Updated: Remote-control gun installed atop wall near Bethlehem — Ma’an

Israel/Palestine
Wall north of Bethlehem, from this site

Wall north of Bethlehem, from this site

detail of photograph of wall north of Bethlehem

detail of photograph of wall north of Bethlehem

Update: Since we posted the story below, it appears that our suggestion that the gun fires live ammunition was in error. Ryan Rodrick Beiler has posted pictures on twitter pointing to the idea that the gun is a water cannon, designed to spray skunk water for riot control. Beiler tweets a picture showing the device was there during last week’s Palestine marathon.

Tom Suarez also says that it is a water cannon. “I live right there,  and our understanding has been that it is a water cannon (this coming from a Palestinian here who does some journalism). I see it swivel around, but have never seen it ‘work’”.

Beiler also tweets his photo of a gun atop the Erez crossing at Gaza that he says is the real thing: a remote-controlled machine gun that fires ammunition at people.

Original post: 

The above device, fixed lately to the top of the separation wall north of Bethlehem, is a remote-controlled machine gun, according to Palestinian sources. Ma’an News published a report on the device three days ago, saying it’s “unprecedented” and is causing anxiety among Bethlehemites. A Facebook page called “Bethlahem Today” has the same report.

Here’s a crude automatic translation of the Arabic report:

Israeli occupying forces erected Sunday, machine guns equipped with cameras on top of the security wall surrounding the Bilal bin Rabah mosque, North of Bethlehem.

Israeli forces provided each machine gun cameras from large high-capacity and possibility of photography relatively long distances and to Bethlehem in the direction of the education of the old junction.

This allows the cameras to Israeli soldiers monitor the city of Bethlehem and targeting citizens far below that reveal themselves and sees them one using special monitors in the occupied area of the mosque and surrounded by walls from all directions.

Jareer Kassis, an Arabic speaker in the States, says:

The reports are consistent with this article in Wired, 2007, on Israel developing remote controlled machine guns.

For years and years, the Israeli military has been trying to figure out a way to keep Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip from crossing over into Israel proper. The latest tactic: create a set of “automated kill zones” by networking together remote-controlled machine guns, ground sensors, and drones along the 60-kilometer border.

Thanks to Alex Kane and Icarus Verum.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

87 Responses

  1. ymedad
    April 16, 2014, 5:07 pm

    informed it is remote riot dispersal – capable of water cannon, skunk & tear gas. Not armament.

  2. Elihu
    April 16, 2014, 5:44 pm

    Of course, as you look at the picture of the device you will notice there is no magazine on the “rifle/machine-gun” and therefore no way for the thing to deliver solid ordinance – since bullets would have to negotiate an ‘s’ turn to reach the barrel.

  3. Shuki
    April 16, 2014, 5:55 pm

    Not shocking that MW and the palestinian press would distort the truth and characterize this as a ‘machine gun’

    • a blah chick
      April 16, 2014, 7:08 pm

      I take it then that you would not mind it set up across the street from your house and pointing into your backyard?

      • oldgeezer
        April 16, 2014, 10:20 pm

        I can’t imagine what it must be like to be a parent and what it must be like to send your children off to school when the first thing they will see is the barrel of a tank or equivalent. If it occurred outside my door tomorrow and I had a young child he may not worry or appreciate what the sight represented. A Palestinian child sadly knows full well what it means. It may or may not be a violation of international laws but it is inherently an awful crime. A real crime.

        I can only shake my head at the inhumanity that supports such a state of affairs.

        I will likely ignore this thread as there’s been no explanations other than derogatory swipes at people who are at least trying to expose the truth whether they are right or wrong. Aren’t we all some times. Both.

      • ymedad
        April 17, 2014, 5:41 am

        I lived in Israel before 1967 and what you described reminds me of that period when, prior to any “occupation” or even the construction of an “illegal settlement”, Israeli children were subjected to infiltration by the pre-PLO fedayeen and incidentally, Fatah started operations in 1965. Some examples:
        Jun 11, 1953 – Kfar Hess
        Terrorists attacked a young couple in their home and shot them to death.
        Mar 17, 1954 – Maale Akrabim
        Terrorists ambushed a bus traveling from Eilat to Tel Aviv, opening fire at short range. The terrorists boarded the bus, and shot each passenger, one by one, murdering 11.
        Jan 2, 1955 – Judean Desert
        2 hikers killed by terrorists.
        Mar 24, 1955 – Patish
        1 young woman killed and 18 wounded when terrorists threw hand grenades and opened fire on a crowded wedding celebration.
        Apr 7, 1956 – Ashkelon
        1 young woman killed when terrorists threw 3 hand grenades into her house.
        Apr 7, 1956 – Kibbutz Givat Chaim
        2 killed when terrorists opened fire on a car.
        Apr 11, 1956 – Shafrir (Kfar Chabad)
        3 children and 1 youth worker killed, and 5 injured, when terrorists opened fire on a synagogue full of children and teenagers.

        And as for your close: “people who are at least trying to expose the truth whether they are right or wrong”, if they know they are wrong and they are purposefully lying what are they if not derogatoring the truth?

      • talknic
        April 17, 2014, 6:49 am

        @ ymedad Uh huh. Some factual problems with your theory…

        Jewish forces started their slaughterfest under Plan Dalet, escalating the civil war in Palestine before Israel proclaimed its borders. Razing farms, homes, villages in territory NOT allotted for the Jewish state and not declared as being sovereign to the Jewish state and never legally acquired as Israeli territory

        Jewish forces were outside of the territory proclaimed as Israel on the day Israel’s territory was proclaimed, they were outside the territory of the State of Israel on the day Israel was accepted into the UN. They have never withdrawn from non-Israeli territory the Israeli Government claimed was “outside the State of Israel”..”in Palestine” link to wp.me

        It has been illegal to acquire territory by war since at least 1933 link to pages.citebite.com

        According to the Israeli Government, there has been occupation since at least May 22nd 1948 link to wp.me the links there are to Israeli Government statements you will probably never find in an Israeli schoolbook. It’s quite important to keep Israelis ignorant in order to rip them off and play the innocent victim

        If you oppress people, they will resort to ghastly tactics, especially when the law which has been in their favour all along, cannot be exercised because of a UNSC Veto vote.

        Go yell at the Zionist Movement

      • ymedad
        April 17, 2014, 7:10 am

        Er, talknic, you seem to start your history in “mid-life”. Try 1920, Jerusalem; 1921, Jaffa & Petah Tikva; 1929, Gaza, Nablus, Hebron, Safed, Jerusalem, etc.; 1936-39 – country-wide attempts at murder, mayhem and maiming by Arabs vs. Jews to attempt to kill and thnically cleanse said Jews.

      • a blah chick
        April 17, 2014, 7:03 am

        You forgot to put the Kafr Kasem massacre (October 31 1956) on your list. Had you done so you would have had 49 dead Israelis to your list of death and destruction. Don’t dead Arab citizens count?

      • ymedad
        April 17, 2014, 7:19 am

        You’re correct. But I was referring to Arabs who refused to acknowledge any Jewish right in the Jewish historic homeland recognized by both the League of Nations and the United Nations but not by Arabs who sought to kill all Jews in the nascent state and continued terror as that was the subject at hand. If you want to open a new thread of Kfar Qassem, go right ahead but I won’t participate because that was a crime by Israelis which the state recognized and one which was not praised, justified or otherwise condoned unlike the positive treatment Arab killers receive.

      • Shingo
        April 17, 2014, 9:07 am

        But I was referring to Arabs who refused to acknowledge any Jewish right in the Jewish historic homeland recognized by both the League of Nations and the United Nations but not by Arabs who sought to kill all Jews in the nascent state and continued terror as that was the subject at hand.

        The nascent state murdered thousands of Palestinians and drove them from their land.

        If you want to open a new thread of Kfar Qassem, go right ahead but I won’t participate because that was a crime by Israelis which the state recognized and one which was not praised, justified or otherwise condoned unlike the positive treatment Arab killers receive.

        But Israel won’t recognize the crime of ethnic cleansing and the crime of illegal settlements and illegal occupation.

