Olmert jokes being called ‘war criminal’ may restore his reputation in Israel as activists disrupt speech at Woodrow Wilson Center

ActivismIsrael/Palestine

On June 4, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert visited Washington, D.C.’s Woodrow Wilson Center to offer a so-called “moderate” perspective on Middle East affairs and the Palestinian-Israeli impasse. A DC area coalition of Palestinian justice activists, led by George Mason University Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA), were there to challenge Olmert and interrupt the Wilson Center’s complicity with the ongoing normalization of Israeli occupation, settler colonialism, and apartheid. Making clear that no Zionist presence is welcome in the DC metropolitan area, throughout the event activists interrupted Olmert, discrediting the supposed “peace plan” he has been parading around as a viable solution.

Far from the generous offer Olmert would have the Wilson Center audience take it for, Olmert’s two state plan is a Zionist strategy that frames Palestinians as “against peace” for rejecting it. As activists in the audience insisted, a plan which refuses rights of refugees, maintains occupation, and keeps in place the Wall and the apartheid system it reinforces, offers no peace at all.

At one point during the disruptions, Jane Harman, CEO of the Wilson Center and former member of Congress, presented for the audience what passes for the “common sense” perspective of a peaceful and just solution to the conflict. The hegemonic rationale grounding a two state solution permeates nearly every discussion of Palestine in the United States. This view is presented as the moderate, reasonable position for peace and justice. Meanwhile, Olmert justifies his aggressive advocacy for a two- state solution out of fear that the Palestinians will soon demand their fundamental human rights under a one state solution.

As members of SAIA, we represent a growing international movement to deconstruct and undermine this false rationale of a just solution in a Palestinian state alongside a Zionist, Israeli state. The two state solution is not only exclusionary, racist and anti-democratic, but moreover, structurally impossible. The territories designated for a future Palestinian state have been sliced, diced, and carved up over decades of Israeli military encroachment, followed by the on-going construction of illegal settlements. With little-to-no control over water, trade, transportation, or governance, the vision of a Palestinian state is merely a fabrication propagated by Israeli hawks to buy more time for further encroachment. It is in this spirit that we claim that the only just solution to the Israeli occupation is a democratic, one state solution led by the three tenets of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign:

  1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;
  2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
  3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

It is appalling that the Wilson Center would host a war criminal of Olmert’s caliber. It is less surprising that Olmert would jump at the invitation since opportunities to speak must be shrinking, as nations across Europe revoke Olmert’s diplomatic immunity, leaving him susceptible to arrest and prosecution for his violations of international law.

About GMU Students Against Israeli Apartheid

Students Against Israeli Apartheid at George Mason University supports a one state solution and is based off a basic human rights approach that abhors the human rights violations committed by Israel.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

116 Responses

  1. just
    June 6, 2013, 10:26 am

    Jane Harman could be a war criminal. So could Barbara Boxer.

    1S, 1P, 1V!

    (thank you Ramzi!)

    • Ramzi Jaber
      June 6, 2013, 2:50 pm

      ;-) Just, together we shall overcome!

      The question is: are Abbas, Erekat, Ashrawi, etc. listening? Or are they too enamoured being “VIP” with the occasional call or visit with Kerry, Ashton, and Blair??? They ought to focus on 1S1P1V with BDS, non-violent demos, and ICC/ICJ…… NOW!

      • Hostage
        June 6, 2013, 3:59 pm

        They ought to focus on 1S1P1V with BDS, non-violent demos, and ICC/ICJ…… NOW!

        For years now Diana Butto and others have been saying that given the facts on the ground, the PLO leadership should stop holding out for a settlement based upon two states and take up a South African-style anti-apartheid BDS approach with equal rights for all in a single state. That downplays the fact that the former anti-apartheid BDS campaign settled for equal rights in two states, South Africa and the formerly occupied territory of the State of Namibia. The often-heard complaint that the PLO has done nothing to enforce the 2004 ICJ Advisory opinion is nonsense. There are over 400 letters from the PLO Representative in the official records of the UN requesting that the Security Council and General Assembly bring the responsible Israeli officials to justice and stop the on-going Israeli violations of international law.

        It’s a mistaken view to confuse a settlement with a solution anyway. An imperfect political compromise will never put an end to all of the legal claims from the various injured parties or bring back dead loved ones. After all, Israel and various Jewish entities are still routinely revisiting and re-opening the terms of the final settlements involving WWII. The suggestion that third parties should be able to negotiate a “final” settlement that puts an end to all future private claims is just a persistent Zionist day dream. Zionists have never accepted that principle in dealing with their own claims.

        Among other things, all States are legal fictions. They are treated as “persons of international law”. Without the necessary legal fiction of two stated-ness, it’s a doubtful proposition that the Israeli settlements or settlers are necessarily illegal. Worse still, the use of that fictional one state argument is the very reason Palestinians have been forced to rely on the kindness of the cold-blooded, calculating politicians in the UN Security Council and the 10th Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly. Palestine has not been able to take the continuing violations of the law back to the ICJ or refer the guilty parties to the ICC. Those things have to be done by the Security Council or General Assembly if there is no government of the State of Palestine to act on its own behalf.

        In other words, if you embrace one stated-ness prematurely, you won’t be able to ask either Court to act without Israel’s permission. You need to have the issue of apartheid in the occupied State of Palestine addressed first. The imperfect laws that are still in force today are only designed to offer remedies to States. Now that you have bragging rights to 22 percent of the loaf use them wisely to obtain equality on both sides of the dividing line.

      • Ramzi Jaber
        June 9, 2013, 11:27 am

        Hostage, you make reasonable legal points. As I am not a legal expert (not even a legal naive), I leave it to those who know to comment in detail. Having said that, I still believe that the foundation of our ICC/ICJ action ought to be based on equal rights to all including basic human and civil rights, which are universal rights.

      • Hostage
        June 9, 2013, 3:08 pm

        I still believe that the foundation of our ICC/ICJ action ought to be based on equal rights to all including basic human and civil rights, which are universal rights.

        That’s correct. the key in both cases is for Palestine to use its new status as a state to bring cases into the ICC and ICJ on its own time table rather than the protracted ones adopted by the General Assembly or the Security Council. That status was granted to Palestine, not just the PA or Abbas.

        Both the Goldstone mission report and the Arab League mission report on Gaza incorporated the ICJ findings of fact through numerous quotes and footnote references. So all of the written pleadings, transcripts of oral arguments, and the written opinions of the majority and minority Justices would have to come into play in any ICC investigation to determine the identity of the responsible individuals.

        In many cases the written pleadings from the interested state parties in the Wall case were little more than indictments of the government of Israel that cited specific examples of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid directly from the international conventions and applied them directly to specific situations in Palestine.

        The ICJ could take-up the question of apartheid in Israel proper on the basis of the failure of the government of Israel to implement the UN minority protection plan that it acknowledged in declarations and undertakings provided during its membership hearings. That agreement was cataloged in a 1950 UN Secretariat study of minority rights treaty instruments. Those rights were placed under a UN guarantee. Resolution 181(II) contained a compromissory clause that granted the ICJ compulsory jurisdiction to settle any disputes between the parties regarding the interpretation of the agreement.

        In that regard, the Goldstone report contained a key observation about the impact of Israeli domestic laws in Palestine, which was also an implicit indictment of apartheid on the Israeli side of the Green Line:

        Despite prohibitions under international humanitarian law (IHL), Israel has applied its domestic laws throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 1967. . . . .[T]he application of Israeli domestic laws has resulted in institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the benefit of Jewish settlers, both Israeli citizens and others. Exclusive benefits reserved for Jews derive from the two-tiered civil status under Israel’s domestic legal regime based on a “Jewish nationality,” which entitles “persons of Jewish race or descendency” to superior rights and privileges, particularly in land use, housing, development, immigration and access to natural resources, as affirmed in key legislation. Administrative procedures qualify indigenous inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory as “alien persons” and, thus, prohibited from building on, or renting, large portions of land designated by the Government of Israel as “State land” (para 206)

        Of course, the example of driving Palestinians across borders into other Arab countries and refusing to repatriate them or compensate them prior to expropriating their properties is an example of Grand Apartheid and a violation of the minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II). The UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People reported to the Security Council that:

        19. In this respect, it was pointed out that Israel was under binding obligation to permit the return of all the Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the hostilities of 1948 and 1967. This obligation flowed from the unreserved agreement by Israel to honour its commitments under the Charter of the United Nations, and from its specific undertaking, when applying for membership of the United Nations, to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, safeguarding the rights of the Palestinian Arabs inside Israel, and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, concerning the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or to choose compensation for their property. This undertaking was also clearly reflected in General Assembly resolution 273 (III).

        link to un.org

  2. hophmi
    June 6, 2013, 11:31 am

    “Making clear that no Zionist presence is welcome in the DC metropolitan area”

    Just like the Middle East dictatorships! Unfortunately for them it is welcome in the DC metro area, like, everywhere.

