. Keyword = most.

        “Show me one Italian American school.”

        Step 1. See photo in link below.
        Step 2. Count number of blonds and girls without skirts.
        Step 3. Report back.
        Step 4. Be cool.

        The 27 borough winners of the Edward Cardinal Egan Scholarships, from the Tri-State Italian American Congress, surround Cardinal Egan during an award ceremony in Cathedral High School.

        link to silive.com

      • piotr
        March 5, 2013, 12:13 am

        I think the children do not look “American” at all, except that they look good natured and neat, which is not exactly a national characteristic. And the dress is “American” in the sense that they wear pants rather than thobes, abayas etc., but again, this is not specific to USA.

        W. Jones clearly meant that the kids are as cute as those that he can see where he lives (which is in America).

    • sardelapasti
      March 1, 2013, 1:50 am

      W. Jones – Yeah, I’d also love to know what an American is supposed to look like, as per the Constitution. Thank you.

      • NickJOCW
        March 1, 2013, 7:38 am

        Are you not being a shade oversensitive? I read Jones’ comment as meaning they look just like American students, i.e. they could well be.

      • W.Jones
        March 3, 2013, 12:29 am

        I wish my other thread comments generated over 17 replies.

      • sardelapasti
        March 3, 2013, 4:24 pm

        Nick etc. – That’s inane. Any students anywhere look like American students. Once more, what are we supposed to look like? The cast of a Wagner opera? If this is not a fundamental to be sensitive about, what is?
        Anyway, he was suggesting (if I didn’t misread) that making Palestinians look like less brown-and-black and more Anglo-like (which they are anyway, statistically) would endear them to our racist public, which is to be pandered to. And is being pandered to by ultrablonde top models.

    • Avi_G.
      March 1, 2013, 2:40 am

      I think what W. Jones meant was that the girls are not wearing Burqas and the boys are not toting Hukkahs. Perhaps what is wrong with this photo is that there are no camels in the background. Someone should have gone to the zoo and dragged a camel over just to complete the photo op. There should also be a goat wandering nearby, eating one of the potted plants there on the right.

      But Ellen got it right. They don’t look anything like her students in the Mid-West. For example, note the absence of ipods, and blonds. Plus, none of them is eating that County Board of Education-approved junk food or drinking sugar-laced chocolate milk so there are no obese students anywhere in the picture. And that’s a shame because otherwise they would look ‘Murrican enough for Ellen.

      Personally, I think those students are quite eloquent for Arabs.

      • Inanna
        March 2, 2013, 1:57 am

        Personally, I think those students are quite eloquent for Arabs.

        ok, that got a lmao out of me.

      • Ellen
        March 2, 2013, 10:33 am

        Right, they do not look typically American, overfed and with the horrible diet related skin complexion. And arevnot a physical mix.

        Don’t know what Murrican means nor the thing about “eloquent for Arabs?”

        For Arabs???

    • ezzo
      March 1, 2013, 10:44 am

      I can’t take this comment seriously. What does an American look like? Haha

      • W.Jones
        March 1, 2013, 4:25 pm

        One implication can be that we are fed pictures in the corporate-monopolist news of Palestinians as dressed up in desert clothes with their faces covered (in reality because they don’t want to be identified and sniped a few days later -yes this happens; or because they want to avoid teargas). If instead the corporate pro-Israeli mass news showed pictures like this, Palestinians would have a different, frequent image in the common American perception, because typically people have an inclination to like that which looks like themselves.

      • Ellen
        March 2, 2013, 10:16 am

        Jones, good point and forgive me if I have misinterpreted your comment above. Point is the media fed to Americans is the same Fruit Loops eaten as food for breakfast. Artificial and unhealty.

        Images that might humanize Palestinian youth or make them seem just like us are verboten.

        It is easier to kill them if they remain foreign, different, the other.

      • W.Jones
        March 3, 2013, 12:40 am

        “Point is the media fed to Americans is the same Fruit Loops eaten as food for breakfast. Artificial and unhealty.”

        No it isn’t. Fruit loops are cool. There’s a bunny with a big smile on the cover. You eat them in the morning and have a nice day. Turn on the TV and see staged or misplaced images of Palestinians labeled as celebrating on 91 and it’s quite different.

        Give me fruit loops any day you are going to put that on the news.

      • W.Jones
        March 3, 2013, 12:51 am

        “Jones, good point and forgive me if I have misinterpreted your comment above.”
        It’s OK. And if you send a box of Fruit Loops to blockaded Gaza for me we’ll call it even.

        All the best,

        W.J.

    • Avi_G.
      March 2, 2013, 11:06 am

      Seriously now, I really don’t understand this fascination with calling the students American-like or not for it exposes several prejudices.

      1. It’s as though ALL Americans are the same.

      2. It’s as though ALL Americans are Anglo. They look American. They don’t look American.

      In some parts of the US there is great diversity, in other parts there isn’t. So to expect that class to have an Asian student (You know, for diversity) or to expect them all to look blond (Because that’s what people in Wyoming look like. Or because the only real “typical” American is supposed to be blond) is instructive.

      3. None here would be writing whether the students are wearing “American style clothes” had the group in question been European, or Chinese for that matter.
      Is that suppose to make them look “friendly”? They look American so they are just like us. What if they didn’t “look American”?

      Besides, what are “American style clothes”? I had no idea Americans invented pants and dress shirts.

      And what’s worse is that the more commenters post in response, the deeper a whole they dig for themselves.

      Stop embarrassing yourselves. I have seen Americans dress like hobos thinking they were hip, and Americans dressed like freaks thinking they were cool.

      Quit while you’re ahead, not that it’s possible at this point, seeing as you’re already way behind.

      And I have no idea what Ellen meant with “sure do not ‘look’ like my kids here in the middle of the country”.

      Perhaps you guys need to travel the US more and see your own country more often, besides the 2-square-mile locales in which you live. Then you will realize that even Americans don’t look like the stereotypical “American” image.

      Imagine if an Amish man were to post here: “As an American, all of you look foreign to me”.

      So from the more than 300 million people who live in this country, you are all trying to find one single typical look?

      Ughhh…

      • American
        March 2, 2013, 11:40 am

        “Imagine if an Amish man were to post here: “As an American, all of you look foreign to me”…..Avi_G

        roflmao! …..good one.

        However I will say for the really under-educated in parts of USA there is some value in showing Arabs or whoever in what people think of as western or American garb to get them over the stereotype hump…or at least confuse the hell out of them.

      • W.Jones
        March 3, 2013, 1:11 am

        Wouldn’t some bots flip out if they saw that photo of smiling kids on the cover of their local paper?

      • Ellen
        March 2, 2013, 1:57 pm

        And I have no idea what Ellen meant with “sure do not ‘look’ like my kids here in the middle of the country”.

        It meant that W. Jones’ statement that “They look American” was non-sequitur. That as you say, there is no single American look. So what was he talking about?

        And that a school group photo with healthy attractive somewhat homogenous-looking kids like that could probably not be found anywhere in the US.

      • W.Jones
        March 3, 2013, 1:07 am

        Avi,

        Your post is so long it does not fit on my screen unless I use zoom.

        “Or because the only real “typical” American is supposed to be blond) is instructive.” I am glad you are learning something, because I’m not.

        “Is that suppose to make them look “friendly”? They look American so they are just like us. What if they didn’t “look American”?
        I want to send this comment thread to the girls. Based on the photo it looks like they have a sense of humor, and the next time they are on Israeli lockdown it will give them something to laugh about.

        “I have seen Americans dress like hobos thinking they were hip”. I think it’s cool.