      • seafoid
        April 17, 2014, 7:04 am

        Jews murdered Nazis who occupied Poland in the 40s too. The Nazis claimed to be revenants just like you. They also used violence instead of reason. Didn’t work out long term either. Economics were faulty. Watch out for BDS.

      • Shingo
        April 17, 2014, 8:14 am

        Try 1920, Jerusalem; 1921, Jaffa & Petah Tikva; 1929, Gaza, Nablus, Hebron, Safed, Jerusalem, etc.

        The British were killing Arabs on behalf of the Jewish population too.

        1936-39 – country-wide attempts at murder, mayhem and maiming by Arabs vs. Jews to attempt to kill and thnically cleanse said Jews.

        Rubbish. The British were slaughtering Arabs on behalf of Jews at a rate of 10:1. And ethnic cleansing was the plan ever since Herzl.

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 17, 2014, 9:53 am

        “Er, talknic, you seem to start your history in “mid-life”. Try 1920″

        Even that’s “mid-life.” You have to start with the time when a bunch of Europeans decided to invade and steal a country to which they were complete aliens and had no connection with at all, save for the fact that they claimed that their ancestors once lived there.

        “Jewish right in the Jewish historic homeland recognized by both the League of Nations and the United Nations”

        Well, neither of those two colonialist powers had any right to give any of Palestine to the Jews, so their views are irrelevant.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 17, 2014, 10:23 am

        what “right” of “historic homeland” might that be? does this “right” apply to me wrt where my ancestors originated? or is a european christian also able to claim this right because their religion originated in the holy land?

        and when you say Jewish right … “recognized” by the League of Nations and the United Nations,is that what they did? or did they grant rights? could you link to the “recognition” you’re referencing.

        because what i read at the league of nations is link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country….

        iow, they recognized there was a “historical connection” as a grounds for reconstituting a national home. that’s different than ‘recognizing a right’. isn’t it? and btw, that is the only reference to either the word “recognize” or “recognition” in a search of that document.

        whereas your claim is echoed by renowned hasbarist dore gold here link to jcpa.org (their italics and my bold):

        “The League of Nations Mandate did not create the rights of the Jewish people to a national home in Palestine, but rather recognized a pre-existing right - for the links of the Jewish people to their historic land were well-known�and accepted by world leaders in the previous century….5″

        further on in the footnotes for that quote/allegation:

        5. Benjamin Netanyahu, A Place Among the Nations: Israel and the World (New York: Bantam, 1993), pp. 14-15.�For the sake of historical perspective, one would do well to consider Ben-Gurion’s first premise, the title deeds of the Jews to this land, which he presented on January 7, 1937, to the Peel Commission:

        “I say on behalf of the Jews that the Bible is our Mandate, the Bible which was written by us, in our own language, in Hebrew, in this very country. That is our Mandate. It was only recognition of this right which was expressed in the Balfour Declaration.

        so are you talking about a ‘biblical right’? the mandate from the bible?

        And as for your close: “people who are at least trying to expose the truth whether they are right or wrong”, if they know they are wrong and they are purposefully lying what are they if not derogatoring the truth?

        you write this after the post was updated therefore can we presume it’s not applicable to the article in question? or perhaps you didn’t notice or read the update.

      • ymedad
        April 17, 2014, 10:46 am

        Annie writes: “what “right” of “historic homeland” might that be? does this “right” apply to me wrt where my ancestors originated? or is a european christian also able to claim this right because their religion originated in the holy land?”

        a. Ottoman Turkey went to war and lost. In a series of diplomatic, political and international legally binding decisions, culminating in the League of Nations Mandate to Gt. Britian, which read, in part, “…Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;…”, the Jewish people gained recognition that its claim to the Land of Israel was to be fulfilled to the extent that, as noted in ART. 6, “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”

        Those other sections of the population, Arabs, non-Arabs, Christians, Muslims, agnostics and atheists or whatever, as noted above, had but “civil and religious rights”, no more. The Arabs therein, as we know, claimed to be Southern Syrians into the early 1920s and demanded that the Mandate be attached to the French one for Syria/Lebanon. For them, “Palestine” meant the Jewish land. Everyone knew that for centuries.

        Now, if I could figure out what you meant by “wrt”, I could try to respond to the rest.

        In any case, I think that Christianity actually originated on the road to Damascus (Acts 9). Do you mean we, you and I, should take over Syria? It might solve the bloodletting there, so let me know.

      • Shingo
        April 17, 2014, 5:13 pm

        Those other sections of the population, Arabs, non-Arabs, Christians, Muslims, agnostics and atheists or whatever, as noted above, had but “civil and religious rights”, no more.

        False. The Allied Powers were justifiably concerned about the weasel wording of the Balfour Declaration. So they addressed its defects in the text of the San Remo Resolution (that Zionists prattle-on so much about). It stipulated that:

        It was agreed –

        (a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the proces-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine;

        link to cfr.org

        The ICJ noted in its advisory opinion that the rights and privileges of the Palestinian communities had been under international guarantees that dated back “far in time”. The Court cited Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin (1878) as one of the more recent examples:

        In no part of the Ottoman Empire shall difference of religion be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honors, or the exercise of the various professions and industries, in any locality whatsoever.

        So, the exercise of both civil and political rights, free from any discrimination on religious grounds, was one of the rights “hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

        The Arabs therein, as we know, claimed to be Southern Syrians into the early 1920s and demanded that the Mandate be attached to the French one for Syria/Lebanon. For them, “Palestine” meant the Jewish land. Everyone knew that for centuries.

      • ymedad
        April 18, 2014, 1:12 am

        I think you are either contradicting yourself or you are incapable of comprehending of what you write.

        In either case, or maybe due to a third option, let me quote a satirical summary of one of the aspects touched upon here – what type of “rights” did non-Jewish and mainly Arab emmigrants from the Arabian peninsula possess while they illegally occupied the Land of Israel as a result of military conquest over the centuries during which they never established any specific “Palestinian” administration or even a nationalism while denying the same to the Jews who continued to reside in their country – as the aborigines, so to say – while subjugated by foreign rule of many types:

        “Palestinian scholars have developed three general approaches to this historical anomaly. The first simply ignores the non-Palestinian nature of the Ottoman empire and pretends that since the Ottomans were, to varying degrees, Muslim, though not Arab, the area could be said to fall under the control of an entity with a sort-of Palestinian pedigree, in the sense that many Palestinians of the Ottoman period were also Muslims, as were the vast majority of the people from West Africa to Southeast Asia. Thus it was not specifically with the establishment of Israel in 1948 that Palestine lost its sovereignty, but in 1918, with Israeli control simply a more severe form of foreign occupation.

        The second simply denies the need for demonstrating any historical sovereignty in order to claim that the Palestinians had it taken away. This approach offers the advantage of not having to find historical research that backs up its assertions.

        The third approach, and by far the most popular, blends the first two, as it simultaneously tries to actively erase documented history – for example, by excavating parts of the Temple Mount to get rid of evidence of ancient Jewish structures – while maintaining that whatever the historical record says is irrelevant, as the Palestinian people have greater rights to all the land in dispute no matter what anybody says.”

      • Shingo
        April 18, 2014, 10:18 am

        No, you’re simply incapable of comprehending anything that challenges your messianic belief system. In fact, you haven’t even tried to debate the pints I raised, and chosen to go off on a tangent with an incoherent diatribe.

        what type of “rights” did non-Jewish and mainly Arab emmigrants from the Arabian peninsula possess while they illegally occupied the Land of Israel

        First of all, there was no Land of Israel (still isn’t) and secondly, they were not Arab emigrants. The emigrants to Palestine were people like yourself that arrived by plane or boat. Thirdly, there was nothing illegal about their centuries old presence of Palestinians in the region. The land was theirs and so were the land titles. Even the Zionist funders were honest enough o admit that the Palestinians claim the land was at least as legitimate as those of Jews.

        they never established any specific “Palestinian” administration or even a nationalism while denying the same to the Jews who continued to reside in their country – as the aborigines, so to say – while subjugated by foreign rule of many types

        Sorry, you might want to rephrase that in English. But you are of course wrong that they never established any specific “Palestinian” administration. There were indeed local and municipal governments established in Palestine.