    ” throughout the event activists interrupted Olmert, discrediting the supposed “peace plan” he has been parading around as a viable solution.”

    Interrupting Olmert’s speech discredits his plan? So if I shout abuse at you, that means I discredit you? LOL.

    “Olmert’s two state plan is a Zionist strategy that frames Palestinians as “against peace” for rejecting it. As activists in the audience insisted, a plan which refuses rights of refugees, maintains occupation, and keeps in place the Wall and the apartheid system it reinforces, offers no peace at all.”

    We get it; any plan that recognizes any kind of Jewish nationality you’ll oppose. Got it loud and clear. Fortunately, Israel does not have to make peace with crazy Western activists from American college campuses.

    “The hegemonic rationale grounding a two state solution permeates nearly every discussion of Palestine in the United States. This view is presented as the moderate, reasonable position for peace and justice. ”

    That’s because it is the moderate position. The extremists are the ones who favor the one-state solution.

    “It is in this spirit that we claim that the only just solution to the Israeli occupation is a democratic, one state solution led by the three tenets of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign:

    Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;
    Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
    Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

    Honesty! BDS is for the one-state solution. It’s worked so well everywhere else, like East Timor, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Sudan and South Sudan, the Czech Republic and Slovakia…

    “It is appalling that the Wilson Center would host a war criminal of Olmert’s caliber.”

    Read: It is appalling that people who disagree with us are permitted to speak.

    “It is less surprising that Olmert would jump at the invitation since opportunities to speak must be shrinking, as nations across Europe revoke Olmert’s diplomatic immunity, leaving him susceptible to arrest and prosecution for his violations of international law.”

    LOL. It is not surprising that extremist Western students would jump on a guy who actually negotiated and tried to make peace, which they are clearly opposed to.

    • talknic
      June 6, 2013, 1:31 pm

      @ hophmi “Interrupting Olmert’s speech discredits his plan? So if I shout abuse at you, that means I discredit you? LOL. “

      abuse? where on the video? is this abuse or a discredit? ” a plan which refuses rights of refugees, maintains occupation, and keeps in place the Wall and the apartheid system it reinforces, offers no peace at all.” (you did copy and paste it, yes?)

      “a guy who actually negotiated and tried to make peace”

      Olmert offer – swap the Palestinians some Palestinian territory for some other Palestinian territory, so that Israel can keep some Palestinian territory.

      “Honesty! BDS is for the one-state solution. It’s worked so well everywhere else, like East Timor”

      Uh? East Timor’s sovereignty was RESTORED from Indonesian OCCUPATION

      • hophmi
        June 6, 2013, 1:45 pm

        “abuse? where on the video? is this abuse or a discredit? ”

        The students shouted Olmert down. They seem to believe shouting someone down is the same thing as discrediting them.

        “Olmert offer – swap the Palestinians some Palestinian territory for some other Palestinian territory, so that Israel can keep some Palestinian territory.”

        What the heck are you talking about? This is the Olmert plan. link to bing.com

        As you can see, it includes transferring Israeli land with the ’67 borders to the Palestinians as a swap.

        “Uh? East Timor’s sovereignty was RESTORED from Indonesian OCCUPATION”

        Why not one big state? Surely the right thing is for Indonesians and East Timorese to live together in one state in harmony.

      • eGuard
        June 7, 2013, 12:43 am

        hophmi, your link is wrong. The plan he pursued is described here: link to www2.ohchr.org

        With regard to Honesty! BDS is for the one-state solution. It’s worked so well everywhere else, like …: you forgot South Africa.

        How could you. Back in the 80s, when we were fighting Apartheid there, you always said: “hey, why not the other countries with issues, like Israel”. I remember you.

      • talknic
        June 7, 2013, 1:58 am

        @ hophmi “The students shouted Olmert down.”

        You QUOTED their argument points! Here again.. ” a plan which refuses rights of refugees, maintains occupation, and keeps in place the Wall and the apartheid system it reinforces, offers no peace at all.”

        “This is the Olmert plan. As you can see, it includes transferring Israeli land with the ’67 borders to the Palestinians as a swap. “

        It’s not Israeli land. The borders of ’67 are the same as the borders of May 15th 1948 link to trumanlibrary.org Israel has never legally annexed ANY non-Israeli territory. The Armistice AGREEMENTS of 1949 specifically did not change any borders. The two peace AGREEMENTS did not change any borders, they both acknowledged “the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;” per UNSC res 242.

        Olmert’s offer was to swap the Palestinians some Palestinian territory for some other Palestinian territory, so that Israel can keep some Palestinian territory.

        “Why not one big state? Surely the right thing is for Indonesians and East Timorese to live together in one state in harmony”

        Why? East Timorese sovereignty was being usurped by Indonesia. East Timorese sovereignty has been restored because the East Timorese wanted it thus. Apparently self determination for Jews is OK, but not for the Palestinians or the East Timorese.

        By your criteria, surely the right thing is for USers and Mexicans to live together in one state in harmony. Right?

      • hophmi
        June 7, 2013, 12:28 pm

        “It’s not Israeli land.

        Maybe not according to you, but according to most of the civilized world, it is.

        “By your criteria, surely the right thing is for USers and Mexicans to live together in one state in harmony. Right?”

        That’s your criteria, not mine.

      • hophmi
        June 7, 2013, 12:57 pm

        “you forgot South Africa. ”

        South Africa is not Israel. In South Africa, the overwhelming majority of the people are Black, and the whites were never anything but interlopers there.

        Jews are not interlopers in Israel. They have a history, whether you choose to deny it or not. And the population is pretty divided. The populations are about even between Sea and River. If Palestinians were 80% instead of 45 or 50%, it might be a different story. But they are not. And they are not looking to unite Arab and Jew, like Mandela looked to unite Black and White.

        And South Africa is not such a rousing success, BTW. It’s been a success over the past 20 years because of Mandela’s great good will; he took great pains not to scare the whites, who look at him as a hero and then complain about how the ANC leadership is messing up the country. But the country remains extraordinarily racially and socioeconomically divided. Most Blacks remain in abject poverty. Leaders like Julius Malema shout racially separatist slogans about killing white farmers. I have been there. I saw Malema do it in person. And next door, in Zimbabwe, it’s a complete disaster now.

        Africa is a place where colonial masters drew arbitrary boundaries and threw warring tribes together, and the continent has had so many civil wars because of it. The Rwandan genocide was an ethnic conflict. Nigeria’s civil war was ethnic. These are tribal conflicts. So, conceited Westerner, don’t tell me about South Africa, your convenient Africa example where you got involved, that you hold up as your patronizing Western achievement (unlike everywhere else in Africa, which, like most of the West, you ignored). It is the exception that proves the rule.

      • Hostage
        June 7, 2013, 4:31 pm

        It’s worked so well everywhere else, like …: you forgot South Africa.

        It would be good if supporters would recall that the UN involvement with the Union of South Africa began when it refused to place the League of Nations Mandate for South West Africa (aka Namibia) under a UN trusteeship and unilaterally declared that the mandate had been terminated. It occupied the territory and declared its intentions to annex it. The government of South Africa claimed that the League had promised to give the territory to South Africa. Many of the Bantustans that were established during the apartheid era were established in the colonized territory of Namibia. The indigenous population was represented in the UN by their own national liberation organization, SWAPO, which had an observer status much like the PLO. Like the ANC, it was also declared a terrorist organization by the government of South Africa.

        The ANC and SWAPO did not pursue a one state solution to the problem of apartheid. South Africa’s occupation of Namibia was a landmark ICJ case on self-determination and apartheid that was mirrored in the ICJ Wall case.

        There are a number of Palestinian commenters who have no desire to be governed by the PA or the PLO. The multitude of Palestinian refugees and large population blocks in the territory of Israel may not want to be annexed by the government of Palestine either. That’s up to them to decide.

      • Hostage
        June 7, 2013, 9:22 pm

        South Africa is not Israel. In South Africa, the overwhelming majority of the people are Black, and the whites were never anything but interlopers there. . . . Jews are not interlopers in Israel.

        Your desperation is showing again. Europeans, including European Jews, were nothing other than interlopers in Palestine. an ancient historical connection was, and is, an irrelevant consideration that doesn’t create any legal obligations for others.

      • Cliff
        June 7, 2013, 9:36 pm

        hoppie said:

        Jews are not interlopers in Israel.

        The vast majority of Jews have been interlopers in Palestine for the past 100 years.

        There was only a minority of Jews in Palestine before the European Jews came over in waves and began their colonization/usurping of the land.

        The Palestinian people are the indigenous people of that land. They are not a ‘Muslim’ people – they are a Palestinian people; the people of the land.