        “Quit while you’re ahead, not that it’s possible at this point, seeing as you’re already way behind.”
        I better catch up.

        “And I have no idea what Ellen meant with “sure do not ‘look’ like my kids here in the middle of the country”.”
        Wouldn’t it be cool if Ellen could invite the kids to her students in the Midwest? I say that as a constructive comment. Looking at the kids in the photo, I know they would love it. It would make local headlines in both places.

        I hope I have given you some humor too. Keep it real, bro.

    • seafoid
      March 2, 2013, 5:33 pm

      They look local. Unlike ashkenazi israelis , israeli architecture and most Israeli trees . The firetraps.

      • W.Jones
        March 3, 2013, 12:54 am

        Firetraps?

      • seafoid
        March 3, 2013, 5:53 pm

        Yes. The bots planted European pine trees over many of the Palestinian villages they destroyed. Switzerland of the Middle East.

        Not used to the land. Like the people.

        Ultra dangerous as the Carmel fire showed.

  7. Abierno
    February 28, 2013, 7:07 pm

    Isn’t this the same school wherein the Israeli customs withheld their SAT tests
    for college admission until there was an international outcry and pressure from
    the US state department?

    • Ellen
      March 1, 2013, 12:22 am

      Not sure, but it is of note that Obama’s kids are also attending a Friends Quaker school.

      Is it yet another stab at the United States?

    • sandhillexit
      March 1, 2013, 12:51 pm

      It is. The Friends High School provides both the education and the network which will make governance of a Palestinian State possible. I would argue that some of the impressive forbearance the Palestinians demonstrate goes back to the Quaker education they have all received. This thuggery highlights the de-development mentioned above. But what a good idea! BHO should take Malia and seven friends from Sidwell Friends to visit Ramallah Friends HS while he is touring.

  8. Shingo
    February 28, 2013, 7:12 pm

    And they say Israel isn’t apartheid?

    • mondonut
      March 1, 2013, 8:38 am

      Shingo says: And they say Israel isn’t apartheid?
      ===============================
      So now apartheid is defined as not allowing a US citizen to teach English at the best private school in the West Bank?

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 1, 2013, 1:36 pm

        “So now apartheid is defined as not allowing a US citizen to teach English at the best private school in the West Bank?”

        No, the apartheid is in not letting a person into Palestine because of her ethnoreligous background while claiming it’s because she wouldn’t become a rat for your Judeo-fascists.

      • mondonut
        March 1, 2013, 11:28 pm

        Woody Tanaka says:No, the apartheid is in not letting a person into Palestine because of her ethnoreligous background while claiming it’s because she wouldn’t become a rat for your Judeo-fascists.
        ==========================================
        Well that is obviously not true as she had previously been allowed entry. So the apartheid claim of yours is pretty much total invention.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 4, 2013, 4:25 pm

        “Well that is obviously not true as she had previously been allowed entry.”

        So what? If a business does business with a particular person once and then later refuses them admittance because that person is Jewish, would you recognize that as bigotry? Or is it only when israeli are bigotted against Palestinians that you are blind?

  9. Annie Robbins
    February 28, 2013, 7:21 pm

    this story is really a tear jerker. israel shouldn’t be controlling the borders to palestine. can you imagine if another country controlled our borders. decided who was allowed to visit us and for how long.

    they are sadistic control/power freaks.

    • ritzl
      February 28, 2013, 8:46 pm

      Yup. And none of the proverbial/sloganeered “generous offers” ever included relinquishing control of the Palestine-Jordan border. Not ever.

      This ability to humiliate/subjugate was/is all part of the ongoing plan. (credit: eljay).

      Aside, a kazillion kudos to Sheila Jackson-Lee for her efforts. She’s a real hero/standout in Congress. Without (or maybe with) need to restate the obvious, it’s ominous that a member of the US Congress can be so completely ignored by our bestest ally in a case where it gets that member’s negative attention and she/they take the extraordinary steps to directly intervene. That should send shivers down the alleged spines of all congresscritters. That they are meaningless pawns in a foreign government’s middle finger policy wrt to its benefactor should speak volumes to their professional (if not their personal) self-worth. But then, nothing new there (with so many of them).

    • giladg
      February 28, 2013, 11:28 pm

      As the Palestinians have not agreed to to a state that is demilitarized, Israel is left with no choice but to insure that tanks and heavy weapons don’t start rolling in over the Allenby Bridge. Why are you unable and/or unwilling to understand this point Annie? How many more wars and acts of terror need to be perpetrated by the Arabs and Palestinians for you to understand this point? The West Bank is 10 miles away from Tel Aviv, but who’s counting anyway?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 1, 2013, 2:01 am

        As the Palestinians have not agreed to to a state that is demilitarized, Israel is left with no choice…Why are you unable and/or unwilling to understand this point Annie?

        is this a joke? demilitarized israel the way the nazis were demilitarized, then let’s talk. you’re barking up the wrong tree gilad, go throw your pity party elsewhere, for i am not game.

      • sardelapasti
        March 1, 2013, 2:11 am

        I very much doubt that this gilagd is human. Not in the sense of robot versus human, in the sense of human versus inhuman. A typical Zionist.

        So question about gilgad, again: is he or isn’t he a citizen of the Zionist entity?

      • Koshiro
        March 1, 2013, 2:54 am

        I don’t really know what’s worse about clowns like giladg. The condescending racism with which they would have Palestinians under the Israeli thumb forever or the complete cluelessness regarding military matters, obvious from totally preposterous scenario of a conventional land invasion via the West Bank.

      • Hostage
        March 1, 2013, 6:44 am

        As the Palestinians have not agreed to to a state that is demilitarized, Israel is left with no choice but to insure that tanks and heavy weapons don’t start rolling in over the Allenby Bridge.

        Your logic is pretty tortured. The General Assembly has adopted resolutions calling for Israel to withdraw unconditionally from the Occupied Palestinian territories and labeling the continuing occupation an example of the crime of aggression.

        Palestine is already the least militarized state in the region. Nonetheless, it has been repeatedly invaded and attacked by Israel. Presumably then, the neighboring Arab League states would have the right to roll tanks and heavy weapons over the Allenby Bridge to prevent that from ever happening again.

        FYI, in the 19th century customary international law allowed a neuralized state to voluntarily give up the right to particpate in wars on the basis of their neighbor’s guaranteeing their absolute immunity from attack. See the commentary regarding Belgium in the State Department’s (John Bassett Moore & Francis Wharton editors) Digest of International law, GPO, 1906, page 26 link to books.google.com

        Belgium was subsequently invaded during WWI in violation of those treaties of neutrality. Item “VII. Belgium” in President Wilson’s “14 Points Speech” ended the practice of imposing neutrality or demilitarization on other states in order to render them defenseless:

        Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired.

        The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States; The Charter of the Organization of American States, and the UN Charter have all subsequently recognized the “sovereign equality” and the “inherent right” of all states to maintain the capability to defend themselves.

      • piotr
        March 1, 2013, 8:30 am

        HEAVY WEAPONS? Isn’t Miss Joudah rather petite? Sorry, my bad, but this is insane! Girls as heavy weapons?

        The serious point is that Israel is not capable of exercising “legitimate security interest” without succumbing to most petty harassment.

