Trending Topics:

Israel should give back the Golan

Middle East
on 146 Comments
Golan Heights

Golan Heights

That most unlikely presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson has just returned from a fact-finding tour of the Middle East with yet another quirky idea. His latest “revelation” is that Arab countries should absorb the Syrian refugees—and not us. He doesn’t seem to know that three countries in the Middle East have already absorbed the vast majority of the refugees; Jordan has given refuge to many hundred thousand refugees. Tiny Lebanon has taken in as many refugees as Jordan—and Turkey has harbored even more.

Oddly enough, Carson never mentioned Israel—a neighbor that has occupied 10 percent of Syria for nearly 50 years. It should be obvious, but hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees could be absorbed into their native soil, the Golan Heights. The occupied Golan has always been the main stumbling block to an Israeli-Syrian peace accord. In fact, the current Syrian civil war began in the southern Syrian town of Dara, home to some 50,000 refugees from the Golan. In 2006, I was in Dara and talked with a young man whose family had fled the Golan in 1973. He said to me, with tears in his eyes “every morning I get up and go to the barbed wire fence that is the frontier and look across and the Golan to my family farm. And I cry.”

Some 8,000 Syrians still live in the Golan but they have steadfastly refused Israeli citizenship and live apart from Israeli society. These Syrians live in the city of Majed es Shams at the foot of what the Arabs have called for centuries Jebal Sheikh or the mountain of the Sheikh. From its 11,000 foot heights the Israelis are able to monitor the telephone systems of Damascus and Eastern Lebanon—so the Israelis might find it difficult to give up this intelligence station.

But by agreeing in principle to return the Golan and giving the Syrian refugees a haven on the Golan Heights, Israel would be assisting mightily in the war against ISIS. Return of the Golan would also give any new coalition government in Damascus a powerful degree of legitimacy. The Golan may thus be the key element in creating a new Syria.

There are countless ways that this could be initiated now through the United Nations and other refugee organizations. To be sure, rumors abound that the Israelis intend to put new settlements on the Golan where there are already 25,000 Israelis raising grapes and making excellent wine. Many of those settlers are American, and they might not wish to remain in their vineyards if the Golan is ever returned to Syria. But there are solutions. These Golan Israelis could be resettled in the northern Galilee.

The point is that hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees need help now. By giving up the Golan Heights and providing sanctuary to innocent refugees, Israel could accomplish both a strategic peace with its neighbor—and perform a great humanitarian “mitzvah.”

This may seem an outlandish scenario, but people forget that 20 years ago President Bashar Assad’s father nearly reached an agreement for peace with Israel in return of all the Golan Heights. The near-deal negotiated at the Shepherdstown, West Virginia peace conference collapsed only when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin stipulated that he could agree to give back the Golan—but not a strip of land along the Sea of Galilee just 150 to 200 yards wide and several miles long. Rabin was clearly unable to overcome objections from those within his own government who wanted to keep Syria away from the Sea of Galilee. They feared giving Syria riparian rights to the Galilee waters which at the time was the most important source of water for Israel. But today, the Galilee waters are no longer so crucial; Israel has solved its water shortages with an efficient and cost-effective desalinization program. Neither does Israel need the Golan Heights for military reasons; Tel Aviv commands by far the largest, most modern army in the Middle East and it is equipped with battlefield nuclear weapons. What Israel needs is peace with its immediate neighbors. Israel needs a peaceful Syria—and the defeat of ISIS. By indicating that it is now finally ready to relinquish the Golan Heights, Israel could kick-start a peace process in Syria.

Foreign Minister Saud al Feisal told me years ago, “Without a peace between Israel and Syria, there will be no peace in the Middle East.” He was right. But today it is also true that without peace between Israel and Syria there can be no end to the Syrian civil war—and no defeat of the apocalyptic, cultish militia called ISIS.

n

About Eugene Bird

Eugene Bird, 90, a retired Foreign Service officer, has worked on Middle Eastern peace issues for nearly six decades—and he plans to stick around until this happens.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

146 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    December 11, 2015, 2:41 pm

    The original Golanis s/b allowed back and then — after that — other Syrian refugees. The Israeli settlers should leave ASAP, as also from the larger West Bank, whatever else happen.

    I appreciate the point that the very generous Carson was generous to the refugees with the land of other Arab states (echoes of Balfour), but not with the land of Israel. Because, after all, Israel is different. It is not an Arab state. It is not a state of the region. It is a European state in the wrong place. And it is not a generous state. It is a settler colonial state, so that it brings its own people into other people’s spaces, not other people’s refugees into its own space. There are virtually NO Jewish refugees in Israel nowadays, even if there were some in 1950s. It has of course made refugees out of many of the Palestinians who survived 1948. Israel claims to be a refuge but is a robber’s den. And so Carson is right not to suggest that Israel take in Syrian refugees.

    • bobdon
      December 12, 2015, 12:32 am

      “it is not an arab state, it is not a state of the region”

      i thought that something like 60% of israeli jews come from regional arab lands – lands in which they have been persecuted and treated like second class citizens for hundreds of years. so in this way, wouldn’t you constitute it as a regional state (built up from mainly jewish arabs) which a persecuted people are seeking permanent refuge in?

      • Misterioso
        December 12, 2015, 12:33 pm

        Bobdon:

        Rabbi Sassoon Kehdouri, Iraq’s Chief Rabbi for 48 years, speaking before the 1946 Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry on Palestine: “Iraqi Jews will be forever against Zionism. Jews and Arabs have enjoyed the same rights and privileges for a thousand years and do not regard themselves as a distinctive separate part of this nation.”

        Chaim Weizmann, Israel’s first president, also addressing the 1946 Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry: “I would not like to do any injustice. The Muslim world has treated the Jews with considerable tolerance. The Ottoman Empire [of which the Arabs were a major part] received the Jews with open arms when they were driven out of Spain and Europe, and the Jews should never forget that.”

        Albert Einstein, 1939: “There could be no greater calamity than a permanent discord between us and the Arab people…. Let us recall that in former times no people lived in greater friendship with us.”

        To quote Yehouda Shenhav, of Iraqi Jewish heritage and professor of sociology and anthropology at Tel Aviv University: “Any reasonable person, Zionist or non-Zionist, must acknowledge that the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Mizrahi [Arab] Jews is unfounded. Palestinian refugees did not want to leave Palestine….Those who left did not do so of their own volition. In contrast, Jews from Arab lands came to this country under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations.” (Haaretz, 8 October 2004.)

        Renowned Jewish Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, born in Baghdad, concurs: “We are not refugees, nobody expelled us from Iraq, nobody told us that we were unwanted. But we are the victims of the Israeli-Arab conflict.” (Ha’aretz, 11 August 2005)

        The late Yisrael Yeshayahu, speaker of the Knesset: “We are not refugees…. We had messianic aspirations.”

        Shlomo Hillel, former minister and speaker of the Knesset: “I don’t regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.”

        Ran Cohen, member of the Knesset: “I am not a refugee….I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee.” (Ha’aretz, 8/10/04)

        It must also be noted that whereas the expulsion of well over one million Palestinian Arabs from their homeland between late 1947 and 1967, was carried out by Jewish forces (e.g., the Irgun, Sternists, Haganah) and the IDF. Palestinians played no role whatsoever in the departure of Jews from Arab countries.

      • Kris
        December 12, 2015, 2:32 pm

        @bobdon: “I thought that something like 60% of israeli jews come from regional arab lands – lands in which they have been persecuted and treated like second class citizens for hundreds of years. ”

        You might be interested in this:

        Israel’s new diplomatic campaign to draw attention to the forgotten plight of Jews from Arab countries is an attempt to use historical injustices to justify current injustices. It is also a lost opportunity.

        After years of denial and neglect, the Israeli government has rediscovered the issue of the Mizrahi — Jews from Arab countries. Following up on a successful 2008 US Congress resolution, Danny Ayalon, Israel’s deputy foreign minister, has instructed diplomats to request that foreign parliaments recognize the refugee status of Jews forced from Arab countries.

        That many Jews were forced out and that the Mizrahi community was almost entirely destroyed is not in doubt. More than 850,000 Jews left or fled the Arab world between 1948 and 1990. Many because of persecution or fear of persecution, others in response to the “call” of Zionism (see Philip Mendes, “The Forgotten Refugees: The causes of the post-1948 Jewish exodus from Arab Countries”).

        However, that the Arab states bear a legal and moral responsibility to those who left as refugees is indisputable, yet this is scarcely what lies behind Israel’s new diplomatic initiative.

        Behind the facade of what Ayalon claims is a quest for the truth, the real intent is simply to nullify the right of return for Palestinians displaced and dispossessed by Israel. By highlighting the plight of Arab Jews while simultaneously placing the blame on the Arab states for the creation of both exiled communities, Israel hopes to escape its own legal and moral responsibilities.

        As an Israeli foreign ministry document distributed to journalists states: “A true solution to the issues of refugees will only be possible when the Arab League will take responsibility for its role in creating the Jewish and Palestinian refugee problem” (“Changing tack, foreign ministry to bring ‘Jewish refugees’ to fore,” Times of Israel, 3 April 2012).

        That this is nonsense one scarcely needs to point out. Yet it illustrates the hypocrisy of a government that legislates to suppress the memory of the Nakba — the systematic ethnic cleansing of Palestine at the time of Israel’s foundation in 1948 — while disingenuously appealing on behalf of Mizrahi Jews. The faux concern provides good cover for its denial of its own obligations.

        Sadly, much of the same partisan and faux concern is evident amongst supposedly independent organizations that campaign for Jewish refugee rights. Foremost amongst these is Justice for Jews from Arab Countries. In a 2007 report, the organization claimed that in raising the issue of Jewish refugees, it is not waging “a campaign against Palestinian refugees.” Yet it goes on to press the unhistorical lie that the Palestinian leadership was responsible for the Palestinians’ expulsion.

        Likewise, while it calls for the voices of all refugees to be heard and for human rights standards to be implemented, the organization ignores Palestinian refugees’ wishes and makes no reference to their internationally-guaranteed right of return. Instead, it suggests Palestinians would be better served if UNRWA — the UN agency for Palestine refugees — was wound up (“Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: The Case for Rights and Redress,” 5 November 2007 [PDF]).

        The same tack is evident in recent articles by Lyn Julius, a founder of Harif, a UK-based association for Jews from North Africa and the Middle East. Writing in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, she recently described the expulsion of the Mizrahi as an unresolved human rights issue that requires recognition and compensation (“Jewish refugee rights is an unsolved human rights issue,” 27 April 2012).

        On this I can agree with her, but then she goes on to deny the Palestinian right of return by characterizing the two very different expulsions as “a permanent exchange of roughly equal numbers of refugees” — in other words, a population exchange, which from Israel’s perspective, bar monetary compensation, is pretty much finalized as an issue.

        Nevertheless, lest we doubt her humanity, Julius goes on to decry the non-settlement of Palestinian refugees in their host countries as an abuse of their human rights before commenting that Jordan’s treatment of Palestinian refugees is “cynical and cruel.” For those stateless Palestinians facing dispossession and expulsion by Israeli forces from East Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, one can only stand in awe at the chutzpah.
        Obscene caricature

        Perhaps most worrying of all though is not Julius’ insensitivity and abuse of the human rights discourse to deny rights, but rather the racist terms in which she characterizes the Palestinian right of return: something she refers to as “their ‘right’ to Arabize Israel by flooding it.” The obscenity of this caricature need hardly be pointed out. Either refugees have the right to return to their homeland or they do not; that they be Arab, European, Jewish, Muslim or Christian should not matter. That is the whole point of human rights.

        But, of course, with the help of US politicians, this new campaign to delegitimize Palestinian refugee rights is likely to expand. And indeed it is not the only recent tactic being brought into play to nullify and marginalize the Palestinian refugees: Einat Wilf, a member of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, and a prominent figure in the new political party Independence, has argued “that the international community should raise its voice every time that a baby born in Gaza is given the status of a refugee.”