        The first simply ignores the non-Palestinian nature of the Ottoman empire and pretends that since the Ottomans were, to varying degrees, Muslim, though not Arab, the area could be said to fall under the control of an entity with a sort-of Palestinian pedigree, in the sense that many Palestinians of the Ottoman period were also Muslims

        The same racist argument could be used to show that the Jews who were already there had no connection to the Europeans emigrants to dominated them, disenfranchised them, drove them from their land and generally treated them like Arabs.

        Thus it was not specifically with the establishment of Israel in 1948 that Palestine lost its sovereignty, but in 1918, with Israeli control simply a more severe form of foreign occupation.

        On the contrary. As Pierre Orts, chairman of Mandate Commission of the League Of Nations stated,
        “The mandate, in Article 7, obliged Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labor the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.”
        So far from denying sovereignty, the purpose of the Mandate was to reaffirm and held cement it.

        The second simply denies the need for demonstrating any historical sovereignty in order to claim that the Palestinians had it taken away.

        That;s where you are wrong. The Palestinians did not have it taken away. The right to self determination, ie. political rights, was recognized by the League fo Nations Mandate and San Remo. If you had bothered to read the League of Nations Mandate, it only refereed to establishing political institutions to represent the rights of the Jewish population, not to rule over Palestine.

        During the Versailles Peace Conference, US Secretary of State Lansing specifically asked Dr. Weizmann “to clear up some confusion which existed in his mind as to the correct meaning of the words “Jewish National Home”. Did that mean an autonomous Jewish Government?”

        Dr Weizmann” replied in the negative.” and provided an explanation which ruled-out any possibility of Jewish minority rule over the non-Jewish population under the terms of the proposed Mandate.
        See the “The Council of Ten: minutes of meetings February 15 to June 17, 1919, page 169 in Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919.

        So even Weizmann admitted that the Jews were not given the right to rule over non Jews in Palestine by the Mandate.

        So contrarty to your false claim, the historical research that backs up my assertions is readily available.

        The third approach, and by far the most popular, blends the first two, as it simultaneously tries to actively erase documented history – for example, by excavating parts of the Temple Mount to get rid of evidence of ancient Jewish structures

        There were no evidence of ancient Jewish structures in the minor excavation on the sight. In fact, there is little evidence there was a Temple at the sight at all. I realize this has been a major object of anxiety and frustration for you messianic extremists. Like the City of David Project, that has turned out NADA, your position is that the reason there is no such evidence is only because it has not been found.

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 17, 2014, 1:09 pm

        “Ottoman Turkey went to war and lost.”

        So what? They had no right to occupy the Palestinians’ land, so their defeat could not pass along that right to anyone, be it Great Britain, the League of Nations, or the Jews of the world who coveted the land because it featured in their religious stories.

        “In any case, I think that Christianity actually originated on the road to Damascus (Acts 9).”

        And you would be wrong. All that event did was start the Ministry of St. Paul.

      • Hostage
        April 18, 2014, 11:02 am

        what type of “rights” did non-Jewish and mainly Arab emmigrants from the Arabian peninsula possess while they illegally occupied the Land of Israel as a result of military conquest over the centuries during which they never established any specific “Palestinian” administration or even a nationalism while denying the same to the Jews who continued to reside in their country – as the aborigines, so to say – while subjugated by foreign rule of many types

        FYI, I’ve commented many times that it was a matter of public record in the Ottoman era that the courts had to handle cases involving the estates of rich and middle class Jewish dhimmis, including those in Palestine, who were slave owners who had children with their concubines. They frequently owned Christian and even Muslim slaves. In fact, many earned their living as slave traders. So it’s ironic that you are shreying about their lack of rights and calling them aborigines subjugated by foreign rule. You’d have to make that “troglodyte slave masters” to accurately portray the actual situation. See for example Yaron Ben-Naeh, “Blond, tall, with honey-colored eyes: Jewish ownership of slaves in the Ottoman Empire.” Jewish History 20.3-4 (2006): 315-332 link to pluto.huji.ac.il

        Re: what type of “rights” did non-Jewish and mainly Arab emmigrants from the Arabian peninsula possess . . ?

        The Palestinians had enjoyed full representation in the Ottoman Parliament, which among other things, had established suitable legal conditions for Jewish immigration. Here is a link to a debate on the subject that took place in 1911. Two lawmakers from Jerusalem whose ancestors had lived there for centuries, al Khalidi and al Husayni, argued with Jewish lawmakers, that “the district of Palestine” had reached the limit of its capacity of Jewish immigrants, and that they should be settled elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire. See Yuval Ben-Bassat and Eyal Ginio, Late Ottoman Palestine: The Period of Young Turk Rule (Library of Ottoman Studies), 2011, page 111 et seq link to books.google.com

        So the British were legally obliged by the terms of the San Remo resolution to establish similar self-governing institutions, like the Ottoman Parliament, where those Jewish and Arab lawmakers, had hitherto exercised equal political and civil rights under the terms of Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin. They had also been able to debate and adopted laws regarding the subject of foreign Jewish immigration to the Empire which established suitable terms and conditions.

        Now compare the actual historical record of canned and insincere responses from the representative of the British mandatory administration to petitions received by the Permanent Mandates Commission in 1926 from Arabs regarding the rights of representation previously enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities. The British representative simply dismissed the idea that there was any such right and told the Commission when pressed, that they should use the same written non-response that Great Britain had provided in the past:

        Arab Complaints with Respect to their Political Freedom.
        M. PALACIOS thought that the development of local government was beginning to follow a satisfactory course. He would refer, however, to the complaint made in the last Arab petition to the following effect:
        The Palestinian under the Turk elected his village representative called “Mukhtar”, his mayor and municipal council in town, the members of the administrative Council, who administered the district under the presidency of the governor, the members of the Common Council, who legislated for all questions relating to local affairs of the district, and, finally, his member of Parliament at Constantinople, where the general affairs of the Empire were freely discussed. Under the British mandate, the village representative is in practice appointed by the district governor, the mayor and the municipal council are appointed by the High Commissioner, the administrative and common councils do not exist, and the Parliament is out of the question.”
        Colonel SYMES said the complaint was more accurate in theory than in fact. The conception of the Turkish administration had been totally different from that of the British, for the former knew perfectly well that their district officers had, in practice, complete control over all local governing bodies, which, if they ran counter to the Government, found themselves dissolved. It was quite true that in many instances the Mukhtar had been appointed by the mandatory Power and not elected, but the Commission should remember that the Mukhtar was the Government agent in the village with whom the Government had all its dealings. Whenever it proved possible for villages to elect them they were allowed to do so, but in cases where animosity was very strong it had been necessary in the interests of peace and good work to appoint a Mukhtar. In theory, municipalities had held wide powers under Turkish rule. In actual fact, however, those powers had been but a shadow, for they had been unable to run counter to the desires of the Turkish district officers.
        The municipal bodies would gradually be re-established on a popular basis, but it should not be forgotten that the nominated municipalities had rendered good public service in the past five years. Had the members been elected instead of nominated it is doubtful if they would have been equally efficient.
        With regard to the complaint to the effect that the Arabs had been deprived of their deputies in the Ottoman Parliament, Colonel Symes did not think that such deputies had ever exercised much influence in the direction of the Ottoman Empire.
        M. VAN REES thought that the explanations of Colonel Symes, which were of great interest, ought to have been furnished in writing by the British Government when replying to the petition. In general, the British Government should endeavour to answer petitions in greater detail.
        The CHAIRMAN agreed. What the Commission required was a clear and definite reply in writing in answer to all petitions.
        Colonel SYMES pointed out that all his observations had already been made to the Commission and would be found in the record of its Seventh Session.
        The CHAIRMAN expressed the hope that the mandatory Power would take account of the Commission’s desires in this respect in future. –

        link to unispal.un.org

        FYI, the Chairman of the Permanent Mandates Commission advised the representative of Great Britain in 1932 that Article 2 of the Mandate required the development of self-governing institutions for all the inhabitants and that the “national home” had long-since been established. link to unispal.un.org

        If you need any more history lessons, feel free to ask again.

