Executed: Dania Ersheid, 17, from Hebron

Israel/Palestine
on 161 Comments

Israeli forces executed another teenage girl at a checkpoint in Hebron on Sunday. Her name was Dania Ersheid, she was 17 and a student at Al-Rayyan Girls’ High School. A witness at the scene, standing in back of Ersheid in line at the checkpoint adjacent the Ibrahimi Mosque, said the teen raised her arms and stated “I don’t have a knife” before she was shot with “eight to 10 bullets” before she fell to the ground.

Police spokesperson Micky Rosenfeld tweeted Ersheid was a “Female Arab terrorist” who attempted to stab a police officer with knife. The police responded, “and neutralized her“.

Youth Against Settlements requested the military release video of the killing because the entire area is under surveillance by CCTV cameras.

CNN reports: Palestinian woman shot dead; Israelis say she was armed, witness disputes it.

‘I don’t have a knife’

A Hebron resident, who asked not to be identified, told CNN he was next in line at the checkpoint — some 4 meters away — when the incident occurred.

“There were seven or eight soldiers around her. The soldiers checked her belongings in a school bag. She looked like she was around 14 years old,” he said.

“She went through a metal detector. In the school bag they found nothing and asked her, ‘Where’s the knife?’ She said, ‘I don’t have a knife.’ Then they fired between her legs. She was terrified and moved back half a meter or a meter.

“She raised her arms in the air saying ‘I don’t have a knife.’ Then they shot eight to 10 bullets, but I don’t know exactly who was shooting. Then she fell on the ground.”

The official Palestinian news agency WAFA also described the woman as a schoolgirl, quoting witnesses as saying Israeli soldiers had prevented medics from reaching her.

Issa Amer, director of Youth Against Settlements, a Palestinian nonprofit that monitors and documents settler violence and military activity in Hebron, said the group had no information on this specific incident, but “the woman had to go through two metal detectors and revolving doors. This means that her belongings were checked. Also, we call on the military to release video of the incident because there are several CCTV surveillance cameras that record everything in that area.”

The International Solidarity Movement reports:

While she [Ersheid] lay on the ground bleeding from her neck, no first aid was given, not even the Israeli ambulance that arrived after about twenty minutes gave any medical help. A Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance was denied entry to the scene and ordered by soldiers to leave.

…..Dania is already the third girl killed by Israeli soldiers in al-Khalil within a month.

The circumstances sound eerily similar to the “extrajudicial execution” of Hadil al-Hashlamoun in Hebron on September 22. Hashlamoun was left on the ground for 45 minutes, she bled to death.

 

 

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

161 Responses

  1. Citizen
    October 26, 2015, 9:54 am

    Jeez… I’m gonna puke. I am filled with rage my tax dollars enable this. I go out & about, seething inside, not a word about it do I ever hear. I turn on TV news: same thing. I watch congress via C-SPAN. Nothing there either. The View, The Five, Hagee, all on mainline TV every day. Maury, Springer, etc. On Cspan WJ, the host mostly cuts off anybody critical of Israel, doesn’t field caller’s issues to the guest; when he/she (rarely) does so, guest glibly responds with boilerplate hasbara–host never follows up on that. That’s the best we got, we nation of 320 million souls holding sole superpower status (& just look at that motley crew running for primetime POTUS)?

  2. talknic
    October 26, 2015, 10:45 am

    Correction : murdered

    An execution by definition is after a trial. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=execution

    the carrying out of a sentence of death on a condemned person.
    “the execution of juveniles is prohibited by international law”

    By Law the age of majority in Israel is eighteen. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/child-rights/israel.php

    If Israel was a dog they’d put it down https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Rabies

    • Annie Robbins
      October 27, 2015, 12:34 am

      so answer me this; is an extrajudicial execution an execution?

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_execution

      Extrajudicial execution
      Extrajudicial execution is a euphemism for murder.
      More specifically, extrajudicial execution is when the state kills someone without proper due process. This can either be by the direct agents of the state (such as the military or police), or indirectly by private citizens whom the state elects not to punish for its actions. (This presupposes that the private citizen does not have an affirmative defense that would hold up in the state’s courts of law, such as self-defense.)[1]

      Extrajudicial executions are almost universally considered a human rights violation. However, many states continue the practice, either in secret or else justifying it as necessary. The most common justification is that the state is in a state of emergency, and that the killings are necessary because the judiciary is weak, slow, or corrupt. These excuses are disregarded by human rights organizations in almost all cases.

      Extrajudicial executions are most often practiced in countries where the leaders of the state have authoritarian leanings, but the state is not strong enough for the use of formal methods. It also happens when the judiciary so opposes the would-be authoritarians that they will not allow the kinds of executions those in charge want.
      On the other hand, “extra-judicial executions” are also common in states where the centralized power is very weak. The closer a state is to ochlocracy, the greater the chances of extrajudicial executions.[2]

      Most of the time, the term is used in reference to killings in Latin America, such as the campaign of killings in Chile in the 70s and 80s under Augusto Pinochet, or in the failed states of the world.
      [edit]In the United States

      It is often forgotten that one of the longest running campaigns of “extrajudicial executions” was that of lynching in the United States. For half a century, it was commonplace in much of the country for mobs of whites to hang African Americans for merely breaching the social etiquette of the times. Afterwards, none of the participants would be punished in any way (see KKK). Sometimes the participants included local government officials, including law enforcement.

      Adding a sense of irony, President Obama has ordered the assassination of four American citizens without due process, including Anwar al-Awlaki and his son Adbulrahman.

      • Boo
        October 27, 2015, 11:16 am

        I prefer to avoid the use of euphemisms, when “murder” states the case both accurately and succinctly.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 27, 2015, 1:08 pm

        boo, i guess it is personal choice/expression. for me, the term execution implies state sanctioned. so when murder is carried out by representatives of the state, using state policy to execute a practice, and the state authority provides cover for that practice, it’s not merely a murder. one could say state sanctioned murder i suppose. but i wrote the article and i titled it. generally i am not too attached to my titles and i fully expect our ‘naming articles experts’ (phil and adam) to improve upon them. but i am relieved they left my title. it’s short, succinct, and exactly represents my thinking.

        murder to me seems more like an individual act and choice and the person/persons who carry it out are to blame and be punished. whereas, a state sanctioned punishment the state is responsible. the state is responsible for Dania Arsheid’s death. it was a group event which included complicity even wrt the ambulances.

        and this is a tad OT but i am curious what, if any, connection the iof soldier and his wife who were killed in their car (w/the 4 children not targeted) may have had w/the two checkpoint killings (extrajudicial executions as far as i am concerned) that occurred the week before the attack on their car. i’ve read several allegations the attack on the car initiated the wave of violence (absurd) whereas tensions were already extremely high due to israeli violations at al aqsa, and hadil’s killing seemed almost premeditated in nature. the incitement of these kinds of killings of teens and letting them bleed to death. just unconscionable.

        anyway .. i think the title may be resonating with people. hence, note the share factor.

      • Susan A
        October 27, 2015, 5:25 pm

        I think extrajudicial execution is accurate. Murder is also accurate, but murder has many motives, ‘crimes of passion’ for instance, whereas extrajudicial execution horribly highlights the chill factor. Either way: awful

  3. eljay
    October 26, 2015, 10:52 am

    Every day – as they have been doing for decades – Zio-supremacists work hard to degenerate from hateful and immoral to evil.

    Every day, they get that much closer to realizing their goal.

  4. a blah chick
    October 26, 2015, 12:04 pm

    Does anyone else notice that the violence against Palestinian women has increased of late? I know it’s always there but I don’t believe there was this much killing during the first intifada.

    • Kay24
      October 26, 2015, 2:01 pm

      They do not want them to give birth to “snakes”. They hate the Palestinians, whether men, women and children. The women and children seem to be easy prey. The hatred is however shown to all. They seem to be followers of the Shaked doctrine.

      “A week later, on July 7, Shaked again quoted the following passage on her Facebook page:

      Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.”

      – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/netanyahu-palestinians-government#sthash.SBT9DeCW.dpuf

      • Marnie
        October 27, 2015, 12:54 am

        I picture Shaked on her death bed, praying the people she consigned to death will forgive her for her evil, much like the dying master of a dying plantation and way of life asking his slaves to forgive him.

        I’m tired of the GoI and the US govt repeating the mantra that Palestinian mother’s “send” their children to be martyrs. What mother does that, except for the settler mothers knowing full well they are on land that they stole from other people, forcing them to live like a refugee in their own lands. Those settler mothers send their children out to play, throw rocks, taunt those they uprooted. That’s a dangerous game that sometimes backfires but the only reason they continue to play that sick game of Survivor is they have IOF soldiers everywhere to allow this foolishness to continue?

        To try to twist it around and pretend the zionists are the best parents and the Palestinians only want martyrdom for their children is one of the sicker blood libels. In reality, Palestinians want the best for their children, good health and well-being, a good education, happy and fulfilled lives. The same can’t be said for the settler parents. They’re children are being raised on a diet of racial superiority, religious superiority and the belief that the land people they have no connection to at all belongs to them, the European and American colonists, because of writing in a book they don’t read and the words of a God they have no time for.

      • inbound39
        October 27, 2015, 2:30 am

        If Israel is wanting to make it’s citizens under severe threat overseas they are going the right way about it. Problem is it affects non Israeli Jews also. I have never felt so disgusted with a people in my life. I generally like to see positive in all things. I see nothing positive in Israel…..nothing.

      • Kay24
        October 27, 2015, 6:39 am

        I think the entire world (except for the US) sees nothing positive in Israel. It is disliked, and their leaders never trusted. Only the citizens of Israel, who keep being hoodwinked by war criminals who keep perpetuating endless wars, and Israel being the victims of hatred from every corner of the world, believe they are well looked after (US tax dollars help) and live the good life, bragging they are so fortunate, while their neighbors across the wall, suffer tremendously. The Israelis have stolen lands, water, olive trees, even soil, from those they occupy, and think they are living the good life. Pathetic.

      • Kay24
        October 27, 2015, 9:30 am

        Marnie, I agree. No mother will want her kid killing himself/herself in this way. Yes, they do sometimes say they are martyrs, but what else can they say to justify their deaths?
        What they do might be wrong, but they do have good reasons to feel they must do something about the plight of their people.

        They may call these Palestinians “terrorists” but we know that is to demonized them, and for the US and Israel to keep waging wars, they HAVE to demonize their targets, and justify the violence agains them. The Palestinian issue is totally different to other situations in the ME. These are occupied people, who are being killed on a daily basis, have their lands and resources stolen, have no freedom, a State to call their own, and unspeakable suffering, and Israel expect them to do NOTHING? Seeing how vicious the GOI can be, and their Jewish terrorists, we can only image how THEY would react had they been the victims of an occupation.

        Those who keep buying the hasbara and Israeli fairy tales must be living in the twilight zone.

    • Marnie
      October 27, 2015, 12:49 am

      Yes. Only the bravest soldiers can take on an unarmed 17-year-old girl.

  5. Marnie
    October 26, 2015, 12:05 pm

    It’s just getting darker and darker. My condolences to another Palestinian family mourning their loved one.

  6. HarryLaw
    October 26, 2015, 5:26 pm

    This is despicable and should galvanize opposition to this inhuman regime which in my opinion is living on borrowed time, my advice to supporters of Palestinian resistance is..don’t get mad, get even.

  7. Ossinev
    October 26, 2015, 7:32 pm

    Unlike with Hadil they don`t appear to have dragged her body away like a dead animal carcass or perhaps that happened subsequently off camera. Neverthless yet again Israeli “Land of Creation” manhood at its finest. Leaving a 17 year old girl on the ground with zero dignity to be goggled at by their fellow lunatics. They should feel sooooo proud of their brave achievement.

  8. WH
    October 27, 2015, 5:20 am

    Has the wretched Micky Rosenfeld made a single statement in his career that wasn’t a lie?

    • talknic
      October 27, 2015, 6:08 am

      Thanks for the sad news jon s

      That’s the danger in being illegally in Occupied Territory. You’re likely to become embroiled in the violence expected when your country occupies the people and territory of another.

      Let’s hope his family sue the Israeli Government for encouraging and enabling him to be there in contravention of GC IV, a convention adopted to protect all civilians, including those of the Occupying Power by keeping its civilians out of Occupied Territory.

      • Marnie
        October 27, 2015, 12:05 pm

        +infinity talknic

      • Mooser
        October 27, 2015, 4:31 pm

        “Chaim Yechiel Rothman, who was seriously wounded in November 2014….”

        And this has to do with the 17 yr. old girl in what way? That she was 16 when that happened?