        Wilf has called for the refugee agency UNRWA to be restructured so new registrations can be halted (“Wilf to ambassadors: UNRWA an obstacle to peace,” The Jerusalem Post, 1 February 2012).

        Similarly, US Senator Mark Kirk has successfully proposed an amendment to the State Department and Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill (2013) requiring UNRWA to draw a distinction between refugees physically displaced in 1948 and 1967 and their descendants (“Is the UN making the Palestinian ‘refugee’ problem worse?” The Washington Post, 23 May 2012).

        The obvious intention here is to decouple Palestinians from refugee status. Something that, not incidentally, Einat Wilf is urging foreign parliaments to do. “By all means, keep funding hospitals, schools and welfare programs,” she has said. “But delink it from refugee status.”

        In the end there is a deeply saddening aspect of the attempt to delegitimize Palestinian refugees, especially when it is promoted in tandem with calls for recognition and justice for another refugee community. What is being lost is not just historical truth and lived reality, but the possibility of human connection and shared understanding. … https://electronicintifada.net/content/israels-cynical-campaign-pit-arab-jews-against-palestinian-refugees/11395

      • Citizen
        December 12, 2015, 4:58 pm

        Richard Irvine’s op-ed
        Tracy Wallach replied on Mon, 07/02/2012 – 16:07
        While I agree with much of what the author writes, it is not “indisputable” that the Arab states bear a legal and moral responsibility to those who left as refugees. Particularly in the case of Iraq, the Zionist movement worked hard to “encourage” Jewish Iraqis to emigrate, sometimes with the use of terrorist tactics (bombs in marketplaces). The chief Rabbi at the time was actually against emigration of the Jewish community. Though certainly the Iraqi government colluded with Zionists activists, they were not solely responsible for the exodus of Jews from Iraq. It is also important to note that much of the impetus to bring Arab Jews into Israel came from the labor shortage in Israel in the 1950’s, and the Zionist ideology that promoted the use of “Hebrew labor, ” rather than hiring Palestinians…The work of Ella Shohat is very informative in its discussion of Iraqi Jews’ immigration to Israel, and their experiences once they arrived.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 12, 2015, 6:37 pm

        Though certainly the Iraqi government colluded with Zionists activists

        under the tutelage/coordination of their colonial british overseers.

      • talknic
        December 12, 2015, 6:26 pm

        @ Kris “You might be interested in this “

        Good article. They’re really quite delusional and the author tho largely correct, is awry on some points

        // Israel’s new diplomatic campaign to draw attention to the forgotten plight of Jews from Arab countries is …. etc etc etc … However, that the Arab states bear a legal and moral responsibility to those who left as refugees is indisputable … etc etc … //

        A) It’s NORMAL for countries at war to expel or intern possible allies of their enemies and to freeze their assets. The US, UK, Australia did their German and Japanese citizens in WW2.

        B) It’s also normal to allow their release and return and to unfreeze their assets IF they have not taken up citizenship in a country other than that of return, whereby they are no longer refugees and do not have any RoR. They might tho apply for compensation. They could even immigrate back to their country of origin, IF they’re welcome.

        D) There has never been a serious push from Israel for compensation for Jewish Arabs from the Arab states because it would as the author says
        1) be an admission of refugee rights and to claim rights for Jewish Arabs would expose the hypocrisy of denying those rights to those Israel dispossessed ;
        2) Israel is responsible for the refugees Israel created, the majority of whom are still refugees many of whom are non-Jewish Israeli citizensand;
        3) Israel simply cannot afford the astronomical cost of the compensation for non-Israeli refugees and/or the return AND huge class action law suits by non-Jewish Israeli citizens

        Furthermore it in trying to minimize the return of non-Jewish Israeli citizens Israel’s only legal avenue would be to admit to the fact that its legitimate territory only extends to the borders proclaimed by the Jewish State in its plea for recognition, which would in turn be;
        an admission by Israel that has only been in ‘occupation of’ more than 50% of what remained of Palestine after Israel had proclaimed its borders

        In short it would open a whole mess of really really ugly truths that would have to be faced by Israelis who’ve been duped by successive Israeli Govts for 67 years

        // On this I can agree with her, but then she goes on to deny the Palestinian right of return by characterizing the two very different expulsions as “a permanent exchange of roughly equal numbers of refugees” — in other words, a population exchange, which from Israel’s perspective, bar monetary compensation, is pretty much finalized as an issue//

        The author is correct in part. The Palestinians didn’t expel Jews from the Arab states.

        What is missed by the author is the fact that the non-Jews expelled from the territory proclaimed by the provisional Israeli Government in its plea for recognition had a right to ISRAELI citizenship

        There is an irony in that the Arab States have not only generously hosted Palestinian refugees, but also non-Jewish ISRAELI refugees for 67 years

      • Emory Riddle
        December 14, 2015, 11:23 am

        “i thought that something like 60% of israeli jews come from regional arab lands – lands in which they have been persecuted and treated like second class citizens for hundreds of years”

        What absolute nonsense. More Jewish victimology. The Arab Jews who lived throughout the region, including Palestine, for millennia were not a persecuted people. There was NO flight from the Arab nations by Jews until after the creation of Israel. That should tell you something (although I have a feeling it won’t).

      • talknic
        December 18, 2015, 5:32 am

        @ bobdon “i thought that something like 60% of israeli jews come from regional arab lands – lands in which they have been persecuted and treated like second class citizens for hundreds of years.”

        A) Between 1948 and 1952 there was indeed an Arab majority. http://wp.me/pDB7k-19Y
        The influx of non-Arab Jews has since surpassed that once Arab majority

        B) If they’d been persecuted and treated like second class citizens for hundreds of years, why didn’t they leave and go to Palestine hundreds of years ago when they could have? Even Herzl in his life time could have gone to Palestine, gained legal citizenship, bought land and settled anywhere in the Jewish People’s Historical Homeland. Neither he or his family bothered

        C) It’s NORMAL for countries at war to either intern or expel possible allies of the enemy. The US, UK, Australia did their own German, Italian/Japanese citizens during WW2. It’s also NORMAL to allow their freedom/return after hostilities IF they haven’t meanwhile taken up citizenship in a country other than that of return, whereby they are no longer refugees (there are no longer any Jewish refugees from the Arab States)

        ” wouldn’t you constitute it as a regional state (built up from mainly jewish arabs) which a persecuted people are seeking permanent refuge in? “

        In 1897 there were no Jewish Arabs clamoring to migrate to Palestine. In 1897 the Zionist Federation planned to colonize Palestine by offering settlers interest bearing loans. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8632-jewish-colonial-trust-the-judische-colonialbank

        Were Jewish Arabs being expelled from warring states before the 1948 war?

    • peeesss
      December 15, 2015, 11:49 am

      Eugene Bird is a man with good intentions.. For many years he has espoused a a fairly progressive analysis of th ME, and the Palestine/Israel situation. But this piece is very difficult to read… Israel will never give up the Golan , peacefully or without the strong pressure of the US and the international community… Since that is unlikely the rational for his words have no meaning.. He constructs a theory of Israel’s compliance with justice and international law that flies in the face of Zionist history or intentions. Truly an unnecessary piece. Could not finish it.

      • MHughes976
        December 15, 2015, 12:25 pm

        I rather share p’s reaction. This is proposed as a short-term measure and we all know that nothing of the sort will happen in the short term as a response to the refugee crisis or any other immediate stimulus. Not that there is any certainty that the Syrian war would not spread to this area if it became a province of Syria. Goodwill can function like a blindfold.
        Also the face-value acceptance of the idea that talks 30 years ago broke down solely on the question of riparian rights may need probing. Perhaps it’s true but small questions can be symbols of larger ones.

    • jon of mancland
      December 25, 2015, 10:10 am

      The Iraqi , Yemeni and Moroccan Jews living in Israel are as much refugees as the Palestinians living in the West bank and Lebanon in that their forbears were persecuted and that they would not be allowed to return.
      It is incredible to me that the oil rich Arab nations have never come to the aid of the Palestinians , by investing in the economy of the west bank and lately Gaza.
      If Israel was to give up the Golan Isis would be firing on Israel within a month.
      Apart from the British mandated territory of Palestine, which included Jordan and the West bank as well as the state of Israel as per the UN , there has never been a Palestinian state.

      • diasp0ra
        December 25, 2015, 11:00 am

        @Jon

        There is a difference though. They are not refugees anymore, they have settled down for good, they are children of refugees. They are full Israeli citizens and I seriously doubt most of them would even want to return. Palestinians still live in refugee camps and have not lost their refugee status and their issue is unresolved.

        Though I personally believe that compensation should be afforded to all refugees (some more than others, obviously) when the conflict finally ends. But that’s another topic.

        As for the investing in economy comment, it’s pointless. There can be no growth under occupation. Period. Palestine is one of the highest recipients of foreign aid in the world, yet its economy is dead because it is subordinated under the Paris protocol to the Israeli one, and is under the whim of Israeli decision making. You can have a beautiful booming industry, but if you don’t control the roads and borders then all your products mean nothing. This is why economic peace is a fantasy.

        As for your last comment..there was never a state called Israel either, I don’t see your point.

        There was also never a state called Italy or Germany before the 19th century. Does that mean that the Germans and Italians didn’t exist before they started calling themselves Germans and Italians? Of course they did, they were the same people, but they just identified differently.

      • talknic
        December 25, 2015, 11:09 am

        @ jon of mancland “The Iraqi , Yemeni and Moroccan Jews living in Israel are as much refugees as the Palestinians living in the West bank and Lebanon in that their forbears were persecuted and that they would not be allowed to return.”

        If a person has taken citizenship in a country other than that of return, they forgo refugee status.
        http://www.unhcr.org/4d944e589.pdf
        They have no right to return. Palestinian AND non-Jewish Israeli citizens who’re refugees would rather return.

        Go sob to the Israeli Government for encouraging them to become Israeli citizens.

        “It is incredible to me that the oil rich Arab nations have never come to the aid of the Palestinians , by investing in the economy of the west bank and lately Gaza”

        Strange :

        Saudi Arabia is one of the largest providers of aid to the Palestinian people. [7] Since 2002, Saudi Arabia has given more than $480 million in monetary support to the Palestinian Authority, and has supported Palestinian refugees by contributing to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Through the Arab League it has provided more than $250 million for the Palestinians, and pledged $500 million in assistance over the next three years at the Donors Conference in Dec 2007.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_foreign_assistance#Middle_East

        Furthermore the Arab States have generously hosted at huge financial burden Palestinians AND non-Jewish Israeli citizens who’re refugees for 67 years. Even fought wars on their behalf.

        “If Israel was to give up the Golan Isis would be firing on Israel within a month”

        Strange. Israel had at least 40 years to withdraw without the presence of ISIS. If Israel had any intention of withdrawal, why did it populate occupied Golan with Israeli civilians in contravention of GC IV?

        “Apart from the British mandated territory of Palestine, which included Jordan and the West bank as well as the state of Israel as per the UN , there has never been a Palestinian state”

        Wrong
        1) Palestinian Nationality Law was adopted in 1925 per the Mandate Article 7 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7
        which tells us Jewish folk could get PALESTINIAN citizenship.

        The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine did not include TransJordan, evidenced by the territories outlined in the Partition Plan UNGA res 181.

        Furthermore the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine said nothing about any Israel!

        Whether Palestine was a state or not is irrelevant;
        2) Territory the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” was and is still not Israeli until there is a final agreement with the Palestinians

        Go peddle your Ziopoop somewhere else

      • echinococcus
        December 25, 2015, 12:06 pm

        What are their “forbears”, if one may ask? Their forbearance? What did they have to tolerate to that point? As for being persecuted, who told you that tall tale –lemme guess, some Zionist outfit with no relationship to fact or history, correct? Before you come out of the Zionist bubble into the real world, you’d do well to learn to speak the same language as normal people

      • tree
        December 25, 2015, 5:08 pm

        The Iraqi , Yemeni and Moroccan Jews living in Israel are as much refugees as the Palestinians living in the West bank and Lebanon in that their forbears were persecuted and that they would not be allowed to return.