      • eljay
        March 1, 2013, 9:30 am

        >> As the Palestinians have not agreed to to a state that is demilitarized …

        Given the track record of the oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” – a record which began with terrorism and ethnic cleansing, and which includes a 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive, (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder – only a fool or a Zio-supremacist would expect the Palestinians to agree to a de-militarized state.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 1, 2013, 9:36 am

        “As the Palestinians have not agreed to to a state that is demilitarized, Israel is left with no choice…”

        Typical fascist, blaming the victim.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        March 1, 2013, 3:29 pm

        One of the fundamental requisites of a state is the ability to defend itself.

        Therefore a ‘demilitarised state’ is a contradiction in terms. A ‘demilitarised state’ is not a state at all. The Zionists know this perfectly well, of course. They’re just hoping that the rest of us are daft enough to go along with this farce.

      • piotr
        March 6, 2013, 4:10 am

        In general, demilitarized states do exist, and Costa Rica is an example. In the case of Palestine, a two state solution would need to provide security guarantees that would not depend on the good will of the other state. For example, the incident discussed here is an example of simple spite.

        If I had my way, I would list various possible incidents and put a price on each, to be enforced by a treaty with major trading partners. Sonic boom, 500,000, a shot/rocket across the border, million dollars, a killing, 5 million and so on.

      • Hostage
        March 6, 2013, 9:32 am

        One of the fundamental requisites of a state is the ability to defend itself.

        The Council of the League of Nations dismissed that idea in a resolution it adopted regarding the conditions for termination of a mandate regime. The Council decided that the capacity of the provisionally recognized states to “effectively control” their own territories was a required attribute of “the ability to stand alone” mentioned in Article 22 of the Covenant. But the members agreed that neither implied the ability to withstand foreign aggression. Many small states had joined the League in order to obtain assistance under the provisions of Article 10 of the Covenant regarding mutual defense. It was decided that newly emancipated states should simply be offered membership in the League, subject to their acceptance of formal minority rights agreements and the terms of the Covenant itself.
        See Luther Harris Evans, “The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758, American Society of International Law link to jstor.org

        The UN adopted the same customary policies, practices, and Charter principles.

      • Hostage
        March 6, 2013, 9:51 am

        In general, demilitarized states do exist, and Costa Rica is an example.

        It’s also an example of the application of the principles used to determine boundaries and settle disputes through the application of peaceful means, including international adjudication or arbitration and the doctrine of uti possidetis. See Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) 2011; Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) 2010; Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) 2005; and Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) 1986; link to icj-cij.org

        Contrary to popular belief among Zionists, most international boundaries are established that way, not through negotiations conducted at gunpoint.

        Here are a few of the other boundary cases that have been submitted to the Courts since Palestine declared its independence in 1988:
        *Eritrea/Yemen boundary dispute at the Permanent Court of Arbitration. link to pca-cpa.org
        *Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary
        link to pca-cpa.org
        *Guyana v. Suriname boundary link to pca-cpa.org
        *Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago economic zone/continental shelf link to pca-cpa.org
        *The Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger) link to icj-cij.org
        *Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine)
        link to icj-cij.org
        *Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) link to icj-cij.org
        *Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger) link to icj-cij.org
        *Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) link to icj-cij.org
        *Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras) link to icj-cij.org
        *Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia) link to icj-cij.org
        *Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria) link to icj-cij.org
        *Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) link to icj-cij.org
        *Maritime Delimitation between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal) link to icj-cij.org
        *Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad) link to icj-cij.org
        *Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) link to icj-cij.org

        I’ve never heard a rational explanation that supports the dubious proposition that the Palestinian boundary dispute is the only case where a settlement can only be achieved through negotiations conducted during an on-going armed conflict or belligerent occupation. The whole idea is preposterous.

    • mondonut
      March 1, 2013, 12:05 am

      Annie Robbins says: this story is really a tear jerker. israel shouldn’t be controlling the borders to palestine.
      ============================================
      You are in luck Annie, Palestine does not have borders. And there is no reason to shed tears for a group of hyper privileged children who are simply going to be assigned a new English teacher. Or for someone with no particular right of entry, who could have nonetheless by answering questions in full.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 1, 2013, 1:59 am

        hyper privileged children? don’t you mean would be slaves living the good life?

      • seafoid
        March 1, 2013, 6:52 am

        She comes across as a wonderful person. Someone who thinks about more than just herself and sees the potential in those kids.
        And so far away from the gilads and mondonuts of the world and their petty hatred.

      • mondonut
        March 1, 2013, 8:41 am

        Annie Robbins says: hyper privileged children? don’t you mean would be slaves living the good life?
        =================================
        No, that is not what I meant. BTW, I thought you would have contended my statement that Palestine does not have borders. Instead you went with piling on of more ridiculous hyperbole.

      • eljay
        March 1, 2013, 3:56 pm

        >> BTW, I thought you would have contended my statement that Palestine does not have borders.

        A Zio-supremacist is surprised by the lack of appreciation for his statement that Zio-supremacism hasn’t finished stealing, cleansing and colonizing Palestine.

        Zio-supremacists say the darnedest (and most hateful and immoral) things…

      • Hostage
        March 1, 2013, 6:54 am

        You are in luck Annie, Palestine does not have borders.

        In fact, the UN General Assembly has repeatedly noted that Palestine does have borders and that Israel’s diplomatic credentials are not considered valid beyond them.

        See the General Assembly resolutions which say the credentials of the delegation of Israel do not apply to the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, and the verbatim record of the General Assembly discussion of the matter in resolution 58/292 which indicates the words “pre-1967 borders” had intentionally been adopted to replace the words “Armistice Line of 1949”.
        * link to un.org
        *A/58/L.48, 15 December 2003; General Assembly 58/292, 17 May 2004.

      • mondonut
        March 2, 2013, 10:52 am

        Hostage says:In fact, the UN General Assembly has repeatedly noted that Palestine does have borders and that Israel’s diplomatic credentials are not considered valid beyond them.
        ===========================
        First of all, it is the GA, which is just about meaningless. Further, any statements regarding the limits of Israel are not de facto creating Palestinian borders, the GA has no power to assign title to land, and the official position of the UN is that there must be a negotiated settlement.

      • Accentitude
        March 3, 2013, 5:34 am

        mondowackjob, you might want to reconsider uttering that “the GA has no power to assign title to land” since it is because of the GA that your non-indigenous European relatives are there in the first place, after all it was the GA that passed resolution 181 in 1947 which facilitated the partition plan, and assigned “title to land” to the Israeli and the Palestinians. However, if you still see fit to say that the GA is meaningless, then that means that their decision to partition Palestine was meaningless too and holds no merit whatsoever….so we can all go back to calling the land “Greater Palestine” because the Israeli state is an illegitimate and illegal one . So which will it be?

      • Hostage
        March 3, 2013, 11:32 am

        mondowackjob, you might want to reconsider uttering that “the GA has no power to assign title to land” since it is because of the GA that your non-indigenous European relatives are there in the first place, after all it was the GA that passed resolution 181 in 1947 which facilitated the partition plan, and assigned “title to land” to the Israeli and the Palestinians.

        That kind of commentary is a bit detached from reality. The General Assembly had the power to create and partition states under the explicit terms of the UN Charter regarding non-self-governing territories. Three-quarters of the world’s nations were shepherded out of colonialism and into independent statehood through the efforts of the UN General Assembly or the Trusteeship Council operating under its auspices. The General Assembly also had the responsibility to adopt decisions on behalf of the UN Organization regarding termination of tutelage and emancipation of the Mandated States.

        Nothing in the General Assembly resolution granted “title” to any land. It actually required the establishment of democratically elected, and demographically representative governments by its Palestine Commission and obliged the new States to respect private property, use public property for the benefit of all, allow right of transit, and defend equal human rights as a condition for the termination of international tutelage.