      • RobertB
        April 18, 2014, 11:40 am

        ymedad…@ zionism’s hasbara mega-phone

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        Another Bomb In Jerusalem: 91 DEAD

        July 2, 1946: The King David Hotel in Jerusalem was bombed. Killing 91 people

        Menachem Begin sic who planned the destruction of the King David Hotel and the massacre of Deir Yassin (See picture at top of this page, flanked by pictures of the bombed King David Hotel). Ex prime minister, Shamir, was originally a member of the Jewish “terrorist” gang called Irgun, which was headed by none other than Menachem Begin. Shamir later moved over to the even more radical “Stern Gang,” which committed many vicious atrocities.

        Click on link for the rest of the details regarding zionism’s & Israeli crimes… :

        link to informationclearinghouse.info

      • Annie Robbins
        April 17, 2014, 11:42 am

        excuse my brevity. wrt > “with regard to”.

        my post above was sort of a work in motion. i posted it and was adding to it/editing it while you were posting. in your quoted section, i still do not see specifically any reference to a “recognition” of “Jewish right” to a “historic homeland” therefore this lack or “refusal to acknowledge” is framing i’m having trouble with.

        “adopted… in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home” is not a ‘recognition of a right’.

        again, the only reference to recognition in that document is a ‘recognition to a historical connection’ as grounds for establishing a national home. nothing about a historic “right”. a historic connection is not the same as a historic right. connections are not “rights” per se. generally, when referencing “rights” in a legal sense i thought it meant wrt an established right. and there is a difference between establishing or granting as opposed to recognizing a pre existing right which is what you are implying.

        and if you are correct and there was some pre existing right, as dore gold alleged (with his footnote crediting the bible) where did this pre existing right come from and how is it acknowledged or referenced in league of nations doc? or are you referencing an alleged biblical right like gold was?

      • ymedad
        April 17, 2014, 11:51 am

        The Jewish people originated in a country. That country was known by the name Land of Israel. Egypt around 1200 BCE or so knew it, re: Merneptah Stele.
        Despite conquests and occupations, a tribal federation, two monarchies, a commonwealth and other forms of political and administrative frameworks existed. Two major wars with Rome in 66-69 CE and again in 132-135 CE that were lost basically disenabled the Jews from maintaining independence and with the various other conquests of Byzantium, Persians, Muslims, Crusaders, etc., despite continuous presence of Jews, some people, like you, perhaps, forgot that the country was the Jewish homeland. Jews never did and all our cultural, historical and religious memories, customs, practices and ritual all revolve around this land. Many European anti-Semites knew that when they told the Jews in their countries to “go back to Palestine”. The Arab illegal occupation never erased this right that was recognized de facto and finally, de jure. Jesus, the Jew, was born in Judea and was never a Palestinian.

      • Shingo
        April 17, 2014, 5:46 pm

        The Jewish people originated in a country. That country was known by the name Land of Israel.

        Correction. The Jewish faith originated in a country. Most Jews have no connection to Palestine. Catholicism originated in Constantinople, but that does not make Turkey the homeland of Cathlics.

        Egypt around 1200 BCE or so knew it, re: Merneptah Stele.

        Pertty lame that the only evidence is a pillar in Rome.

        Despite conquests and occupations, a tribal federation, two monarchies, a commonwealth and other forms of political and administrative frameworks existed.

        Only for around 400 years in total.

        despite continuous presence of Jews, some people, like you, perhaps, forgot that the country was the Jewish homeland.

        It’s hard to forget but the fact is it was only the Jewish homeland for 400 years and then became the homeland for other civilizations. What you and your fellow cultists like to believe is that history was put on pause for 2,000 years.

        Jews never did and all our cultural, historical and religious memories, customs, practices and ritual all revolve around this land.

        That’s clearly false. Ben Gurion lamented the fact that Jews from Arab states did not practice the customs of Jews from Europe, nor the same language.

        The Arab illegal occupation never erased this right that was recognized de facto and finally, de jure. Jesus, the Jew, was born in Judea and was never a Palestinian.

        There was nothing illegal about Roman then Arab conquest of Palestine. You’re simply spouting Messianic nonsense based no doubt on the assumption that God gave the land to the Jews for eternal keeping.

        There was no no detracto or de jure roght. Even the Allied powers agreed there was none.

      • ymedad
        April 18, 2014, 1:13 am

        You are wrong.

      • Shingo
        April 18, 2014, 9:57 am

        You are wrong.

        No I am right and you know it, hence your failure to offer a rebuttal.

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 17, 2014, 1:45 pm

        “The Jewish people originated in a country.”

        Debatable, because it presupposes that “the Jewish people” is an identifable thing with a definite and finite orgin, an assumption which is frankly unsupportable. The religion and its culture began in the region, that we can say.

        Despite [insert parade of horribles here] some people, like you, perhaps, forgot that the country was the Jewish homeland.”

        False. Everyone understood that this is where the culture and religion practiced by Jewish people (by this time almost universally outside of this region) originated. No one “forgot” that fact. That is a falsehood.

        “Jews never did and all our cultural, historical and religious memories, customs, practices and ritual all revolve around this land.”

        Very good, but wholly irrelevant to the question of one’s rights.

        “Many European anti-Semites knew that when they told the Jews in their countries to ‘go back to Palestine’.”

        Irrelevant and false, in any event, to the question of rights. White racists in America telling Black Americans to “go back to Africa” does not give those Black Americnns the right to seize land in Africa from the Africans who are its sole rightful owners.

        “The Arab illegal occupation never erased this right that wasrecognized de facto and finally, de jure.”

        This is false. The spread of Islam did nothing but chance the religion practiced by the people who lived there. They “originated in [that] country” and they had the sole and only legitimate right to that land. The fact that people in Europe and North America — who were aliens to the lands in the Levant, including Palestine — still practiced the religion and parts of the culture which arose there does not confer upon then the right to possess that land.

        “Jesus, the Jew, was born in Judea and was never a Palestinian.”

        What does that have to do with anything?

      • DaBakr
        April 17, 2014, 2:31 pm

        your argumentative skills rival that of many Jews I know. However- your starting to drift into the area where -e.g. Quakers-its not presumed that anybody or group has any right to own land in any capacity and all borders should cease to exist. The American 1st nations also thought the concept land ownership absurd. But it did not stop them from warring with competing tribes -and not some eurocentrics vision of a ‘noble savage’ war but really nasty wars with women captured as chattel and mutilations. But imagine a middle east without any borders, free trade and complete freedom of and separation of religion from state. crazy.

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 17, 2014, 3:21 pm

        “your argumentative skills rival that of many Jews I know. ”

        Wow, what a bigoted statement.

        ‘its not presumed that anybody or group has any right to own land in any capacity and all borders should cease to exist. ”

        Where is anyone making that argument? The argument which is being made is: Simply because Jews have a connection with that land (be it through history, religion or whatever), that does not give them the right to possess that land.

      • Hostage
        April 17, 2014, 5:22 pm

        all our cultural, historical and religious memories, customs, practices and ritual all revolve around this land.

        Not really. The Torah contained “prophesies” about the Diaspora and predicted that Israel would be scattered among the nations. Rabbinic Judaism is perfectly suited to life in homogeneous religious minority communities outside the Land of Israel (where many of the commandments don’t strictly apply), but hasn’t worked so hot when it comes to running mixed ethnic national communities of religious and secular Jews in Eretz Israel.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 17, 2014, 12:38 pm

        The Jewish people originated in a country. …Despite conquests and occupations, a tribal federation, two monarchies, a commonwealth and other forms of political and administrative frameworks existed.

        ok but the ‘existence of forms of frameworks’ is not the same as an “historical right” that is recognized legally.