        This is a false statement because Iraqi, Yemeni and Moroccan Jews are NOT prohibited from returning if they so wish. In contrast to Iraq, which has been politically and economically destroyed by the US’ war on it, or Yemen, which is desperately poor and also embroiled in violence, neither of which are good destinations for Israeli emigrants, Morocco has actually seen some Jews return, including some with Israeli citizenship and the Moroccan King has personally urged the former Moroccan Jews to return. Although concrete numbers are hard to find, the Moroccan Jewish population has gone from around 3000 in the early 2000’s to around 5000 in 2015.

        A few articles you might want to read about Morocco and Israel:

        I have included only articles from sources which are somewhat pro-Zionist, under the assumption that someone like you who has swallowed Zionist propaganda whole (e.g. “no Palestine”) would not believe other sources, no matter how factual. If I am wrong in this, I can include additional sources.

        http://forward.com/opinion/217638/1-thing-moroccans-want-all-jews-to-know/

        Snippet from article above:

        Sometimes I would reveal that I’m Jewish — it is my dream, after all, to someday attend one of Morocco’s iconic Jewish pilgrimages, a hiloula. This admission was met with one of three responses: an urging to come back and go to the great hiloula of Ouazarzate; an apology or regret for the treatment and exodus of Moroccan Jews in the 1950s and 1960s; or, most frequently, a narration of the Jewish facilities still available in Morocco today. These stories were occasionally punctuated by mentions of the Jews they had met — locals, French, Israelis — or of the Moroccan-Jewish singer Neta Elkayam.

        Nowadays, Morocco has roughly 5,000 Jews, and thousands of Israelis and other Jews of Moroccan descent visit every year. But in the 1950s and 1960s, many Moroccan Jews did face great difficulty, and freedom of Jewish practice was only strengthened in the recent constitution. Morocco’s human rights record leaves much to be desired, and fundamentalists continue to seek (and have harmed) the Kingdom. Yet I was struck by the openness of Moroccans to their Jewish brethren — and to the very idea of their existence.

        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4350488,00.html

        Snippet from ynet article above:

        At its peak in the 1950s, there were an estimated 300,000 Jews in Morocco out of a population of some eight million.

        With the establishment of Israel and the encouragement of Zionists, Morocco’s Jews left. Some went for religious reasons to seek the long promised land, some for a better life than in economically troubled post-colonial Morocco, still others who feared persecution.

        Unlike elsewhere in the Arab world, the creation of Israel did not spark widespread animosity or attacks on Jews. There were isolated incidents but no national campaign. Many Jews left, however, after being told by Zionist agents they were in danger, said Rehihil. [Note> Zhor Rehihil is the curator of the Museum for Moroccan Judaism in Casablanca.]

        “Each time there was an Arab-Israeli war, there would be tensions and the Jews would become afraid and some more would leave,” she said, adding that most had left by the 1973 war.

        ….

        The Moroccan Jews in the film do look back fondly on how well they got on with their Muslim neighbors and lament the daily violence and hatred that characterize the tense relations in Israel today with the Palestinians.

        About 1 million Jews of Moroccan origin now live in Israel. Some 50,000 Israelis – many of them Moroccan – visit Morocco every year, said Sam Ben Chetrit, the head of the World Federation of Moroccan Jewry, who moved to Israel from Morocco in 1963.

        Ben Chetrit said that on a visit last year, “we were told (by legislators) `we are happy you are here, this is your home, but make sure you bring your children too.'”

        As I see it, Israel is responsible for both the Palestinian refugees and the emigrants from Arab countries, only a portion of which would fit the definition of refugee. By creating a state which claimed to represent all Jews everywhere, and which also ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of non-Jews from its territory and encouraged, sometimes through clandestine violence, hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews to emigrate to Israel, it created an enmity between Arab Jews and non-Jews, which it used for its own racist purposes, while treating its Arab Jewish immigrants as second class citizens below the Israeli Ashkenazi Jews.

        From the Wikipedia entry on Moroccan Jews:

        In June 1948, soon after Israel was established and in the midst of the first Arab-Israeli war, riots against Jews broke out in Oujda and Djerada, and in Alcazarquivir killing 44 Jews. In 1948-9, 18,000 Jews left the country for Israel. After this, Jewish emigration continued (to Israel and elsewhere), but slowed to a few thousand a year. Through the early 1950s, Zionist organizations encouraged emigration, particularly in the poorer south of the country, seeing Moroccan Jews as a valuable source of labor for the Jewish State, despite the view of much of Israel’s Ashkenazi elite that the Moroccans were “poor human material.”[61]

        …..

        The Six-Day War in 1967 led to increased Arab-Jewish tensions worldwide including in Morocco. By 1971, its Jewish population was down to 35,000; however, most of this new wave of emigration went to Europe and North America rather than Israel. France for a time was a destination particularly for Moroccan Jews with European educations, who had economic opportunities there; one study of Moroccan Jewish brothers, one of whom settled in France and the other in Israel, showed that 28 percent of the brothers who settled in France became managers, businessmen or professionals (compared to 13 percent of their Israeli brothers) and only 4 percent unskilled workers (compared to over a third of their Israeli brothers).[63] Moroccan Jews in Israel, far more numerous, enjoyed less upward mobility: 51 percent were blue-collar in 1961 and 54 percent as late as 1981.[64]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Morocco

        Additional note: You might be interested in this article from the Forward:

        Honoring the Moroccan King Who Saved the Jews

        The line to enter New York City’s B’nai Jeshurun synagogue on Sunday night went around the block.

        But the 700 people who crowded the sidewalk on West 88th street weren’t there for services. Or for a wedding. Or a late-night bar mitzvah.

        They came to celebrate a king — a Moroccan king, to be exact.

        The ceremony, organized by the KIVUNIM: The Institute for World Jewish Studies as part of their three-day 10th anniversary conference, celebrated the creation of The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. – Rabbi Abraham Heschel Award and its first recipient, the late King Mohammed V of Morocco, who protected the country’s 250,000 Jews from the occupying Vichy French forces and the Nazis during World War II.

        http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/327772/honoring-the-moroccan-king-who-saved-the-jews/

      • RoHa
        December 25, 2015, 6:45 pm

        “It is incredible to me that the oil rich Arab nations have never come to the aid of the Palestinians ”

        Israel is the country responsible for the plight of the Palestinians. It is Israel that should do the decent thing and come to the aid of the Palestinians.

      • RoHa
        December 25, 2015, 6:48 pm

        @talknic & tree:

        You are clogging up the comment section with mere facts again. You should know better than that.

      • Sibiriak
        December 25, 2015, 10:39 pm

        talknic: 2) Territory the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” was and is still not Israeli until there is a final agreement with the Palestinians
        ——————————–

        Correction: The “Green Line” (1949 Armistice line) has become the internationally recognized provisional border between Israeli and Palestinian territory. Israel has full jurisdiction (aka sovereignty) on the Israeli side of the Green Line unless and until mutually agreed border changes are made in a final agreement.

      • tree
        December 25, 2015, 11:23 pm

        You should know better than that.

        Ha! My bad.

        Merry Christmas, from a non-believer who nevertheless enjoys the holiday!

      • Annie Robbins
        December 26, 2015, 4:03 am

        merry christmas to you too tree ;)

      • talknic
        December 26, 2015, 2:27 am

        “You should know better than that”

        Anti-Ziocaine never wears off

      • talknic
        December 26, 2015, 6:39 am

        Sibiriak “The “Green Line” (1949 Armistice line) has become the internationally recognized provisional border between Israeli and Palestinian territory.”

        I have never been able to find any official International recognition;
        There are no foreign embassies outside of Israel’s self proclaimed UNGA 181 borders;
        Nor would it be legal under the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and duties of States 1933. Under Article 11 it is a …

        precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897#art11

        Article V of the Egypt/Israel Armistice Agreement is very clear

        Article V

        1. The line described in Article VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Line and is delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolutions of the Security Council of 4 and 16 November 1948.

        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.

        3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

        4. Rules and regulations of the armed forces of the Parties, which prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines , shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement with application to the Armistice Demarcation Line defined in Article VI. http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/mfadocuments/yearbook1/pages/israel-egypt%20armistice%20agreement.aspx

        ” Israel has full jurisdiction (aka sovereignty) on the Israeli side of the Green Line unless and until mutually agreed border changes are made in a final agreement”

        De facto jurisdiction over territories acquired by war is not de jure. Sovereignty by its very nature is de jure and;
        As a final agreement has not yet been reached with Palestine to cede any Palestinian territory to Israel, no territories beyond the officially proclaimed and recognized borders yet belong to Israel.

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2015, 11:25 am

        @talknic Allow me to address your points in detail in multiple posts. I will rely heavily on Hostage’s legal analysis which can easily be accessed via MW archive links which I will provide. (Additional links can be found in the original posts.) (All emphasis has been added.)
        ——————–

        [Sibiriak:] “The “Green Line” (1949 Armistice line) has become the internationally recognized provisional border between Israeli and Palestinian territory.”

        [talknic:] I have never been able to find any official International recognition;
        ———————————

        The 1949 Armistice lines (aka “Green Line” or “1967 borders”) have been internationally recognized in quite a number of different ways.

        1) The Green Line was not simply an agreement between various parties, but rather was established by UNSC resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Therefore, it is legally recognized internationally and binding on all UN member states.

        [Hostage:] […]I don’t know why everyone claims that permanent armistice lines of demarcation aren’t internationally recognized. The implementation and observance of the armistice agreements were governed by Chapter VII Security Council resolutions, the regulations annexed to the Hague Convention of 1904, and the regime of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) contained in the agreements themselves.

        The 1949 Armistice Agreements were concluded under the auspices of UN Security Council resolutions 62 & 73. Those are legally binding on every member state of the United Nations. […]

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/jewish-fed-general-assembly-seems-paranoid-about-who-is-on-our-side-inside-jewish-community#comment-387370

        ——————–

        [Avi_G.:] Not to nitpick, but the Green Line of 1967 is merely a ceasefire line. It is not an internationally recognized border. […]

        [Hostage:] The armistice lines are legally recognized frontiers just like many other internationally recognized boundaries. In fact, the Tripartite Declaration referred to them as “Armistice Borders”. link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        Like every other international border, they can only be altered by mutual consent, but that doesn’t mean that they ever will be legally modified. The UN Mediator negotiated and accepted the agreements under the auspices of UN Security Council resolution 62, which required the delineation of permanent armistice demarcation lines. The Security Council endorsed the agreements in its resolution 73 and ordered the parties concerned to implement and observe the agreements pending a final negotiated settlement. Both resolutions were adopted as provisional Article 40 measures under the terms of Chapter VII of the UN Charter and are legally binding on all UN member states.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/10/israeli-police-target-sheikh-jarrah-store-for-hanging-posters-of-erdogan#comment-381010
        ————-

        [ john h:]’67 borders don’t exist, they are armistice lines

        [Hostage:] Clarification:
        *Security Council resolution 62 and 73 established “permanent armistices demarcation lines” under the auspices of Chapter VII of the UN Charter and required the parties to apply and observe the terms pending a final agreement. They are still legally recognized and binding on all UN member states. The provisional settlement established by the Armistice Agreements is unchallengeable until a new process of negotiation and agreement has been successfully consummated.

        link to en.wikisource.org
        link to en.wikisource.org
        link to soas.ac.uk (pdf page 73-74)

        […]

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/09/abunimah-palestinian-focus-should-be-on-attaining-rights-not-statehood#comment-366511
        ——————-

        [Hostage]: […]permanent international lines of demarcation are legally enforceable borders. See Tripartite Declaration Regarding the Armistice Borders : Statement by the Governments of the United States, The United Kingdom, and France, May 25, 1950 link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/08/traveling-through-the-occupied-west-bank-on-an-israelis-only-road#comment-489093

        The GA cannot set borders. Period.