        Jews are a religious group and an ethnicity and have no collective right to any land on this planet because ethnicities and religions have no rights to land. Only the people of the land do, whomever they may be.

        And Israel is WORSE than South African and people who have actually fought against SA apartheid like Desmond Tutu or Ronnie Kasrils have said so.

        They have experience. They are from South Africa.

        They have fought against it. And they said Israel was worse.

        Anything YOU or any other Zionist has to say on the matter is irrelevant.

      • Cliff
        June 7, 2013, 9:37 pm

        No one in the world other than Israel and it’s settlers regard land past the 67′ lines to be Israeli.

      • James Canning
        June 8, 2013, 7:47 pm

        @Cliff – - Sadly, a number of rich and powerful Jews in the US regard as part of Israel anything the illegal settlers want to try to take.

    • eljay
      June 6, 2013, 2:30 pm

      >> We get it; any plan that recognizes any kind of Jewish nationality you’ll oppose.

      There has never been a plan to make Jewish a nationality.

      If there were such a plan, Zio-supremacists wouldn’t need to defend “Jewish State” anymore, since every immigrant – and every Palestinian rightfully returning – to “Jewish State” would acquire the nationality of Jewish and have the same rights as every other Jewish person.

      Jewish State ex-pats and their descendants (up to n generations), and all people originally from the territory occupied by Jewish State, would be entitled to Jewish State nationality and preferential immigration to Jewish State.

      I would support a plan that made Jewish a nationality. But there has never been one.

    • piotr
      June 6, 2013, 3:38 pm

      I would support 2 state solution along the Arab League plan. However, I do not see how to implement something like that without (a) USA fully supporting it in spite of VERY vociferous opposition and (b) threatening parties that do not agree with the solution with sanctions/siege that can be copied from the current solutions applied to North Korea, Iran and Gaza. If “diet” is good for a goose, it is also good for the gander.

      However, a stable one state solution would require so-called “painful concession” and without a demonstrated and powerful outside pressure, parties ready for such concession gain ca. 15% of Knesset seats, because no “soundly thinking patriot” will offer larger concessions than necessary. I do not see how to get to that point without a “1 state” BDS movement.

    • Hostage
      June 6, 2013, 4:28 pm

      “It is appalling that the Wilson Center would host a war criminal of Olmert’s caliber.”

      Read: It is appalling that people who disagree with us are permitted to speak.

      There are well-supported complaints in countries far and wide around the globe alleging that Olmert, his cabinet ministers, and the IDF General staff spent months planning and preparing Operation Cast Lead. So you betcha, plenty of good lawyers have labeled him a war criminal.

      • mondonut
        June 6, 2013, 5:11 pm

        Hostage says: … alleging that Olmert, his cabinet ministers, and the IDF General staff spent months planning and preparing Operation Cast Lead. So you betcha, plenty of good lawyers have labeled him a war criminal.
        =======================================
        There is nothing criminal in planning a military operation unless someone can prove they planned deliberate criminality – which they cannot. Planning in itself is the entire point of a military infrastructure. I presume the US has plans for every country in the world and that each of Israel’s neighbors has plans for Israel.

        But this is just a tangent that deflects from the main point, which is that these children at the university think that by applying said label they are entitled to disrupt speakers.

      • Hostage
        June 7, 2013, 6:22 am

        There is nothing criminal in planning a military operation

        Here is a little clue for you. It violated Israel’s obligations under the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. That makes it a crime:

        Article 6.

        The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.

        The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

        (a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

        – Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg

        Hell, simply promulgating propaganda that denies, trivializes, or condones wars waged in violation of international treaties, that target members of identifiable groups, promotes public acceptance of violence directed towards the victims of these crimes against peace.

        Your former Defense Minister launched a reprisal against the inhabitants of Gaza for an attack that was carried out by a bunch of Egyptians. There was little if any public outcry, because you live in a State that constantly incites racial hatred against Gazans. See Bibi and Barak’s Terror Fraud: Egyptian News Reports Attackers Were Egyptian, Not Gazan link to richardsilverstein.com

        So spreading propaganda that trivializes the crime of planning wars in violation of treaties is an act that is considered a hate crime in many jurisdictions:

        Certain forms of conduct as outlined below, which are committed for a racist or xenophobic purpose, are punishable as criminal offences:

        *public condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) and crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group.

        link to europa.eu

      • mondonut
        June 7, 2013, 11:38 am

        Hostage says: Here is a little clue for you. It violated Israel’s obligations under the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. That makes it a crime:
        ==========================================
        Thanks for bolding the part about “war of aggression” as that certainly not what happened. Unless you happen to have personal knowledge otherwise Israeli military planning in Gaza was intended to eliminate the aggression and war crimes being committed by Hamas and its agents – namely rockets and mortars.

      • hophmi
        June 7, 2013, 1:00 pm

        It’s not a war of aggression when it’s a war of self-defense. It’s a war of self-defense when the government is attacking your civilians with rockets on a regular basis.

      • James Canning
        June 7, 2013, 7:02 pm

        @Hophmi – - You think the rampage in Gaza in 2008-09 was justified?

      • Hostage
        June 7, 2013, 9:15 pm

        It’s not a war of aggression when it’s a war of self-defense.

        The Security Council record and the Goldstone fact finding mission report on Gaza make it clear that Israel wasn’t responding to any new attack when it initiated the air campaign against Gaza on 27 December 2008. In fact, Haaretz was operating in IDF echo chamber mode when it had run an article the day before about the Hamas capabilities the IDF would face if it decided to go ahead with a major operation in the Gaza Strip.
        link to haaretz.com

        The Security Council had already disposed of the matters that Israel had placed on its agenda as a result of the previous rocket attacks that happened in June, before the six month cease fire was adopted. So Israel couldn’t invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter in that connection. link to yale.edu

        The Caroline Test employed by the Nuremberg tribunal says that the necessity for self-defense must be “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” Likewise Article 51 only allows a state to act when it is actually attacked first, and only then until the Security Council has met and decided what measures to take. The Security Council had decided against any further the use of force by either side.

      • Cliff
        June 7, 2013, 9:41 pm

        hoppie said:

        It’s a war of self-defense when the government is attacking your civilians with rockets on a regular basis.

        Yes, Israel attacks the Palestinians with much more than rockets and is colonizing Palestinian land.

        So yes, Palestinians have a moral right to violently expel the Jewish terrorists robbing them.

      • talknic
        June 7, 2013, 11:29 pm

        hophmi “It’s not a war of aggression when it’s a war of self-defense”
        Under the UN Charter Chapt VII, Art 51.. UN Members must inform the UNSC of the intention behind their actions. Israel has never done either.

        The last legal declaration of war ever lodged with the UNSC was the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine May 15th 1948 by the Arab states. link to mfa.gov.il

        The UNSC saw no reason to condemn the Arab States for going to the defense of the territory allotted for an Arab state from Israeli troops “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” according to the Israeli Government at the time link to wp.me

        “It’s a war of self-defense when the government is attacking your civilians with rockets on a regular basis”

        The IDF memorial site statistics tell us more Israeli military have been injured and or killed than have Israeli civilians. Seems wonky home made rockets are safer for civilians than Israel’s super high tech, pinpoint accurate, mass collateral, human slaughtering devices

      • Obsidian
        June 8, 2013, 1:42 am

        @Hostage

        The Security Council and Goldstone got in wrong.

        Hamas launched their military operation against Israel on 25 December, two days BEFORE Israel’s air attack.

        link to maannews.net

      • Hostage
        June 8, 2013, 8:46 am

        Unless you happen to have personal knowledge otherwise Israeli military planning in Gaza was intended to eliminate the aggression and war crimes being committed by Hamas and its agents – namely rockets and mortars.

        I’ve read the reports from the ICRC, AI, HRW, and the independent fact finding mission reports from the UN and Arab League missions headed-up by Richard Goldstone and John Dugard. In addition, I’ve read the follow-up reports submitted by Israel to the UN panels of independent experts in response to the Goldstone report. They recommended that the General Assembly should refer the matter to the ICC because Israel hasd deliberately violated its treaty obligations and had not conducted an honest or independent investigation.

      • Hostage
        June 8, 2013, 9:50 am

        Hamas launched their military operation against Israel on 25 December, two days BEFORE Israel’s air attack.