      • mondonut
        March 4, 2013, 7:29 pm

        Accentitude says: mondowackjob, you might want to reconsider uttering that “the GA has no power to assign title to land” since it is because of the GA that your non-indigenous European relatives are there in the first place…
        ==========================================
        How very wrong. First of all, I have no relatives there. Secondly, UN 181 did not assign title to land, facilitate a partition or execute a partition – it was a a recommendation to the Security Council which choose not to take it up.

      • mondonut
        March 4, 2013, 7:37 pm

        Hostage says: That kind of commentary is a bit detached from reality. The General Assembly had the power to create and partition states under the explicit terms of the UN Charter regarding non-self-governing territories.
        =======================================
        None of which applies (again). Israel is not a non-self-governing territory nor was it ever under UN trusteeship. Nothing in the UN charter permits the UNGA to determine a border (assign title) between Israel and Palestine. It can recognize Palestine every day of the week, it does not get to determine its borders – that will happen when either Israel and Palestine negotiate them or one side succumbs to the other.

      • Hostage
        March 5, 2013, 12:37 pm

        – it was a a recommendation to the Security Council which choose not to take it up.

        It was a decision taken by 2/3rds of the members of the Assembly present and voting in accordance with Articles 10 and 18 of the Charter to 1) establish a subsidiary UN organ, the Palestine Commission, to be legally responsible for the administration of Palestine upon termination of the mandate, pending transfer of authority to the successor governmental agencies and to delineate and demarcate borders that would partition the Mandated State of Palestine into two states; 2) direct the Trusteeship Council to establish a Corpus Separtum under the General Assembly’s own Article 80 and 85 powers; and 3) promote regional economic and social integration through the device of an Economic Union established between the two states in accordance with Article 55 and 56 of the Charter.

        The only recommendation to the Security Council was that it treat attempts by any party to alter those plans by force as an act of aggression.

        It was the General Assembly that suspended the work of its own Palestine Commission when it appointed the UN Mediator, Count Bernadotte. See UN GA resolution 186(S2) The Security Council had no power to overturn the decisions taken by the General Assembly. It took no action, except calling for another Special Session of the General Assembly.

        The US State Department’s Legal Advisor, Ernest Gross, wrote several memos explaining that situation, e.g.:

        (4) The Security Council is not empowered to alter the November 29, 1947 resolution of the General Assembly. While that resolution stands, groups in Palestine are authorized, and the Palestine Commission is required, unless the Security Council has taken action pursuant to Chapter VI or Chapter VII of the Charter recommending a political settlement other than that recommended by the General Assembly, to take the steps contemplated in the resolution for implementing the partition plan, Great Britain having stated its acceptance of the plan and acquiescing in its implementation.
        (5) If, for any reason, in particular because of developments not anticipated when the General Assembly made its recommendation – such as violent opposition in Palestine, frustration by the Mandatory, inaction of the Security Council – the recommended plan appears unworkable, the General Assembly may repeal or alter its recommendation.
        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

      • Hostage
        March 5, 2013, 1:54 pm

        None of which applies (again). Israel is not a non-self-governing territory nor was it ever under UN trusteeship.

        That’s totally incorrect. Palestine was a non-self-governing territory under a League of Nations Mandate. In one of its first resolutions, the General Assembly pointed out that all UN member states had assumed a treaty obligation to implement the terms of Chapter XI of the UN Charter, “Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories”. The resolution also pointed out that those obligations were already in full legal force and effect and did not depend upon the conclusion of any trusteeship agreements. See UN GA resolution 9 (I) link to un.org

        *Note that the legal effects of Article 80 of the Charter were intentionally limited to Chapter XII, i.e. “nothing in this Chapter” and did not preempt the immediate application of Chapter XI to the entire territory of Palestine.

        The Jewish Agency wrote a memo to the San Francisco Conference on the UN Organization requesting that a safeguarding clause be included in the Charter which would prevent a trusteeship agreement from altering the Jewish right to nationhood secured by the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate. However, the conference rejected that suggestion and stipulated in article 80 of the Charter that the UN COULD conclude trusteeship agreements that altered rights under a mandate. — See Jacob Robinson, Palestine and the United Nations: Prelude to a Solution, Greenwood Press, 1971 Reprint (1947), page 2-3

        Article 28 of the Mandate required that measures be adopted safeguarding the Holy Places in perpetuity, under international guarantee in the event the mandate was terminated. The General Assembly chose to accomplish that by tasking the Trusteeship Council, through resolution 181(II), to establish a special trusteeship regime for the City of Jerusalem, placing it under direct UN administration inline with Articles 80 and 85 of the Charter.
        * link to yale.edu
        * link to yale.edu

        Nothing in the UN charter permits the UNGA to determine a border (assign title) between Israel and Palestine.

        In fact Article 18 of the Charter says a simple majority of the General Assembly can adopt “decisions” on any question. More to the point, resolution 181(II):
        *1) delegated responsibility for delimiting and demarcating the boundaries to a UN Commission; and
        *2) required the new states to make a Declaration acknowledging and accepting all of the undertakings contained in resolution 181(II).

        The General Assembly, in-turn, adopted resolutions noting that the representatives of Israel and Palestine had provided declarations in-line with resolution 181(II). That resolution remains the only basis for the international legitimacy of either state. See:
        *A/RES/273 (III) link to unispal.un.org
        *A/RES/43/177 link to unispal.un.org

        In the “Article 3, Paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne (Frontier between Turkey and Iraq) case, the World Court held that resolutions adopted by the Council of the League of Nations were merely recommendations. But it also held that those recommendations had become legally binding when the States concerned had agreed to “accept” the decisions of the Council. The Court held that the parties to the frontier dispute remained bound by the terms of their own acceptance. Note that the British Mandate itself was merely a resolution adopted by the Council of the League of Nations which delegated authority to the Allied Powers to lay down the original boundaries of Palestine.

        The Trusteeship Council continued to adopted measures in-line with resolution 181(II) until 1950, including a Statute for the City of Jerusalem.
        link to unispal.un.org

      • mondonut
        March 5, 2013, 6:34 pm

        Hostage says: None of which applies (again). Israel is not a non-self-governing territory nor was it ever under UN trusteeship.

        That’s totally incorrect…
        =============================================
        Is not, was not – two entirely different things. Israel IS not non-self-governing territory and the nacsent state of Palestine is not in trusteeship. The UN has no power to delineate borders in disputed territory, and to believe otherwise is to imagine that the UNGA could return Texas to Mexico. Or the Falklands to Argentina.

        And Article 18 in no way provides the carte blanche that you imagine, the UN will come to an end the very day that it assumes the power to draw international borders.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 5, 2013, 7:34 pm

        it’s not recognized as disputed territory by anyone but israel! what’s next? disputing jordan? how bout paris? you can’t just claim to dispute something and have it be disputed. the word has a meaning under international law.

      • Hostage
        March 5, 2013, 8:23 pm

        Is not, was not – two entirely different things. Israel IS not non-self-governing territory and the nacsent state of Palestine is not in trusteeship.

        There was no State of Israel when Great Britain ratified the UN Charter. Chapter XI certainly did apply to all of the remaining mandates and UN trusteeships. Palestine was Mandated State, not a nascent one. The Status of South West Africa case established that neither a mandatory, nor any of the parties to a mandate could terminate the international status of such a territory without the consent of the General Assembly.