        [Hostage: ]Perhaps not, but they certainly have recognized the permanent armistice lines of demarcation as provisional international borders pending an agreement between the two sides indicating their consent to any modifications. Israel remains bound by the terms of those agreements; UN Security Council resolutions 62 and 73; and Chapter VII of the UN Charter

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/ashrawi-statehood-is-game-changer-and-us-is-damaging-its-standing-in-world-by-opposing-it#comment-519382

        (Continued)

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2015, 11:40 am

        @talknic continued:

        2) The UN through various resolutions and the ICJ in the 2004 “Wall” case have recognized the Green Line as the provisional border between Israeli and Palestinian territory.
        ———————–

        [Hostage: ] I think [the UN] already has recognized the armistice lines as the interim or provisional borders of Palestine. The ICJ and General Assembly had stated that the construction of the wall is illegal wherever it deviates from the Green Line. The Security Council had labeled the settlements and the annexation of Jerusalem as flagrant violations of international law too.

        The 1949 armistice lines were originally imposed by the Security Council as a “provisional measure” under Article 40 of the UN Charter. The Security Council subsequently endorsed the Quartet Road Map- which called for recognition of the State of Palestine within interim borders and possible UN membership as a Quartet Phase II obligation. There was never any requirement for Palestine to negotiate a final settlement before going to the UN or ICC. There haven’t been any mutually agreed upon changes to the Green Line, so those frontiers would have to be considered the legally binding provisional borders for the time being.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/palestinians-circulate-draft-resolution-at-un-as-barak-implores-us-to-help-israel-delay-bid#comment-513692
        ——————–

        Hostage: […] In 2004 both the General Assembly and ICJ claimed, among other things, that the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was illegal because its route departed from the agreed upon armistice lines.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/jewish-fed-general-assembly-seems-paranoid-about-who-is-on-our-side-inside-jewish-community#comment-387370
        ————————–

        3) UN member states have recognized the state of Palestine based on 1967 borders–not on UN res181 partition borders.

        [Hostage: ]When was the announcement of the independence of Palestine with recognized borders?

        FYI, the overwhelming majority of UN member states, 169+, have long-since recognized the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people over the natural resources of the territory in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem that came under Israeli military control in 1967. Those boundaries are very well known. They were established as permanent international armistice lines of demarcation in accordance with Chapter VII UN Security Council resolutions that Israel is still bound to respect. Those same UN member states have also acknowledged Palestine’s right to compensation for the minerals, water, and other resources that Israelis have extracted for their own benefit. UNESCO relied upon those boundaries when it designated the Church of the Nativity in Palestine as a World Heritage site.

        About 130 of those same UN member states have also formally recognized the statehood of Palestine, within the 67 borders, on the basis of the 1988 Algiers Declaration of Independence. A sufficient number of them voted in favor of admitting Palestine to an internationally recognized category of States, i.e. members of UN special agencies. All UN member states have either a customary or conventional legal obligation to treat members of UN special agencies as states according to the terms of the UN “Vienna” Conventions.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/slater-takes-on-one-state-scenarios-from-mearsheimer-munayyer-and-walt#comment-501611
        ———————–

        [Hostage:][…] The UN Credentials Committee and the General Assembly have adopted the 4 June 1967 borders for the purposes of defining the jurisdiction for Israel’s credentials.

        *The UN has adopted reports and resolutions on credentials that mention “their State, Palestine”. Those resolutions describe the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967 as “their territory” and say that “the credentials of the delegation of Israel do not cover that territory”. See A/58/L.48, 15 December 2003; General Assembly 58/292, 17 May 2004.

        *The verbatim record of the General Assembly discussion of resolution 58/292 indicates the words “pre-1967 borders” had intentionally been adopted to replace the words “Armistice Line of 1949” See A/58/PV.87

        *See also the PLO Negotiations Office “Recognizing the Palestinian State on the 1967 border” link to nad-plo.org […]

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/08/traveling-through-the-occupied-west-bank-on-an-israelis-only-road#comment-489093

        Continued:

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2015, 12:01 pm

        @talknic continued:

        4) The PLO has recognized the Green Line as the border between Israeli territory and Occupied Palestinian Territory:

        [ PLO Negotiations Office:] 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

        […]In 2004, the International Court of Justice delivered its Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court declared that “Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem.” By “occupied Palestinian territory” the Court referred to the territory occupied by Israel in June 1967.

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

        5) It should also be pointed out that the BDS Movement defines occupied Palestinian territory in terms of 1967 borders, not UN res.181 partition borders. The first BDS goal is to get Israel to:

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

        http://bdsmovement.net/bdsintro#sthash.ixKL6I8g.dpuf

        To sum up on your first point: The Green Line has been recognized as the provisional border between Israeli territory and Occupied Palestinian Territory by the UNSC, the UNGA, the ICJ, the overwhelming majority of UN member states, the PLO and the BDS movement.

        I’ll address your other important points in further posts.

      • talknic
        December 26, 2015, 3:34 pm

        I have read and am familiar with Hostage’s analysis and agree

        There is of course recognition of the Armistice Demarcation Lines being provisional boundaries and borders pending final settlement/agreement/negotiation because there were Armistice Agreements

        However, there is not yet recognition by any state of any territory acquired by war being Israeli, for the simple fact that Israel has not agreed to limit its sovereignty to the territories within the Demarcation Lines. There is no final agreement, no final negotiated settlement

        In case you haven’t noticed Israel wants and claims MORE, beyond the Armistice Demarcation Lines, in breach of the Armistice Agreements and to which no one has agreed

        Furthermore no legal annexation of any territory has taken place

  2. Palikari
    December 11, 2015, 5:16 pm

    Give back the Golan to whom? Al-Assad, whose regime is slaughtering its own citizens and has used chemical weapons? Al-Qaeda’s Jabat al-Nusra? The Islamic State?

    Syria is disintegrating, it’s a failed state. And you want to give back the Golan now?

    Gimme a break.

    • echinococcus
      December 11, 2015, 5:32 pm

      “Give back the Golan to whom?… Al-Qaeda’s Jabat al-Nusra? The Islamic State?”

      Tsk, tsk, exact opposite of a palikari. This is no way to talk about your best allies, the guys who promised you to abandon all rights on any territory you want –in exchange of (American) weapons and money and Zionist military and medical support. The Islamic state that murders people just for not being Muslim enough but loves the fundamentalist Zionist muderers, and Al Qa’eda that seems to be best friends, nay almost lovers, with your puppet the US.
      Also, before declaring Syria a failed state you may want to see if you guys are ready to take on Russia and Iran, when you can’t even invade Lebanon anymore without burning your ass.

    • Atlantaiconoclast
      December 11, 2015, 8:00 pm

      Do you have proof that Assad is solely responsible for the deaths of those 200,000 we hear about in the media every day? That he, rather than the rebels used chemical weapons on his own people? Please don’t just provide a link to some anti Assad Western media story. Show me objective evidence! We know that many of his forces have died too fighting the Islamic extremists masquerading as “moderates.” If some group of rebels decided to try to overthrow the Obama regime, there would be far more deaths at the hands of Obama than we have seen by Assad’s hands.

      Yes, Syria has disintegrated, because the West AND Israel, and the Sunni Gulf states want Assad out, come hell or high water. They don’t care about how many people die, they just want Assad gone. Makes no sense to me, as the secular Assad is far better on human rights than most of the dictators who are trying to oust him. So yes, give the Golan back to the legitimate regime of Syria, that of Assad.

      • oldgeezer
        December 11, 2015, 8:18 pm

        Actually the article merely says agree in principle to give it back so it can be used in the interim as a haven for innocent Syrian civilians.

        Neither Israel nor palikari cares a wit for anyone valuing land and theft over humanity.

        It is actually a very sound proposal considering it is not Israel’s land to possess.

      • Palikari
        December 11, 2015, 9:35 pm

        I never said he’s responsible for the death ofmore than 200,000 Syrians. He’s not the only responsible.

        “That he, rather than the rebels used chemical weapons on his own people?”

        I will ask you the same question: do you have any evidence that it was the rebels the ones who carried out the chemical attacks?

        There’s no hard evidence that it was the regime or the rebels. However, there are plenty of strong indications that the chemical attacks were carried out by the regime, among them:

        – The rebels did not have access to a chemical arsenal.
        – Only the Syrian army had access to a chemical arsenal; no other group inside Syria.
        – Only the Syrian army had the capability and logistics to carry out chemical attacks.
        – Chemical attacks were only targeted rebel areas.
        – The attacks only benefited the regime and decimated the rebels significantly, especially in the capital.
        – All chemical attacks were launched from governmental areas, in particular the regime stronghold of Jabal Qasiyun (Damascus).

        “Please don’t just provide a link to some anti Assad Western media story. Show me objective evidence!”

        Are UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry reports “objective” enough to you?

        http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/slideshow/Secretary_General_Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf
        https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/report.pdf

        “Yes, Syria has disintegrated, because the West AND Israel”

        Let me get this straight.

        There is a sectarian civil war against a tyranny. And who’s to blame? Not the regime, that has been oppressing the people for decades and has killed tens of thousands of its own citizens; not the Sunni fanatics that want to overthrow the regime because it’s Shia and not Islamist enough; not the ones who hold the weapons and use them; etc.

        Who’s to blame? The West and Israel! This is no more than hatred and prejudice. Aren’t Arabs human beings and masters of themselves?

        “So yes, give the Golan back to the legitimate regime of Syria, that of Assad.”

        Assad’s regime is not legitimate. It’s a dictatorship and it was not voted by the people. Only democratic regimes chosen by the people are legitimate.

        Let’s ask Golan residents, most of them Druze, what do they prefer: peace, security and freedom under Israeli democracy or blood and death under a tyrant or a ‘rebel’ Islamist terror regime in a war-torn failed state.

      • talknic
        December 11, 2015, 11:42 pm

        @ Palikari Thanks again for exposing so clearly the deceptive MO of an apologist for the ongoing illegal colonization of Palestine by the State of Israel.

        “I never said he’s responsible for the death ofmore than 200,000 Syrians. He’s not the only responsible.”

        Strange. The Assad regime is only party you mentioned here // “Al-Assad, whose regime is slaughtering its own citizens and has used chemical weapons “// – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/israel-should-golan#comment-158530

        “I will ask you the same question: do you have any evidence that it was the rebels the ones who carried out the chemical attacks?”

        This yours … “There’s no hard evidence that it was the regime or the rebels … … Are UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry reports “objective” enough to you?” ?

        The UN report is inconclusive as to who did.

        BTW was the UN report from the same UN you attempt to discredit elsewhere? Hypocrisy in Zioverdrive

        “There is a sectarian civil war against a tyranny. And who’s to blame? “

        In the late 1990’s the predominantly Israel and Zionist biased PNAC who infested the GW Bush Whitehouse recommended the downfall of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria in order to better serve US influence in the region

        “Assad’s regime is not legitimate.”

        Under International Law only the majority of Syrians have the right to decide. Until such time as that majority representative emerges, it is the legitimate regime whether one likes it or not. Thus far an alternative majority has not emerged and as long as the region can be kept in turmoil, the manufacturers of human slaughtering equipment will make a killing and Israel will have an excuse, no matter that it’s invalid, for the continued illegal settlement of the Golan

        “Only democratic regimes chosen by the people are legitimate>”

        That’d be by the will of a majority representative. Thus far an alternative majority has not emerged.

        BTW The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel doesn’t mention anything about democracy. http://wp.me/pDB7k-D6

        In fact Israel has never had a ‘legitimate’ Government voted in under the required constitution. That right was swiftly kicked out from under the feet of Israelis by the un-elected provisional Israeli Govt

        “Let’s ask Golan residents, most of them Druze, what do they prefer: peace, security and freedom under Israeli democracy or blood and death under a tyrant or a ‘rebel’ Islamist terror regime in a war-torn failed state”

        A) Golan ‘residents’? It’s only the legitimate citizens of a territory who have the right to decide the future of that territory. Those legitimate citizens include refugees from that territory. It does not include any Israeli citizens.