      • Susan A
        October 27, 2015, 5:41 pm

        Excellent response Talknic

      • Jon66
        October 29, 2015, 10:48 am

        Talknic,

        I understand your point, but the two sides have agreed that the territory within the Green line is Israeli whether not it has been formalized. if the parties recognize this is it neccesary for the UN to be involved? Border disputes are resolved without UN involvement.
        If both parties accept an item as fact and act accordingly, when does it become an “agreement”.
        With respect to the occupation, does the law require immediate withdrawal or only withdrawal as part of a settlement of the war?

      • talknic
        October 29, 2015, 6:10 pm

        @ Jon66 ” the two sides have agreed that the territory within the Green line is Israeli “

        Care to cite the document wherein they have agreed … thx … I’ll wait

        ” Border disputes are resolved without UN involvement”

        Border disputes arise when both parties claim they have borders. Israel claims not to have any

        “If both parties accept an item as fact and act accordingly, when does it become an “agreement”.”

        Usually when they co-sign an agreement.

        BTW Israel is building illegal settlements OVER the Green Line, how do you reconcile that with your pathetic shtick?

        “With respect to the occupation, does the law require immediate withdrawal or only withdrawal as part of a settlement of the war?”

        Put it this way, no withdrawal, no peace. Read the Egypt Israel Peace Treaty wherein Israel was required and agreed to withdrawal from all territory sovereign to Egypt BEFORE Peaceful relations were assumed!

        The convoluted bullsh*t narrative from the Zionist propaganda machine tells people this is “land for peace”, when in fact it’s peace for withdrawal, per International Law

    • Annie Robbins
      October 27, 2015, 3:53 pm

      One year later: Israeli wounded in synagogue massacre dies

      i wonder how many people besides mr rothman, in total, have died in the last year because the Israeli Government encourages and enables people to be there in contravention of GC IV, a convention adopted to protect all civilians, including those of the Occupying Power by keeping its civilians out of Occupied Territory.

      it’s very sad. but on the bright side at least it was mr rothman’s choice to be there. he took a risk to be part of this mass brutal immigration/colonialization project, it wasn’t forced on him unlike the vast overwhelming majority of people who died there over the last year. and if mr rothman tried to make the world a better place, which it sounds like he did, i hope all of that goodness came back to him in his lifetime, which i am confident it did. he also lived a long life. his wasn’t stopped short when he was 17 like dania’s or all the other many many palestinian teens and children killed by israel over the last year. and for that his family can be grateful and i hope it brings them comfort. he gave his life for something he believed in and in the end it killed him. but it was his choice. unlike dania and her family oppressed by this brutal decades long occupation, his lifestyle was his choice.

      • jon s
        October 28, 2015, 6:52 am

        Annie, Mr. Rothmam, along with the four other rabbis who were murdered in that gruesome terrorist attack were living in Har Nof, in West Jerusalem. Are you saying that Jews souldn’t live anywhere in Jerusalem? The five men were at their morning prayers, their tefillin, prayer shawls and prayer books soaked in their blood. A brave Druze policeman, first on the scene, was also murdered.
        Jews have always lived in Jerusalem, and always will. The innocent victims are not to blame . Nor is the government in this case. The blame goes to the bloodthirsty terrorists who carried out the attack.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 28, 2015, 12:04 pm

        bloodthirsty jon? are jewish perps ever bloodthirsty?

        like i said he lived a long life, unlike dania or all the other many many palestinian teens and children killed by bloodthirsty israel over the last year.

        btw, did you hear? http://www.maannews.com/Content.aspx?id=768524

        Amnesty International on Tuesday demanded that Israel stop [bloodthirsty] unlawful killings in occupied Palestinian territory, stating that Israeli forces appeared to have “ripped up the rulebook.”
        “There is mounting evidence that, as tensions have risen dramatically, in some cases [bloodthirsty] Israeli forces appear to have ripped up the rulebook and resorted to [bloodthirsty] extreme and unlawful [bloodthirsty] measures,” the group’s Middle East and North Africa director, Philip Luther, said in a statement.

      • amigo
        October 28, 2015, 7:25 am

        “Are you saying that Jews souldn’t live anywhere in Jerusalem? – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/executed-arshid-hebron#comment-156176” jon s

        Like you Jon S , Mr Rothman was an Israeli citizen living illegally in occupied territory .You do realise that “all ” of Jerusalem is occupied.And being Jewish is not the issue.Being a citizen of the Occupying state of Israel , (Jewish or Arab ) is.The UN , is saying , any Israeli citizen —is not allowed to live in occupied territory , not Annie.

        “Jews have always lived in Jerusalem, and always will. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/executed-arshid-hebron#comment-156176” jon s

        I am sure they will and should but no longer as supremacist oppressive perpetrators of land theft and ethnic cleansing.

        As to who is at fault , it certainly is the goi .Cause and effect.Get out of Palestine and you will be safe and there will be no more Mr Rothman,s to mourn.Decide to continue on the path you are on , then don,t come back here whining when the shtf.

      • Sibiriak
        October 28, 2015, 9:35 am

        amigo: You do realise that “all ” of Jerusalem is occupied.

        ————————-

        According to international law, affirmed by the ICJ in the “Wall” case, West Jerusalem is on the Israeli side of the “Green Line,” the dividing line between Israeli Territory and Occupied Palestinian Territory.

        The Court affirmed the General Assembly’s determinations in the resolution which requested the advisory opinion titled “Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory” it found that the construction of the wall was illegal because it was “in departure from the Armistice Line of 1949 (Green Line) and which has involved the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources […]. [emphasis added]

        Initially no more than a armistice line, the Green Line has evolved into an internationally recognized provisional border between Israeli and Palestinian territory which is to be the basis for a final settlement and permanent border. West Jerusalem is in Israeli territory; East Jerusalem is in Occupied Palestinian Territory.

        The PLO has recognized the Green Line border:

        The June 4, 1967 border, also known as green line, is the internationally recognized border between the occupied Palestinian territory (i.e. West Bank, including East Jerusalem , and Gaza Strip) and the State of Israel. The occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) represents an area equivalent to 22 percent of historic Palestine. The boundaries of the oPt were established through the signing of armistice agreements between Egypt and Jordan on the one hand, and Israel, on the other, following the war of 1948, and the subsequent creation of the State of Israel on 78 percent of historic Palestine.

        […]The borders of the Palestinian state, based on the 1967 lines, incorporate the West Bank, including East Jerusalem , and Gaza as per the 1949 armistice agreements. In the interest of peace, Palestinians may agree to changes to the 1967 based on mutually-agreed, minor territorial exchanges of equal size and value. [emphasis added]

        ———————

        Although some MW posters claim that “occupied Palestinian territory” includes any Israeli-controlled territory outside the borders originally envisioned in UN resolution 181 , or even more radically, includes all the territory of Israel itself, those views are not in accordance with international law and the international political consensus.

      • echinococcus
        October 28, 2015, 9:42 am

        John S,
        It’s understandable that you guys have to make a living and every little bit helps –especially the little stipend you are doubtless getting from the Prime Minister’s office, or the Propaganda and Diaspora Ministry, or the ha-sebara foundation, etc.
        But really, how useful can you be in that job if you must pretend for months on end not to hear or not to have to address a statement as simple as “it is a war crime for an occupying power to settle its own citizens in occupied territory”? One predicate, one subject, one verb.
        The appearance of a moron pretending to be a teacher cannot help your propaganda efforts; you should change your persona every week or more often.

      • talknic
        October 28, 2015, 10:12 am

        jon s “, Mr. Rothmam, along with the four other rabbis who were murdered in that gruesome terrorist attack were living in Har Nof, in West Jerusalem”

        Go moan to the Israeli Government for PURPOSEFULLY encouraging them to break GC IV.

        “Are you saying that Jews souldn’t live anywhere in Jerusalem? “

        Oh give it up pal. UNSC resolutions reaffirm and emphasize GC IV re the citizens of “Israel, the Occupying Power”.

        “Israel, the Occupying Power” has 20% non-Jewish civilians who’re also prohibited from illegally settling in Occupied Territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

        “The five men were at their morning prayers, their tefillin, prayer shawls and prayer books soaked in their blood”

        … and encouraged to be illegally in Occupied Territories by the stupid stupid Israeli Government, purposefully endangering its civilian citizens

        “A brave Druze policeman, first on the scene, was also murdered”

        An Israeli policeman. Armed Israelis in Occupied Territory are valid military targets in Occupied Territories

        “Jews have always lived in Jerusalem, and always will”

        Israelis have not always lived in Jerusalem and Israelis are there illegally now.

        “The innocent victims are not to blame”

        That’s right. Successive Israeli Governments are

        ” Nor is the government in this case”

        ‘scuse me, but the Government of the Occupying Power, Israel, is supposed to keep Israeli civilians OUT of Occupied Territories because Israeli citizens might become embroiled in acts of violence as a consequence of occupying another people and their territory, especially when the Occupying Power is claiming non-Israeli territory as its own instead of protecting the territories and properties of the occupied

        “The blame goes to the bloodthirsty terrorists who carried out the attack”

        I what turned them into terrorists? Nothing to do with being under occupation all their lives I guess? Nothing to do with having Israeli civilians illegally living “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” for 67 years? Of course not, it’s because they hate Jews, for no reason what so ever … right?

        C’mon folks, let’s all go over and take jon s’s home, kick him and is family out, he won’t mind at all, he’ll hate us tho for being … oh … right …. quite a few here are … er … Jews

      • talknic
        October 28, 2015, 10:19 am

        Sibiriak “Initially no more than a armistice line, the Green Line has evolved into an internationally recognized provisional border between Israeli and Palestinian territory which is to be the basis for a final settlement and permanent border.”

        Uh huh. So there is no final settlement yet. Until a final settlement Israel’s de jure borders are the same as they were when they were proclaimed in the Israeli Government’s plea for recognition, effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

        Israel as been driving the car for 67 years without a license

      • Sibiriak
        October 28, 2015, 10:30 am

        talknic : So there is no final settlement yet
        ———–

        I did not say there was. Nor did I say that the Green line was a final, permanent border.

        The fact remains that under international law, the “Green Line” is the dividing line between “Israeli Territory” and “Occupied Palestinian Territory”. That has been affirmed in numerous UN resolutions and in the ICJ Wall case. East Jerusalem is in OPT; West Jerusalem is not. The ICJ opinion I quoted affirms that unequivocally.

        Can you quote me a single UN document or Court opinion that says otherwise–i.e. that says the dividing line between Israeli territory and “Occupied Palestinian Territory” is something other than the Green Line?

        Thanks, I’ll wait.

        (Note also: The PLO has recognized the Green Line as the border between the State of Palestine and the State of Israel– and it has done so prior to and independent of any negotiated settlement.)

      • Mooser
        October 28, 2015, 11:31 am

        “Jon s” I’m sorry about being so direct, but could you please stop pimping Judaism! Haven’t you got a sister or something?
        Reminds me of a joke:

        Judge: How does the accused plead?
        Accused: Guilty, but Jewish, Your Honor.
        Judge: (Bang!) Case dismissed!

        Is that the way it’s supposed to work?

      • amigo
        October 28, 2015, 1:17 pm

        Sibiriak, why are there no foreign embassies in Jerusalem if it is as you claim the capital of and in Israel.

        Not one nation except maybe micronesia recognise Jerusalem or any part of it as being part of Israel.That is still a zionists wet dream.

        Didn,t two US citizens born in Jerusalem , just lose their case in the US in which they tried to get the right to put their place of birth as Israel.

        “U.S. Court Invalidates Law That Let Jerusalem-born Citizens List Israel on Passports

        http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.660260

        I still stand on my claim.

      • eljay
        October 28, 2015, 1:20 pm

        || YoniFalic @ October 28, 2015, 7:36 am ||

        An excellent post. Thanks!

        … R. Simon b. Shetaḥ said to them, “I bought a donkey, I did not buy a precious stone.” He went and returned the stone to the Ishmaelite, who said to him, “Blessed be the God of Simon b. Shetaḥ”.

        The thing with Zio-supremacists like jon s is that they stole both the stone and the donkey and they will do their utmost to keep as much as possible of their ill-gotten gains. In exchange, they will offer “peace”.

      • oldgeezer
        October 28, 2015, 1:48 pm

        @eljay/Yoni

        The real problem with ziosupremacists is not just that they intend to do everything to keep the donkey and stone but they are also eyeing the donkeys stall, as well as the mountains where the stone was MI ed and claiming them as their own. The stall in particular is the donkeys home.

        The real problem is that there has been no tangible boundaries for what they covet and wish to steal from the lawful inhabitants. They could be living in peace by now but prefer war and death.

      • echinococcus
        October 28, 2015, 6:22 pm

        Sibiriak

        I’d be interested in any UN document that gives it the right to partition Palestine at all, against their own Charter, let alone anything that could be produced (it cannot) in acceptation of the armistice line as definitive borders.

      • RoHa
        October 28, 2015, 6:46 pm

        “Jews have always lived in Jerusalem, and always will.”