        The dispute over Palestine’s statehood was resolved by the Council of the League of Nations in accordance with Article 47 of the Treaty of Lausanne. The relevant portions of the Treaty required the newly created States to pay a share of the Ottoman Public Debt and stipulated that:

        Any disputes which may arise between the parties concerned as to the application of the principles laid down in the present Article shall be referred, not more than one month after the notification referred to in the first paragraph, to an arbitrator whom the Council of the League of Nations will be asked to appoint; . . . The decisions of the arbitrator shall be final.

        link to wwi.lib.byu.edu

        The ruling of the Arbital Court said:

        “The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalent to those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from the other.” — See Volume I of the Reports of International Arbitral Awards (United Nations, 1948), “Affaire de la Dette publique ottomane. Bulgarie, Irak, Palestine, Transjordanie, Grèce, Italie et Turquie. Genève, 18 avril 1925″, pages 529-614

        That same year the Permanent International Court of Justice ruled in the Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case that Palestine, not Great Britain, was was the Allied successor State mentioned in the protocols of the Treaty of Lausanne.

      • Hostage
        March 5, 2013, 8:46 pm

        And Article 18 in no way provides the carte blanche that you imagine, the UN will come to an end the very day that it assumes the power to draw international borders.

        The ICJ has already ruled in the Certain Expenses case that the General Assembly did not exceed its powers when it deployed a peacekeeping force to ensure the parties to the Sinai Crisis respected the Armistice borders. FYI, the General Assembly had previously “United for Peace” in order to take action to ensure that the parties to the Korean conflict respected another international line of demarcation.

        During the first Gulf War, the Security Council simply enforced the legal obligation for Iraq to respect the boundary it had created for itself in 1963 when it concluded a “Memorandum of Agreement” on the subject. Kuwait deposited a copy with the Secretary General, acting as depositary for the UN Treaty Organization.
        The Security Council held that the parties were still bound by the terms of their own acceptance. See E. Lauterpacht, et al “The Kuwait Crisis: Basic Documents”, The Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters, 4 October 1963.

        The legal analysis of the status of the territory supplied by the ICJ in the Wall Case cited the international trust, which was acknowledged in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and resolution 181(II), as the bases of the United Nations permanent responsibility for the Question of Palestine. Both the Court and the General Assembly noted that the route of the Wall deviated from the boundaries Israel had accepted in accordance with the Armistice Agreement it concluded pursuant to UN SC resolution 62. The UN most definitely can enforce the boundaries contained in that agreement, since the none of the other parties have agreed to any revisions.

      • mondonut
        March 5, 2013, 9:18 pm

        Hostage says: … Palestine was Mandated State, not a nascent one. …The dispute over Palestine’s statehood was resolved by the Council of the League of Nations in accordance with Article 47 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
        =====================================
        Are you actually arguing that Palestine has been a state since 1925? Because the Treaty of Lausanne (which never mentions Palestine) appointed an arbiter to resolve financial issues, which used the words Palestine and State in the same paragraph? Do the Palestinians know about this? Or should I say the Palestinian Arabs? Because if an actual Palestinian State (in the real sense of the term) was supposed to rise from the Mandate for Palestine (not a state yet) it was supposed to be a Jewish homeland from the river to the sea.

      • mondonut
        March 5, 2013, 9:25 pm

        Hostage says: … The UN most definitely can enforce the boundaries contained in that agreement, since the none of the other parties have agreed to any revisions.
        ================================================
        Again, all of which is off topic. Any certain powers of the GA regarding expenses, deployment of forces, enforcement of boundaries or of borders does not extend the creation of international borders in disputed territory. Palestine does not have borders, only claims to borders. It will have borders if and when it either executes an agreement with Israel or defeats it.

      • Hostage
        March 6, 2013, 6:59 am

        Are you actually arguing that Palestine has been a state since 1925? Because the Treaty of Lausanne (which never mentions Palestine) appointed an arbiter to resolve financial issues, which used the words Palestine and State in the same paragraph?

        No, I’m saying that every time a party questioned Palestine’s statehood in any connection with a case before an international or national Court, dealing with the period prior to November of 1947, the decisions uniformly held that Palestine was a State – no “ifs, ands, buts, or maybes”.

        Article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles stipulated that Germany was required to recognize the dispositions made concerning the territories of the former Ottoman Empire, “and to recognize the new States within their frontiers as there laid down.” The other Central powers and some of the treaty articles that required them to recognize the new states were:
        *Bulgaria Article 60 of the Treaty of Neuilly;
        *Hungary Article 74 (2) of The Treaty of Trianon
        *Austria Article 90 of The Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye

        Turkey and the US ratified the Treaty of Lausanne. The US also ratified the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention. It did, and still does, recognize Palestinian nationality and statehood as a matter of inter-temporal law. In 1995 the State Department published a Memorandum of Conversation between William Crawford Jr. and Mr. Shaul Bar-Haim from the Israeli Embassy (February 7, 1963) regarding Jerusalem. Bar-Haim said “The use of the term “Palestine” is historical fiction; it encourages the Palestine entity concept; its “revived usage enrages” individual Israelis”. Crawford replied “It is difficult to see how it “enrages” Israeli opinion. The practice is consistent with the fact that, ”in a de jure sense”, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty. That it was not a simple matter, since there was a ”quota nationality”, in regard to which U.S. legislation and regulation continue to employ the term Palestine. See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Vol. Xviii, Near East, United States. Dept. of State, G.P.O., 1995, ISBN 0160451590, page 341. US immigration law, U.S. TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, § 1101. Definitions says “(a) As used in this chapter— (14) The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states.

        Here are a few examples of the legal consequences of those treaties for you:
        *The decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Kletter v. Dulles (1950):

        The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.

        When the Congress speaks of a ‘foreign State,’ it means a country which is not the United States, or its possession or colony- an alien country- other than our own, bearing in mind that the average American, when he speaks of a ‘foreigner,’ means an alien, non- American. Uyeno v. Acheson, D.C., 96 F.Supp. 510.

        Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine at that time was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce.

        *The former Attorney General of Palestine, a Jewish expert on international law named Norman Bentwich, published an article in the British Yearbook of International Law in 1946. Bentwich explained that the Courts of Palestine had just decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an ”allied successor state’‘ and that Article 60 of the Treaty of Lausanne could not be legally challenged in the Courts of Palestine. The article is available online, See Professor N. Bentwich, “State Succession and Act of State in the Palestine Courts”, XXIII British Year Book Of International Law, 1946, pages 330-333.
        link to archive.org

        Another Jewish expert on international law, Sir Hersh Lauterpacht also reported on the case. You might recall that Zionists insisted that Jewish settlers in Palestine be allowed close settlement on surplus “State lands” of Palestine in accordance with the explicit terms of Article 6 of the Mandate. The Courts of Palestine ruled that the Mandate was only legally enforceable in so far as it had been incorporated in domestic enabling legislation. The Palestine Treaty of Peace (Turkey) Amendment Ordinance, 1926, added Article 60 of the Treaty of Lausanne to the Schedule of the Treaty of Peace (Turkey) Ordinance, 1925. Article 60 of the Treaty of Lausanne stipulated that:

        The States in favour of which territory was or is detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan wars or by the present Treaty shall acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated therein.

        The Supreme Court of Palestine settled a dispute with the heirs of the Sultan when it ruled that Turkey’s ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne was a valid act of state that ceded lands and properties on the Ottoman civil lists to the successor states, including Palestine. It was not a matter that was subject to private claims or challenges in the Courts of Palestine. See Hersh Lauterpacht (editor), International Law Reports, Volume 14, Cambridge University Press, 1951, pages 36-40.