        B) As required by International Law, Israel should have questioned the legitimate citizens of the territory they now occupy when they decided to occupy it, BEFORE “the blood and death under a tyrant or a ‘rebel’ Islamist terror regime in a war-torn failed state” PNAC inspired overthrow developed.

      • Theo
        December 12, 2015, 12:06 pm

        I have read reports not from western sources, where the writer very covincingly makes the statement, that not Assad troops, but the rebels used chemical warfare.
        Those containers could only be fired not further than a mile, (if I remember correctly), and at that time goverment troops were not in the area. As far as the 250,000 dead, the rebels also did their bloody job and killed at least as many as Assad troops.

      • ldq1997
        December 12, 2015, 1:26 pm

        At the time of Assad’s original alleged use of chemical weapons to kill his own people, there was a suggestion that this may have been an event staged by the Israelis to poison the Americans’ minds against Assad. However, this suggestion was never investigated or discussed and eventually lapsed all together. Instead we followed the Israeli principle that if you repeat something loud enough and often enough, it will eventually become accepted as truth. [..] Assad indeed used chemical weapons against his own people. So much for him. We no longer need to take him seriously as a viable leader in the Middle East.

      • Shingo
        December 12, 2015, 4:17 pm

        The rebels did not have access to a chemical arsenal.

        That’s not hard evidence that’s a talking point. There is plenty fo evidence the rebels were provided CW’s by Turkey. In fact, the Turks stopped vehicles on their way to Syria carrying CWs.

        Furthermore, the UN has reported that the rebels/Daesh have indeed used CWs.

        Only the Syrian army had access to a chemical arsenal; no other group inside Syria.

        False. See above.

        Only the Syrian army had the capability and logistics to carry out chemical attacks.

        False. See above.#

        Chemical attacks were only targeted rebel areas.

        They were fired FROM rebel held areas.

        The attacks only benefited the regime and decimated the rebels significantly, especially in the capital.

        Absolutely rubbish. The regime was on top and had no reason to resort to CWs. The attacks only benefited the opposition by bringing the West in to bomb Syria.

        All chemical attacks were launched from governmental areas, in particular the regime stronghold of Jabal Qasiyun (Damascus).

        False. Weapons exports revealed that the rockets used to carry them only had a range fo 2 miles, meaning they could only have been fired from rebel held areas.

        There is a sectarian civil war against a tyranny. And who’s to blame?

        How about the West, who going back to 2006, had plans to overthrow the Assad regime. As former French minister of Foreign Affairs Roland Dumas revealed, the war in Syria was “prepared, preconceived and planned” by some Western top officials at least “two years before the violence” erupted in 2011.

        You want to call that hatred and prejudice? And why is Israel giving aid and medical care to ISIS?

        Assad’s regime is not legitimate. It’s a dictatorship and it was not voted by the people. Only democratic regimes chosen by the people are legitimate.

        Oh really? So the same goes for Saudi Arabia (Israel’s new best friend) and all the other Gulf Monarchies?

      • diasp0ra
        December 12, 2015, 4:53 pm

        @Palikari

        I’m no fan of the Assad regime, but saying Chemical weapons were only used in rebel held areas is false.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_al-Assal_chemical_attack

        After all these years and a few investigations (some invited by the regime) nobody has any evidence of who used chemical weapons in Syria.

      • echinococcus
        December 14, 2015, 5:47 am

        Talknic, in plainer English, you don’t have to recognize an illegal partition to be able to denounce the Zionists for violating their (already illegal) engagements. Every time you start on “Israel’s borders”, be they from 1947 or 48 or whenever, you give the Zionists a toehold on legitimacy. Not useful.

      • talknic
        December 15, 2015, 3:40 am

        @ echinococcus Like it or not, legal or not, Israel now exists as a UN Member state and while the US UNSC veto remains that status is unlikely to change

        Like it or not, the Palestinians have since 1988 been willing to cede territory in return for peace

      • echinococcus
        December 15, 2015, 4:33 am

        Talknic,

        With all due respect, please stop feeding us nonsense.

        Like it or not, legal or not, Israel now exists as a UN Member state and while the US UNSC veto remains that status is unlikely to change

        Nazi German occupation or the French province of Algeria were very solidly established facts, too, highly unlikely to ever change –more than is the case with the Zionist abomination. Things do change and also get changed by hook or by crook, especially cancers on the world’s asscheeks that continually provoke war. Existing is not an argument against undoing.
        The creation of this monster is totally illegal, as you pretend to recognize. Yet you will not even pay lip service to something so fundamental.

        Like it or not, the Palestinians have since 1988 been willing to cede territory in return for peace.

        Equating ***some*** Palestinians, especially Zionist or US puppets and traitors, with the entire Palestinian people is a vicious slur on the Palestinian people.

        The will of populations in matters of self-determination is, by general consensus, only recognized as the result of a properly vetted plebiscite of all the people, including the displaced and excluding invaders with pre-expressed hostile intent, in the absence of military occupation, genocide or other forms of duress. You want to equate some scaredy-cat Pétain with the Palestinian people, go ahead but at least do it frankly.

        Whatever you believe is your business, but you don’t have to propagandize the non-existing right to existence of the Zionist entity while pretending to oppose it.

      • talknic
        December 15, 2015, 11:51 am

        @ echinococcus “.. please stop feeding us nonsense”

        I don’t do nonsense. It is a fact, whether we like it or not, Israel now exists as a UN Member state and while the US UNSC veto remains that status is unlikely to change

        “Things do change and also get changed … etc etc etc … “

        Indeed, as circumstances change. While the US UNSC veto remains the status of the I/P situation is unlikely to change

        “Equating ***some*** Palestinians, especially Zionist or US puppets and traitors, with the entire Palestinian people is a vicious slur on the Palestinian people”

        Abbas is the majority representative. He has tried to adhere to the Palestinian end of the bargain. Israel has not

      • echinococcus
        December 15, 2015, 10:12 pm

        Talknic,

        You “don’t do nonsense”, you just doggedly repeat your own words, refusing any discussion as obvious in your post. It would be interesting to have some psychologist or so look into this insistence on two simultaneous attitudes: 1. the affirmation that the Zionist entity has no legitimacy at all; 2. the stick-in-the-mud defense against all comers of the legitimacy of the same.

      • talknic
        December 16, 2015, 11:42 am

        echinococcus “It would be interesting to have some psychologist …”

        Back off. I ‘ve never maintained the manner in which Israel gained statehood was legitimate.

        Quite the opposite. It was based on deceit. The lies of the Zionist federation, Jewish Agency and successive Israeli Governments are on the official record.

        Whether we like it or not, whether legitimately achieved or not, the fact is, the State of Israel is a UN Member and as such should at the very least be made to adhere to the obligations of UN Membership under which occupation must end and Israel must withdraw from all non-Israeli territories and allow the independent state the Palestinians now envisage

      • Mooser
        December 16, 2015, 4:01 pm

        ” I ‘ve never maintained the manner in which Israel gained statehood was legitimate.”

        “talknic” we can, well, sorta test that, at least how Zionists view their own legitamacy now very easily. All we have to do is write up all the terms and conditions of the Statehood Declaration and the UN agreement as if they were a new proposal for a “two-state solution”. And then present it to Zionists. I think they will be quick to tell us how illegitimate, how completely unworkable, and how much less than they are supposed to have, these things are.
        Do you think they will find them acceptable or ‘legitimate’ “talknic”? Have they?

        And I sure haven’t noticed any Zionist-supporters here looking at “talknic’s” stuff and saying: “see, that’s all we ever wanted” or: “I would be satisfied with that…”. As a matter of fact, don’t they find “talknic’s” ‘validation of their legitimacy’, (not a quote) from their own founding documents, to be pretty anti-Zionist or “anti-Israel”?
        I don’t see what “echinococcus” is so worried about. If he is worried that Zionists will suddenly turn around, embrace the original arrangement, and be securely ensconced behind the 48 lines, and giving everybody the rights and reparations they should have, well, I wouldn’t, but he can if he wants to.

        Look, in this very thread, “talknic” asked “dabakr” what “lands were pledged to Israel?” Did “Dabakr” make any reference at all to Israel’s own declaration of what lands belonged to it? The agreement they made with the UN? Nope. Not even “Dabakr” will embrace that version (Israel’s own, ostensibly!) of “legitimacy”.

      • echinococcus
        December 17, 2015, 12:02 am

        Well, Talknic, the Palestinian state has a right to the initial “Israel” territory, too.

      • talknic
        December 17, 2015, 8:06 am

        @ echinococcus ” the Palestinian state has a right to the initial “Israel” territory, too”

        Seems tho that despite their being under no moral or legal obligation to forgo ANY of their legal rights even in ‘negotiations’ (which only means forgoing some of their legal rights), they’d rather have peace, Independent Statehood and UN Membership

        The legal battle can then deservedly begin in earnest

      • echinococcus
        December 17, 2015, 9:36 am

        Talknic,

        You a psychic or something? You are allowed to have a personal guess about the Palestinian people’s wishes being giving in to Zionist and colonialist blackmail, but that’s just your personal guess.

        Presenting the abject surrender of Zionist Quislings as the will of the Palestinian people is not a way to help the Palestinians get rid of their invaders. No difference from the signing off by Pétain of France’s rights to sovereignty on its northern half? Just as one very relevant example. Then your defense of the violation of the UN Charter and basic texts of international law by the big powers at the UN. It’s no use calling it illegal if you defend it.

        Come with a verified plebiscite of the Palestinian people including all diaspora, excluding the Zionist invaders, not under military occupation or other form of duress and people might take you seriously. It is a sine qua non.

      • talknic
        December 17, 2015, 11:27 am

        @ echinococcus

        “You are allowed to have a personal guess about the Palestinian people’s wishes being giving in to Zionist and colonialist blackmail, but that’s just your personal guess”

        No, it was Abbas at the UN in front of the world as a most eloquent and well received spokesperson for the State of Palestine, recognized by the majority of the UN. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/full-transcript-of-abbas-speech-at-un-general-assembly-1.386385

        “Then your defense of the violation of the UN Charter and basic texts of international law by the big powers at the UN.”

        Uh?

        “Come with a verified plebiscite of the Palestinian people including all diaspora, excluding the Zionist invaders, not under military occupation or other form of duress and people might take you seriously”

        Knowing intimately who he has been up against, I hold Abbas in high regard.

        There’s still no final agreement only an offer and until such time as there and agreement he has successfully garnered more support than ever before, PEACEFULLY!

        There wasn’t a Zionist or Zionist supporter in sight when Abbas spoke at the UN. No one was there under duress. Those who weren’t there were under duress!

        The applause verified the general feeling of the majority of the world’s UN Member states. Therein lies at least a glimmer of hope against the total colonization of Palestine.

        https://youtu.be/doVBDhH3tQo

        Off the scale http://wp.me/pDB7k-TM

      • talknic
        December 17, 2015, 12:31 pm

        Mooser ““talknic” we can, well, sorta test that … … …”

        Hey, leave me out of it when you’re talking to me

        “All we have to do is write up all the terms and conditions of the Statehood Declaration and the UN agreement as if they were a new proposal for a “two-state solution”. And then present it to Zionists. I think they will be quick to tell us how illegitimate, how completely unworkable, and how much less than they are supposed to have, these things are.
        Do you think they will find them acceptable or ‘legitimate’ “talknic”? Have they?”

        More than enough will never be enough …

        ‘sick’ ‘evil’ ‘psychopathic’ ‘racist’ and as close to a nazi as one could get. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/israel-should-golan/comment-page-1#comment-815545

        Ooops DaBakr seems to be channeling or is it funneling?

      • Mooser
        December 17, 2015, 5:31 pm

        “Hey, leave me out of it when you’re talking to me”

        Yup, I got my first-person mixed up with the second person. Thanks for looking past it.