        No, according to Goldstone and the Security Council Israel had already broken the cease-fire in November when it initially commenced the hostilities. That was before Israel decided to conduct the major ground and air operation in Gaza at the end of December:

        254. After two months in which few incidents were reported, the cease fire began to founder on 4 November 2008 following an incursion by Israeli soldiers into the Gaza Strip, which Israel stated was to close a cross-border tunnel that in Israel’s view was intended to be used by Palestinian fighters to kidnap Israeli soldiers. The soldiers attacked a house in the Wadi al-Salqa village, east of Deir al-Balah, which was alleged to be the starting point of the tunnel, killing a member of the al-Qassam Brigades. Several Israeli soldiers were wounded. In response, the al-Qassam Brigades fired more than 30 Qassam rockets into Israel. Israel responded with an air strike that left a further five members of the al-Qassam Brigades dead. Both sides blamed the other for the escalation of violence. Hamas also accused Israel of trying to disrupt talks between Hamas and Fatah that were scheduled for the following week in Cairo. Israel closed the crossings into the Gaza Strip on 5 November 2008 and they remained closed until 24 November 2008, when they were opened briefly to allow humanitarian supplies to enter.

        link to www2.ohchr.org

        I merely cited the Haaretz article about the deliberations concerning the initiation of the air and ground attack to illustrate that the Caroline Test criteria were inapplicable.

      • mondonut
        June 8, 2013, 10:50 am

        Hostage says: I’ve read the reports from the ICRC, AI, HRW, and the independent fact finding mission reports from the UN and Arab League missions headed-up by Richard Goldstone and John Dugard. In addition,…
        ========================================
        You are well informed, I will grant you that. But nothing that you reference supports your contention that having a military plan on the books constitutes a crime. Or that Israel committed a war crime simply by pre-planning how to deal with the inevitable attacks from Gaza.

      • MRW
        June 8, 2013, 11:49 am

        Obsidian,

        The Security Council and Goldstone got in wrong.

        Hamas launched their military operation against Israel on 25 December, two days BEFORE Israel’s air attack.

        Oh c’mon. Do you think we have Alzheimer’s around here? Israel broke the four-month truce the night Obama got elected: November 4, 2008. We remember the night with news at the top of each hour announcing that Israel entered Gaza and killed six Palestinians.

        Even still, Hamas wanted to keep honoring the truce in spite of the breach. Israel didn’t answer. There were no rockets and mortars coming from Gaza.

        The archives here started at the end of July 2009. This pilpul has been discussed over and over and over with quotes and links and dates.

        A new UN report exposes a bit of misinformation peddled by the US and Israel and shatters the Zionist illusion that the Gaza war was legal.

        The report, prepared by human rights investigator Richard Falk, confirms that Tel Aviv was indeed the party that violated the Egyptian-brokered six-month truce in Gaza….

        Falk, who based his findings on Israeli sources, said the number of Palestinian rockets and mortar shells fired into Israel after the ceasefire came into effect in June had considerably declined.

        “The ceasefire was remarkably effective; after it began in June 2008, the rate of rocket and mortar fire from Gaza dropped to almost zero, and stayed there for almost four months,” the report continued….

        Tel Aviv in late December had claimed that it launched Operation Cast Lead on the territory of 1.5 million Palestinians in “retaliation for Palestine rocket attacks on Israel”.

        The UN report confirms that Tel Aviv began the bloodshed by breaking the truce and is thus unable to use claims of self-defense.

        link to liveleak.com
        link to www2.ohchr.org

      • MRW
        June 8, 2013, 11:53 am

        Obsidian,

        Mark Steel writing in The Independent on 21st January 2009:

        Now we’ve all seen through the Israeli government’s excuses:
        If the Hamas rockets are so lethal, why doesn’t Israel swap an F-16 for some?

      • James Canning
        June 8, 2013, 1:55 pm

        @Obsidian – - William Hague and David Cameron had contempt for Israel’s murderous rampage in Gaza in 2008-09.

      • James Canning
        June 8, 2013, 1:58 pm

        @MRW. Bravo. Israel’s murderous rampage in Gaza in 2008 was launched despite the fact Hamas had been observing the cease-fire.

        Israel apparently was encouraged by some Obama operatives, to get the murder and mayhem out of the way before Obama entered the White House.

      • mondonut
        June 8, 2013, 2:06 pm

        James Canning says: Israel apparently was encouraged by some Obama operatives, to get the murder and mayhem out of the way before Obama entered the White House.
        ================================================
        That’s a pretty bold accusation. Do you have anything to back that up?

      • James Canning
        June 8, 2013, 4:18 pm

        @Mondonut – - Are you arguing Israel had not been planning the operation for several months? Are you suggesting Obama operatives would have been unable to gain an inkling of what was about to take place?

        Obviously, Obama did not want the operation going on while he was entering the White House.

        And yes, I have been informed by those apparently “in the know”, that Obama would not have welcomed an Israel attack on Gaza that began in January 2009.

      • mondonut
        June 8, 2013, 6:56 pm

        James Canning says. And yes, I have been informed by those apparently “in the know”, that Obama would not have welcomed an Israel attack on Gaza that began in January 2009.
        ========================
        Nothing in your reply addresses the accusation you made, namely that Obama operatives encouraged the Israelis to attack Gaza prior to the Obama confirmation. Once again, please provide proof of that.

      • Hostage
        June 8, 2013, 7:22 pm

        You are well informed, I will grant you that. But nothing that you reference supports your contention that having a military plan on the books constitutes a crime.

        You have a problem with basic literacy then, because those reports do say that Israel planned and conducted Operation Cast Lead in violation of its customary and treaty obligations under the terms of the UN Charter and the 4th Geneva Convention. That satisfies all of the elements of the offense listed in Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter regarding the planning of a war in violation of international treaties or assurances.

        FYI, in Regina v. Jones (2006), the UK Law Lords spelled-out the proposition that the core elements of the crime of aggression have been understood, at least since 1945, with sufficient clarity to permit the lawful trial (and, on conviction, punishment) of those accused of this most serious crime. They said that: “It is unhistorical to suppose that the elements of the crime were clear in 1945 but have since become in any way obscure.” link to publications.parliament.uk

      • James Canning
        June 8, 2013, 7:23 pm

        @Hostage – - And let’s remember that Israel planned its 2006 attack on Hezbollah, which soon became an insane orgy of destruction over much of Lebanon, months before it was launched. Israel merely waited for an adequate pretext.

      • Citizen
        June 8, 2013, 7:57 pm

        Wikileaks Palestine Papers reveal Israel broke the truce by invading and killing a half dozen Palestinian leaders, and when retaliation came in the form of a few rockets, Israel launched its preplanned OP Cast Lead, refusing to renew the truce as the Palestinians had done. S.O.P Israeli pattern. Just another Israeli price tag event, terrorism by the state.

      • Cliff
        June 8, 2013, 10:32 pm

        LOL so true.

        Those deadly rockets! Let’s see Israel use them over their White phosphorus.

      • talknic
        June 9, 2013, 9:00 am

        mondonut “… Or that Israel committed a war crime simply by pre-planning how to deal with the inevitable attacks from Gaza.”

        “simply by pre-planning” Ooooops you missed and simply executed said plan in non-Israeli territory, without fulfilling the legal requirement of informing the UNSC per Chapt VII Article 51 of the .. “Measures taken”

        Here, attempt to cherry pick and twist this around link to un-documents.net I’m sure other folk’ll be able to read what it actually says.

        See how International Law (all law is binding), the UN Charter (binding in its entirety on all UN Members), conventions (binding on those who ratify them), previous relative UN/UNSC resolutions (all based on binding International Law, the binding UN Charter and relative binding conventions) are: ‘recognized’, ‘reaffirmed’, ‘emphasized’, ‘stressed’, borne in mind’, ‘considered’, ‘recalled’ and ‘noted’

      • hophmi
        June 9, 2013, 9:26 am

        Source for this claim?

      • mondonut
        June 9, 2013, 11:44 am

        talknic says:“simply by pre-planning” Ooooops you missed and simply executed said plan in non-Israeli territory, without fulfilling the legal requirement of informing the UNSC per Chapt VII Article 51 of the .. “Measures taken”
        ===============================================
        I did not miss that, and your link is off topic. The assertion was that planning the Gaza attack constituted a war crime.

      • talknic
        June 9, 2013, 12:51 pm

        @ Hopmi, the link is on topic..

        Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations

        In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.

        Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

        Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. link to un-documents.net

        “The assertion was that planning the Gaza attack constituted a war crime.”

        Ahem…. This was the assertion … verbatim “the crime of planning wars in violation of treaties

      • Hostage
        June 9, 2013, 3:59 pm

        I did not miss that, and your link is off topic. The assertion was that planning the Gaza attack constituted a war crime.

        Try re-reading Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter. Members of the German General Staff were tried and hanged for their role in planning a war in violation of assurances and international treaties. Most of those desk jockeys never fired a single shot in anger. The Hague Conventions of 1907 contained a codification of the laws and customs of war that the Nazi plans violated. That goes ditto for Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. The Kellogg-Briand Pact and the UN Charter were both agreements designed to outlaw the use of war as an instrument of national policy. Simply planning a war can violate the terms of several treaties and customary norms.