        Always? That is, as the Devil said, a sod of a long time.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 28, 2015, 7:13 pm

        RoHa, jon launched into this strawman w/a completely non related “do you beat your wife” question and then he proceeds to argue my answer (which i never stated or implied) that he’s implied (i said) w/the strawman. and that’s where this little absurd declaration comes from. as if anyone could ever read the future anyway.

      • talknic
        October 28, 2015, 8:16 pm

        Sibiriak “The fact remains that under international law, the “Green Line” is the dividing line between “Israeli Territory” and “Occupied Palestinian Territory””

        Strange fact

        Here’s a real fact

        2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question. http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9EC4A332E2FF9A128525643D007702E6

        ” That has been affirmed in numerous UN resolutions and in the ICJ Wall case. East Jerusalem is in OPT; West Jerusalem is not. The ICJ opinion I quoted affirms that unequivocally.”

        A) Care to put up one or more of these alleged UN resolutions…. thx

        B) The IJC wasn’t asked to give an opinion on West Jerusalem

        “Can you quote me a single UN document or Court opinion that says otherwise–i.e. that says the dividing line between Israeli territory and “Occupied Palestinian Territory” is something other than the Green Line?

        The Armistice Agreements cited above

        “Thanks, I’ll wait”

        Not as long as I’ve waited for simple honest answers from Zionutters.

        “(Note also: The PLO has recognized the Green Line as the border between the State of Palestine and the State of Israel– and it has done so prior to and independent of any negotiated settlement.)”

        Amazing. But Israel has ignored it, so there’s been no negotiated settlement.

        Without a settlement, West Jerusalem, East Jerusalem and any territory illegally acquired by war by Israel since proclaiming its borders effective on May 15th 1948, are YET TO BECOME ISRAELI.

      • talknic
        October 28, 2015, 8:23 pm

        Sibiriak “Link for the PLO statement I quoted above:

        http://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/THE%20GREEN%20LINE%20IS%20A%20RED%20LINE,%20THE%201967%20BORDER%20AND%20THE%20TWO-STATE%20SOLUTION.pdf

        Marvelous. Now where’s the link to Israel agreeing to what the majority of the world’s nations have recognized?

      • Jon66
        October 28, 2015, 9:00 pm

        Talknic,
        If the PLO as the internationally recognized representatives of the Palestinians recognizes the Green line as the border between Israeli and non-Israeli territory then the areas within the Green line would seem to be undisputably Israeli. The PLO is not claiming any territory within the Green line as occupied. Their statements are not conditioned on Israeli acceptance.

      • Kris
        October 28, 2015, 9:29 pm

        We are discussing the extrajudicial assassination of 17-year-old Dania Ersheid by Israeli Jews. She was killed because she was a Palestinian, and the Israeli Jews covet Palestinian land and resources.

        The five rabbis were adults who had chosen to put themselves in danger by being part of an occupation and ethnic cleansing. They were killed because they were participating in a crime.

        jon s seems especially moved by the idea that the rabbis were praying:

        The five men were at their morning prayers, their tefillin, prayer shawls and prayer books soaked in their blood.

        Do Israeli Jews attack Palestinians who are praying?

        Eyewitnesses said the clashes erupted after Israeli soldiers attacked Palestinians praying outside Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site for Muslims.

        Israeli police fired stun bombs and tear gas at the worshippers, who responded by hurling stones, the witnesses said. http://al-aqsa-mosque.org/en/2/11/76/Soldiers-attack-Palestinians-praying-outside-Al-Aqsa-Mosque.htm#.VjFzS6SlrHY

      • Sibiriak
        October 28, 2015, 9:32 pm

        amigo: Sibiriak, why are there no foreign embassies in Jerusalem if it is as you claim the capital of and in Israel.
        —————

        Please be so kind as to read what I wrote. Nowhere did I claim that Jerusalem was in Israel or the capital of Israel. What I wrote was: the Green Line is recognized by international law and international political consensus as the dividing line between “Israeli territory” and “Occupied Palestinian Territory. ” East Jerusalem is in OPT, West Jerusalem is not, according to international law.

        I’m not saying that is fair or just; its simply a fact. And you are entitled ,of course, to reject the judgment of the UN, the ICJ, and the international community of states and say that in your judgment, contrary to the judgment of international law , the entirety of Jerusalem, East and West, is occupied Palestinian territory.

      • Sibiriak
        October 28, 2015, 10:02 pm

        amigo: Not one nation except maybe micronesia recognise Jerusalem or any part of it as being part of Israel.
        ———————–

        Israel claims that Jerusalem as a whole, undivided, is the capital of Israel. It is THAT claim which is rejected by international law and international political consensus.

        The PLO’s current position is that East Jerusalem, as defined by the pre-1967 municipal boundaries, shall be the capital of Palestine and West Jerusalem the capital of Israel, […]

        Some states, such as Russia[231] and China,[232] recognize the Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

        United Nations General Assembly Resolution 58/292 affirmed that the Palestinian people have the right to sovereignty over East Jerusalem. [emphasis added]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#Capital_of_Israel

        The point is: East Jerusalem is considered in international law and international political consensus as “Occupied Palestinian Territory”; West Jerusalem is not. There is virtually no controversy on that point.

      • echinococcus
        October 28, 2015, 10:39 pm

        Sibiriak,

        How is the PLO in any way representative of the Palestinian population (including the diaspora)?
        Has there been a general vote in the absence of armed pressure or threats?
        The post-1982 PLO often been characterized as a US-Israeli organ within the resistance. The Oslo disaster made it obvious to the whole world.
        In fact, the 1948 borders are not the real borders either according to the partition plan (see Talknic)
        And down the line from there, the partition borders are illegitimate anyway, the colonial powers ruling the UN not having rights over the sovereignty over Palestine that they could give away, as per their own Charter.

      • Jon66
        October 28, 2015, 10:55 pm

        Echi,
        If not the PLO, then who? It’s not that I am a fan, but the Arab League and the UN as well as the international community recognize them as such.

      • talknic
        October 29, 2015, 12:27 am

        @ echinococcus “the colonial powers ruling the UN not having rights over the sovereignty over Palestine that they could give away, as per their own Charter”

        HERE is what Balfour said.

        “The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant [of the League of Nations] and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation‘ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country though the American Commission is going through the form of asking what they are.”

        It is interesting to note he says “the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine, which indicates the intention of the Balfour declaration was not to have a separate Jewish ‘state’, but a homeland for Jewish folk IN Palestine, the peoples to be Palestinian citizens, under Palestinian Law. Where of course, under those circumstances, as citizens of Palestine, Jewish folk would have had the right to live anywhere in Palestine. HERE is what the British Mandate says, in particular Article 7:

        “ The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine. “

        Nationality Law was adopted in 1925. Palestine was a Nation State with provisional recognition.
        ——————–

        @ Jon66 “If the PLO as the internationally recognized representatives of the Palestinians recognizes the Green line as the border between Israeli and non-Israeli territory then the areas within the Green line would seem to be undisputably Israeli.”

        Uh huh. However, Israel has not yet agreed. So there is not yet an agreement between the two parties to the conflict. The Armistice AGREEMENTS require an ” ultimate settlement of the Palestine question” http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9EC4A332E2FF9A128525643D007702E6

        “Their statements are not conditioned on Israeli acceptance “

        The final agreement IS dependent on Israeli acceptance! Thus far Israel has not accepted a ultimate settlement or recognized Palestine.

        ———————
        @ Sibiriak “The point is: East Jerusalem is considered in international law and international political consensus as “Occupied Palestinian Territory”; West Jerusalem is not. There is virtually no controversy on that point”

        The Israeli Government itself said it was occupied.

        Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation 12 Aug 1948

        The confusion, purposefully promoted by Israeli propaganda, comes because there is no UN/UNSC statement on the matter and; there is no statement on the matter because the UN cannot censure non-Members and cannot censure Members retrospectively for their actions prior to Membership. A point Israel must have been aware of given their legions of legal advisers. Israel determined to take as much territory outside of its proclaimed borders of May 15th 1948 before applying for UN Membership.

        However, despite there being no UN/UNSC statement, International Law still applies.

        Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III

        “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

        Further to which, since at least 1933 it has been illegal for states to recognize territory acquired by any coercive measure . Consequently UNSC resolutions say e.g., ” It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war/force”

        Israel has never legally annexed ANY territories it has acquired by war. Nor has it reached any final agreement with Palestine. Which is why there are no foreign embassies to Israel in Jerusalem

      • echinococcus
        October 29, 2015, 2:22 am

        Jon666 – You made me laugh hard on an especially bad day, thank you. So that puppet “government” that can’t even order its own bowel movements “recognized” the so-called Green Line as border, did it? Wow, big, fat, hairy, deal.
        Reminds me of the declaration signed in much pomp and circumstance, present Goering and a long litany of highly decorated German generals by the even more medal-covered merry band of Pétain, Dargaud, Daladier, Weygand, etc.
        Remember, most of them on “both” sides were later hanged and some sentenced but left to die in bed. Some were shot before.

      • echinococcus
        October 29, 2015, 3:16 am

        Talknic,

        It figures of course, Balfour distributing Palestinian citizenships right and left, to armed invaders with declared intent of hostile takeover. Duh. He was among those who sent them there.

      • Jon66
        October 29, 2015, 8:18 am

        Echi,

        There may not be an Agreement, but the PLO and according to them the international community, have agreed that the Green line is the recognized border. In the decades since the armistice a consensus has developed. It may not be formalized in documents, but the PLO is no longer claiming to the territory inside the Green line.

      • Jon66
        October 29, 2015, 10:20 am

        Echi,

        If the PLO isn’t the other party to the negotiations, who is?
        Who should the Israelis negotiate with if not them?
        The PLO may be all of the things you say, but they are the recognized reps of the Palestinians.
        If there is ever to be an agreement then some organization must represent the Palestinians and this is the one we have now.

      • talknic
        October 29, 2015, 10:24 am

        @ Jon66 “There may not be an Agreement, but the PLO and according to them the international community, have agreed that the Green line is the recognized border”

        That’s right. Very generously giving Israel the major part of what remained of Palestine after Israel proclaimed its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

        Generously conceding to only 22% of their rightful territory so Israel can keep what it has acquired illegally by war since proclaiming its borders and agreeing to adhere to the UN Charter and International Law

        Meanwhile Israel has never offered anything. NOTHING! NADA! NOUGHT! ZIP! NIL! (oops I must have hit the caps key)
        Israel has only sought to take

        It seems to escape some folk that “Israel, the Occupying Power” hasn’t agreed in any treaty or recognition or in any manner as required by the instruments of International Law and/or the UN Charter, including the right to self determination inclusive of the Palestinians

        Israel had its opportunity to self determination at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) and whatever territory Israel has acquired by war since proclaiming its borders effective, is quite simply not Israeli until there is an agreement between the two parties

        You never know, it might not be enough for the Zionistas. It never seems to be

        After being given, completely gratis, more than enough territory for a homeland state for the entire Jewish population of the world today, the Zionist project demanded and took more

        Now the fat kid sitting like a frog in a pot of warming water, with their fat hand trapped in the cookie jar!

        If fatso doesn’t let go the cookies they can’t escape the pot and; fatso can’t afford to extract his greed governed fat hand by now adhering to the law.

        It’s been 67 years and the law says the fat kid must

        Let go the cookies
        End the occupation and withdraw from all non-Israeli territories
        No illegal settlers to sell non-Israeli land to
        No exploiting non-Israeli resources
        No rich over seas investors in the illegal settlement enterprise
        Reparations would be due for having exploited resources in occupied territories for 67 years
        Compensation for loss/dispossession/hardship
        Get the illegal settlers out and back to Israeli territory and re-house them
        Allow its non-Jewish Israeli citizens who were dispossessed, their rightful to return to Israel as that state was proclaimed and recognized in 1948.

        It is Israel must strike a plea bargain with Palestine or eventually face the above because without and AGREEMENT, International Law tells us none of the territories Israel has ever occupied, are yet Israeli.

        “In the decades since the armistice a consensus has developed. It may not be formalized in documents, but the PLO is no longer claiming to the territory inside the Green line”

        Hey there wake up! Israel hasn’t agreed! It has more than enough and it still wants more …

      • Jon66
        October 29, 2015, 6:58 pm

        Talknic,

        There doesn’t need to be a document for both sides to have agreed on something. If the PLO drops claims to Israel within the Green line then why does there need to be a formal agreement? You seem fixated on the idea that only with a co-signed agreement does the issue of the Green line get resolved, but if the PLO has dropped its claims and agreed to recognize Israel isn’t that an acknowledgement of the status of the territory within the Green line?
        A written agreement is not required if both parties agree to the status of the territory in question.