      • echinococcus
        December 18, 2015, 1:25 am

        Talknic,
        Thank you so much for finally making clear your support for the Zionist invasion Quislings. It’s stupid of me to expect anything else about partition etc.; had I known this I wouldn’t have wasted your time with an earnest discussion.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 18, 2015, 2:23 am

        had I known this I wouldn’t have wasted your time with an earnest discussion.

        earnest? you accused him of “pretending to oppose” the zionist state and accused him of “feeding us nonsense” when he recited numerous facts. while i disagree with some of talknics statements (“Abbas is the majority representative” — he does not represent the majority of palestinians — one reason why israel has done everything to prevent elections, because hamas would win). you accuse him of “refusing any discussion” when in fact he’s extended himself time and again.

        your comment about the psychologist was a reflection of your own inability to comprehend talknic. his perception/points are valid — whether you agree with it or not.

        Presenting the abject surrender of Zionist Quislings as the will of the Palestinian people is not a way to help the Palestinians get rid of their invaders.

        there are a lot of palestinians who would settle for a 2ss. and a lot of people cheering in the streets at abbas’s speech whether you like it or not. anyway, if you want to consider your discourse earnest you’ll have to cut w/all the crap about shrinks and dial down your attitude.

      • can of worms
        December 18, 2015, 3:23 am

        Unfair: both are in “earnest” asaics. And, when it comes to rhetorics, you know, I have a special soft spot reserved in my heart for exaggerators, embroiderers and embellishers. Leastways, they’re not much worse than the ones that do their artifice by a ruler. To focus on the claims being made: Talknic relies on international law, while echino’s main challenge is against those uses of international law which only solidify and legitimize the status quo.

        The international human rights regime should be challenged whenever it is not instrumental to social and economic justice. And echino’s challenge has elicited talknic’s very startling response, to the effect that the support that Abbas has at UN forums legitimizes the PA: “Abbas is the majority representative. He has tried to adhere to the Palestinian end of the bargain.” This cannot be brushed off as a minor point of “disagreement” – the debate has pivoted silently around this ideological assumption. Some credit goes to echino for helping to bring this out.

        As far as I know, the PA does not have the ‘support’ of West Bankers (there is a lot of anger being forcefully suppressed), never mind of Gazans, of those within the 48 occupation, of EJites, and of those in the diaspora.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 18, 2015, 4:36 am

        Unfair: both are in “earnest” asaics. And, when it comes to rhetorics, you know, I have a special soft spot reserved in my heart for exaggerators, embroiderers and embellishers.

        what’s “asaics”? wrt exaggerators and embellishers… i agree to a degree (spot reserved), however neither of those qualities accurately reflect my concept of what it means to be rhetorically “earnest”.

      • can of worms
        December 18, 2015, 5:14 am

        =As far as I can see! I guess I was overly inspired by “gamal’s” typographical group hugs. “Dial down your attitude!” reminded me of when I used to get scolded about my “attitude” when I didn’t know I had any. And it came and hit me, out of the blue. @echino, you’ve really unpacked talknic’s crazy endorsement of Abbas as the “majority representative”~

      • Annie Robbins
        December 18, 2015, 2:21 pm

        let me reframe my ‘attitude’ reference (which was not btw directed at you). i didn’t mean to suggest anyone dial down theirs. i meant if one wants to claim the mantel of ‘arguing in earnest’ it’s more convincing when ones rhetoric sounds serious and sincere. ie while twisting someones words to make ones point is a valid point scoring rhetorical tool it’s not arguing earnestly. this is the first example at google

        earnestly is an adverb that means in a serious manner. You’d feel terrible laughing at the goofy love song your friend wrote and performed in front of an audience, especially if he sang it earnestly, or seriously and sincerely. If you do something earnestly, you do it in a serious, heartfelt way.

        not agreeing w/someones opinions is different than accusing someone of not arguing in earnest — or in an earnest argument. it also implies the accuser is arguing in earnest (as opposed to the accused), which is not convincing when using the rhetorical insults i quoted earlier. iow, one can sling around whatever embellishment, word twisting or insults one wants to corner someone, but not while claiming the mantel of engaging earnestly. that’s my personal opinion. other people might have different definitions (or opinions) of what it means to be earnest or have an earnest conversation.

        =As far as I can see!

        thanks!

      • talknic
        December 18, 2015, 5:42 am

        @ echinococcus “Thank you so much for finally making clear your support for the Zionist invasion Quislings”

        Uh?

      • talknic
        December 18, 2015, 5:58 am

        @ can of worms ” … echino’s challenge has elicited talknic’s very startling response, to the effect that the support that Abbas has at UN forums legitimizes the PA: “

        The PA only has authority over small areas of the occupied West Bank. It is not the majority representative, the PLO is.

        Abbas represented the PLO at the UN, reiterating the Palestinian declaration of statehood from 1988 which had AFAIK majority approval

        “As far as I know, the PA does not have the ‘support’ of West Bankers “

        Little wonder. The PA’s authority came from a US brokered arrangement Israel has completely ignored, thereby undermining the original intention of the PA.

      • echinococcus
        December 18, 2015, 6:37 am

        Annie,

        There is no exaggeration: the partition proposal is totally illegal, a violation of whatever had already before then become the law about self-determination of ex-colonial peoples. The fact that the violation was committed by the colonial powers is not enough to make it legitimate. Insisting on the legitimacy of such a monstrous injustice is giving the Zionists a toehold on their “right to existence”. There is no such right and the Palestinian people have never been heard in plebiscite, period. They are not replaceable by some Zionist-appointed tinhorn Pétain.
        I do get Talknic’s viewpoint, by the way, but saying it is plain wrong, after a longish exchange that finally explicited his position, doesn’t make the discussion less, ehm, serious.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 18, 2015, 2:40 pm

        doesn’t make the discussion less, ehm, serious.

        no it doesn’t. however accusing one ideological opponent of “pretending” does. conjuring psychologists to make ones point is not very serious either. you can’t simultaneously accept someone as expressing their “viewpoint” while at the same time accusing them of not arguing in earnest and accusing them of pretense.

        to have an earnest discussion begins with the assumption both parties are arguing in earnest. do you think talknic is purposely lying to us? if that’s your position say so.

      • can of worms
        December 18, 2015, 6:50 am

        Blast me. As if the fact that Israel has ‘completely ignored’ the Oslo arrangement were merely accidental, rather than being a factor of the Oslo arrangement itself!

        You’re acknowledging authorities over me that do not, and cannot now, speak for me or represent my interests. And you’re portraying yourself as doing it for my sake!

        ———————————————————–
        Or worse, you’re portraying yourself as doing it for the sake of some objective, universalist, enlightened, liberal notion of human values. And it’s torturing all the people I care about.

      • echinococcus
        December 18, 2015, 12:20 pm

        The PA’s authority came from a US brokered arrangement Israel has completely ignored, thereby undermining the original intention of the PA

        No wonder we can’t communicate at all: you mean the “original intention of the PA” was not that of giving away the imprescriptible rights of the Palestinian people (let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, ascribing to terminal-stage gullibility the fact that they also sold the Palestinian people down the river) and that any US-brokered arrangement can ever be anything but a murderous scam. Of course self-styled “Israel” will completely ignore such disarmed clowns.

      • Mooser
        December 18, 2015, 12:28 pm

        Whew! Made it back within the edit window. I just wrote a comment based on the idiotic idea ( strictly mine) that “talknic” was arguing with “dabakr”, but I saw my error, it’s “Echinococcus”.

        I hope this edit takes.

      • echinococcus
        December 18, 2015, 2:29 pm

        No problemo, Mooser. I can’t take offense –even at being confused with Abu Bakr! I am a worm, remember?

      • echinococcus
        December 18, 2015, 2:40 pm

        Annie,
        Just a parenthesis —
        You’re generally right in these things, not mentioning the psychologist might have avoided trouble but I don’t feel even a bit embarrassed by calling it about two diametrically opposed propositions held at the same time.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 18, 2015, 3:10 pm

        echin, my point wasn’t to embarrass you. i think there are central reasons to have arguments in good faith. one is to convince ones opponent and sway them to ones side (which in turn potentially sways any reader who is present). the way to do that is to break down their argument point by point coming from a place of strength (as opposed to anger or any number of attitudes).

        if your argument is “two diametrically opposed propositions held at the same time” show how w/sources, show what underlines the opposed propositions without expressing malice/cattiness/sarcasm etc. convince.

        for example, the recent poll http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/majority-palestinians-intifada and diasp0ra linked directly to it http://pcpsr.org/sites/default/files/poll%2058%20pressrelease%20English.pdf

        read it, use current facts to convince while acknowledging palestinian people (as well as talknic) holding the minority opinion hold onto their positions in good faith, even when they are wrong. once you accuse someone of not arguing in good faith you’ve essentially thrown down the gauntlet and ended the debate. whereas really winning is convincing ones opponent (and everyone else) of your position.

      • Mooser
        December 18, 2015, 3:09 pm

        “I can’t take offense –even at being confused with Abu Bakr!”

        Well, I thank you for that, and I’m glad I made the edit window.
        I couldn’t figure out whether I was quoting you arguing against Israel’s legitimacy, or “dabakr” arguing for Israel’s legitimacy. I was all mixed up. Thanks for letting it go.

      • echinococcus
        December 18, 2015, 4:37 pm

        OK Annie, I don’t want to beat it to death but have to say this: I would never ever dream to accuse Talknic of not discussing in earnest. The thought wouldn’t ever occur to me: it’s precisely because he holds what I believe to be obviously two mutually exclusive positions that I had a problem. Now, I’d appreciate it if we can put the procedural stuff to bed. Thanks a lot for moderating.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 18, 2015, 6:57 pm

        okay, pt taken echin. and perhaps i misunderstood. i’m done.

      • talknic
        December 18, 2015, 7:21 pm

        @ echinococcus ” I don’t feel even a bit embarrassed by calling it about two diametrically opposed propositions held at the same time”

        They’re not diametrically opposed.

        It is an indisputable fact that Israel is a UN Member State! Whether you or I or anyone else likes it or not or disagrees with how it got to be there is irrelevant to the fact that it IS a UN Member State

        It is also a fact which can be shown from the official statements by the Zionist Federation spokespersons and Jewish Agency in the official records that it got to be 1) a state and 2) a UN Member State, thru deceit.

        The Israeli apologists have diametrically opposed arguments. They claim Israel is a legitimate state but it didn’t proclaim any borders. In order to be accepted as legitimate a state must control a defined territory at the time of its declaration. http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897#art1

        They claim UNGA res 181 is irrelevant, because the Arabs rejected it. Yet the Israeli Govt’s plea, months after Arab rejection include compliance with UNGA res 181 and the borders it outlined and;
        the Jewish Agency’s official statement on the official record at the UN prior to declaration accepted UNGA res 181 as binding on the Jewish people months after the Arabs rejected it.

        Everything they say in support of the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel is diametrically opposed.

        ———

        @ echinococcus “you mean the “original intention of the PA” was not that of giving away the imprescriptible rights of the Palestinian people”

        No. I meant what I wrote, not what you want me to have written

        Only the PLO has authority to negotiate with Israel and/or represent Palestine at the UN. The PA is specific to only some areas and was instituted under the auspices of a limited agreement that Israel has ignored.

      • echinococcus
        December 19, 2015, 1:07 am

        Talknic,

        I am not impressed. The Zionist entity is a UN member , so what?
        Its birth certificate is a fake, it has been created on the basis of the colonial powers’ illegal agreement, against international law and custom and the sentiment of justice and against the UN’s own Charter, to propose an illegal partition between the local population and a ***then minority*** of armed invaders with hostile intent, without as much as a plebiscite. That’s Position 1.
        Strict justice requires that it be removed, being on Palestinian land –no right of conquest, no right of gifting sovereignty unconsulted to invaders. What is in discussion is not how things stand today, which we all know, but how they should be in strict justice.

        Position 2 is accepting a right to the bastard state on the initial partition territory. Being a state doesn’t mean it can’t be undone.