        Two major wars with Rome in 66-69 CE and again in 132-135 CE that were lost basically disenabled the Jews from maintaining independence and with the various other conquests of Byzantium, Persians, Muslims, Crusaders, etc.

        got it, still nothing about “pre existing” “historical rights” here.

        all our cultural, historical and religious memories, customs, practices and ritual all revolve around this land.

        got it. still, that doesn’t amount to a legal “right”. i’m really trying to pin down where this right (which you’re now claiming as “de facto”) comes from. link to en.wikipedia.org de facto:

        In law, it often means “in practice but not necessarily ordained by law” or “in practice or actuality, but not officially established”.

        by using the term “de facto”, is this an admission by you there was or is no actual ordained “historical right” officially established? iow (in other words) you want it to be treated as tho this “right” is an established fact?

        The Arab illegal occupation never erased this right that was recognized de facto and finally, de jure.

        ok,this is just getting more and more interesting. link to en.wikipedia.org

        In a legal context, de jure is also translated as “concerning law”. A practice may exist de facto, where, for example, the people obey a contract as though there were a law enforcing it, yet there is no such law.

        iow even tho there is no such law wrt “historical rights” you want palestinians to acknowledge it “as though there were a law enforcing it” ? and their refusal to “acknowledge” this “Jewish right” that only exists “in practice” but not “in fact” is like, according to you, intransigent or something?

        this is really wild logic. maybe it is you who should acknowledge there is no such law or legal ‘right’ on the books labeled as a “historical right” to real estate.

      • adele
        April 17, 2014, 3:39 pm

        what I find fascinating is that ymedad makes claim to a land without any actual documentation or proof that his lineage actually goes back to ancient times. What if some of his family members way back in his lineage converted to Judaism and thus had never originated from the Levant region? It is possible, isn’t it? How can one either prove/disprove this? And the Palestinians, surely many of them today are descendants of the original tribes that co-existed (beautiful word, btw!) with the Hebrew tribes.

        And if Rome dispersed the Jews, what about all the other tribes and peoples that Rome dispossessed, dispersed and massacred, from Anatolia to Carthage? Don’t they get to go back in time and reclaim their rightful homeland? Or perhaps we need to geographically recreate that period in time when the original Jews were dispossessed, this way we start from scratch. Everyone can be reconstituted, restituted, restored and made whole.

        Why did the vast majority of people move on from antiquity and why did one remain stuck in the past? And why are the Palestinians paying the price for Caesar? Should the current day Rome answer for their ancestors’ crimes? Perhaps you can ask for compensation from Italy?

        So many questions. Where are the ancient scribes & sages when we need them.

      • MHughes976
        April 17, 2014, 5:52 pm

        I think that the right to live as an enfranchised member of a society depends on normal peaceful residence or else on being a refugee, unjustly dispossessed and with a right of return. I don’t see how it could depend on anything else without removing recognisable legitimacy from every society on earth. Residence is not peaceful if won by force or if inherited from the victors in a war unless the issues of that war have been settled and treaties signed or general acceptance secured, which it had been for centuries by ancestors of the current Palestinians. The painful situation and therefore the consoling rights of refugee status is as a matter of fact sometimes inherited and lasts, how could it not, until citizenship of another country is accepted: perhaps for longer if that is part of the terms on which that citizenship is accorded but it cannot last if the idea is that the former refugees join the new community on absolutely identical terms as everyone else. There’s very little room for ancient history in this.
        Can’t help mentioning again that the Palestinians have been about as long, to a matter of decades, as far as recorded presence on the archaeological record is concerned, as the Israelites in the Holy Land – rather longer, since well before there were any Israelites, if you believe Genesis 21. The Egyptian records, the Merneptah Stela and the story of the Sea Peoples, present both as somewhat disreputable, but there was propaganda in those days too.

      • MHughes976
        April 17, 2014, 6:22 pm

        The Deuteronomic Confession, 26:5 ff, does not say that the Israelites originated in Palestine but that ‘a Syrian ready to perish was their father’, becoming a great nation in Egypt and given Palestine by God. The Conquest as described in the Deuteronomic History does not, if read with the ethics of our day in mind, form the foundation of a claim for exclusive possession now, since it was something which those ethics could not approve. The scriptures overall – I am on more subjective ground here, I admit – present this terrible event as an exceptional moment designed not only for the benefit of the chosen people over a certain time but in the end for the benefit and salvation of all for ever.

      • puppies
        April 17, 2014, 8:18 pm

        @Hughes – Very interesting. Fascinating. All that. But none of these idle speculations have anything to do here. I wish the censors would finally understand that mythical regulatory claims are ruled out by default. It sure makes for an awful lot of clutter and the Zionist riffraff is having a ball.
        Do. Not. Feed. The. Animals.
        I mean, I wish I could follow my own advice.

      • ymedad
        April 18, 2014, 1:16 am

        Are those canine or marsupial?

      • RoHa
        April 17, 2014, 8:33 pm

        @MHughes. (I wish they would fix the reply buttons.)

        “Normal peaceful residence” must surely include a minimum level of support for the society, or, at least, an absence of behaviour likely to damage the society. Of course, defining the latter in a way that does not include behaviour to reform the society for the better can be tricky.

    • eljay
      April 17, 2014, 7:28 am

      >> Not shocking that MW and the palestinian press would distort the truth and characterize this as a ‘machine gun’

      You’re right:
      - MW and the Palestinian press should correctly describe the weapon, its intended use and what harm or damage it can cause.
      and
      - The oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” of Israel must end its occupation of Palestine, withdraw to within its / Partition borders, honour its obligations under international law, accept responsibility for its past and on-going (war) crimes and enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

      • amigo
        April 17, 2014, 12:02 pm

        “If you want to open a new thread of Kfar Qassem, go right ahead but I won’t participate because that was a crime by Israelis which the state recognized and one which was not praised, justified or otherwise condoned unlike the positive treatment Arab killers receive.”ymedad

        Ever heard of the Lehi Ribbon of Honour given in honour of those Jewish Terrorists in the Lehi Gang.

        You and your fellow apologists are full of your zionist lies and propaganda.

  4. oldgeezer
    April 16, 2014, 8:12 pm

    I’m not an armaments expert so I can’t argue but I don’t see any water source unless it runs up through the armature. It bears a very striking resemblance to an autmated machine gun produced by Rafael industries in Israel. And Israel was reported by Janes to be in the process of deploying remote automated machine guns along the separation barrier.

    So my question is, without argument, do you have any link to the manufacturer of said ‘water cannon’.

  5. chuckcarlos
    April 16, 2014, 8:55 pm

    incorrect translation…”what is this” says Norm Abram

    this picture was taken at the lovely David BenGurion Memorial Arboretum where one can stroll and admire the the orange trees and flowers and then go over by the pond the feed the ducks….the upkeep and general standard of aesthetics is excellent…and open to all

    this is actually a remotely controlled and programmable sprinkler system with a directed spray stream to conserve water…designed to “make the desert bloom”as is standard in Israel

  6. Henry Norr
    April 16, 2014, 9:52 pm

    Whatever that device is, there’s no question that Israel makes remote-controlled guns, uses them against he Palestinians, and sells them to repressive regimes around the world. Way back in 2002, the first time I went to Gaza, I saw a primitive version hanging from something that looked like a construction crane overlooking the “Austrian Houses” development in Khan Younis.

    Jonathan Cook wrote a good piece called “The Spot-and-Shoot Game: Israeli female soldiers kill by remote control,” with a picture of young female soldiers sitting in front of a TV monitor and using PlayStation-style joysticks to control the guns,.in 2010. Some excerpts:

    The female soldiers, located far away in an operations room, are responsible for aiming and firing remote-controlled machine-guns mounted on watch-towers every few hundred metres along an electronic fence that surrounds Gaza.

    The system is one of the latest “remote killing” devices developed by Israel’s Rafael armaments company, the former weapons research division of the Israeli army and now a separate governmental firm.

    According to Giora Katz, Rafael’s vice president, remote-controlled military hardware such as Spot and Shoot is the face of the future. He expects that within a decade at least a third of the machines used by the Israeli army to control land, air and sea will be unmanned.

    Remotely controlled weapons systems are in high demand from repressive regimes and the burgeoning homeland security industries around the globe.