        I know you have read the Israel-Egypt peace treaty. Yes, peace was conditional upon withdrawal, but the peace agreement was signed before the withdrawal. In your scenario, Israel would have withdrawn from Egyptian territory and then negotiated a treaty. The order was treaty, peace, then withdrawal. Are you saying the order should be withdraw, treaty, then peace? Israel is under no obligation to withdraw until a peace treaty is signed.

      • Chu
        October 30, 2015, 9:53 am

        “@jon s has no such excuse because he emigrated from the USA to live on stolen land in a stolen country. ”

        Great point Yoni. Why do so many of these hypocrites even exist? Not that Jon would ever give a straight answer as to why he would behaves one way in the US, but actively supports and covers for the criminal state’s actions. And it’s not only Jon, there are plenty of these slippery characters who have no ——Integrity— when it comes their support for Israel. It’s truly disgusting, but why are there so many of them and why is this so common?

      • YoniFalic
        October 30, 2015, 10:45 am

        Something I learned since coming to the USA. Flipping stolen Palestinian real estate seems to be a lucrative business.

    • Elliot
      October 28, 2015, 8:53 pm

      Jon S.
      Why do you introduce this tragedy on this thread? You are berating us for talking about the murder of Dania Ersheid and apperently not noticing not about Chaim Yechiel Rothman. Of course, they are both terrible tragedies and murder is murder.
      Have you got nothing to say about your country’s soldiers committing these serial murders wearing your military’s uniform? Next to no condemnation by the country’s leadership. No accountability for state murder. The government is sanctioning the random murder of its occupied subjects. And the troops are hearing their leaders loud and clear.
      Murder more Arabs. We’ve got your back.
      What has that got to do with Mr. Rothman’s death?

      • echinococcus
        October 28, 2015, 10:29 pm

        “murder is murder”? It’s not so clear. Without those Americans (and some others) and the likes of them, i.e. Rothman and Lavin and whatstheirname, and of course John S, the Zionist entity would not have been able to rob, expel, enslave and murder the Palestinians, owners of the land and sovereignty of all Palestine.
        Without foot soldiers ready to break the law, there would be no international crimes.

      • jon s
        October 29, 2015, 7:00 am

        Are the moderators on Mondoweiss asleep?
        YoniFalic calls Judaism “silly and repugnant”. Would any such description of any other faith be tolerated here? Not Zionism, not Israel, it’s the Jewish thing, after all.

        And then he goes on to “both jon s and Hitler…”

        Really? jon s and Hitler?

        How about “both YoniFalic and Hitler saw Judaism as repugnant…”

      • jon s
        October 29, 2015, 7:08 am

        amigo,
        Where did you get the idea that I live illegally in occupied territory?
        I’ve been an opponent of the settlements in occupied territory since their inception, how could I be living in one?
        (Unless you regard the entire territory of Israel as such…)

      • eljay
        October 29, 2015, 7:18 am

        || jon s: Are the moderators on Mondoweiss asleep? YoniFalic calls Judaism “silly and repugnant”. … ||

        1. I couldn’t find a section in the “Comments Policy” that forbids criticism of a religion. Please quote or provide a link to it.

        2. Why do you believe that YoniFalic should not be able to criticize a religion with which he has had personal experience?

        || … And then he goes on to “both jon s and Hitler…” Really? jon s and Hitler? How about “both YoniFalic and Hitler saw Judaism as repugnant…” ||

        Dunno about YoniFalic, but there is ample documented evidence that you – like Hitler – believe in, engage in, justify, excuse, support and/or advocate injustice, immorality and supremacism.

      • eljay
        October 29, 2015, 7:29 am

        || jon s: amigo, Where did you get the idea that I live illegally in occupied territory? … ||

        You live in a town located outside of Israel’s (Partition) borders. But you already know this because it’s been mentioned numerous times.

        I guess this is what a fit of Ziocaine-induced amnesia looks like…

      • Sibiriak
        October 29, 2015, 8:58 am

        eljay: || jon s: amigo, Where did you get the idea that I live illegally in occupied territory? … ||

        You live in a town located outside of Israel’s (Partition) borders. But you already know this because it’s been mentioned numerous times.
        —————————-

        Like it or not, just or not, it is perfectly legal for Israeli citizens to live outside the “partition borders”, as long as they are within the “Green Line”.

        You can easily find multiple UN resolutions and statements by ICJ judges asserting that Israeli settlement past the Green Line is illegal. You will not find a single UN resolution or ICJ statement that asserts that Israeli settlement outside “partition borders” but inside the Green Line is illegal.

        You may consider that unjust, but that’s the reality as far as international law is concerned.

      • Kris
        October 29, 2015, 11:07 am

        @jon s: “amigo–Where did you get the idea that I live illegally in occupied territory?”

        Actually, you told us, jon s. You said you live in Beersheba (Be’er Sheva), and then there was an interesting discussion about how Beersheba was stolen from the Palestinian inhabitants.

        Here’s one of talknic’s excellent comments from that discussion:

        jon s February 25, 2011 at 5:33 am: “Right, Beer Sheva was not included in the proposed boundaries of the Jewish State according to the original 1947 UN partition plan. But that plan was rejected by the Arab side”

        Irrelevant.
        1) The plan WAS ACCEPTED by the Zionist Federation. It was used as the basis for the Jewish People’s Council’s Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, who enshrined it in the declaration. It is STILL enshrined in the Declaration.

        2) Israel was declared and recognized by the majority of the International Community of Nations/States according to the Israeli Government statement of 15th May 1948 “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947”

        3) Israel CONFIRMED the extent of it’s sovereignty on the 22nd May 1948 in a statement to the UNSC as “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947”

        4) Israel was accepted into the United Nations “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947”.

        5) The Israeli Government CONFIRMED the extent of it’s Sovereignty in a statement to the UNSC on the 15th June 1949 as “… within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947”

        6) All the above occurred BEFORE Israel claimed any territories outside of the extent of it’s accepted, declared, recognized and CONFIRMED borders.

        Furthermore, UNGA Res 181 was a non-binding resolution. Neither party was obliged to accept it. Neither party had to co-sign in order that either party declare. Neither party was prevented from declaring by the other party not accepting the resolution.

        “the Arab side which started a war to prevent its implementation, by force”

        The preemptive Plan Dalet escalated the civil war pre-May 15th 1948. “at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” the civil war became a war waged by the State of Israel on what remained of Palestine. The Arab States, as Regional Powers and as representatives of the remainder of Palestine, had a right to attempt to expel foreign forces from the territory of their ward under the UN Charter Chapter XI. Which is why there is no UNSC Resolution condemning the Arab States Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine.

        ” So those boundaries are dead, killed by the Arab side”

        They were CONFIRMED by the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT. AFTER the state was declared by them, AFTER the state was recognized by them, after the State was accepted into the UN.

        “You can’t reject a plan…”

        Non-binding, not obligatory. They could and did reject the plan and in doing so registered the legal basis of their argument since. That of Persistent Objection.

        Israel on the other hand ACCEPTED and CONFIRMED it’s borders and the extent of Israeli Sovereignty was recognized by it’s announced borders. It has no claim to Persistent Objection that it’s borders weren’t delineated because the Arab States failed to accept UNGA Res 181. (not that it would be a valid argument anyway)

        “…start a war…”

        Preemptive wars are started by the preemptor.

        “…lose the war…”

        Uh? The Arabs states lost what in the ’48/’50 war? They prevented Israel from taking all of post Mandate, post Israeli declaration, Palestine. They held the Gaza Strip. They held what became the West Bank.

        “….and then revert to the plan”

        Uh? Under the law and the UN Charter there is no obligation for any state or entity to recognize any other state or entity. Numerous UN Member States do not recognize each other. They are never the less required to respect the law and the UN Charter. Whether the Arab States have recognized Israel or not, they are obliged to have “respect for and acknowledgement of 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” This isn’t reverting to the plan, it’s adhering to the law.

        So tell us, what actual sovereign Israeli territory have the Arab States violated? Why is there no UNSC resolution condemning the Arab States for any alleged violation of Israeli Sovereignty?

        “…It doesn’t work that way…”

        Wrong on two counts. A) The Arab states did not ‘start a war’, did not ‘lose the war’, have not ‘reverted to the plan’ B) Even had they started a war, it is still inadmissible for Israel or any other entity to ‘acquire’ territory by war. ANY WAR. ‘acquiring’ is obtaining something not previously sovereign to an entity. One may ‘restore’ one’s sovereign territory by war. No sovereign Israeli territory has ever been taken in order for Israel to have to ‘restore’ it.

        “It’s like bringing up GA resolution 194 to support the “right of return”.

        RoR exists beyond UNGA Res 194. Res 194, although non-binding, cites obligations under the Law, the UN Charter and the Conventions, which ARE binding.
        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2011/02/israel-destroys-hundreds-of-west-bank-olive-trees-to-lay-settlement-water-line#comment-285322

      • echinococcus
        October 29, 2015, 2:10 pm

        Where do we get the idea that you live illegally in occupied territory?

        You’re an American Zionist in Palestine. That’s enough.

        And religion is extremely repugnant to some people. Yours personally is one of invasion, theft and genocide.

      • Mooser
        October 29, 2015, 4:26 pm

        ” jon s: Are the moderators on Mondoweiss asleep? YoniFalic” ‘scares me to death! He’s lived in Israel, and is prepared to tell the plain truth about it Moderators, please stop him!’

      • Mooser
        October 29, 2015, 4:40 pm

        “Like it or not, just or not, it is perfectly legal for Israeli citizens to live legally outside the “partition borders”, as long as they are within the “Green Line”.

        And have acquired their property legal and have clear title to it.

        It may be legal to ‘live’ there or be there. I doubt it’s legal to steal land there, or assault the residents.

      • Mooser
        October 29, 2015, 4:58 pm

        “Are the moderators on Mondoweiss asleep?
        YoniFalic calls Judaism “silly and repugnant”. Would any such description of any other faith be tolerated here? “

        “Jon s” the “Hectoring Archaeologists” thread is still open, last time I looked.

      • amigo
        October 29, 2015, 6:02 pm

        “You can easily find multiple UN resolutions and statements by ICJ judges asserting that Israeli settlement past the Green Line is illegal. You will not find a single UN resolution or ICJ statement that asserts that Israeli settlement outside “partition borders” but inside the Green Line is illegal. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/executed-arshid-hebron#comment-156176“Sibiriak

        I can equally find UNSCRS and statements by the ICJ stating that Israel is in contravention of multiple Laws of war and human rights laws.Do you wok so diligently to get Israel to adhere to those laws.

        In any event , as Talknic says , Israel has never legally annexed any territory outside it,s self declared borders, ergo it is there illegally .

      • talknic
        October 29, 2015, 6:31 pm

        @ Sibiriak ” it is perfectly legal for Israeli citizens to live outside the “partition borders”, as long as they are within the “Green Line””

        When did Israel legally annex any territories beyond its self proclaimed borders of May 15th 1948? Why hasn’t any state recognized any territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” as Israeli?

        “You will not find a single UN resolution or ICJ statement that asserts that Israeli settlement outside “partition borders” but inside the Green Line is illegal”

        Correct. Because the UN cannot censure non-members for their actions nor can it censure Members retrospectively for their actions before becoming Members. The ICJ meanwhile has not been asked for an opinion on that matter.

        ” that’s the reality as far as international law is concerned”

        The reality is International Law says there must be an agreement. There is no agreement. Israel has not legally annexed any territory it has acquired by war since proclaiming its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time).

      • Jon66
        October 29, 2015, 7:32 pm

        Amigo,
        “In any event , as Talknic says , Israel has never legally annexed any territory outside it,s self declared borders, ergo it is there illega – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/executed-arshid-hebron?replytocom=806333#respond

        I don’t agree that anything that is not legal is therefore illegal. In fact, I think it is the opposite. Anything which is not illegal is legal.

      • Sibiriak
        October 29, 2015, 10:18 pm

        amigo: [Sibiriak:]“…You will not find a single UN resolution or ICJ statement that asserts that Israeli settlement outside “partition borders” but inside the Green Line is illegal.

        [amigo]: I can equally find UNSCRS and statements by the ICJ stating that Israel is in contravention of multiple Laws of war and human rights laws.Do you wok so diligently to get Israel to adhere to those laws.
        —————————–

        I support BDS. The first of three BDS goals is to get Israel to

        [End] its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and [dismantle] the Wall.

        http://www.bdsmovement.net/bdsintro

        Please note the critical phrase “occupied in June 1967”. That excludes West Jersualem an all the territory outside “partition lines” but within the Green Line .

        That BDS goal is in line with international law which holds that the Green Line is the dividing line between “Israeli territory” and “Occupied Palestinian territory”.