      • mondonut
        June 10, 2013, 2:48 am

        Hostage says: Try re-reading Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter. Members of the German General Staff were tried and hanged …
        =================================================
        And there you have it, the inevitable retreat into Israel-Nazi comparisons. As if the Israeli attacks on Gaza were somehow equivalent to German atrocities in WWII. And so, this will be my last comment on this thread.

        But for the record, the Israeli attacks did not constitute a war of aggression, they were not violating treaties with Gaza, the Israelis were under physical attack (all of which were REAL war crimes) from Gaza, their actions were defensive, and the Israelis do not occupy Gaza.

        Further, planning military actions (as opposed to wars of agression) does not constitute a war crime. Every professional military on this planet has dozens of pre-planned attacks and defensive actions on their books. That is the entire point of having a professional military

      • Hostage
        June 10, 2013, 5:07 pm

        Hostage says: Try re-reading Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter. Members of the German General Staff were tried and hanged …
        =================================================
        And there you have it, the inevitable retreat into Israel-Nazi comparisons.

        No there you have an example of Zionist exceptionalism. I’m quoting the customary principles of international law that have been applied to every State on the planet ever since they were first codified in the Charter of the Tribunal. See if any of this describes Olmerts role in Operation Cast Lead or the occupation of Palestine:
        * The “Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal” (1950) at the UN Treaty Organization link to untreaty.un.org
        * Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute adopted by the Kampala conference in 2010:

        For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations. . . .

        Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:
        (a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of
        another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;
        (b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;
        (c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State; . . .

        link to icc-cpi.int

        And so, this will be my last comment on this thread.

        Good because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

        Further, planning military actions (as opposed to wars of agression) does not constitute a war crime. Every professional military on this planet has dozens of pre-planned attacks and defensive actions on their books. That is the entire point of having a professional military

        The fact is that the international community of states have been codifying criminal prohibitions against that practice in their public international laws ever since the 1890s. Nothing prevents them from making new laws or enforcing the old ones that are already on the books. They have given plenty of notices that the unilateral resort to the use of force without international consent is illegal and that it incurs individual criminal responsibility for which no statutory limitations apply.

      • hophmi
        June 10, 2013, 5:20 pm

        “They have given plenty of notices that the unilateral resort to the use of force without international consent is illegal and that it incurs individual criminal responsibility for which no statutory limitations apply.”

        Unilateral resort to force without international consent is illegal? That’s not international law. That’s claptrap. There isn’t a nation on earth that thinks like that. A country does not require international permission to defend itself, and if, according to you, it does, then you’ve succinctly stated why international law on this topic is beyond useless.

        The people that care about international law should worry about adapting it to the modern world, where non-state actors are increasingly the aggressors, and the law is subject to political manipulation by totalitarian states.

      • Cliff
        June 10, 2013, 5:52 pm

        Non-State actors are not the aggressors in the Israel-Palestine conflict nor are they the aggressors in Israel’s conflict with Southern Lebanon/Lebanon.

        Israel is the aggressor. The entire concern for these non-state actors is for the purpose of creating another political bludgeon that terrorist States like the US and Israel use to delegitimize the grievances of the enemy populations they occupy/rob/murder.

        Israel isn’t at war with terrorists, it’s at war with civilian populations. Civilian populations become radicalized by Jewish nationalism and colonialism, living under apartheid and occupation, and the lack of any oversight into Zionist crimes against them.

      • talknic
        June 10, 2013, 6:19 pm

        @ hophmi “A country does not require international permission to defend itself”

        Correct. But that’s not what was being discussed. AGAIN… this was the assertion … verbatim “the crime of planning wars in violation of treaties

        BTW Self Defense

        UN Charter Article 51
        … Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council …..

        Cite the Israeli report to the UNSC …. thx.

      • Hostage
        June 10, 2013, 9:56 pm

        Unilateral resort to force without international consent is illegal? That’s not international law. That’s claptrap. There isn’t a nation on earth that thinks like that.

        There certainly were 120 member states at the ICC Kampala Conference and the majority thought that way and voted for the amendment on the crime of aggression that I quoted above. All they did was adopt the General Assembly’s existing definition, while adding provisions which allow the Court or Prosecutor to initiate investigations and prosecutions without the need to defer to the opinions of the Security Council on these legal questions.

        The General Assembly’s definition was part of a Declaration on the subject that was fully discussed and explained in great detail as part of the official record by the General Assembly, the International Law Commission, and the General Assembly 4th Committee on Decolonization and 6th Committee on International Law.

        A country does not require international permission to defend itself, and if, according to you, it does, then you’ve succinctly stated why international law on this topic is beyond useless.

        Well you’re resorting to nonsensical hyperbole. Israel wasn’t defending itself when it massacred the members of the local police force, used white phosphorus and high explosives in shake n’ bake attacks on schools, hospitals, and UN relief facilities, or destroyed vital civilian infrastructure and utilities. Just look at how many countries endorsed those findings from the Goldstone report and voted in favor of prosecuting those responsible for planning and conducting the war in the HRC and General Assembly.

        BTW, what exactly do you think can prevent all of those states from trying to apprehend Israeli suspects and prosecuting them in their own national Courts if they ever decide to do so? The article mentions that the number of countries that are safe for Olmert to visit is dwindling.

      • hophmi
        June 6, 2013, 7:12 pm

        If he were not “labeled a war criminal” by these pro-Palestinian lawyers, these students would still try to shut him down. It’s about censoring Zionist speakers. That’s what their press release says. Zionists not welcome in Washington.

      • Woody Tanaka
        June 7, 2013, 8:33 am

        “Zionists not welcome in Washington.”

        LMAO. Oh, if only. What a glorious day that would be. Kick the israeli ambassador out of town.

      • eGuard
        June 7, 2013, 1:02 am

        hophmi logic: Read: It is appalling that people who disagree with us are permitted to speak.

        You would support inviting war criminals then, hophmi? (Warning: don’t get tied up in your own non sequiturs, it might suffocate you)

      • hophmi
        June 7, 2013, 12:40 pm

        “Read: It is appalling that people who disagree with us are permitted to speak.”

        It doesn’t bother me if some Palestinian group invites a Hamas sympathizer onto campus. When I was college student around 2000, I tried myself to invite one of their reps to speak on a panel I organized so their viewpoint was represented. I looked up their contact info on their website.

        Yeah. I’m not kidding. They didn’t return my call. So instead, I had a right-wing Zionist, an APN rep, a Seeds for Peace guy, and a Palestinian one-state advocate who lived here. It was a great panel. The Seeds of Peace guy was my second choice after Bassem Eid of the Palestinian Human Rights Centre; we didn’t have the money to fly him here.

        A war criminal to me is someone with a standing indictment at the ICC who got the indictment by actually committing genocide, not someone who is there because some aggrieved group wants to politicize the international justice system.

        You guys aren’t calling Olmert a war criminal because you believe in international justice. You’re calling him that because you just don’t want him to be able to speak. It’s transparently obvious. Americans see through games like this, and it will not help you add to your measly 4%.

      • Hostage
        June 7, 2013, 9:38 pm

        A war criminal to me is someone with a standing indictment at the ICC who got the indictment by actually committing genocide, not someone who is there because some aggrieved group wants to politicize the international justice system.

        I suspect that you’d quickly change your definition if the Prosecutor asks for arrest warrants in the Comoros murder cases.

        The legal situation really hasn’t changed since a UK judge issued arrest warrants for Olmert, Livni, and other Israeli officials in the UK at the request of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Hickman & Rose. See for example, Daniel Machover and Raji Sourani, Changes to UK law didn’t protect didn’t protect Tzipi Livni link to aljazeera.com

      • Cliff
        June 7, 2013, 9:44 pm

        Name one Hamas sympathizer that a Palestinian ‘group’ invited to a US campus.

        Zionists invite Jewish terrorists like Olmert to speak all the time.

        Or other Jewish fascists who support torture, colonialism, apartheid, etc.

        Americans do not ‘see’ through these ‘games’ because Americans do not care.

        Support for Israel is not deep. And a Zionist Jew does not speak for America.

      • Shingo
        June 10, 2013, 10:14 pm

        A war criminal to me is someone with a standing indictment at the ICC who got the indictment by actually committing genocide, not someone who is there because some aggrieved group wants to politicize the international justice system.

        Why isn’t a war criminal someone who has commited a war crime Hop? Aren’t you banking on the wiggle room you get from denying that someone has been indicted because of political machinations?

        You guys aren’t calling Olmert a war criminal because you believe in international justice.

        Right Hop, because we all know that you pace the halls of your home, waiting for justice to arrive.

        Americans see through games like this, and it will not help you add to your measly 4%.

        Yeah Hop, just like they saw through the games about Iraq WMD.

        You people are a joke.