        *Norman Bentwich had already written another article which explained that the coming into force of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne on August 26, 1924 allowed the governments of the States of Palestine, Syria, and Iraq to issue Nationality Acts. According to Bentwich, the guiding principle adopted was that Ottoman subjects habitually resident in the detached territories became ipso facto nationals of the State to which the territory had been transferred. link to heinonline.org

        *The International Law Reports annual summarized a decision by the Mixed Courts of Egypt which had ruled that the former Ottoman territories placed under Mandate had the character of regular States, and that their inhabitants possessed the nationality of those States in accordance with Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne. The Court held that the Arab plaintiff had Palestinian nationality, and was a foreign subject in Egypt. — Reports: Gazette des Tribunaux – Mixtes, 1926, p. 119; 53 Clunet (1926), p.1069 cited in Case No 34 “Mandated States”, John Fischer Williams, Hersh Lauterpacht (editors), International Law Reports, Volume 3, Cambridge University Press, 1929, page 48 link to books.google.com

        All of those cases and many more are cited in volume 1 of the US State Department’s (aka Whiteman’s) Digest of International Law, GPO, 1963. It contains an entire Chapter devoted to the various types of States, including the Mandated States.

      • Hostage
        March 6, 2013, 8:38 am

        Do the Palestinians know about this? Or should I say the Palestinian Arabs?

        Of course the Palestinian Arabs were aware of the situation. They were effected by the creation of the new states too.

        The fact that Transjordan was a “separate foreign state”, and not a territory of Palestine, for the purposes of article 15 of the Palestine Citizenship Order and the Palestine mandate was affirmed by the High Court of Justice of Palestine. The decision involved a Palestinian Arab who lost the legal benefits of his citizenship in Palestine by becoming a naturalized citizen of Transjordan.
        — See Hersh Lauterpacht (editor), “States as international persons”, in “International Law Reports”, Cambridge University Press, 1994, page 17 link to books.google.com

        According to Zionist legal experts, like Howard Grief an advisor to the government of Israel, Article 22 of the Treaty of Versailles which established the Mandated States included Palestine. Grief said that the Smuts resolution was officially endorsed by the Council of Ten on January 30, 1919, “in which Palestine as envisaged in the Balfour Declaration was named as one of the mandated states to be created.”link to acpr.org.il

        Because if an actual Palestinian State (in the real sense of the term) was supposed to rise from the Mandate for Palestine (not a state yet) it was supposed to be a Jewish homeland from the river to the sea.

        Both the Treaty of Sèvres and the Treaty of Lausanne required the “new States” to come into existence and start making payments on their shares of the Ottoman Public Debt (in the real sense) by no later than 1 March 1920. That’s exactly what happened under General Allenby’s OETA (Hague Convention) administration and the new civil administration, headed-up by High Commissioner Herbert Samuel. See the boundaries in the “Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919″. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        FYI, unlike the newly created state of Greece, the Mandated States of Palestine and Transjordan both retired their shares of the Ottoman Public Debt by paying-off the foreign bond holders. They used Palestinian currencies that were readily accepted as legal tender. I’ve noted elsewhere that the government of Great Britain misappropriated the revenues collected during the war years. So the people of Palestine actually paid double taxes on a portion of the debt. Even today, many other “real States” or “viable states” can’t manage to satisfy their foreign debt obligations (even once).

        As for your contention about the boundaries of the Jewish homeland:

        We are all familiar with the fact that the Council of the League of Nations adopted a non-binding resolution which was recorded in the official journal as “The British Mandate for Palestine”. It was drafted and “accepted” by the relevant Allied Powers. In keeping with Article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles, it granted them the authority to fix the boundaries, not the Jews.
        link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        The Council had already endorsed the 1922 British White Paper which dismissed exaggerated interpretations (like the ones advanced by Howard Grief and yourself) regarding the meaning of the Balfour Declaration. link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        The British government was placed in charge of implementing its own declaration by the San Remo Conference and the Council of the League. It subsequently limited the scope of the Jewish national home in accordance with the 1939 White Paper and the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance. Those policies and ordinances had legally limited the right of Jewish settlement in much of Palestine as confirmed by the Palestine High Court of Justice decision in Bernard A. Rosenblatt (petitioner) vs. the Registar of Lands, Haifa ; Director of Land Registration, Jerusalem ; Edmond N. Levy (respondents) (High court case no. 19/47).

        The ordinance divided the country into threes zones. Land transfers in Zones A and B, except to a “Palestinian Arab”, were prohibited. Judea and Samaria were located in those Zones. Here is a link to the map link to books.google.com

        Article 80 of the UN Charter did not preserve the Jewish right of settlement in Zones A and B. It was adopted as a “status quo” agreement at the request of the Arab League with respect to the Palestine mandate, the 1939 British White Paper policies, and the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance.
        See the discussion on this page and the following page under “Palestine” in “The United Nations conference on international organization, San Francisco, California, April 25-June 26, 1945″, Foreign relations of the United States : diplomatic papers, 1945.

        Ben Gurion acknowledged that fact during the UNSCOP hearings: Mr. BEN GURION: “To partition,” according to the Oxford dictionary, means to divide a thing into two parts. Palestine is divided into three parts, and only in a small part are the Jews allowed to live. We are against that. link to unispal.un.org

      • Hostage
        March 11, 2013, 10:04 pm

        Again, all of which is off topic. Any certain powers of the GA regarding expenses, deployment of forces, enforcement of boundaries or of borders does not extend the creation of international borders in disputed territory.

        It’s not off-topic, you raised the subject yourself, and we are talking about entry into Palestine, not Israel. You Zionists have delusions of grandeur and talk nonsense about so-called disputed territory. But no other state in the world recognizes your bogus claims. You think that Israel is going resurrect the law of conquest, but it just isn’t going to happen. The General Assembly can, and has, authorized the deployment of armed forces to enforce international lines of demarcation in the past, including the 1956 Sinai conflict. See Uniting for Peace link to untreaty.un.org

        It will have borders if and when it either executes an agreement with Israel or defeats it.

        Nonsense. Most of the foreign ministers of the EU and Mercosur states still believe that either a special UN-sponsored international diplomatic conference, (like Versailles) or the Security Council can impose an arbitrated settlement on the parties if they fail to reach an agreement, e.g.

        “After a fixed deadline, a U.N. Security Council resolution should proclaim the adoption of the two-state solution,” Solana said, adding this should include border parameters, refugees, control over the city of Jerusalem and security arrangements.

        –EU’s Solana calls for UN to recognise Palestinian state. link to reuters.com

      • Hostage
        March 1, 2013, 7:32 am

        And there is no reason to shed tears for a group of hyper privileged children who are simply going to be assigned a new English teacher. Or for someone with no particular right of entry, who could have nonetheless by answering questions in full.

        In the mid-19th Century stronger states frequently controlled the foreign and domestic policies of their weaker neighbors, although the latter were ostensibly considered “sovereign” states. There was also a hierarchy of lesser states which were colonies or “protected states”. . Even then, those situations were recognized as an abuse of power. See for example § 9 on pages 187-188 of Henry Wager Halleck, International Law, D. Van Nostrand, 1861. link to books.google.com

        Ironically, there are plenty of brainless Zionists who claim that Palestine isn’t an existing state, because it doesn’t exercise effective control over its territory and resources. But at one and the same time, Israel’s leaders claim they are ready to instantly recognize a sovereign state of Palestine, so long as it is demilitarized; barred from joining foreign military alliances; does not control its own borders, airspace, water, radio frequency spectrum, and etc. Those obviously aren’t indispensible attributes of statehood. Too bad for you that even an occupied state can exercise or transfer jurisdiction to the ICC.