    • Sumud
      April 16, 2014, 11:33 pm

      Thanks Henry I was going to mention Cook’s article myself. FYI the original version at The National is here: link to thenational.ae

      Most disgusting is that Israeli weapons manufacturers are allowed to use Gazans – who cannot escape – as live guinea pigs to test their weapons systems. And Israel claims to be the victim.

      Within a short time since they killed at “several dozen” Palestinians, and that was way back in 2010. I wonder what their ‘tally’ is now.

      Cook [my emphasis]:

      Philip Alston, its [the UN] special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, warned last month of the danger that a “PlayStation mentality to killing” could quickly emerge.

      According to analysts, however, Israel is unlikely to turn its back on hardware that it has been at the forefront of developing – using the occupied Palestinian territories, and especially Gaza, as testing laboratories.

      The Israeli army, which plans to introduce the technology along Israel’s other confrontation lines, refuses to say how many Palestinians have been killed by the remotely controlled machine-guns in Gaza. According to the Israeli media, however, it is believed to be several dozen.

      The system was phased-in two years ago for surveillance, but operators were only able to open fire with it more recently.

  7. Henry Norr
    April 17, 2014, 1:29 am

    From “Remote-control machine gun repairs just got quicker”
    Jerusalem Post
    5/24/2013

    link to jpost.com

    What does the IDF do when its remote-control machine guns break down? The Samson Remote Controlled Weapon Station, the Katlanit, produced by Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, is increasingly appearing on a range of IDF Ground Forces platforms, such as the Namer armored personnel carrier.

    It can be fitted with a variety of powerful and accurate machine guns, allowing soldiers to control the guns through a remote control panel, and fire on enemy targets without exposing themselves to the return fire.

    But when the weapons station broke down, an army technician may have to spend dangerous time in the field figuring out what went wrong, before making the repair. Now, thanks to an innovation by Maj. Roe Avrahami, commander of the Maintenance Unit at IDF Southern Command, that has changed.

    “What we’ve developed is a system that analyzes and informs the technician where the error is in a short amount of time. We’re protecting lives by decreasing the risk. It now takes 75 percent less time to repair,” Avrahami told The Jerusalem Post this week.

  8. Daniel Rich
    April 17, 2014, 3:43 am

    There’s no place/space for an ammo belt on this thing. No machine gun.

    Don’t forget the IDF women who’re ‘manning’ them…

    • Steve JFGB
      April 17, 2014, 2:36 pm

      Israel is the real thing and has always yearned for peace. It is the neighbours who have a predilection to violence.

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 17, 2014, 3:15 pm

        “Israel is the real thing and has always yearned for peace.”

        LMAO. Israel is a phony state and there has not been one moment — not one second — during its entire existance that it has not been in the process of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

        “It is the neighbours who have a predilection to violence.”

        No, it’s the thief and rapist who can’t understand why the family of the woman whose life it destroyed doesn’t like it.

      • eljay
        April 17, 2014, 3:23 pm

        >> Israel is the real thing and has always yearned for peace.

        A self-proclaimed supremacist state that…
        - has waged a campaign of land theft, occupation, colonization, destruction and oppression for over 60 years;
        - refuses to halt its campaign of land theft, occupation, colonization, destruction and oppression;
        - refuses to honour its obligations under international law; and
        - refuses to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace,
        …is not a country that “yearns for peace”.

        The “real thing” about such a country is that it wishes:
        - to keep as much as possible of what it has stolen;
        - to avoid accountability for its past and on-going (war) crimes; and
        - to remain a supremacist state.

      • pjdude
        April 17, 2014, 4:31 pm

        If they wanted peace why was it founded by naked conquest?

      • MHughes976
        April 17, 2014, 4:38 pm

        Not surprising if people who have made great gains by questionable means very strongly desire peace in the sense of having their gains accepted without further protest.

  9. seafoid
    April 17, 2014, 10:26 am

    I don’t imagine any of the holy books mentioned the high doses of ongoing violence necessary to facilitate the return to zion. It needs a lot more than just milk and honey . Very grubby in reality. Imagine marrying a supermodel and discovering she had a prediliction for domestic violence.

    It looks like the real thing
    It tastes like the real thing
    My fake plastic zion.

  10. DaBakr
    April 17, 2014, 12:00 pm

    so..not only is this articles ‘headline’ false in that these mounts do not shoot bullets but the peanut gallery looks up their vast library of anti-Israeli propaganda to prove that Israel does indeed have some form of remote controlled munitions (duh) which do not subject the operators to direct fire as if that is such a horrible thing. Better Israel force its female soldiers to come under direct fire from Palestinian militants because-uh-thats what real macho nations do. And the attitude that Israel just ‘comes up with these inventions’ willy nilly-w/o any reason whatsoever as if it were ‘fun’ as referenced by the ‘joy-stick’ commentary is as bigoted and racist as anything anti-zionists ever accused of.
    I know…better the border guards be physically stationed with guns on the towers because that is like….so much less intimidating. And maybe, its less dangerous to all concerned that its more difficult to intimidate a faceless machine during all the peaceful ‘pebble’ throwing protests. The crowd can’t gage the reaction and a pebble/stone/rock striking a machine on its ear is less likely to incite a reaction. Of course I am sure to hear how this makes no sense at all and I am a ‘brainwashed’ something or other and blahdeedahdeedah

    • Shmuel
      April 17, 2014, 12:28 pm

      You have a point, DaBakr. We are shocked by remote-control weapons, although they may sometimes actually be less lethal (the name Katlanit ["lethal"] notwithstanding) than their manned counterparts. On the other hand, threats to the “equipment” (e.g. the Gaza perimeter or WB wall) may sometimes be treated like threats to personnel, and then there is the detachment factor much discussed with regard to drone pilots.

      It reminds me a little of the shock elicited by suicide bombings — as if the bomber’s trying to come out of it alive really changes anything.

    • talknic
      April 17, 2014, 1:23 pm

      @ DaBakr “vast library of anti-Israeli propaganda to prove that Israel does indeed have some form of remote controlled munitions (duh) which do not subject the operators to direct fire >”

      Example of anti-Israeli propaganda link to jpost.com

      “Better Israel force its female soldiers to come under direct fire from Palestinian militants because-uh-thats what real macho nations do”

      If you say so pal.

      “I know…better the border guards be physically stationed with guns on the towers because that is like….so much less intimidating”

      If you say so pal.

      “Of course I am sure to hear how this makes no sense at all and I am a ‘brainwashed’ something or other and blahdeedahdeedah”

      If you say so pal.

      • DaBakr
        April 17, 2014, 2:42 pm

        and I would also ‘say’ that the remote controlled ‘machine’ guns on top of turrets in Gaza are hardly any different then tank turrets except that a rocket propelled anti-tank grenade would be less effective in killing the operator in the tower or remote locale. But then Israel should absolutely take no measures to protect its soldiers from enemy fire.

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 17, 2014, 3:12 pm

        ” But then Israel should absolutely take no measures to protect its soldiers from enemy fire.”

        maybe if it pulled back behind the green line, ended it’s illegal blockade and stopped oppressing the Palestinians, it wouldn’t need to protect its terror forces.

      • talknic
        April 17, 2014, 3:21 pm

        @ DaBakr Israel should absolutely take no measures to protect its soldiers from enemy fire

        if you say so… A better way of protecting them would be to get out of all non-Israeli territory for once.

  11. Steve JFGB
    April 17, 2014, 12:23 pm

    To: Annie Robbins

    The right of Jews to return to their historic homeland is the right granted by the State of Israel. Israel, like any other country, is entitled to its own immigration criteria.

    Israel’s criteria happens to be consistent with that decided upon by the League of Nations for the territory during the mandate that preceded the establishment of the state. In article 6 of the Mandate the League of Nations called for the facilitation of Jewish immigration and the encouragement of “close settlement by Jews on the land”.