      • hophmi
        June 11, 2013, 7:53 am

        “Why isn’t a war criminal someone who has commited a war crime Hop? Aren’t you banking on the wiggle room you get from denying that someone has been indicted because of political machinations?”

        Because Olmert hasn’t been convicted of anything, and is thus innocent under international law, which provides that all are innocent until proven guilty.

      • Shingo
        June 11, 2013, 8:22 am

        Because Olmert hasn’t been convicted of anything, and is thus innocent under international law, which provides that all are innocent until proven guilty.

        Nor have any Palestinian terrorists – so taking your logic to it’s conclusion – there are no Palestinian terrorists, including Hamas.

  3. Citizen
    June 6, 2013, 12:59 pm

    “Olmert laughed, noting this light-skinned heckler (unlike 1st) ‘doesn’t look like a Palestinian’” link to thebea.st via @thedailybeast

  4. Kathleen
    June 6, 2013, 1:28 pm

    Former Congresswoman Jane “waddling on over to interfere in the Aipac espionage investigation” Harman should be deeply investigated for her crimes.

  5. talknic
    June 6, 2013, 1:39 pm

    You couldn’t make it up…. but hophmi does…

    “We get it; any plan that recognizes any kind of Jewish nationality you’ll oppose”

    You get your own words hophmi. Not theirs

    “Got it loud and clear”

    Pssssst …. the voices in you head are your own.

    • hophmi
      June 6, 2013, 1:47 pm

      ““We get it; any plan that recognizes any kind of Jewish nationality you’ll oppose””

      You deny it? On what basis? They’re against the two-state solution, and they’re for one “democratic” state, which they count on the Palestinians, the prospective majority in this state, to deliver. So where’s the recognition of Jewish self-determination? You’re the one who cites 181 and 194 all the time. How will this plan comport with those resolutions? It doesn’t. And you damn well know it.

      • talknic
        June 7, 2013, 1:18 am

        hophmi “You deny it? On what basis? “

        On the basis that they’re YOUR words.

        “they’re for one “democratic” state, which they count on the Palestinians, the prospective majority in this state, to deliver. So where’s the recognition of Jewish self-determination? “

        “democratic” Look it up. (Jews in the “democratic” US, Australia, UK … have a right to self determination)

        “You’re the one who cites 181 and 194 all the time.

        UNGA Res 181 – recommended two separate independent states. Israeli occupation of non-Israeli territories has for 65 yrs ( link to wp.me ) prevented Arab independence in territories slated for the Arab state.

        UNGA res 194 was based on having two separate entities, whether one was independent or not.

        “How will this plan comport with those resolutions? It doesn’t. And you damn well know it”

        Of course it doesn’t, this plan has arisen because of the FAILURE of Israel to adhere to its legal obligations under the: Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, the UN Charter, UNGA resolutions 181 & 194 and numerous UNSC resolutions.

      • hophmi
        June 7, 2013, 12:27 pm

        “On the basis that they’re YOUR words.”

        OK, the GMU students are for a Jewish state, which they say they oppose. LOL. Explain to me how the one-state solution protects Jewish self-determination rights.

        “Of course it doesn’t, this plan has arisen because of the FAILURE of Israel to adhere to its legal obligations under the: Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, the UN Charter, UNGA resolutions 181 & 194 and numerous UNSC resolutions.”

        So then stop telling me it’s about international law. It isn’t. It’s about privileging one side of the conflict over the other.

      • talknic
        June 8, 2013, 11:17 am

        hophmi

        “Explain to me how the one-state solution protects Jewish self-determination rights”

        Same as everyone else’s rights

        “So then stop telling me it’s about international law. It isn’t”

        Correct. Law only comes into effect when broken. It is about the Jewish state BREAKING the law by illegally acquiring territory by war, by illegal annexation, by illegal settlements and by ignoring its obligations as the Occupying Power over non-Israeli territories.

        “It’s about privileging one side of the conflict over the other”

        It’s about territory illegally acquired by war by a UN Member state.

      • Citizen
        June 8, 2013, 8:17 pm

        @ talknic
        By a UN Member state that did not fulfill a UN membership condition subsequent, which was, and still is to allow return of the 750-770,000 natives. Technically, Israel remains in violation of its initial member contract with the UN. It really is an illegitimate UN member.

      • talknic
        June 9, 2013, 9:33 am

        @ Citizen Technically, Israel remains in violation of its initial member contract with the UN. It really is an illegitimate UN member

        Alas, technically, the US can veto any attempt to kick Israel out of the UN. All Israel’s eggs are in the one precious veto basket. That’s why the Israel lobby work so hard to keep the US on side. You can bet no tactic is off the table

        “to allow return of the 750-770,000 natives” ….

        … some to Israel’s actual 1948 sovereign extent and some to non-Israeli territory of 1948. As the Occupying Power, Israel doesn’t allow any, even to the non-Israeli territories it occupies.

        65 years ago the life expectancy was about 42. Do the maths. The vast majority of the 750-770,000 have already passed away.

        Qualifying definition of a Palestine refugee 1948 according to the UN link to unispal.un.org

        the term “refugee” appearing in paragraph 11 of the resolution of 11 December 1948 can be defined as follows
        Article 1

        Are to be considered as refugees under paragraph 11 of the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948 persons of Arab origin who, after 29 November 1947, left territory at present under the control of the Israel authorities and who were Palestinian citizens at that date.

        Are also to be considered as refugees under the said paragraph stateless persons of Arab origin who after 29 November 1947 left the aforementioned territory where they had been settled up to that date.
        Article 2

        The following shall be considered as covered by the provisions of Article 1 above:
        1. Persons of Arab origin who left the said territory after 6 August 1924 and before 29 November 1947 and who at that latter date were Palestinian citizens;

        2. Persons of Arab origin who left the territory in question before 6 August 1924 and who, having opted for Palestinian citizenship, retained that citizenship up to 29 November 1947.

        No lineal descendents. They had to have lived in the region to return to it.

      • Hostage
        June 7, 2013, 7:17 am

        So where’s the recognition of Jewish self-determination?

        Israel was created through its own act of secession at a time when the Palestinian Arab majority was proposing a democratic constitution modeled upon the US federal and state-level constitutions with equal rights and proportional representation in the government and protections of the non-Muslim minorities. The UN plan for the future government of Palestine required the Jewish and Arab states to adopt democratic constitutions with equal rights, proportional representation and protection of minority and women’s rights. Neither plan was implemented.

        In Re Secession of Quebec [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the right of a people to self-determination does not include a right to secession when they are represented in a government that reflects the basic principles of federalism, democracy, constitutionalism, the rule of law, and the protection of minorities.

        The first session of the International Law Commission adopted the position of the majority of jurists and publicists that the right of self-determination does not imply a right to establish a new state on the territory of an existing one without the consent of all the inhabitants of the new territory.

        Johan D. Van Der Vyver explains that:

        Even in the case of colonialism, alien domination or foreign occupation, secession is not the appropriate remedy. Here, the colonized country already exists as a distinct territorial entity, and self-determination, therefore, simply denotes the right to independence of that territorial entity from (extra-territorial) foreign domination.

        link to law.fsu.edu

        So there is no basis to recognize a Jewish right that preempts the rights of the other inhabitants of Palestine. In any event, Zionists only attempt to deploy the right of self-determination to justify their domination of other racial groups, i.e. apartheid.

      • talknic
        June 7, 2013, 9:58 am

        @ Hostage “Neither plan was implemented”

        Neither was ‘fully’ implemented. One element of the plan most certainly was. The US recognized the State of Israel as the provisional government of the State of Israel requested

        “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947

        Recognition by the USSR link to jstor.org Australia link to trove.nla.gov.au etc were also based on UNGA res 181. Defined frontiers were a pre-requisite of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933) Art 1. b.

        ARTICLE 1
        The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; … etc .. link to pages.citebite.com

        As to the remainder of the Plan for Partition, corpus separatum was never instituted. The territory was never legally separated from what remained of Palestine.

        To declare the remaining Palestinian territory independent or whether to stay under the stewardship of the Arab states was an independent matter of self determination for the Palestinians. Alas Israel has prevented Palestinian independence by having occupied parts of their territory link to mfa.gov.il over the last 65 years.

      • James Canning
        June 7, 2013, 2:43 pm

        @Talknic — I think i fair to say most of the international diplomatic community think the way forward is to seek full independence for Palestine, in terms of membership of UN etc etc etc. Even if Israeli troops remain in the West Bank.

      • Hostage
        June 7, 2013, 7:29 pm

        Neither was ‘fully’ implemented. . . . I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947”

        Epstein had to inform the US and everyone else because the UN Palestine Commission that was supposed to appoint the real provisional governments never actually conferred that honor on the Jewish Agency or Va’ad Leumi. Why would they have done that? Half the population of the so-called Jewish State were Arab citizens who were not represented by either the Jewish Agency or Va’ad Leumi. Yet most people never question the legality or timing of this declaration by those two entities. It was actually a source of great concern to the People’s Council, because it was six months premature according to the UN time table. It was legally a unilateral act of secession – and Israel claimed as much during a conference on the debts, frozen bank accounts, and succession with Great Britain in 1949.