        Now, you also seem to accept the principle of a proper plebiscite needed sine qua non to express the will of the population, local and exiled, in matters of statehood and borders and partitions –short, self-determination. Position 1.
        Then you accept half-assed traitorous “proposals” from US-Zionist puppets (no matter if you personally respect them or not) regarding the giving away of sovereignty rights. The worse so as you acknowledge they are nothing but the result of a US-brokered scam. Position 2.

      • talknic
        December 19, 2015, 11:40 am

        echinococcus “The Zionist entity is a UN member , so what?”

        So it can be protected by a veto vote in the UNSC. The Jewish Agency/Zionist Federation new exactly what they were doing by joining the UN. They only need to secure one veto vote in the UNSC to prevent any action from being taken against them

        That’s why the pro-Israel lobby has spent 24/7/365 for the last 67 years ensuring they’re the loudest squeaking door in the US

        “Its birth certificate is a fake, it has been created on the basis of the colonial powers’ illegal agreement, against international law and custom and the sentiment of justice and against the UN’s own Charter… etc … “

        It is never the less a UN Member State

        “Strict justice requires that it be removed, being on Palestinian land –no right of conquest, no right of gifting sovereignty unconsulted to invaders. What is in discussion is not how things stand today, which we all know, but how they should be in strict justice”

        Impossible while it has a UNSC veto vote protecting it

        “Now, you also seem to accept the principle of a proper plebiscite needed sine qua non to express the will of the population, local and exiled, in matters of statehood and borders and partitions –short, self-determination. Position 1.”

        Indeed I do

        “Then you accept half-assed traitorous “proposals” from US-Zionist puppets (no matter if you personally respect them or not) regarding the giving away of sovereignty rights. The worse so as you acknowledge they are nothing but the result of a US-brokered scam.”

        Oh no I don’t.

        Rpt:

        I ‘ve never maintained the manner in which Israel gained statehood was legitimate.

        Quite the opposite. It was based on deceit. The lies of the Zionist federation, Jewish Agency and successive Israeli Governments are on the official record.

        Whether we like it or not, whether legitimately achieved or not, the fact is, the State of Israel is a UN Member and as such should at the very least be made to adhere to the obligations of UN Membership under which occupation must end and Israel must withdraw from all non-Israeli territories and allow the independent state the Palestinians now envisage
        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/israel-should-golan#comment-814760

      • echinococcus
        December 19, 2015, 1:20 pm

        Talknic,
        You are doubling down because you don’t seem to be hearing what I say and never address it –none of your fault. Your adoration of the UN bandits is not generally shared; also you somehow scotomize the fact that any serious blows to Zionism will not come peacefully by UN vote but by horrible war in a re-arranging world, or the threat of it if we’re lucky. Also, you are confusing justice with the possible. And you insist in your version of what is possible.
        I am exhausted and have no intention of repeating the same unaddressed things and get the same non-response once more. Be well.

      • talknic
        December 19, 2015, 2:38 pm

        @ echinococcus “You are doubling down because you don’t seem to be hearing what I say and never address it”

        I am addressing it. Whether we like it or not Israel is a UN Member State with the protection of the US UNSC Veto vote.

        ” Your adoration of the UN bandits is not generally shared; “

        What ‘adoration’?

        The Zionist argument is : Israel, a UN Member state, is legitimate.

        My argument to that notion is : if they say so, then Israel is accountable for a further 67 yrs of deceit, illegally acquiring territory, illegal settlements etc etc etc etc according to the Laws and UN Charter Israel chose to be obliged to.

        also you somehow scotomize the fact that any serious blows to Zionism will not come peacefully by UN vote but by horrible war in a re-arranging world, or the threat of it if we’re lucky.”

        Either way there will be bloodshed. Even were Israel to agree to adhere to the law or accept the ’88 declared state of Palestine, there’ll be a damnable Israeli civil war which would take place predominantly in non-Israeli territories, which in turn would be grounds for International intervention especially by the other Regional Powers. 1948 all over again except Israel has nukes

        As it is, Israel can’t afford to adhere to the law, it would be sent bankrupt. A failed state. So it continues to make more and more facts on the ground to make it as difficult as possible for EVERYONE and it will not stop or be stopped while it has the precious US UNSC veto vote

        ” Also, you are confusing justice with the possible. And you insist in your version of what is possible.”

        Here’s another possibility https://www.google.com.au/search?q=the%20Samson%20option

        Countries don’t have nukes unless they’re willing to use them, otherwise there’s no point in having ’em!

        No hard feelings…

    • DaBakr
      December 11, 2015, 10:50 pm

      @pa

      they already think your ‘sick’ ‘evil’ ‘psychopathic’ ‘racist’ and as close to a nazi as one could get.
      what on earth makes you think people here would see the total insanity of giving ‘back’ (much of it was originally pledged to Israel anyway. And all theArab nations were even more artificial then Israel. Of course Israel won’t give up Gaza and nations like China, Russia and many others may take Palestinian sides in some issues but have pledged to not press Israel on the Golan and it is hardly because of love for Zionists. It is strictly in their own interests. Also-what makes you think the persons that often write opinion pieces here are not totally off their rockers and just as ‘evil’ as they believe Israelis are?

      • talknic
        December 12, 2015, 7:46 am

        @ DaBakr ” (much of it was originally pledged to Israel anyway.”

        Evidence? Thx … I’ll wait

        Syria was a state BEFORE Israel became a state with borders proclaimed by the Israeli Government and internationally recognized as “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      • echinococcus
        December 12, 2015, 9:00 am

        Talknic,

        Let’s footnote that once in a while, just to keep the discussion open and dispel myths:

        Israel became a state with borders proclaimed by the Israeli Government and internationally recognized as “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947”

        Self-“proclaimed” borders on other people’s territory are totally fictitious and inacceptable. Perhaps the United Nations recognized some borders, but they are totally illegitimate in the absence of a recognized referendum of the owners of the land –or even a colonialist referendum including the Zionist, alien, invader “Mandate Palestinian citizens” prior to the mass expulsion and massacre of the locals. That is precisely the sine qua non for the legitimacy of any sovereignty reassignment: no UN decision, even by the GA, can be legitimate when it is a glaring violation of its own fundamental laws.

        Again, your extraordinary insistence in providing a ridiculous fig leaf to the Zionist entity is impossible to understand.

      • talknic
        December 12, 2015, 12:09 pm

        @ Echinococcus

        “Let’s footnote that once in a while”

        It should be inherent at the top of every MW page

        “Self-“proclaimed” borders on other people’s territory are totally fictitious and inacceptable … … … Perhaps the United Nations recognized some borders, but they are totally illegitimate in the absence of a recognized referendum of the owners of the land etc etc etc “

        I agree. However Israel is now a UN Member State. Accepted into that body and bound by its charter at its own insistence.

        “Again, your extraordinary insistence in providing a ridiculous fig leaf to the Zionist entity is impossible to understand “

        It’s Israel’s fig leaf, what they agreed to in their own words. No other territories included.

        I take their word in order to show that the Jewish Agency and Zionist Federation and successive Israeli Government’s are all ghastly liars. In order to show they’ve fed everyone a diet of bullsh*t

        They’ve brainwashed the majority of Jews with their propaganda and attempted to do the same to the rest of the world. Deceived Israeli Jews and purposefully endangered them and their families by encouraging them to illegally settle in non-Israeli territories, in breach of laws adopted in large part because of the vile treatment of our fellow Jews by the Nazis. Illegally sold them ‘real estate’ in non-Israeli territories. Dissed the basic common sense tenets of Judaism, stripped Israelis of their right to legally elect a Government under a sorely needed constitution, prevented non-Jewish Israeli citizens from living in their rightful territory for 67 years and have been justifying the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians in order to achieve the Zionist Federation plan to colonize Palestine.

        IOW they are evil

        The Palestinians have stated twice now at the UN in front of the world that they’d accept just 22% of their rightful territory for peace.

        That’s the Palestinians’ choice. An incredibly generous and an amazingly humane gesture to all those unaware Jewish Israelis who’ve been duped and who, if they were born in the region, would otherwise find themselves dispossessed, not because of the Palestinians but because of the Zionist Federation and its stupid colonization enterprise

      • Mooser
        December 12, 2015, 12:20 pm

        “Again, your extraordinary insistence in providing a ridiculous fig leaf to the Zionist entity is impossible to understand “

        Again, this long discussion trying to differentiate what is right, what is legal, and what the Zionists might end up getting away with.

        And let ’em have it, please, I ask nothing more than that the Zionists are contained within the partition and UN charter. They’ve already said, and proven, that they cannot live with that, and didn’t consider it anymore than a toehold, really. (Isn’t that more-or-less what this article is about?) So let ’em get away with it. They have to live with it, and they can’t. And they know it.

      • Citizen
        December 12, 2015, 5:05 pm

        The Syrian Republic was formed in 1930 as a component of the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon, succeeding the State of Syria (one of 6 states part of the French mandate prior thereto) A treaty of independence was made in 1936 to grant independence to Syria and end official French rule, but the French parliament refused to accept the agreement. From 1940 to 1941, the Syrian Republic was under the control of Vichy France, and upon liberation in 1941 became a sovereign state.

      • echinococcus
        December 13, 2015, 12:00 pm

        Talknic and Mooser,

        That’s a lot of bunk, with your permission. There is no right to ANY territory in Palestine for the Zionists or any other invaders, as there was no all-Palestinian vote of acceptance (not only a reliable and verified one, but none at all.) That also makes any concessions by US and Zionist puppets null and void, especially things like the 22% bullshit.

        Justice is not, repeat not about rehabilitating crimes, but righting all wrongs. Especially the basic wrong the Palestinian people are suffering, which is the criminal partition proposal.

        There is no law of nature telling you that you cannot expose the Zionist lies without first pretending to accept the basic lie of a “legitimate partition”. In fact, as humans we are all supposed to be able to walk and chew gum.

      • Mooser
        December 13, 2015, 1:58 pm

        “There is no law of nature telling you that you cannot expose the Zionist lies without first pretending to accept the basic lie of a “legitimate partition”.”

        I wouldn’t worry too much “Echinococcus”. Have you ever heard of a Zionist who accepts the Partition as it was conceived?
        And the more we “accept” it, the more the Zionists will say it is unacceptable. Why, the Partition at this point, is pretty much an anti-Zionist position, I suspect.

      • echinococcus
        December 13, 2015, 4:48 pm

        Don’t play the hard-of-hearing trick, Mooser. I am not worried about Zionists accepting or rejecting anything, I am worried about our side giving any legitimacy to rape.

      • Mooser
        December 13, 2015, 6:26 pm

        “I am worried about our side giving any legitimacy to rape.”

        I take your point, it wasn’t as if the process which culminated in the Partition proposal and Israel state-hood declaration was very morally or legally legitimate either.
        But I really do think (as, I venture “talknic” might agree to a degree) that to posit its legitimacy will result in the Zionists saying how illegitimate it is. How unworkable, how dangerous
        I ask you again (cause I could be wrong about this) are there any even most liberal Zionists or 2S folks who even admit the admissibility of the ’48 Partition and original statehood extent and conditions?

        But I sure do take your point about lending Zionism any legitimacy, but I don’t think this does that. I think (if “Talknic” will agree I’m near the mark) it points out the conditions and agreements on which they predicate their own legitimacy are in fact, fraudulent. They never intended to adhere to them, and weren’t at the time.

        “as there was no all-Palestinian vote of acceptance (not only a reliable and verified one, but none at all.)”

        And you think that the idea that there was such a plebiscite (and a lot more besides, like anything but ethnic cleansing) is implicit in citing the original Statehood documents and process. I see your point.

      • talknic
        December 13, 2015, 11:59 pm

        @ echinococcus There is no right to ANY territory in Palestine for the Zionists or any other invaders, as there was no all-Palestinian vote of acceptance “

        Quite. Balfour said as much himself!

        BALFOUR : “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.”

        I’ve never held that partition is/was in any way legitimate or that the Zionists were ever deserving of any territory.