        “The BDS call was endorsed by over 170 Palestinian political parties, organizations, trade unions and movements. The signatories represent the refugees, Palestinians in the OPT, and Palestinian citizens of Israel.” http://www.bdsmovement.net/bdsintro

        The BDS goal to end the occupation of Arab lands occupied in 1967 is also supported by the PLO, the Arab League, and the vast majority UN member states. The U.S. and Israel stand virtually alone against this legal and political consensus.

        You and others, however, in contradiction to international law and international consensus, would apparently like to change the first BDS goal to ending the Israeli occupation “of all Arab lands outside Israel’s ‘partition borders’ established by UN res 181.”

        You have the right to express that opinion, of course, but the burden is on you to demonstrate how such a change is going to increase the power and effectiveness of BDS and/or the Palestinian cause in general.

        If you reject international law regarding the definition of occupied Palestinian territory, it makes it to hard to appeal to international law on other issues.

        For example, the third goal of BDS calls for “Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

        It would be very difficult for BDS to appeal to the binding legal authority of UN res 194 while at the same time rejecting the binding legal authority of a host of other UN resolutions that define “Occupied Palestinian Territory” in reference to the Green Line, NOT “partition borders”.

      • Sibiriak
        October 29, 2015, 10:44 pm

        amigo: In any event , as Talknic says , Israel has never legally annexed any territory outside it,s self declared borders, ergo it is there illegally .

        ————————-

        I hate to break it to you, but Talknic’s opinion is just that, an opinion. One of many. As much as I love Talknic and admire his tireless defense of Palestinian rights, the fact remains that his opinions have zero binding legal authority.

        What does have authority is UN resolutions and international court rulings.

        And multiple UN resolutions and ICJ statements affirm that “Occupied Palestinian Territory” refers to territory on the Palestinian side of the “Green Line” –not “partition borders” as Talknic insists.

        Multiple UN resolutions and ICJ statements define ONLY settlements across the Green Line” as illegal. There are ZERO UN resolutions or ICJ statements that define Israeli settlement within the Green Line but outside “partition borders” as illegal.

        I will quote some of those UN resolutions and ICJ statements in a separate post.

      • Sibiriak
        October 30, 2015, 12:49 am

        talknic: [Sibiriak:] You will not find a single UN resolution or ICJ statement that asserts that Israeli settlement outside “partition borders” but inside the Green Line is illegal”

        Correct. Because the UN cannot censure non-members for their actions nor can it censure Members retrospectively for their actions before becoming Members. The ICJ meanwhile has not been asked for an opinion on that matter.

        ———————
        Misleading or wrong on both counts. I will explain in several posts.

        First of all, regarding the powers of the UN regarding non-members:

        1) It’s not clear that the UN cannot censure non-members. Can you substantiate that assertion?

        2) I used the word “asserts”, not “censures.” There is nothing that prevents the UN from making an assertion or the ICJ expressing an opinion about the actions of a non-member.

        For example, consider the UN resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6 May 2004, 58/292, ” Status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”:

        ———————

        The General Assembly,

        Recalling its resolutions 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, 43/177 of 15 December 1988 and 52/250 of 7 July 1998,

        Recalling also Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002 and 1515 (2003) of 19 November 2003,

        Recalling further the relevant provisions of international law, as well as relevant United Nations resolutions, with regard to Israeli settlements and to Occupied East Jerusalem ,

        Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

        Noting that Palestine, in its capacity as observer and pending its attainment of full membership in the United Nations, does not present credentials to the General Assembly,

        Affirming the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise sovereignty and to achieve independence in their State, Palestine,

        1. Affirms that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation, and affirms, in accordance with the rules and principles of international law and relevant resolutions of the United Nations, including Security Council resolutions, that the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory and that Israel, the occupying Power, has only the duties and obligations of an occupying Power under the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 and the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, of 1907;

        2. Expresses its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a just and comprehensive negotiated peace settlement in the Middle East resulting in two viable, sovereign and independent States, Israel and Palestine, based on the pre 1967 borders and living side by side in peace and security. [emphasis added]

        —————–

        There is nothing that prevented the UN from affirming that ” Palestinian territory occupied outside the partition borders defined by UN res181 , including West Jerusalem , remains one of military occupation.” .

        The UN could have done that, following the talnic opinion, but they chose not to. They excluded West Jerusalem/ territory between partition lines and the Green Line from the definition of Occupied Palestinian Territory.

        Furthermore, there was nothing that prevented the UN from applying the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force to the territory between partition lines and the Green Line.

        The UN could have done that, following the talknic opinion, but they chose not to. That principle was applied only to the Palestinian territory across the Green Line, including East Jerusalem–but not West Jerusalem.

        You can argue that the 2004 UN resolution and all the previous ones cited are in fact wrong-headed and unjust, but the fact remains, those resolutions passed and represent the judgment of the UN.

        Likewise the ICJ determined that the construction of the wall was illegal because it was “in departure from the Armistice Line of 1949 (Green Line) and which has involved the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources …[emphasis added]

        There is nothing that prevented the ICJ from expressing the opinion that the wall was illegal because it was “in departure of the partition borders established by UN res 181.

        The ICJ could have done that, but they choose not to. The Court reaffirmed the UN’s definition of Occupied Palestinian Territory as territory across the 1949 Green Line; they did not adopt the talknic definition.

      • Sibiriak
        October 30, 2015, 10:23 am

        talknic: the UN cannot censure non-members for their actions nor can it censure Members retrospectively for their actions before becoming Members.
        ———————
        While I await your evidence for the above assertion, I offer the following analysis from Benedetto Conforti “ The Law and Practice of the United Nations,” 2005 Third Revised Edition, pp.126-129

        I find no mention of a prohibition on censure of non-members. On the contrary, the author outlines quite a number of actions the UN General Assembly and Security Council can take in relation to non-members.

        ————————–
        “[The problem of the relations between the United Nations and non-Member States which was strongly felt particularly in the early years of the post-war period] still deserves some observations. This is because it may occur that a newly formed State goes through a period of time while waiting to be admitted and in the meantime there is the problem of its relations with the United Nations. Such event occurred, for instance, in the case of the Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia-Montenegro) which was admitted to the United Nations (see § 18) in November 2000, but ceased to have formal links with the former Yugoslavia in September 1992.

        […] para. 6 of Article 2 [of the Charter] provides: “The Organization shall ensure that states that are not members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security”.

        What are the kinds of pressure that the United Nations may use with regard to a third State in order to reach the aim set in Article 2, para. 6? As the provision is silent on the matter, the answer must be found in the specific rules of the Charter on the powers of the organs, especially of the General Assembly and of the Security Council, concerning maintenance of the peace.

        Article 2, para. 6, must be linked, first of all, to the use of those kinds of pressure that have no mandatory effect. Both the General Assembly and the Council have the power to make recommendations to the States, that is, resolutions that do not bind the States (see § 89)).

        Worthy of mention from this point of view are the provisions of Article 11, para. 2 (“The General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security… and… may make recommendations with regard to any such questions to the State or States concerned”) and the various provisions of Chapter VI, particularly Article 33, para. 2, Article 36, and Article 37, para. 2, which give the Security Council the power to recommend settlement of disputes likely to endanger the peace.

        All the provisions cited, in indicating the addressees of the recommendations with expressions such as “States concerned” or “parties to a dispute” and thereby avoiding, unlike a number of other provisions, reference to only the Member States, clearly intend to apply also to third States.

        […]Article 2, para. 6, must then be connected to Chapter VII of the Charter, specifically with regard to Articles 39, 4l, and 42 which authorise the Security Council, for purposes of maintenance of the peace, to take enforcement measures against States. Under the procedures governed by these articles, the Council shall “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression” (Article 39).

        Then, it may order the so-called measures not involving the use of armed force, such as interruption of economic relations by the UN Member States with the country responsible for the threat or aggression (Article 41), or undertake military action, if it believes that the measures not involving the use of armed force are or have proved to be inadequate (Article 42).

        Also the provisions of Articles 39, 41 and 42 are formulated in such a way as to be interpreted in the sense that any country, member or non-Member, may be the object of enforcement measures. .

        […]In authorising the United Nations to take action with regard to countries outside the Organization, it does not seem that Article 2, para. 6, or, rather, the various provisions of the Charter which have been cited here, involve a serious departure from customary international law, particularly from the rule that treaties cannot create obligations for third States.

        A departure of this kind cannot be seen in the power of the Assembly and the Security Council to address recommendations to third parties, since they are acts that, by definition, are not binding on the addressees.

        No issue arises, then, if the Council addresses recommendations to a non-Member State. Nor is the conclusion different with regard to enforcement measures that the Council may adopt against a State on the basis of Chapter VII of the Charter.”

        […] hardly ever in practice have non-Member States (or their supporters in the United Nations) raised the objection of non-membership whenever the Council or the Assembly have made them the object of measures such as those governed by Chapter VII. “

      • amigo
        October 30, 2015, 11:31 am

        “’ive been an opponent of the settlements in occupied territory since their inception, how could I be living in one?
        (Unless you regard the entire territory of Israel as such…) – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/executed-arshid-hebron#comment-806159

        Ah , I get it. Youv,e got your share of the booty so the hell with anyone else.Where is that tribal unity.

        Let,s be honest Jon S , you are still a thief living on someone else,s property knowing that person , (probably a family with children and a dog and a cat) has been removed by force to make room for you.How do you look in the mirror.

        You disgust me.

        Let,s be honest Jon

      • Mooser
        October 30, 2015, 11:52 am

        “I don’t agree that anything that is not legal is therefore illegal. In fact, I think it is the opposite. Anything which is not illegal is legal”

        Yeah, you and Aleister Crowley.

        I’m sorry, but dude, you are really stupid. You make sure to live your life along those lines, it’ll work out great for you.

        Whether what you are accused of doing is illegal or not is a decision you will always get to make before being prosecuted. You just count on that.

        And if that doesn’t work, Aleister and Ayn will swoop in and rescue you.

      • Jon66
        October 30, 2015, 1:44 pm

        Mooser,
        ““I don’t agree that anything that is not legal is therefore illegal. In fact, I think it is the opposite. Anything which is not illegal is legal”

        Yeah, you and Aleister Crowley.

        I’m sorry, but dude, you are really stupid. You make sure to live your life along those lines, it’ll work out great for you.

        Whether what you are accused of doing is illegal or not is a decision you will always get to make before being prosecuted. You just count on that.

        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/executed-arshid-hebron#sthash.ZjxjAH0A.dpuf

        It’s a scary world you want to live in. One in which every action we take has to be checked to see if it’s permitted or prohibited. I would guess that most of us live this way. We assume that if we haven’t committed illegal acts than our actions are legal. It would have to be quite a law book to list all of the legal and illegal things we can or cannot do. do you really consult such references before deciding if something is allowed.

      • Jon66
        October 30, 2015, 2:03 pm

        Mooser

        “Nulla poena sine lege (Latin: no penalty without a law) is a legal principle, requiring that one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law. This principle is accepted and codified in modern democratic states as a basic requirement of the rule of law.”https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nulla_poena_sine_lege

        I don’t think this principle is particularly controversial in Western democracies. I’m not sure why you object to it other than because I said it.

      • Sibiriak
        October 30, 2015, 10:07 pm

        talknic: The reality is International Law says there must be an agreement. There is no agreement. Israel has not legally annexed any territory it has acquired by war.

        ———————-
        You are overlooking several important facts.

        1) Just because the Green Line (pre-1967 border) is not a permanent border between Israeli territory and Palestinian territory fixed in an agreement, that does not mean it is not a provisional border between Israeli territory and Occupied Palestinian territory–with all the legal implications such a provisional border entails.

        Hostage expressed this very forcibly:

        Israel’s claims to East Jerusalem and the settlement blocks in the OPT that “Israel will retain under any conceivable settlement” are illegal nonsense, but the claims of the parties concerned to the territory occupied in accordance with the armistice agreements are unchallengeable.”

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/48-is-beginning-to-replace-67-in-discourse-even-at-uva#sthash.VAXLddhP.dpuf

        Hostage explains clearly how the 1949 Armistice lines evolved into provisional borders between Israeli territory and Occupied Palestinian Territory.

        [Jonah: ]Correction: the 1967 armistice lines do not constitute permament borders

        Jonah I think you are trying to put words in my mouth. We’ve been over this before.

        *The armistice lines were adopted under the terms of Articles 39 and 40, Chapter 7 of the UN Charter 62 years ago.

        *In UN SC Res. 62, the Security Council ordered “The delineation of permanent armistice demarcation lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective parties shall not move;

        *UN SC Res. 73 reaffirmed that pending a final settlement the parties were to ensure the continued application and observance of the agreements.

        *UN General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) declared that every State 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.