        I’ve noted elsewhere, the UN Commission was tasked with demarcating and delineating the actual frontiers, not the Jews. It was also required to see to it that the provisional government represented the Arab citizens on a proportional basis. The General Assembly simply relieved the Commission of its responsibilities and created another subsidiary organ, the Office of the Mediator, which was tasked with finding a peaceful solution.

      • talknic
        June 8, 2013, 11:56 am

        the way forward is to seek full independence for Palestine, in terms of membership of UN etc etc etc. Even if Israeli troops remain in the West Bank

        They could ‘seek’ but can’t attain full independence for Palestine if Israeli troops remain in the West Bank and; without full independence there can be no UN Membership

      • James Canning
        June 8, 2013, 2:00 pm

        @Talknic – - A number of European diplomats think Palestine can gain full UN membership even if Israeli troops have not yet left the West Bank.

      • MRW
        June 8, 2013, 11:12 pm

        Hostage says:
        June 7, 2013 at 7:17 am

        This is a great answer to the self-determination argument that comes up here constantly like a mosquito.

      • Hostage
        June 9, 2013, 12:20 am

        They could ‘seek’ but can’t attain full independence for Palestine if Israeli troops remain in the West Bank and; without full independence there can be no UN Membership

        The fact that countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon have been occupied did not impair the population’s right to permanent sovereignty over their resources and to be treated on the basis of the sovereign or juridical equality of states as outlined in the Montevideo Convention and the UN Charter.

        Independence has never been one of the criteria listed in Article 4 of the UN Charter or Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention. In one of its very first cases involving Transjordan, the ICJ advised that no arbitrary criteria can be employed, only the criteria contained in Article 4 of the Charter. That reads:

        Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

        2. The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

        UN Charter link to un.org
        ICJ advisory opinion on “Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter)” link to icj-cij.org

      • talknic
        June 9, 2013, 9:46 am

        @Hostage “Israel claimed as much during a conference on the debts, frozen bank accounts, and succession with Great Britain in 1949. “

        ?? It would have had to have been British territory, no? Is there a link to the conference text thx

      • Hostage
        June 9, 2013, 2:17 pm

        ?? It would have had to have been British territory, no? Is there a link to the conference text thx

        First of all, Zionist propaganda glosses over the fact that the Mandates had already been declared full-fledged states by the international courts in-line with the protocols of the Treaty of Lausanne and that both the Mandate instruments themselves and the UN Plan for the Future Government of Palestine (resolution 181) contained specific provisions for the orderly transfer of sovereignty upon termination of the mandate, assumption of treaty obligations, and the continued payment of the public debts, including reimbursements for the expenses incurred by the mandatory power. Israel could not simply give the members of the Bretton Woods monetary system the middle finger and continue making its foreign revenue collections through agents operating in those self same countries, but that didn’t stop it from trying.

        For 25 years the Zionists were pledged to honor Article 28 of the Mandate and were only allowed to act as “The Jewish Agency” based upon their acceptance of its provisions. Likewise the resolutions of the Council of the League of Nations and United Nations General Assembly regarding the conditions for termination of the Mandate regimes required the new governments to first acknowledge minority rights undertakings, their obligations to pay apportioned shares of the existing public debts, and agree to go on respecting international boundary and other treaty agreements that had been concluded on their behalf by the mandatory powers. All of that had been explicitly included in the necessary “declarations” and “acceptance” of the partition plan by the new governments.

        But in 1949 and 1950 Israel claimed that none of that necessarily applied. At a conference held in Jerusalem in 1949, Israel rejected the terms for the transfer of jurisdiction contained in UN resolution 181(II). There was not, it alleged, an organized substitution of one State for another to which rules of international law should apply. It claimed as a result that it did not automatically inherit Palestine’s citizens or refugees, treaty obligations, or public debts. It also claimed that it was created by its own act of secession and was in no sense a successor of the former government of Palestine. In response to a survey conducted by the UN in 1950 it said that it had adopted a “clean slate” doctrine with regard to treaties executed by the Mandatory powers. See D.P. O’Connell author “The Law of State Succession”, Volume V of the Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, 1956, Hersh Lauterpacht editor, pages 10-11, and 178; CApp 41/49 Simshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory LTD. v. Attorney-General (1950)
        link to elyon1.court.gov.il

        All of this was summarized in the Chapters on Mandated States and State Succession in Volume 1 of the US State Department’s Digest of International Law, M. Whiteman editor, GPO 1963.

      • James Canning
        June 9, 2013, 2:26 pm

        Bravo, Hostage. Palestine was a state that was not yet self-governing, during the British mandate. And Britain was duty-bound to prepare the people for self-gvernment.

      • talknic
        June 10, 2013, 3:24 pm

        @ Hostage … Thx As always comprehensive info… tho my bad .. I read your “succession with Great Britain” as ‘secession’

      • talknic
        June 10, 2013, 4:03 pm

        @ Hostage

        Thx .. I was un-aware of that advisory …

        are able and willing to carry out these obligations” .. being justification/s enough for the US to veto so it never gets to UNGA via the UNSC

      • Cliff
        June 7, 2013, 9:45 pm

        Where’s your recognition of Palestinian self-determination in their land?

        Do you support the complete dismantlement of the settlements and E.Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine?

      • James Canning
        June 8, 2013, 2:01 pm

        @Cliff – - Yes, East Jerusalem as capital of Palestine.

        I think “dismantling” the illegal settlements would be gross waste of resources.

      • American
        June 10, 2013, 10:23 pm

        hophmi says:
        June 6, 2013 at 1:47 pm

        You deny it? On what basis? They’re against the two-state solution, and they’re for one “democratic” state, which they count on the Palestinians, the prospective majority in this state, to deliver. So where’s the recognition of Jewish self-determination?”

        If I were you I wouldnt keep going on with the ‘Jewish self determination ‘ thing…besides implicating all the Jews in the zionist ethnic supremist misadventure…. the world doesnt like what it sees in ‘Jewish self determination’ in Israel .

  6. seafoid
    June 6, 2013, 3:07 pm

    Absolutely hilarious. Don’t they know he’s a Jew backed by the US and he can’t be a war criminal ?

    • James Canning
      June 7, 2013, 2:44 pm

      @seafoid – - Several prominent Israelis have had to fear arrest in Britain. They get the Israel lobby in the US to pressure the UK etc etc etc.

  7. James Canning
    June 6, 2013, 7:38 pm

    If Israel wants a wall, Israel should locate the wall on the border. 1966 border.

  8. Mayhem
    June 6, 2013, 9:54 pm

    This stupid emotive remark from one of the evicted:

    She saw Israeli soldiers playing soccer with the head of a two year old child

    These unfounded, insane comments that are intended purely to pour scorn on Israelis illustrate the bankruptcy of these Palestinian supporters. They bring disrepute on to the Palestinian position, that too often uses fabrications and lies to build its case against Israel.
    I went looking for something to substantiate this ‘soccer ball’ assertion and came across it mentioned without any corroboration in a comment in this blog link to electronicintifada.net
    Here we see a 2min video that shows an Israeli soldier delivering one kick to a Palestinian child. The voyeuristic camera gives us 2 minutes of video to show us this one single kick. The comments in the blog suggest that this is the ultimate in evil behavior.
    This kind of footage (pure propaganda) demonstrates the intense myopic focus of Israel haters who keep ignoring the bigger picture. No matter that the scale of murder and torture in so many other countries is 100 times worse, they can only pay attention to every minor incident that involves Israel. That tells us more about these Israel accusers than anything else.

    • talknic
      June 7, 2013, 1:39 am

      Mayhem “This stupid emotive remark from one of the evicted:

      She saw Israeli soldiers playing soccer with the head of a two year old child ”

      Uh? link to electronicintifada.net I can’t find the comment. You’re making stupid emotive remarks up.

      Lying is against the basic tenets of Judaism. That you purposefully LIE on behalf of the JEWISH state is really quite bizarre. That you provide a link showing you’re LYING, suggests you’re really quite stupid.