        Obviously if you morons can recognize a sovereign State like the one you propose, then nothing prevents the 132 other counrties which have already recoignized the State of Palestine from doing exactly the same thing. That’s why most of those countries don’t recognize Israel’s lawful jurisdiction over Palestine.

      • mondonut
        March 2, 2013, 10:56 am

        Hostage says: In the mid-19th Century stronger states frequently controlled the foreign and domestic policies of their weaker neighbors,
        ===================================
        Thanks for the history lesson. Sovereign sate or not, it still does not have borders. It is still occupied. It still must negotiate with Israel, and it is still fully capable (if it chose to) of providing security guarantees to Israel in exchange for an end to the occupation and secure borders.

      • Hostage
        March 2, 2013, 11:14 am

        Thanks for the history lesson. Sovereign sate or not, it still does not have borders. It is still occupied. It still must negotiate with Israel, and it is still fully capable (if it chose to) of providing security guarantees to Israel in exchange for an end to the occupation and secure borders.

        Learning is an acquisition of knowledge that results in a change of behavior. Since you’re still spouting Zionist supremacist nonsense, it’s pretty clear that you could benefit from some more lessons.

      • American
        March 2, 2013, 12:49 pm

        Hostage,

        I have a hypothetical question about what would happen if Palestine were to become a ‘protectorate” of another State….from what I have read protectorate arrangments can be pretty much defined however the two States themselves want to define it. IOW a protectorate can be or remain a ‘soverign’ State and manage it’s own internal affairs…..and in some cases just be a protected’ territory without any other or many major obligations between the protector and protected.
        So it all else were to fail for Palestine and Saudi or Turkey or Egypt for example were to make Palestine it’s protectorate—what would be the pros and cons of such an arrangement…likely objections from each to such an arrangement?
        And why for instance was this never a possibility considered by any major ME states long ago like Saudi or the UAE as a solution to their streets resentment of I/P and Arab do nothingness on it?
        It would seem to me that had a state like Saudi done that, given it’s importance to the US, it would have thrown a major monkey wrench into Israel’s confiscation of Palestine.

      • talknic
        March 2, 2013, 1:41 pm

        American “why for instance was this never a possibility considered “

        In my understanding of the situation, Israel would first have to agree to end the occupation as the British did the Mandate for Palestine.

        The best and only solution as far as I can see is for the US to drop the UNSC veto vote on Chapt VII resolutions preventing action being taken against Israel.

      • Hostage
        March 3, 2013, 10:57 am

        Hostage, I have a hypothetical question about what would happen if Palestine were to become a ‘protectorate” of another State

        In practice, the UN declaration granting independence to colonial peoples rendered the idea of Protectorates an anachronism. In any event, the fact is the League of Arab States did go through the motion of appointing trustees to administer Gaza and the West Bank on behalf of the League. For its part, Great Britain did extend the scope of its 1946 mutual defense treaty with Transjordan to the West Bank.

        The US did condition arms sales to Jordan on the basis that items, like tanks, could not be prepositioned West of the Jordan river. There was also the Tripartite Declaration on the Armistice Borders, and of course several Chapter VII UN Security Council resolutions prohibiting the armed forces of the parties from crossing those lines. All of those measures were restrictions on the sovereignty of the people directly concerned – and none of that prevented Israel from invading the neighboring regions.

        In the ultimate sense, all UN member states have taken on a treaty obligation that permits the Permanent members of the Security Council to veto their foreign policy decisions respecting the maintenance of international peace and security and to adopt decisions which preempt any other conflicting treaty obligations. The members supposedly do that in order to benefit from the protections against aggression contained in the Charter. So in a sense, they behave like protected states.

        The efforts of Israel and the US to prevent Palestine from becoming a UN member state should tell you all you need to know about the situation.

      • MarkF
        March 1, 2013, 9:34 am

        “Or for someone with no particular right of entry, who could have nonetheless by answering questions in full.”

        Right, afterall, who does she think she is, trying to teach in a nice private school setting, educating children – the nerve of her. Doesn’t she know that by using profiling standards, she’s a huge red flag? A 9th grade American English teacher at a private school is sure to be a huge security risk.

        I guess I would be jealous too. I’m sorry your parents didn’t think you were worth the investment.

    • seafoid
      March 1, 2013, 5:31 am

      “can you imagine if another country controlled our borders”

      I was watching the “collateral murder” video last night, the one that Manning sent to Wikileaks where US soldiers were turkey shooting Iraqis in Baghdad and laughing. And someone posted on youtube “imagine if that was Russians or Chinese in the US ” . Imagine someone from Krasnodar taking out kids in Chicago.

      Reminds me of this Fink quote

      link to haaretz.com

      “If my focus was on any other country’s human rights violations, I would be as appalled and disgusted. It’s just unacceptable, and you can’t make excuses for that with ‘other people do it.’ You probably will find the comparison offensive – it’s like going to my parents in the Warsaw ghetto and asking, what do you think about the Volkswagen? Isn’t it great? Don’t ask people in Iraq or Afghanistan to praise Hollywood, or whether Whitney Houston did a beautiful rendition of the “Star Spangled Banner.”

      There’s a name for what the Israelis do bureaucratically to the Palestinians, who never know how the authorities will react whether in the courts or at the borders or the roadblocks- the idea is to maintain a state of permanent uncertainty.

  10. Avi_G.
    February 28, 2013, 8:08 pm

    When I hear people talk about Hamas in Gaza as the sole reason for Israel’s isolation of Gaza, I feel like laughing at the absurdity of that claim.

    Why?

    Because although Israel is not officially, publicly or formally imposing a tight siege on the occupied West Bank, Israel is imposing on Palestinians there similar conditions in terms of economic, cultural and political freedoms, contrary to Thomas Friedman’s claims when he writes from a Ramallah cafe, cherry picking the evidence to paint a rosy picture of what Israel has so benevolently done for Palestinians. He might as well harp about those imaginary irrigation systems Israel ‘left behind’ in the former colonies of the Gaza Strip only to have Palestinians destroy them. Historical revisionism strikes again, but I digress.

    Whether it was the repeated arrest and harassment of organizers, teachers, instructors and students at the Freedom Theater in Jenin, or the harassment and denial of entry for teachers like Nour Joudah, or the demolition of a sports center built using funds from a German foundation, Israel’s aim is to render the lives of Palestinians hopeless, to sever whatever connection they have with the outside world in order to deprive them of valuable contributions.

    But it’s not only a psychological destruction that Israel is after. Israel wants Palestinians to have no human capital, no education, no technical or professional training in order to build themselves up as a nation.

    Then, of course, you get Jewish bigots, both in Israel and in the US, who lecture Palestinians about not being ready for democracy, not being ready to run a state as they lack national institutions.

    • seafoid
      March 1, 2013, 5:44 am

      They want a captive, ignorant population who have zero self worth. And that is how they run the West Bank and Gaza. Education is always disrupted. They are most afraid of PhDs and will do everything to exile them.

      Whatever industry there was is destroyed in their periodic assaults. They trash sewage installations, EU funded industrial parks and roads and their goal is deindustrialisation and dependence on Israeli products. The message they send to the Palestinians 24/7 is “you are worthless”. They message they communicate to Israeli Jewish kids from age 4 via the education system, is “the palestinians are worthless.” It’s abuse, pure and simple.

  11. Scott
    February 28, 2013, 8:52 pm

    Annie, exactly right. It’s such a despicable situation.