        *Permanent armistice lines are considered borders. See for example the Tripartite Declaration Regarding the Armistice Borders: Statement by the Governments of the United States, The United Kingdom, and France, May 25, 1950″

        *General Assembly resolution, A/RES/58/292, 17 May 2004 affirms
        the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise sovereignty and to achieve independence in their State, Palestine; the rights to their territory; and the General Assembly’s determination to achieve a settlement based upon “the pre-1967 borders”.

        *The verbatim record of the General Assembly discussion of the resolution indicates the words “pre-1967 borders” had replaced the words “Armistice Line of 1949” in the draft resolution. See A/58/PV.87 [emphasis added]

        The Green Line provisional border a divides off Israeli territory wherein Israel can legally exercise full sovereignty, applying Israeli law with full civil jurisdiction where the Israeli government, legal institutions, the legislatures, police and security forces etc. can operate legally and unchallenged. In this Israeli territory–including the territory gained in the 1948-9 war, Israeli citizens can legally live, work, buy or rent property and exercise the full range of their civil rights.

        On the other side of the Green line is Occupied Palestinian territory. There Israel is an Occupying Power, not the legally sovereign government. It is Palestinian territory. Israeli settlements there are illegal. Israelis citizens do not have the right to live, work, buy property etc. there.

        Surely, you can see that the legal status of the territories divided by the Green Line are totally different. If follows that the legal status of the territory outside Israel’s “partition borders” but inside the Green Line is totally different than that of territory across the Green Line.

        This does not mean that the Green Line is a permanent final border, but it does mean that until an agreement is reached is the legally recognized provisional border between Israeli territory and Occupied Palestinian territory.

        Given all that, it seems that you have things backwards. According to UN resolutions, ICJ opinions, and the international consensus, a final agreement is not the basis for establishing 1967 borders; 1967 borders are the basis for establishing a final agreement.

        ————————-

        2) You are overlooking the fact that from the standpoint of international law , the territory Israel gained through war in 1947-9 arguably has a different legal status than the territory Israel gained through war in 1967.

        Again, Hostage states this very clearly:

        […]The Plan of Partition for the two states was only one of the many chapters in the recommended “Plan for the Future Government Of Palestine”, UN GA resolution 181(II). It was never implemented due to the non-international armed conflict in Palestine. Israel was created by its own act of secession during a civil war, so international law was largely inapplicable. [emphasis added]

        Of course, from a political and human viewpoint, Israel’s acquisition of territory through violence in 1947-9 and in 1967 were in both cases acts of land theft and ethnic cleansing which laid the foundations of today’s Apartheid state of Israel.

        But because, as Hostage put it, “international law was largely inapplicable” to Israel’s 1947-9 land grabs, the UN and ICJ were able make the Green Line– not partition borders–the internationally recognized provisional border between Israeli territory and Occupied Palestinian Territory.

        Whether or not that legal reasoning is sound, the fact remains that it has been adopted by the UN/ICJ. True, there remains the possibility that the UN and/or ICJ may reverse itself sometime in the future, but until that happens, the current interpretation of the Green Line remains deeply entrenched in international law.

      • Sibiriak
        November 2, 2015, 3:46 am

        talknic: the UN cannot censure non-members for their actions nor can it censure Members retrospectively for their actions before becoming Members.
        ———–

        For the second time I ask: do you have any evidence to back up that assertion? I certainly would like to see it.

        I quoted Benedetto Conforti’s “ The Law and Practice of the United Nations ” as evidence that there isn’t any such prohibition on censure, let alone opinions or recommendations regarding non-members.

        Should I take your non-response to mean you concede this critical point?

      • talknic
        January 20, 2016, 12:59 am

        @ Sibiriak

        Oooops my bad. I missed your additional posts

        Go http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/difference-between-occupation/comment-page-1#comment-820790

  9. just
    October 27, 2015, 6:25 am

    Unbelievable:

    “A class-action lawsuit against Facebook is accusing the social media platform of ignoring widespread Palestinian posts calling for violence against Jews.

    In the suit filed Monday in New York State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, the 20,000 Israeli plaintiffs claim the Facebook posts have inspired many recent terror attacks and that “Facebook’s algorithms and platform connects inciters to terrorists who are further encouraged to perpetrate stabbings and other violence attacks against Israelis.”…

    …The lead plaintiff, Richard Lankin, 76, is in critical condition after having been shot and stabbed by Palestinian terrorists while riding on a crowded Jerusalem bus on Oct. 13. Two Israelis were killed and more than 20 were wounded in the attack.

    Three attorneys — Robert Tolchin of New York; Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, the director of the Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Center, and Asher Perlin of Fort Lauderdale, Florida — filed the suit.

    In a news release issued by her organization, Darshan-Leitner said, “Facebook wields tremendous power and this publicly traded company needs to utilize it in a way that ensures that Palestinian extremists who are calling to stab Israelis and glorifying the terrorist that do, are not permitted to do it on its platform.”…”

    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.682485

    • Annie Robbins
      October 27, 2015, 7:31 am

      unreal

      • Mooser
        October 27, 2015, 2:07 pm

        “A class-action lawsuit against Facebook is accusing the social media platform of ignoring widespread Palestinian posts calling for violence against Jews.”

        I’m getting rid of the rubber-Wellies and getting hip-waders. I just heard the biggest SQUELCH ever! Oh yes, by all means, let’s get some Hebrew and Henglish translators and have a look at Facebook!

    • eljay
      October 27, 2015, 7:46 am

      … the 20,000 Israeli plaintiffs claim … that “Facebook’s algorithms and platform connects inciters to terrorists … ”

      The total number is unknown, but 20,000 have been identified.

      • oldgeezer
        October 27, 2015, 2:38 pm

        Perhaps fb should close it’s Israeli office in the spirit of BDS and invest in it’s legal department. I can’t usual root for Israel but if they bankrupt tbe company I am ok with that.

        If nothing else it will be one less place for vile Israeli racism to be propagated

    • Marnie
      October 27, 2015, 9:26 am

      Once again, the only lives that matter are the lives of Jews. Facebook was full of incitement to violence during the last “Operation” in Gaza. It continues to be. I’m so disgusted that continually the death of Israeli Jews is supposed to be so much more horrifying and tragic than the death of anyone else. Maybe Yonah or one of the other club members can explain this? Why should the murder of Jews (particularly those Jewish squatters) have a “stop the presses” urgency about it? What makes Jews more important than anyone else? Why are they described as “innocents”, “good”, “saints”, etc., and Palestinians are called “terrorists”, “animals”, “savages”, “snakes”, etc.?

      If all Jews viewed the lives of non-Jews to be as sacrosanct as their own, there would be peace in the world. Maybe, huh, ya think?

    • jon s
      October 29, 2015, 7:23 am

      Kris,

      “They [the five rabbis] were killed because they were participating in a crime. ”

      Mondoweiss, where the murder of innocent Jews at prayer is justified.

      • eljay
        October 29, 2015, 7:35 am

        || jon s: … Mondoweiss, where the murder of innocent Jews at prayer is justified. ||

        The murder of innocent Jews should never be justified. Neither should the murder of innocent non-Jews be justified.

        And yet, day after day, you and Zio-supremacist like you justify the murder of non-Jews by Jews in the service of Jewish supremacism in/and a supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

      • eljay
        October 29, 2015, 8:00 am

        I notice that jon s continues to post his replies in strings (or “sub-threads”) other than those in which the posts to which he is replying are located. Not sure whether it’s because he’s incompetent, careless or inconsiderate.

      • Kris
        October 29, 2015, 10:47 am

        jon s, try clicking the “Reply” link that is just under the comment to which you are replying, so that your reply will appear in the right place. When there is no “Reply” link following the comment to which you want to reply, just scroll up and click on the first “Reply” link you come to. Then your comment will at least appear on the same thread as the comment to which you are replying.

        My comment, to which you were replying, makes the case that the five rabbis were not “innocent.” But you knew that.

        We are discussing the extrajudicial assassination of 17-year-old Dania Ersheid by Israeli Jews. She was killed because she was a Palestinian, and the Israeli Jews covet Palestinian land and resources.

        The five rabbis were adults who had chosen to put themselves in danger by being part of an occupation and ethnic cleansing. They were killed because they were participating in a crime.

        jon s seems especially moved by the idea that the rabbis were praying:

        The five men were at their morning prayers, their tefillin, prayer shawls and prayer books soaked in their blood.

        Do Israeli Jews attack Palestinians who are praying?

        Eyewitnesses said the clashes erupted after Israeli soldiers attacked Palestinians praying outside Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site for Muslims.

        Israeli police fired stun bombs and tear gas at the worshippers, who responded by hurling stones, the witnesses said. link to al-aqsa-mosque.org

        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/executed-arshid-hebron#comment-806202

    • YoniFalic
      October 29, 2015, 3:53 pm

      Lawsuits like these are the reason for anti-SLAPP laws. Racist supporters of the State of Israel consider honest statement of the facts to be incitement.

    • jon s
      October 29, 2015, 5:09 pm

      The comments policy prohibits anti-semitism. If calling the Jewish faith “repugnant” isn’t anti-semitic, I don’t know what is.
      It also prohibits vicious personal attacks. If likening me to Hitler isn’t a vicious personal attack, I don’t know what is.

      • eljay
        October 29, 2015, 5:43 pm

        || jon s: The comments policy prohibits anti-semitism. If calling the Jewish faith “repugnant” isn’t anti-semitic, I don’t know what is. ||

        According to the ADL, it is “The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish.”

        According to Yad Vashem, it is “Hatred of Jews as a people or of ‘the Jew’ as a concept.”

        According to Wiki, it is “prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as an ethnic, religious, or racial group.”

        Nothing there about criticizing or disliking Judaism. It would seem that you don’t know what anti-Semitism is.

        || … It also prohibits vicious personal attacks. If likening me to Hitler isn’t a vicious personal attack, I don’t know what is. … ||

        What he said was this: “Both @jon s and Hitler try to defame the legitimate native resistance as terrorists.” This appears to be an accurate statement.

        Or did you recently decide to stop defaming as terrorists legitimate native resistance to your Zio-supremacist movement and the actions of your oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and religion-supremacist state?

      • talknic
        October 29, 2015, 6:43 pm

        jon s ” If calling the Jewish faith “repugnant” isn’t anti-semitic, I don’t know what is”

        Plenty of Jews who find Judaism repugnant. Coveting other folks territory, bearing false witness, lying, murdering, smearing those who prefer to value the basic common sense tenets of Judaism.

        “If likening me to Hitler isn’t a vicious personal attack, I don’t know what is”

        Blind support for a state that contravenes International Laws and a UN Charter adopted in large part on the treatment of our Jewish fellows under the Nazis and not valuing the basic tenets of Judaism is very Naziesque.

      • Mooser
        October 29, 2015, 7:04 pm

        ” If calling the Jewish faith “repugnant” isn’t anti-semitic, I don’t know what is. “

        Very, very, and very sadly, that is true. You don’t have the slightest idea what anti-semitism is. Or are we born with that knowledge?

        And I still can’t figure out why you are completely unembarrased by the stuff you pulled on this thread. You know, it sure looks like you have nothing but contempt for the people who read your comments.

        “There’s also the notion that has popped up here that someone is paying me to post comments.
        Wish it were so…”

        I have always, and stalwartly, defended you against that charge, “Jon s”! We Jews may lose our iconic reputation for justice, even intelligence, but I’ll be damned if anybody disparages our ability to get value for money.

  10. RockyMissouri
    October 27, 2015, 10:47 am

    Imagine the terror the Zionists feel: to be so AFRAID OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN..!!!! that they have to KILL THEM…!?

    I AM PURELY DISGUSTED.

    • echinococcus
      October 27, 2015, 11:43 am

      And you still don’t get the lesson and continue to squat on stolen land instead of going back home. Saying that for your own good, believe me, not that everyone’s anxious to have you here.

    • CigarGod
      October 27, 2015, 11:47 am

      Hey, who hired the bartender?
      He just tried to serve up a double shot of false equivalence.

      • Mooser
        October 27, 2015, 12:20 pm

        “Hey, who hired the bartender?”

        Ask him about ‘surviving a terrorist attack at BeerSheba’ and he will give you free drinks all night!

      • talknic
        October 29, 2015, 6:46 pm

        @ CigarGod “He just tried to serve up a double shot of false equivalence”

        Hey! That’s not how you spell flaccid

    • Mooser
      October 29, 2015, 8:43 pm

      “Richard Lakin has died of his wounds”

      And the Israeli response has been, uh, responsive:

      “Less than a day after Richard Lakin passed away Tuesday from the wounds he suffered in an attack by two Palestinians two weeks ago, thousands of right-wingers on the Internet celebrated his death. The flood of hate posts began after the right-wing Israeli rapper, ‘The Shadow,’ wrote on Facebook that the murder of Lakin, an activist with the ‘Tag Meir’ group, which visits Palestinians who were attacked by Jews, should be a wake-up call to left-wingers. “He needs to be buried in Gaza and people should shit on his gravestone,” posted one on Facebook over a picture of Lakin’s face. “Another dead terrorist,” wrote another. “So it turns out Arabs do good things sometimes.” “For me he is another terrorist.” “Since I really love the left-wing, I want to wish them the same thing,” others wrote.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/rightwing-celebrate-activist#sthash.tGXwVgEO.dpuf

      “Jon s” I owe you an apology. I see why you would want Lakin memorialized in Mondo. He’ll get a much more empathetic and understanding treatment.