      “These unfounded, insane comments”

      That YOU made up…

      ” that are intended purely to pour scorn on Israelis”

      Well …. YOU made it up…

      ” illustrate the bankruptcy of these Palestinian supporters. They bring disrepute on to the Palestinian position, that too often uses fabrications and lies to build its case against Israel”

      YOU made it up = YOUR bankruptcy. YOUR fabrications and lies

      “I … came across it mentioned “

      No you didn’t. YOU made it up… without any corroboration link to electronicintifada.net

      Thanks again for affording the opportunity to show readers just how low and dishonest you can be

      • tree
        June 7, 2013, 2:09 am

        talknic,

        Mayhem was talking about what one of the protesters said during Olmert’s speech (part of the video above) . Granted he is being a quite obtuse in claiming that he can’t find that anywhere online, as if everything that anyone ever relates to someone else MUST be searchable online and if it isn’t it must be a lie, but he didn’t make the protester’s statement up. Its at 2:00 into the video above.

      • talknic
        June 7, 2013, 5:40 am

        @ tree – I answered to this… Mayhem “I went looking for something to substantiate this ‘soccer ball’ assertion and came across it
        mentioned
        without any corroboration in a comment in this blog link to link to electronicintifada.net

      • piotr
        June 7, 2013, 8:27 am

        The actual comment was “The child was used as a soccer ball”. Which means that he was kicked as if he was a soccer ball, and in actuality, this is how it looked like: the soldier in question slowly run toward the boy and kicked him pretty much in soccer style (it did not look like a vicious kick, more like a “ceremonial humiliation” by school bullies).

        The garbled comment produced by Mayhem would suggest not bullying but ghoulish savagery. This is a classic Voodoo technique: make a straw doll of the opponent and then subject it to stabbing, cursing etc.

      • Mayhem
        June 7, 2013, 11:17 pm

        @talknic, I made nothing up. Why do you have to resort to your mindless tirade?
        I drew attention to an idiotic, unsubstantiated remark by one of those evicted from the Olmert talk.
        I went looking for any corroboration of this woman’s utterance and found one obsequious comment titled ‘Child used as soccer ball’ at electronicintifada.net – nothing more to back up this woman’s lies.
        You don’t seem to worry that people make unfounded remarks, assertions and allegations against Israel. It is exceedingly obvious that the tactic is to throw as much mud as you can hoping some of it will stick.
        My reference to the scale of what is happening elsewhere shows up the enormous diusingenuous on the part of MW proponents who expend their significant energies chasing Israel’s tail when there are much bigger offenders at large. This unbalanced behavior could be likened to that of a policeman spending his time catching shoplifters when murders and rapes are happening elsewhere, just because he personally dislikes shoplifters.

      • talknic
        June 8, 2013, 12:14 pm

        @ Mayhem I addressed what you wrote.

        You don’t seem to worry that people make unfounded remarks, assertions and allegations against Israel”

        An odd accusation. I often correct people’s mistaken assumptions, either side of the issue.. However:
        Israel is responsible for this particular mess by having ignored its legal obligations for 65 years
        Only Israel can stop its illegal behaviour
        It could unilaterally end occupation NOW!
        Unilaterally adhere to the law NOW!
        Unilaterally end illegal settlements NOW!
        Begin unilateral withdrawal from all non-Israeli territories NOW!

        “It is exceedingly obvious that the tactic is to throw as much mud as you can hoping some of it will stick.”

        I’m not responsible for people walking thru their own elephant sh*te

        ” there are much bigger offenders at large.”

        Oh, the whataboutery … I forgot …. OK … as you’re so concerned, lead me to ‘em … you’ll be there … right?

      • Citizen
        June 8, 2013, 8:45 pm

        @ Mayhem
        If it was your kid that was kicked in the head, by a Palestinian cop wouldn’t you feel outrage? Indulge in a bleat of bloated rhetoric in your frustration at not being able to do anything about it? Especially since we hear so often from Israeli spokespeople that one fingernail of a Jew is more valuable than ten thousand non-Jewish heads. Remember the single IDF soldier captured while invading Palestinian land? For year we heard he was “kidnapped.” How does one kidnap an invading soldier? He was treated well too, unlike thousands of Palestinian civilians, including many children.

    • Woody Tanaka
      June 7, 2013, 8:44 am

      “These unfounded, insane comments”

      Who said they were unfounded? I, for one, have no problem believing this is possible, given the utter and absolute cruelty which the israelis have treated the Palestinians.

    • Talkback
      June 7, 2013, 4:41 pm

      Mayhem says: “No matter that the scale of murder and torture in so many other countries is 100 times worse, they can only pay attention to every minor incident that involves Israel.”

      Do you also support murder and torture on this larger scale? Or only if Israel would be involved?

      • Citizen
        June 8, 2013, 8:48 pm

        @ Mayhem
        Does the US give $3-$B dollars every year, with interest and no strings attached, to those “other countries” involved in high scale murder and torture? Do we give them our pocket veto at the UN SC so they can remain unaccountable?

    • Cliff
      June 7, 2013, 9:48 pm

      Mayhem

      You and the Jewish fascists care more about diverting attn. away from Israeli crimes than actual Israeli crimes.

      So it doesn’t matter if things are worse elsewhere since you couldn’t care less about the bad things Israel does in and of themselves and without the component of us caring ‘more’.

      We do not have to be one-man Amnesty Internationals. There are 6 billion people on the planet and people enough for every issue there is.

      We have chosen this one. Clearly you have as well, but rather than be honest about it, you pathetically divert and deflect to dead people elsewhere. Dead people you don’t give a shit about.

  9. Blank State
    June 7, 2013, 12:22 am

    “No matter that the scale of murder and torture in so many other countries is 100 times worse, they can only pay attention to every minor incident that involves Israel.”

    Well, if dumping white phosphorous and cluster bombs on citizen non-combatants is a “minor incident”, I’ll concede you have a point.

    And this blogsite is concerned with the Israeli/Palistinian situation. What part of that don’t you understand? Perhaps if you want to debate the governmental actions of Central American, African, or Asian countries, maybe you’re in the wrong place.

    But, uh, just outta curiousity, would you be so kind as to tell me what other country has recently incinerated non-combatants in white phosphorous, or rained thousands of cluster bombs in the urban centers of a neighboring country? Feel free to roam the globe in your search for an answer.

  10. Blank State
    June 7, 2013, 12:27 am

    “They bring disrepute on to the Palestinian position, that too often uses fabrications and lies to build its case against Israel”

    I can think of no country that is going to greater effort than Israel to advance a false narrative through a well organized and calculatingly distributed propaganda. But who knows that better than you, eh, Mayhem?

  11. yonah fredman
    June 7, 2013, 1:44 am

    When Students for Justice for Palestine kicked Jewish activists out of the Omar Barghouti Judith Butler presentation at Brooklyn College just for the mere fact of possessing literature, that was defended by all here in the comments section and by Alex Kane, the MW reporter as well, but when people where t- shirts proclaiming “olmert is a war criminal” and then yell their heads off and proclaim in their press release that no Zionist presence is welcome in the DC area, this is lauded on this web site. Maybe it’s not hypocrisy, but it surely is not consistency.

    • tree
      June 7, 2013, 2:58 am

      yonah,

      At Brooklun College it wasn’t “for the mere fact of having literature”. It was for allegedly disturbing the speeches.

      And to me the important part of this article is not that his speech was disrupted but that he joked that his reputation would be redeemed in Israel by being labeled a war criminal. Seriously, what does that say about Israel that Olmert could joke that his standing would be improved by being called a war criminal!

      • hophmi
        June 7, 2013, 12:29 pm

        “At Brooklun College it wasn’t “for the mere fact of having literature”. It was for allegedly disturbing the speeches.”

        It’s pretty clear that that never happened.

    • amigo
      June 7, 2013, 9:01 am

      that no Zionist presence is welcome in the DC area, yf

      Got news for you.

      Zionism is a vile racist and supremacist project and needs to be destroyed and should not be welcome in civilized society.

  12. Richard Armbach
    June 7, 2013, 2:57 am

    “…. out of fear that the Palestinians will soon demand their fundamental human rights under a one state solution.”

    If only.

    This obvious ace card is one that will never be played while the corrupt and self serving PA remains in existence and and it is never going to dissolve itself.

  13. Obsidian
    June 7, 2013, 5:48 am

    Video at 2:00.
    “My former partner was there….she worked for the American Red Cross.”

    The American Red Cross was in Gaza during Cast Lead?
    Cite please?

  14. Obsidian
    June 7, 2013, 7:22 am

    “Israeli soldiers playing soccer with the head of a two-year old child”.

    Cite please.

  15. Talkback
    June 7, 2013, 4:20 pm

    “Olmert jokes being called ‘war criminal’ may restore his reputation in Israel …”

    Where’s the joke?!?

    • Obsidian
      June 8, 2013, 1:30 am

      He was being sarcastic and noting Israel’s drift to the ‘Right’.

      Jewish sense of humor.

      • Talkback
        June 9, 2013, 4:39 am

        Oh, and I thought I was being sarcastic and noting that it’s actually not a joke considering the career of Jewish terrorists and war criminals like Begin, Shamir or Sharon.

        Nonjewish sense of humor.

Leave a Reply