  12. flyod
    February 28, 2013, 9:16 pm

    the intent is to destroy anything resembling normalcy. makes me sick

  13. Philip Munger
    February 28, 2013, 9:50 pm

    Such great-looking kids, so happy in the picture, now sadder, with another reason to mistrust their oppressors.

    She was also asked if she knew any prisoners, a question she had not answered previously. When she said she did not, the Shin Bet members asked her whether she knew anyone who had a relative in prison.

    When she said she did not, the Shin Bet Stasi asked her if she knew anyone who knew anyone who had …..

    • Woody Tanaka
      March 1, 2013, 8:10 am

      “When she said she did not, the Shin Bet Stasi asked her if she knew anyone who knew anyone who had …..”

      Good for her for not ratting on anyone at the behest of the scum of the earth.

  14. IL1948
    March 1, 2013, 2:21 am

    If she really wants to teach Palestinian children, why is she complaining about being stuck in Amman, Palestine?

    • kayq
      March 2, 2013, 7:02 am

      This response is just stupid. Amman is in Jordan. Take a hint, Palestine and Jordan are not the same. Nice try, Zionist troll.

    • Cliff
      March 6, 2013, 12:26 am

      Right ILNakba,

      And ‘the Jews’ ‘have’ NYC already, get out of Historic Palestine.

      • Hostage
        March 6, 2013, 8:54 am

        And ‘the Jews’ ‘have’ NYC already, get out of Historic Palestine.

        Despite the denials from the ADL, I think we’ve lost “effective control” of Los Angeles too;-)

        Newsflash: We interrupt the Israeli-Arab war for this special announcement! The President, after conferring with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, has agreed to send more arms to Israel – based on the return of New York City and Los Angeles to the United States.

        — “Fritz the Cat”, 1972, animated comedy film written and directed by Ralph Bakshi

      • Cliff
        March 6, 2013, 9:44 am

        rofl

  15. justicewillprevail
    March 1, 2013, 5:20 am

    Nour is such a threat to the tiny-minded Israeli jailers – she is a smart, educated, intelligent Palestinian. That is a threat to everything they have elaborately constructed about the people they have so relentlessly punished and assaulted. Anybody like her threatens to overturn their fundamentalist prejudice, their deep seated hatred of the people whose existence contradicts all their fantasy stories which justify their occupation and war on them. A schoolteacher who cares about her kids – yep, a terrifying threat to the Israeli military junta. Her only hope of entry to Palestine is to act as a spy for the jailers, because she must be part of a network of scary teachers and educators, and she will have invaluable information about the smart Palestinians she is teaching – after all, they will be a direct threat to their dumb jailers. What a crock. Another spectacular insight into the mindset of the occupying grunts.

  16. seafoid
    March 1, 2013, 6:15 am

    “. Never let anyone keep you from living in your country. It’s always worth standing up for yourself. Don’t forget that there are millions of Palestinians that would give up everything to be in your position – to even have a day in the homeland. ”

    “I guess the loneliness came knocking
    No one needs to be alone, oh save me

    People help the people
    And if you’re homesick, give me your hand and I’ll hold it
    People help the people
    Nothing will drag you down”

    • Annie Robbins
      March 2, 2013, 9:31 am

      what a beautiful song seafoid

    • Avi_G.
      March 6, 2013, 1:30 am

      The most beautiful, pure and honest moment when human beings often connect with each other is when neither of them speaks the other’s language; then their humanity shines, if one is cold, another offers a blanket, if one cries, another offers a shoulder, an embrace, if one is tired, another offers a chair, if one is thirsty, another offers water. No language is needed to communicate such human emotions and needs.

      It is that ability and power to transcend our verbal language and connect on a human level that makes us beautiful as a human race.

  17. quercus
    March 1, 2013, 7:04 am

    Unsurprising reaction from a highly chauvinistic society who wants to believe in its own superiority, and is desperate to maintain its advantage over the Palestinian population, which it believes it can by denying them education.

  18. weindeb
    March 1, 2013, 7:28 am

    For the life of me, I cannot understand why all these hostile comments about our brave little ally.

  19. NickJOCW
    March 1, 2013, 7:55 am

    “Sheila Jackson Lee represents the Texas district where Joudah’s parents live] inquired on my behalf and indeed is still in touch with the Israeli Embassy and my lawyer.”

    I wonder if Joudah was herself educated in this part of Texas. She seems a nice, open young person, likely to have made many friends. If that is so and with the involvement of Sheila Jackson Lee, the story strikes me as good copy for a local news outlet, newspaper, radio/TV interview with parents, maybe old classmates. It could arouse local interest while at the same time illuminating the broader problem. Do any contributors here know that Texas district?

  20. MarkF
    March 1, 2013, 9:53 am

    I think this goes to a broader issue when it comes to education and the I/P conflict. Israel and the U.S. have a pretty vibrant exchange of students and educators. Allowing teachers and students to enjoy this international exchange to and from Gaza and the West Bank tears down the racist Israeli narrative about Palestinians. The last thing the Israeli government wants is to humanize Palestinians in the eyes of Americans.

  21. edwardm
    March 1, 2013, 4:17 pm

    Quakers: Religious witnesses for Peace since 1660. No wonder the Israeli regime would prevent somebody teaching Palestinian kids at a Friends’ school.
    link to quaker.org
    and –
    link to en.wikipedia.org

  22. Kate
    March 1, 2013, 5:56 pm

    “She was also asked if she knew any prisoners, a question she had not answered previously. When she said she did not, the Shin Bet members asked her whether she knew anyone who had a relative in prison.”

    Just try and find a Palestinian with no relatives in prison or formerly in prison.

    “Since Israel’s occupation of Palestine in 1967, an estimated 800,000 Palestinians have been detained under Israeli military orders. This constitutes over 20% of the total Palestinian population located therein, including 40% of the male population in the State of Palestine.”

    Quoted from this article (included in my 26 Feb compilation of news and opinion on Palestine):
    link to english.pnn.ps

  23. Blank State
    March 1, 2013, 10:32 pm

    So, the whores in DC are silent when Israel murders an American on the high seas, or shoots our citizens in the face with high velocity tear gas canisters….and we think they will intervene on this teachers behalf? Who is simply denied entry into the Jewish State? Huh. Yeah. Fat chance.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      March 2, 2013, 12:10 pm

      She wasn’t denied entry into ‘the Jewish state’. She was denied entry into the occupied Palestinian territories.

      • Blank State
        March 5, 2013, 10:54 pm

        “She wasn’t denied entry into ‘the Jewish state’. She was denied entry into the occupied Palestinian territories”

        Yeah, well, give it a coupla more years. It’ll all be “the Jewish State” by then.

  24. MK_Ultra
    March 2, 2013, 5:54 pm

    Welcome to ISreal, the Middle East’s Only Democracy™.

  25. edwardm
    March 9, 2013, 1:25 pm

    Sorry for the late posting – but it just occurred to me that Dina bint ‘Abdu’l-Hamid is a fine example of why the Israelis might fear a brilliant, educated Arab woman.
    link to en.wikipedia.org
    Scroll to the bottom –
    “On 7 October 1970, Princess Dina married Lieut-Colonel Asad Sulayman Abd al-Qadir (born 1942), alias Salah Ta’amari, a Palestinian guerrilla commando who became a high-ranking official in the Palestine Liberation Organization. He was imprisoned by the Israelis in 1982.[1] A year later, Princess Dina negotiated one of the largest prisoner exchanges in history—freeing her husband and 8,000 other prisoners.[5]”
    Now imagine such a woman teaching Palestinian girls! (and boys) Such an existential threat could not be tolerated.

Leave a Reply