    • Mooser
      October 27, 2015, 12:18 pm

      “Jon s” we already got that news in “An Apology to my Killers” or whatever it was. That pretty much laid out the drill, and it’s an old one.
      I have no doubt that every Israeli killed in occupied territory is a paragon of equal rights, and doesn’t think hummus is really Israeli, into the bargain. No, I’ll go further, they were only there to help the Palestinians, and now they’re dead. Evul Palestinians, killing their best fiends.
      Saw that one coming down the pike a mile away, “Jon s”

      Besides, reports from you about “terrorist attacks” are just sooo reliable.

      Or do you just have a good grasp of the life-span and purposes of the Zionist media, and wanted them memorialized at a spot which will last a while, so they aren’t forgotten? “The names have been written in the Book of Mondoweiss, and will exist in Holiness through Eternity”

    • echinococcus
      October 27, 2015, 12:21 pm

      His only characteristic relevant in this context: citizen of the Zionist entity illegally in territory militarily occupied by said entity.

      • Mooser
        October 27, 2015, 2:13 pm

        “citizen of the Zionist entity illegally in territory militarily occupied by said entity.”

        Much more likely, a freebbootin’, filibustering, piratical citizen of the good ol’ US of A .

    • oldgeezer
      October 27, 2015, 2:44 pm

      He was such a supporter of rights that he supported violations of the GC and lived illegally on stolen land in Armon Hanetziv

    • talknic
      October 27, 2015, 5:59 pm

      @ jon s “Apparently Mr. Lakin was a teacher, a humanist and a veteran of the civil rights movement” and a stupid or naive illegal settler duped by his Government and Zionist propaganda

      You should dash of a complaint to the people responsible instead of wasting your time here making an idiot of yourself by trying to score points off of poor poor Mr Larkin’s unfortunate demise

  11. jon s
    October 27, 2015, 2:22 pm

    I didn’t know him personally, but it looks like Mr. Lakin was an admirable person, may he rest in peace.

    Good news is that the boy severely wounded in the knife attack carried out by 13 and 15 year old assailants -one of whom President Abbas erroneously claimed had been “executed” – has recovered.

    • oldgeezer
      October 27, 2015, 2:36 pm

      How is the recovery going for the rest of the kids that were executed?

    • Mooser
      October 27, 2015, 2:37 pm

      “I didn’t know him personally, but it looks like Mr. Lakin was an admirable person, may he rest in peace.”

      Haven’t seen a single brocha from you for the Palestinian dead and injured. Maybe I can search your archive?

      And if he is such an admirable person, let him, indeed, rest in peace, and stop dragging his corpse around and thrusting it in our faces. If his family wants him memorialized at Mondo I’m sure they can make a donation in his name.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 27, 2015, 3:35 pm

        If his family wants him memorialized at Mondo I’m sure they can make a donation in his name.

        or send in a submission

    • talknic
      October 27, 2015, 6:14 pm

      There’s nothing gonna stop jon s spewing his scripted propaganda puke. Poor chap’s trying to supplement his meager teacher pay packet I guess

      jon s … The video shows the boy rode into the path of the alleged assailants and fell off his bike. There’s no way the assailants could have knifed him without bending down to do it. Nor did they have the time or get close enough to knife him.

      Have your guide dog talk you through the video

      If he had been actually knifed the pictures would be all over the internet. There are none. No evidence what so ever of any knifing

      Abbas didn’t actually claim the alleged assailant had been “executed”

  12. Mooser
    October 27, 2015, 3:56 pm

    “or send in a submission”

    Yes, or that, too. What on earth is “Jon s” trying to accomplish with this tit-for-tat of deaths? Do we now proceed to judge Larkin’s worth as opposed to the 17 yr. old Palestinian girl in the article?

    • Annie Robbins
      October 28, 2015, 2:56 pm

      what’s he trying to accomplish? he’s spamming the thread. he’s diverting. he’s making a false equivalence argument and attempting to justify the extrajudical executions being carried out against a defenseless people and their children by juxtaposing it against the killing of one man by touting the man’s alleged humanitarian nature. as if that has anything to do with the execution of dania by israeli state agents. it doesn’t.

      not only that. instead of posting on one of the few subthreads he’s already started he’s starting a new subthread after new subthread to continue his trolling.

      i just trashed one of his attempts to do it again. i’m cutting him off. his comments are off topic. we’ve got several threads covering the attack last year. he can post his continuing comments about his on those threads unless he want to address the state sponsored execution of dania.

      • Mooser
        October 28, 2015, 4:03 pm

        “not only that. instead of posting on one of the few subthreads he’s already started he’s starting a new subthread after new subthread to continue his trolling.”

        And Mondo can’t afford to hire a full-time skip-tracer.

      • jon s
        October 31, 2015, 4:37 am

        Annie,
        So you “trashed ” a comment of mine for being off-topic, or on the wrong subthread, but the comment calling the Jewish faith “silly and repugnant ” and likening me to Hitler, is allowed.

      • talknic
        October 31, 2015, 6:42 am

        @ jon s “So you “trashed ” a comment of mine for being off-topic, or on the wrong subthread”

        Off topic trolling and disrupting discussion threads is a typical Ziotactic

        ” but the comment calling the Jewish faith “silly and repugnant ” and likening me to Hitler, is allowed”

        At least on topic

      • Mooser
        October 31, 2015, 1:07 pm

        “So you “trashed ” a comment of mine for being off-topic, or on the wrong subthread, but the comment calling the Jewish faith “silly and repugnant ” and likening me to Hitler, is allowed.”

        You are right, “Jon s” that is outrageous! Let’s get up a complaint and send it to the Ministry of Jewish Blogs, detailing how Mondo breaks all the regulations. It’ll be ‘stoney lonesome’ and a big mulcting for the staff.

        Of course, there is an alternative even more horrific than prosecution incarceration and restitution from Mondo. You could simply refuse to grace Mondo with your presence. That’ll teach ’em.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 2, 2015, 4:02 am

        Annie, So you “trashed ” a comment of mine for being off-topic, or on the wrong subthread, but the comment calling the Jewish faith “silly and repugnant ” and likening me to Hitler, is allowed.

        yes. tho i trashed your comment i added it (it was only another link used to grab another subthread) to one of your other comments. so it’s here in the thread (your off topic link about the man). the other comments i did not clear so i can’t speak to whoever cleared them. but i can understand the logic of “likening me to Hitler”.

        here is the “likening” reference, again:

        Both @jon s and Hitler try to defame the legitimate native resistance as terrorists.

        eljay copy/pasted it and noted earlier:

        This appears to be an accurate statement.

        and then asked:

        Or did you recently decide to stop defaming as terrorists legitimate native resistance to your Zio-supremacist movement and the actions of your oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and religion-supremacist state?

        but you didn’t answer. don’t be embarrassed, there are probably a lot of things hitler and otherwise regular people have in common. like breathing air. i probably share many things in common with zionists — like crest toothpaste. if someone said both annie and Hitler try to rationalize brushing their teeth i would admit to advocating brushing ones teeth, in that way one could liken me to many bad people. heck, you and i might even use the same toothpaste.

        but let’s look at something else you and hitler might share? you both defame legitimate native resistance as terrorism. just embrace your commonalities/or not. it’s up to you. or by all means condemn or simply refute the concept which you’ve promoted time and again that palestinian resistance to the oppressive illegal occupation of palestine as terrorism. whereas slaughtering innocent 17 yr old girls is not bloodthirsty (but palestinians are — or something). seriously it’s hard to keep track of your logic.

        but in the future could you do us a favor? repeat after me:

        i will not defame the legitimate native resistance as terrorists

        i will not defame the legitimate native resistance as terrorists

        i will not defame the legitimate native resistance as terrorists

        i will not defame the legitimate native resistance as terrorists

        i will not defame the legitimate native resistance as terrorists

        otherwise just face it, you too have something in common with the big H.

      • eljay
        November 2, 2015, 7:20 am

        || Annie Robbins @ November 2, 2015, 4:02 am ||

        Nice post, Annie. I would be great if some portion of it would get through jon s’ thick skull but I supposed very little, if any, of it will.

        And just to be perfectly clear: I am not, in any way whatsoever, claiming that his skull is as thick as – or thicker than – Hitler’s. ;-)

      • Mooser
        November 2, 2015, 12:36 pm

        We have to be very careful when comparing people to Hitler!
        For instance, did Hitler ever report an incident in which an innocent Eritrean man is shot and beaten to death as a “terrorist attack on BeerSheba”? No, he did not!

      • eljay
        November 2, 2015, 1:43 pm

        || Mooser: We have to be very careful when comparing people to Hitler! For instance, did Hitler ever report an incident in which an innocent Eritrean man is shot and beaten to death as a “terrorist attack on BeerSheba”? No, he did not! ||

        As is often the case, you make an excellent point. :-)

  13. Spring Renouncer
    October 27, 2015, 11:54 pm

    As American feminists and supporters of the Black Lives Matter campaign, we must stand arm in arm in solidarity with our besieged, bloodied and murdered Palestinian sisters and brothers.

    In the U.S. black teenage girls are – in the supposed security of their schools – thrown around and pinned to the floor by White police officers, and then arrested. In Palestine, innocent Palestinian teenage girls are – in their own homeland – shot to death by Israeli soldiers, and then demonized even in death.

    The parallels are strikingly clear.

    If we address oppression in the U.S. while silently paying for the even more acute oppression in Palestine, we will be complicit and cowardly hypocrites.

    We must fight.

    Fight for the Palestinians, for the African Americans, for the girls and the boys:

    for ourselves.

  14. Annie Robbins
    October 28, 2015, 3:17 am

    i can’t stop thinking about her, dania. what woman would she have become? what is our world missing without her? i miss her. i can’t help it. it’s all so cruel and unfair. i mourn for her family. i can’t let her out of my mind. she was a person, probably in so many ways just like me. just like us. dania, i feel such a loss. and she can’t even hear me. i hope, i hope her loss (of her life, her sacrifice, her martyrdom) brings some kind of awareness or release. i must trust/hope her death is not in vain. but how long can this intentional genocide of palestinians continue before mankind ends it? how long. how many dania’s and hadil’s lives will be sacrificed? it’s unbearable some days but nothing compared to what their families suffer. nothing compared to what palestine suffers. but still ..it is unbearable.

    • TerryHeaton
      October 28, 2015, 3:07 pm

      Annie, the emotion you expressed in this comment is vital in the war of information. When these kids are murdered, we need profiles of who they were, so that outsiders can see them as something more than just another dead Palestinian body. This is the key missing element in the battle for the Western mind, because when one group sells the dehumanization of another, the most powerful weapon is to rehumanize them. Remember, too, that the toothpaste industry learned a very long time ago that you don’t sell toothpaste by showing decay. You’re our best hope, Annie. Thank you for your tireless efforts.

  15. Kay24
    October 28, 2015, 7:31 am

    We are going to have a visit from the lying war criminal, soon. He has been “invited’ to speak at a progressive group, who seem to have done the bidding of the lobby and lost three writers who wrote controversial pieces about the Israeli occupation. The Nutty Yahoo has this thing for inviting himself to places he really is not welcome, some ego problem I think.

    Netanyahu Successfully Lobbies To Address Progressive Think Tank During DC Visit
    “He’s looking for that progressive validation,” said a former Center for American Progress staffer.

    “CAP’s relationship with AIPAC and its allies is fraught. Three years ago, CAP employed policy analyst Matt Duss, and its publication ThinkProgress employed Ali Gharib and Eli Clifton; all three wrote controversial pieces challenging the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. Pro-Israel lobbyists pushed hard against CAP, and all three felt the pressure and have since left.

    Although CAP periodically issued statements in support of the Iran nuclear deal, it was conspicuously restrained in its advocacy efforts. “An order came down that CAP was not going to engage in a big way on the Iran deal,” said a second former staffer. “Considering this was the biggest item on Obama’s foreign policy agenda in both terms, the lack of engagement was hard not to notice.”

    To Gharib, who is now a contributor to The Nation, the organization’s decision to host Netanyahu was predictable. “It’s just not surprising that if CAP is going to be willing to kowtow to the right wing, pro-Israel lobby when it comes to throwing their own staffers under the bus, that they’d give a platform to the bigoted right-wing head of the Israeli government,” he said.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/netanyahu-center-for-american-progress_56301482e4b0631799100532

    We are under occupation in Congress, media, and think tanks.