    • adele
      April 17, 2014, 1:14 pm

      guess you overlooked this Steve: “it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” (link to en.wikisource.org)

    • talknic
      April 17, 2014, 1:19 pm

      Steve JFGB “In article 6 of the Mandate the League of Nations called for the facilitation of Jewish immigration and the encouragement of “close settlement by Jews on the land””

      As citizens of Palestine Article 7 .. same document

    • Hostage
      April 17, 2014, 1:58 pm

      The right of Jews to return to their historic homeland is the right granted by the State of Israel. Israel, like any other country, is entitled to its own immigration criteria.

      The United Nations required Israel to accept a treaty on minority rights that obliged it to give equal rights to everyone under the law, in exchange for termination of the international mandate. If anything, Israel has subsequently demonstrated in both words and deeds that Zionists are completely unfit for either self-government or the government of others.

      The UN did intend to help facilitate the establishment of a state with a Jewish majority, but it never intended for the Jews to drive off the bulk of the Arab population of that state or prevent them from returning to their homes and taking-up their former livelihoods. The notion that Jews have an exclusive right to squander all of the region’s natural resources, or the right to expropriate Arab property, keep Arab inhabitants exiled, and grant alien Jews the right to immigrate and settle on lands owned by Arabs is nothing but propaganda.

    • talknic
      April 17, 2014, 2:18 pm

      @ Steve JFGB “The right of Jews to return to their historic homeland is the right granted by the State of Israel”

      Sorry Israel’s territory is not the same area as the Jewish People’s Historic Homeland

      ,“MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republicwithin frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

      Israel has not since legally acquired any territory link to pages.citebite.com

      Go bitch to the Zionist Movement for demanding a state, they took away the right of Israelis to settle anywhere in the Jewish People’s Historic Homeland. Israelis have no legal right to illegally settle in non-Israeli territory unless they’d like to forgo their Israeli citizenship.

      “Israel, like any other country, is entitled to its own immigration criteria”

      .. within its actual borders. Go whine to the Zionist Movement

      • Steve JFGB
        April 18, 2014, 4:03 am

        On 14th May 1948 there was no international border other than the border of British mandate Palestine. The fighting in Palestine before then was in the nature of a civil war between people of the same country with different religions.

        The borders between Israel and Palestine are to be determined in the final status negotiations. That was determined in Rhodes Armistice agreement of 1949, the only treaty in which the green line was delineated.

        Article 2 Para 2

        It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

        Article 6 Paragraphs 8 & 9

        8. The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties to this Agreement.

        9. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.

        The Palestine mandate of the League of Nations called for close settlement of the Jews in Palestine in the territory west of the Jordan River. While Israel became independent since then nobody else has had a legal claim on the West Bank.

        Until a mutually agreed outcome of the final status talks determines the border between Israel and a new state of Palestine, the determination of the League of Nations backed by two treaties is the most significant factor limiting where Jews are legally encouraged to settle.

      • Shingo
        April 18, 2014, 10:26 am

        On 14th May 1948 there was no international border other than the border of British mandate Palestine.

        Yes there was, which is why in it’s letter to Washington, requesting recognition, it referred to the state residing within the established frontiers as per the UN General Assembly Resolution of 1947. That meant that the day after that declaration, any Israeli forces based outside that border were in fact invaders and therefore aggressors.

        The borders between Israel and Palestine are to be determined in the final status negotiations. That was determined in Rhodes Armistice agreement of 1949, the only treaty in which the green line was delineated.

        Wrong. The armistice agreement itself acknowledges that the purpose of the agreement was to implement the resolution adopted by the Security Council. That ordered the parties to STFU and establish permanent armistice lines of demarcation that cannot be altered without mutual consent. That means that everyone agreed that the government of Jordan can legally exercise jurisdiction over the West Bank until hell freezes over, unless it agrees not to. Israels boundary with Jordan was established without prejudice to any territory captured by Israel in 1967.

        Your Ambassador to the UN said:

        “Israel holds no territory wrongfully, since her occupation of the areas now held has been sanctioned by the armistice agreements,as has the occupation of the territory in Palestine now held by the Arab states.”

        See “Effect on Armistice Agreements”, FRUS Volume VI 1949, page 1149link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        It’s an undisputed fact that Israel cannot unilaterally alter the terms of those agreements or rescind those Chapter 7 UN Security Council resolutions. The representative of Israel pointed out that fact. During the Security Council’s 433rd meeting, Abba Eban stated that they clearly defined the State’s jurisdiction and had the normal legal characteristics of frontiers:

        The armistice lines do not merely separate armed forces.They mark the clearly defined areas of full civil jurisdiction. The Government, the courts, the legislatures, the security authorities of each respective State operate smoothly and unchallenged up to the appropriate armistice line. These lines thus have the normal characteristics of provisional frontiers until such time as a new process of negotiation and agreement determines the final territorial settlement.

        The Armistice Agreements are not peace treaties. They do not prejudice the final territorial settlements. On the other hand, the provisional settlement established by the Armistice Agreements is unchallengeable until a new process of negotiation and agreement has been successfully consummated.

        link to un.org
        There is no legal obligation for any of the parties to ever agree to any changes to the armistice lines.

        It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

        Of course, prejudice the rights, claims and positions of the Palestinians is precisely what the Israeli have been doing, which is why Israel and the US emphatically reject any mediation being conducted by the UN. Israel knows that it has no legal leg to stand on and that it would lose should the matter be determined by an international court.

        The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties to this Agreement.

        Which Israel has indeed done by establishing facts on the ground, not to mention annexing East Jerusalem.

        So it’s easy to see that Israel is in gross violation of not only the Armistice Agreement, but international law.

    • Shmuel
      April 17, 2014, 3:49 pm

      Israel, like any other country, is entitled to its own immigration criteria

      Israel does not have “immigration criteria”. It ethnically cleanses Palestinians and “repatriates” members of its ethno-religious charter group.

      • Steve JFGB
        April 18, 2014, 9:17 am

        That is simply untrue. Israel does not ethnically cleanse Palestinians and 20% of Israel’s population are Arab citizens, all of whom have exactly the same rights as Israel’s Jewish citizens, but unlike (the a large majority of) Israel’s Jewish citizens, they don’t have to join the IDF.

        I have no idea what you mean by “ethno-religious charter group”.

      • Shmuel
        April 18, 2014, 9:38 am

        Israel does not ethnically cleanse Palestinians.

        Nakba, prevention of return, Nationality Law, “present absentees”, Land Day, revocation of Jerusalem residence, revocation of West Bank residence, land theft, denial of access to education, second-class citizenship, occupation, siege, closure, arrest, torture, non-Jewish Israelis may not regain citizenship once renounced (e.g. for acquisition of foreign citizenship), etc.

        20% of Israel’s population are Arab citizens

        Ethnic cleansing need not be 100% “successful” to be considered ethnic cleansing.

        all of whom have exactly the same rights as Israel’s Jewish citizens

        Nonsense. See the websites of Adalah [ Discriminatory Law Database link to adalah.org ] , ACRI, and any number of other organisations that have documented the systematic and institutionalised discrimination against non-Jewish and especially Palestinian Israelis. The last couple of Knessets have excelled at discriminatory legislation.

        I have no idea what you mean by “ethno-religious charter group”

        Jewish state, established Jewish privilege. See e.g. the work of Oren Yiftachel.

        Poke around the MW archives a little. These subjects have been discussed thousands of times here.

      • Elihu
        April 18, 2014, 10:07 am

        Those interested in actually spending serious time in Israel (particularly shopping malls, hotels and hospitals) and speaking with Palestinian Arabs employed by “racist” Israeli employers like Soda Stream can see/hear the truth for themselves – and either ignore it or deal with how it stacks up against their preferred narrative.

        It is enlightening and disturbing to see the tenor of most responses generated by a simple common-sense prompted question about the initial (and mistaken) headline of this thread. Meaningful dialogue is well nigh impossible in such an environment- and that is a pity. Those of us who actually live here and deal daily with people on both sides of the political divide will continue to be patient, raising our children in the constructive spirit of our faith and treating the individuals we encounter along the way with the integrity and honesty we want for ourselves.

      • amigo
        April 18, 2014, 12:46 pm

        Steve , what does the JFGB mean??.

        Jew from great Britain.

        Did you just graduate from Hasbara Central.Best get your money back.You are being used.

        Try educating yourself about Israel,s numerous Racist Laws against it,s Palestinian Citizens.Note , it is an article by the NYT so hardly a Palestinian propaganda mag.

        link to nytimes.com

    • pjdude
      April 17, 2014, 4:36 pm

      Yet the Palestinians weren’t allowed that before zionists invaded. And aren’t alliwed to know being forced to accept thugs living on their land. Also the law of return is unique among such laws as it is the only one that doesn’t require one to have proof your from the country.

  12. DaBakr
    April 17, 2014, 2:14 pm

    “(this coming from a Palestinian….journalism..)”

    What can I say? MW corrected the “machine gun” conjecture but then does EXACTLY what it accuses pro-Zionists of doing-mentioning the fact that a Palestinian journalist confirmed the non-gun issue-while implying that only a Palestinian source could be trusted on this matter. Exactly what commenters here claim Israel does when confirming stories sympathetic to Palestinians-asking if there were any Israeli/Jewish reporters suggesting the exact opposite. What a mess. While I have a decidedly anti-MW pov-I can say with complete candor that BOTH sides in this long running conflict are a mess. Nobody is untainted with sheer hysterical propaganda. Nobody has a hold on any ‘truth’. And nobody is going to “go down soon” like so many here predict. It can’t be wished and as obnoxious as ‘stink water’ may be it is equally as obnoxious to have a lemon sized rock conk you on your head/person after being flung by a leather sling at 100s of ft.pr.sc. (and yes, i know)
    Lets put it this way: I would rather be hit with a slung rock then a bullet. I would rather be shot with a bean bag then hit with a rock from a sling. I would rather be sprayed with stink water then be shot with either a rubber bullet, bean bag or a rock. I would rather not have to contemplate any of the above options but that is not reality. What some see as escalating others see as de-escalating. Imagine how much more obnoxious it would be if we put up huge posters of Netanyahu facing the territories like they do in…wherever. I would bet the Palestinians would be more upset about that then the wall mounted riot control

    • talknic
      April 18, 2014, 11:40 am

      @ DaBakr “What can I say?”

      You could try “Israel has borders” and support it with facts link to trumanlibrary.org

      “Imagine how much more obnoxious it would be if we put up huge posters of Netanyahu facing the territories like they do in…wherever.”

      “Palestine” is the word you’re having trouble saying. BTW 65 years of occupation link to wp.me , territorial theft and the ghastly separation wall is obnoxious enough without clown pictures link to wp.me

      “I would bet the Palestinians would be more upset about that then the wall mounted riot control”

      Mindless speculation is cute… you can say anything

  13. Woody Tanaka
    April 17, 2014, 3:06 pm

    “Lets put it this way: I would rather be hit…”

    I would rather you Zionists stop being so bigoted and withdraw to the Green Line and leave the Palestinians alone.

  14. Wesley
    April 17, 2014, 3:14 pm

    Pardon the interruption, but now that we have established that it’s a water cannon, why does the headline still refer to it as a gun?

    • Woody Tanaka
      April 17, 2014, 3:45 pm

      “Pardon the interruption, but now that we have established that it’s a water cannon, why does the headline still refer to it as a gun?”

      I think that we’re trying to correct larger problems, like the fact that an ethno-religious Apartheid state has been oppressing millions for fifty years. I’m sure once that is corrected, the headline will be next.

    • Sumud
      April 17, 2014, 5:01 pm

      Water gun?
      Water cannon?
      Super-soaker?
      Napalm dispenser?

      Take your pick or suggest another…

  15. ymedad
    April 18, 2014, 1:06 am

    Hostage, you an example of how difficult it is to hold a discussion/debate here. Besides the anti-semitism, the anti-Zionism and other hurdles, the ignorance or prevarications are just too much.

    All of the Jewish prophecies inn the Bible indicate a return, a reflowering and a revitalization of Jewish political, social and religious life in the Land of Israel.

    • Bumblebye
      April 18, 2014, 10:07 am

      You don’t live in Israel.
      You live on stolen land in Palestine.

    • Shingo
      April 18, 2014, 10:19 am

      All of the Jewish prophecies inn the Bible indicate a return, a reflowering and a revitalization of Jewish political, social and religious life in the Land of Israel.

      No it does not, it states that God would re-establish a home for the Jews, not secular blood and soil nationalists.

    • just
      April 18, 2014, 10:40 am

      ymedad: read this by Prof. Ellis, published here this very day:

      “Scriptures should evolve to include what is done in God’s name after the forming of faith communities. Expand the Passover story to include the modern state of Israel. Shall we call it the Book of Palestine? Or we could recite both histories together – the Book of Exodus and the Book of Palestine.

      On the Jewish side of the Book of Palestine are plenty of authors up for the task of narration. Think of Noam Chomsky, Ilan Pappe, Josh Ruebner and Max Blumenthal combining their expertise and insights. On the Palestinian side, think of Edward Said, Nur Masala and Joseph Massad.

      History has to be our guide. Whatever religion can say after history is in place – proceed. What religion can’t say after history, religion has to leave behind.

      When religion has to take the history challenge only fragments survive.

      Along with the traditional story, in the last few days of Passover begin reading the Book of Palestine. Now read it out loud with other Jews.

      Hear who we have become.

      As you raise the matzah to your lips note the sound of Star of David helicopter gunships in the air.

      You’ve asked the four traditional Passover questions for years. Now ask the fifth.”

      link to mondoweiss.net

      • Elihu
        April 18, 2014, 10:57 am

        This is, at least, a thoughtful reply. A religious response should probably be by those with real expertise in matters religious, though – no? There should also be some ideological balance. You might want also want to consider as preferred choices for a Jewish religious-ethical perspective those more akin to Rabbi Jonathan Sachs or Rabbi Shlomo Riskin.

    • just
      April 18, 2014, 11:12 am

      One more thing, ymedad…..your comment to Hostage is complete bs. Hostage’s comments are fully informed and sourced. You simply cannot “handle the truth”– you have nothing to contribute to Hostage’s comments except vituperation, vitriol and very old fairy tales.

      Indeed, it must be “difficult” for you.

    • talknic
      April 18, 2014, 11:30 am

      ymedad s“All of the Jewish prophecies inn the Bible indicate a return, a reflowering and a revitalization of Jewish political, social and religious life in the Land of Israel”

      Irrelevant to the State of Israel’s legal obligations from the moment Israel was proclaimed and recognized as it asked to be recognized effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ link to trumanlibrary.org

      Take your pathetic whining to the Zionist Movement whose demand for a separate state robbed Jewish folk of the right to settle as Israelis in non-Israeli territory in Palestine and whose illegal expansionist state policies have robbed the region of peace for the last 66 years.

    • Hostage
      April 18, 2014, 11:39 am

      Hostage, you an example of how difficult it is to hold a discussion/debate here. Besides the anti-semitism, the anti-Zionism and other hurdles, the ignorance or prevarications are just too much.

      No you’ve just encountered a person of Jewish descent who knows all of your rotten tricks. I had a great uncle who worked in the Political Department of the Jewish Agency for Palestine churning out some of the same propaganda you are trying to pass-off as the unvarnished truth here at MW. The reason it’s so hard to get away with that, is because your material is more than a little shopworn and dogeared.

      All of the Jewish prophecies inn the Bible indicate a return, a reflowering and a revitalization of Jewish political, social and religious life in the Land of Israel.

      And for thousands of years those passages about the Land of Israel have been interpreted as being completely allegorical references or something subject to The Three Oaths which are incapable of fulfillment by atheists, like Weizmann, Ben Gurion, et al. and their legions of followers. There is nothing about political Zionism or living in Israel that is essential to Judaism or Jewish culture. The majority of Jews didn’t opt to live there during the Second Commonwealth and half of the Jews today still choose to live in communities elsewhere.

    • talknic
      April 18, 2014, 11:46 am

      @ ymedad “Hostage, you an example of how difficult it is to hold a discussion/debate here.”

      Mmmmmm. WOW! That sure is potent stuff. Except … you’ve failed to show how!

Leave a Reply