  16. Sulphurdunn
    October 28, 2015, 6:13 pm

    What kind of men can murder children and then thank god?

  17. zawar001
    October 29, 2015, 4:14 am

    Human killed , that matters. speechless .

  18. Darwin26
    October 29, 2015, 4:31 am

    It has to be terribly difficult to write about these horrors of incremental genocide
    ~ this word ‘genocide’ should be right in there too.
    i did learn a new word, thanks Annie. ochlocracy! that was a new word / kinda like anarchy in my opinion but extrajudicial execution is the whole collective malignant conscious of the Israeli/s and that means Genocide, incremental, yes, but if given half a chance Tel Aviv would wipe out all the Palestinians and not bat an eye.

  19. Kay24
    October 29, 2015, 6:42 am

    Israel has become an out of control, violent nation. No other nation or international body, can stop this rogue nation massacre innocent civilians. They call themselves a democracy, but that is in name only, they are a rogue nation doing exactly what the hell they want, and not following the rule of the book. The US aids and abets and pretends it is outraged at Israel’s crimes.

    “Amnesty: Israeli forces have ‘ripped up the rulebook’

    Ma’an News Agency | – –
    BETHLEHEM (Ma’an) — Amnesty International on Tuesday demanded that Israel stop unlawful killings in occupied Palestinian territory, stating that Israeli forces appeared to have “ripped up the rulebook.”
    “There is mounting evidence that, as tensions have risen dramatically, in some cases Israeli forces appear to have ripped up the rulebook and resorted to extreme and unlawful measures,” the group’s Middle East and North Africa director, Philip Luther, said in a statement.
    “Intentional lethal force should only be used when absolutely necessary to protect life,” he said. “Instead we are increasingly seeing Israeli forces recklessly flouting international standards by shooting to kill in situations where it is completely unjustified.”
    The international rights group released the statement amid ongoing investigations into what it termed Israel’s use of “intentional lethal force” against Palestinians “without justification.”
    Investigations documented at least four cases where Palestinians were deliberately shot dead when they posed no imminent threat.”

    Juan Cole article

    • eljay
      October 29, 2015, 7:50 am

      … Amnesty International on Tuesday demanded that Israel stop unlawful killings in occupied Palestinian territory, stating that Israeli forces appeared to have “ripped up the rulebook.” … “Intentional lethal force should only be used when absolutely necessary to protect life,” he said. “Instead we are increasingly seeing Israeli forces recklessly flouting international standards by shooting to kill in situations where it is completely unjustified.” …

      But…Israel is a “moral beacon” and the IDF is the “most moral army in the world”. Surely they wouldn’t say that about themselves if they didn’t mean it…right? :-(

      • Kay24
        October 29, 2015, 8:38 am

        I am sure the nazis thought they were the most moral people in the world too.

        It is all part of a serious illness that has being delusional, ruthless, and no value for human lives that are not their own, as major symptoms. On top of that a horrible sense of superiority, and reference to the fact that they are a master race.

      • eljay
        October 29, 2015, 9:36 am

        || Kay24: I am sure the nazis thought they were the most moral people in the world too. … ||

        Sure, but they did bad things to Jews. Zio-supremacists do bad things to non-Jews and to the “wrong kinds” of Jews. So that makes it okay.

  20. Ossinev
    October 29, 2015, 8:08 am

    @Jon s
    YoniFalic calls Judaism “silly and repugnant”. Would any such description of any other faith be tolerated here? Not Zionism, not Israel, it’s the Jewish thing, after all.

    As a devout atheist I confess to finding all religions and religious practices “silly” in various ways and to various extents. Where I find them “repugnant ” as an example is when an interpretation of Sharia in Islam is used as an excuse for beheadings,floggings etc. Where I find it repugnant in Judaism is when a kippah wearing IDF brute puts 10 bullets into a defenceless 17 year old school girl and then goes off to wail against a wall about how he and his ilk have been victimised for thousands of years.

    Hope that puts your mind at rest.

    Hope that puts your

  21. jon s
    October 29, 2015, 5:23 pm

    I posted my comments on the first reply button below the comments I was responding to.
    It would help if there was a reply button beneath every comment.

    • eljay
      October 29, 2015, 5:45 pm

      || jon s: I posted my comments on the first reply button below the comments I was responding to. … ||

      Okay, so it’s a little bit of everything.

    • Kris
      October 29, 2015, 6:01 pm

      jon s–

      When there is no “Reply” link immediately following the comment to which you want to reply, just scroll UP and click on the first “Reply” button you come to.

      The problem seems to be that you have been scrolling DOWN when there was no “Reply” button immediately following the comment.

    • talknic
      October 29, 2015, 7:05 pm

      If there was a reply button beneath every comment

      the
      com
      men
      ts w
      ould
      end
      up lo
      okin
      g lik
      e an
      ano
      rexi
      c in
      a fai
      r gro
      und
      mirr
      or.

      As t
      hin a
      s a Z
      ionn
      utt
      er’s
      exc
      uses
      a for
      Isra
      eli a
      tro
      citi
      es

  22. jon s
    October 29, 2015, 5:34 pm

    There’s also the notion that has popped up here that someone is paying me to post comments.
    Wish it were so…

    • talknic
      October 29, 2015, 7:13 pm

      @ jon s “There’s also the notion that has popped up here that someone is paying me to post comments.
      Wish it were so…”

      You come here to spread Zionist propaganda, make false accusations and be proven wrong time and time again for free?

      • Mooser
        October 29, 2015, 8:57 pm

        “You come here to spread Zionist propaganda, make false accusations and be proven wrong time and time again for free?”

        Would you pay “Jon s” to work for you as a communicator or persuader?

      • eljay
        October 31, 2015, 7:25 am

        Someone’s not getting their money’s worth…

      • Mooser
        November 2, 2015, 12:44 pm

        “Someone’s not getting their money’s worth…”

        Yes, they are at this moment reading his comments and thinking: “What the ^#$ is going on? Don’t we pay him enough to keep his mouth shut?”

        The best part is, “Jon s” said, when accused of being paid: “I wish”. The comments here are his audition! When Hasbara Central notices his great job at Mondo, he’ll be richly rewarded.

  23. Jon66
    October 29, 2015, 7:45 pm

    Talknic,
    maybe Jon S comes here for the same reason I do.
    I come to find out why intelligent well meaning people can come to conclusions so different from the ones I have. I have learned a lot here and I’m open to learning and changing my mind if the arguments are compelling. I come here to understand those whose conclusions differ.

    • Mooser
      October 30, 2015, 12:01 pm

      “I come to find out why intelligent well meaning people can come to conclusions so different from the ones I have.”

      Okay, let’s take a look at your ‘well meaning conclusions’:

      I don’t agree that anything that is not legal is therefore illegal. In fact, I think it is the opposite. Anything which is not illegal is legal.

      Yup, I see a lot of intelligent, well-meaning in that conclusion.

    • talknic
      October 31, 2015, 7:11 am

      @ Jon66 “maybe Jon S comes here for the same reason I do”

      Then the inverse would be true. jon s is here to excuse and spread Israeli & Zionist propaganda

      “… I’m open to learning and changing my mind if the arguments are compelling.”

      Let’s start with something indisputable. The Israeli Government’s proclamations in respect to Israel’s sovereign extent and the non-Israeli territory it has under held under occupation since May 1948. They’re documented here http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk for convenience

      Then let’s do an exercise in simple logic: What wasn’t within Israel’s proclaimed sovereign extent and what has never been legally acquired by agreement or recognized as Israeli, simply isn’t Israeli.

      ” I come here to understand those whose conclusions differ”

      Better to understand some basic facts, then progress

      • Jon66
        October 31, 2015, 9:25 am

        Talknic,
        That’s your interpretation of the facts. It’s at variance from the current international consensus, theIsraeli government position, the U.S. position and the PLO position. The Green line has been recognized by consensus of the both the parties involved and the international community.

      • talknic
        November 2, 2015, 4:42 am

        @ Jon66 “That’s your interpretation of the facts”

        No Jon66, it IS a fact. The Israeli Government made those statements

        “It’s at variance from the current international consensus”

        Is that why there are no foreign embassies in Jerusalem? Amazing!

        “The Green line has been recognized by consensus of the both the parties involved and the international community”

        Israel has accepted it? Cite the actual agreement, it must be on record … thx ….. I’ll wait

        Meanwhile if there is no agreement, there is no agreement and none of the territories the Israeli Government claimed were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” are not yet Israeli

      • Sibiriak
        November 2, 2015, 6:04 am

        talknic: [jon66:]“The Green line has been recognized by consensus of the both the parties involved and the international community”

        Israel has accepted it?
        —————

        No, Israel has not accepted it. Jon66 is dead wrong about that.

        ————–

        talknic: Meanwhile if there is no agreement, there is no agreement and none of the territories the Israeli Government claimed were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” are not yet Israeli.

        Not true. According to numerous UN resolutions and ICJ statements, the Green Line–not the original UN recommended partition borders–is the dividing line between Israeli Territory and Occupied Palestinian territory.

        The Green line is a provisional border between Israel and Palestine. Until a final agreement is reach, the Green Line provisional border marks the territory over which Israel has full legal sovereignty and the territory over which Israel is an Occupying Power.

        I’ve already cited UN resolutions that specify the Green line as the dividing line between Israeli territory and Occupied Palestinian Territory.

        In the ICJ “Wall” opinion, the Court declared:

        … the request of the General Assembly concerns the legal consequences of the wall being built “in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem”.

        As also explained below (see paragraphs 79-84 below), some parts of the complex are being built, or are planned to be built, on the territory of Israel itself ; the Court does not (consider that it is called upon to examine the legal consequences arising from the construction of those parts of the wall. [emphasis added]

        —————

        Please note two things:

        1) The Court, having affirmed the Green Line as the dividing line between Israel territory and Occupied Palestinian territory, identifies East Jerusalem as being in Occupied Palestinian Territory– West Jerusalem is recognized as being in Israeli territory.

        2) The sections of the Wall that do not cross into the Palestinian side of the Green Line are considered to be “ on the territory of Israel itself .”

        Those two facts make it perfectly clear that territory outside the original UN- recommended partition borders but inside the Green Line–territory which Israel took during the 1948-9 war– has been recognized by the UN and ICJ as Israeli territory, not occupied Palestinian territory.

        In a separate concurring opinion, one of the ICJ judges stated:

        The Green line , to quote Sir Arthur Watts, “is the starting line from which is measured the extent of Israel’s occupation of non-Israeli territory” (CR200413, p. 64, para. 35). There is no implication that the Green Line is to be a permanent frontier. [emphasis added]

        It could not be more clear: Everything on the Israeli side of the Green Line is Israeli territory; every thing on the other side is non-Israeli territory.

        The fact that the Green Line is provisional, and could be adjusted in a final agreement, does not mean that until such an agreement reached the Green Line does not mark the division between Israeli and non-Israeli territory. It does. Until such an agreement is reached, Israel, according to international law, has full sovereignty over the territory on the Israeli side of the Green Line.

        This has been affirmed in numerous UN resolutions and ICJ opinions.

        There is not a single UN document or Court opinion that says otherwise.

        You have tried to explain the complete lack of any UN/ICJ support for your view by arguing that ” the UN cannot censure non-members for their actions nor can it censure Members retrospectively for their actions before becoming Members.” However, you have, so far, been unable to provide any evidence to back up that assertion.

        Moreover, as I argued, even if there were a prohibition on censuring non-members–which I can find no evidence for– that would not prevent the UN or ICJ from making assertions and recommendations regarding that territory. They have consistently chosen not to do so. They have consistently and repeatedly affirmed the Green Line, not original partition borders, as the dividing line between Israel and non-Israeli territory.

        I respect and admire your tireless work in defending Palestinian rights and combating Zionist hasbara, but I really don’t see what you think can be gained by denying this obvious and uncontroversial fact.

        Do you propose that the BDS movement revise its stated goal to get Israel to: [End] its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and [dismantle] the Wall. ?

        Would you like to see that changed to ” all Arab lands occupied in 1948-9 outside the borders envisioned in UN Res. 181″?

        How would such a re-definition of Occupied Palestinian Territory help BDS, or the pro-Palestinian movement in general?

      • talknic
        November 2, 2015, 6:43 am

        Correction: Meanwhile if there is no agreement, there is no agreement and none of the territories the Israeli Government claimed were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” are yet Israeli

  24. kalithea
    November 1, 2015, 9:32 pm

    I grieve with Annie and all of you who rage against this senseless act of inhumanity against this teenage girl, Dania.

  25. Annie Robbins
    December 11, 2015, 11:01 am

    And her brother was just killed. my heart goes out to this family. 2 children is less than 2 months.

Leave a Reply