        ” That also makes any concessions by US and Zionist puppets null and void, especially things like the 22% bullshit”

        The offer was made by the Palestinian majority’s representative

        “There is no law of nature telling you that you cannot expose the Zionist lies without first pretending to accept the basic lie of a “legitimate partition””

        I haven’t accepted it , they did. It is an inescapable fact that in the official record the Jewish Agency accepted UNGA res 181 as binding despite Arab rejection and;
        contrary to the Hasbara, on the official record the Jewish Agency claimed UNGA res 181 was relevant despite Arab rejection – http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yx

        It is also an inescapable fact that the Israeli Government, again contrary to the Hasbara, did indeed proclaim specific borders ( according to UNGA res 181 despite the Arab states having rejected it ) and that they are the only borders by which Israel has been recognized by the International Comity of Nations

        The Jewish Agency and Israeli Government by their own words in the official records, expose themselves as blatant liars and cheats and show the Israeli narrative and the arguments put forward by useful idiots for Zionism to be bullsh*t

    • Kathleen
      December 12, 2015, 12:05 pm

      You can be sure one of the reasons Israel and the neocons (PNAC, Securing the Realm) have been pushing the destruction of Syria as we all knew it was just so they would never be expected to give back the land that belonged to Syria

    • Misterioso
      December 12, 2015, 12:52 pm

      Palikari

      For the record:

      On 17 December 1981, the UNSC unanimously passed Resolution 497, which declared Israel’s 14 December 1981 annexation of Syria’s Golan Height “null and void.”

      In accordance with the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified by Israel, and further underscoring the illegality of the settlements, Part 2, Article 8, section B, paragraph viii of the Rome Statute of the International Court (1998) defines “the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” as a War Crime, indictable by the International Criminal Court.

      On 24 February 2004, the U.S. State Department reaffirmed its earlier position in a report entitled Israel and the Occupied Territories, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: “Israel occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights after the 1967 War…. The international community does not recognize Israel’s sovereignty over any part of the occupied territories.”

      In its 2004 ruling, the International Court of Justice unanimously ruled that “No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.” The World Court denoted this principle a “corollary” of the U.N. Charter and as such “customary international law” and a “customary rule” binding on all member States of the United Nations.

      US Secretary of State, John Kerry: “The US views all of the settlements as illegitimate.”
      (13 August 2013, Reuters Video)

    • Brewer
      December 12, 2015, 3:48 pm

      “Writing for the London Review of Books, Seymour Hersh alleged that President Obama had “cherry picked” intelligence reports and deliberately misled the American people in an attempt to garner support for military operations in Syria this past summer. Hersh reported that military and intelligence officials had confirmed to him that a “deliberate manipulation of intelligence” had taken place in order to lay the blame for sarin gas attacks on President Bashar Al Assad and his regime. He also alleged that the Obama administration purposely buried intelligence relating to Syrian rebel groups and their involvement with sarin gas.

      Hersh says the media and others engaged in confirmation bias, seizing upon an uncertain UN report which linked the munitions used to deliver the deadly gas to those which are possessed by Assad’s regime. However, MIT Professor Theodore Postol and other experts later reviewed photos and determined the delivery vehicle was likely a local-made improvised device, pointing to the rebels as the culprits.

      Russian President and Assad ally Vladimir Putin has maintained that Syrian rebels had access to sarin. He told the G8 that Russia had evidence that the sarin gas was produced by Sunnis in Iraq. “We know that opposition fighters were detained on Turkish territory with chemical weapons,” Putin said. “We have information out of Iraq that a laboratory was discovered there for the production of chemical weapons by the opposition.” In his open letter to the American people, Putin asked why Assad would gas his own people and risk raising the ire of the international community.”

      Read more: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/seymour-hersh-obama-lied-syria/#ixzz3u8qzJUbm
      Follow us: @TheLibRepublic on Twitter

    • inbound39
      December 18, 2015, 7:06 am

      Palikari…regardless of what justifications or rationality you place on it or what clothes you dress it up in,Israel has no legitimate right to Sovereignty over Golan Heights. It is Syrian Sovereign Territory. Right of Conquest ended at the end of WW2 as Israel well knows. International Law deems acquisition of anothers territory by force inadmissible. Same goes for Palestinian Occupied Territory……Israel has no legitimate claim to ANY of it.

  3. jsinton
    December 11, 2015, 6:41 pm

    The interesting thing here is that you assume the Zionists wish to lift a finger against the ISIL. My take on the ISIL is that it was allowed to grow and multiply because it was useful to destroy the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah axis, no matter how cynical and depraved the outcome. And I think the Zionists’ actions on the matter confirm that. They probably pat themselves on the back daily for the idea in Tel Aviv. Now they have even LESS a reason to give up the Golan, according to their evil wisdom. So good luck with that humanitarian shtick, snowballs chance in hell.

  4. talknic
    December 11, 2015, 8:22 pm

    @ Palikari “Give back the Golan to whom?”

    It’s Syrian territory regardless of who is in power in the country.

    If you can remember thru the Ziomuck what honesty is, try to answer this question without lying, dodging, crapping yourself. If any Israeli territory had ever been taken from it, not that it has, would it matter which party was in power for that territory to be given back?

    Al-Assad, whose regime is slaughtering its own citizens and has used chemical weapons

    Heard the same mantra before somewhere. Say how are things in Iraq working out? Found those WMDs yet?

    “Gimme a break”

    Another break? Israel has had 49 years break. It was given a break by the UNSC res 497. An opportunity to adhere to the Laws it reaffirmed and emphasized. Why didn’t Israel give it back then?

    • mcohen.
      December 12, 2015, 12:38 am

      talknic December 12, 2015, 12:27 am

      Reply

      Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

  5. JLewisDickerson
    December 11, 2015, 9:58 pm

    RE: Israel should give back the Golan

    MY COMMENT: What’s Love “Should” Got To Do With It? After all, we are talking about Israel here, and not Norway or Sweden.

    ISRAEL’s Golan Heights Oil & NJ Genie Energy’s Cheney, Woolsey and Jacob Rothschild.

    Published on Nov 1, 2015
    ISRAEL’s Golan Heights Oil & NJ Genie Energy Ltd. owned by Dick Cheney, ex-CIA chief James Woolsey & Jacob Lord Rothschild.
    – “In 2013 Genie Energy “was granted exclusive oil and gas exploration rights to a 153-square mile radius in the southern part of the Golan Heights by the Netanyahu government,” the expert proceeded with the narrative.”
    – “Then, on October 8, 2015 Genie Energy’s Israeli subsidiary, Afek Oil & Gas announced that the company found a huge oil reservoir on the Golan Heights.

    “We’ve found an oil stratum 350 meters thick in the southern Golan Heights. On average worldwide, strata are 20 to 30 meters thick, and this is 10 times as large as that, so we are talking about significant quantities,” Afek Oil & Gas chief geologist Yuval Bartov claimed in an interview to a local broadcaster as quoted by Engdahl.” (Link 1 below).
    ~~
    Links:
    1) Oct 28, 2015 Sputnik News
    http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151028/1029209074/golan-heights-oil-syrian-conflict-engdahl.html
    2) Golan Heights – Wikipedia Images PUBLIC domain
    (Thumbnail image Golan Heights and Sea of Galilee view from Jordan by daniel Case).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights
    3) Music – Youtube Audio Library
    “Ambient Ambulance”
    https://www.youtube.com/audiolibrary/music

    • JLewisDickerson
      December 11, 2015, 10:19 pm

      P.S. FROM WIKIPEDIA [Energy in Egypt]:

      [EXCERPT] . . . In 1908, commercial quantities of oil were first found in Egypt, and more petroleum was found in the late 1930s along the Gulf of Suez. Later, large oil fields were discovered in the Sinai Peninsula, the Gulf of Suez, the Western Desert, and the Eastern Desert. [When Israel attacked Egypt and then occupied the Sinai following the Six-Day war in 1967, Israel began furiously pumping oil from Egypt’s Sinai oil wells over Egypt’s strenuous objections. ~ J.L.D.] The Abu Rudeis and Ra’s Sudr oil fields in the Sinai were returned to Egyptian control in November 1975. The remaining Sinai oil fields reverted to Egyptian control by the end of April 1982 as a consequence of the The Camp David Accords and the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. . .

      SOURCE – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Egypt

    • JLewisDickerson
      December 11, 2015, 10:49 pm

      P.P.S. ALSO SEE: “What Rothschild, Murdoch, Cheney, And Israel Love Most About Syria” | By Claire Bernish | activistpost.com | September 15, 20015

      [EXCERPT] What do Syria, New Jersey, Lord Jacob Rothschild, and former Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson have in common?

      Besides sounding like the introduction to a wince-worthy conspiracy quip, the most elementary answer is also nauseatingly cliche as an explanation for the penchant the U.S. government displays for inserting itself in the domestic affairs of nearly every country in the Middle East: Oil.

      Afek, a subsidiary of New Jersey-based Genie Energy, Ltd., announced the discovery of a large liquid oil reservoir and requested an extension of its exploration license for areas in “Northern Israel.”

      After having spent over three years in active exploration from the time initial hydrocarbon measurements and geological tests hinted at the presence of such a reserve, Afek’s discovery might have been welcome news all around — were it not contentiously located within Israeli-occupied Syria, in the region known as the Golan Heights.

      “Initial findings from the drilling confirm the discovery of an oil reservoir in the Golan and further justifies continuing the exploration program,” stated Afek’s request. “We need more time for this.”

      While Israel and Afek might dismissively refer to Syria’s Golan Heights as Northern Israel in documentation, international law definitively marks the region as occupied by foreign forces — making the U.S. company’s controversial oil exploration arrogantly hegemonic, as well as illegal.

      Taking full advantage of the public announcement about the findings, the next day Genie Oil and Gas proceeded to publicize the names of new appointees who will join the eyebrow-raising Rupert Murdoch, Dick Cheney, and Lord Jacob Rothschild on the Strategic Advisory Board (SAB). Those members are:

      Dr. Lawrence Summers, 71st Secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton and Director of the National Economic Council under Pres. Obama; former Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu, who is credited with helping pass the U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Bill while she chaired the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; former governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, who became an industry insider after serving as the Clinton administration’s Energy Secretary; and former Director of Central Intelligence, R. James Woolsey, who co-founded the U.S. Energy Security Council.

      Still more controversially, Chairman of Genie Israel Holdings, Ltd. — former Knesset member Efraim “Effie” Eitam, who served as minister of both National Infrastructure as well as Housing and Construction — wouldn’t seem to be a desirable associate. His opinion on Israel’s imperative mission — delivered during a soldier’s memorial service in 2006 — drew the ire of thousands. He asserted Israel would have to:

      Expel most of the Judea and Samaria Arabs from here. We cannot be with all these Arabs and we cannot give up the land, because we have already seen what they do there. Some of them may be able to stay under certain conditions, but most of them will have to go. We will have to make another decision, to remove the Israeli Arabs from the political system. Also here things are clear and simple: We have raised a fifth column, a group of traitors of the first degree, and therefore we cannot continue to approve such a hostile and great presence inside Israel’s political system.

      Israel might have garnered the support and sympathy befitting outside perception of the manufactured nation as an ostensible underdog intent only on survival — at least at one time. Patience and tolerance for Israel’s self-interested actions — the latest being the nation’s refusal of assistance in the Syrian refugee crisis — are wearing thin, even among its staunchest backers. . .

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.activistpost.com/2015/09/what-rothschild-murdoch-cheney-and-israel-love-most-about-syria.html

    • JLewisDickerson
      December 11, 2015, 11:02 pm

      P.P.S. AND SEE: “Israeli Prime Minister pushes for control of Golan after oil discovery” | by Celine Hagbard | IMEMC News | November 17, 2015

      The Israeli Prime Minister’s visit to Washington last week included a meeting with President Obama, in which the two discussed the status of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

      Israel invaded and occupied the Syrian territory known as the ‘Golan Heights’ in 1967, and has maintained a military and civilian presence there ever since. But the Israeli claim on the territory has never been recognized by the international community.

      Now, according to some analysts, the Israeli government has a new reason to secure their illegal annexation of the Syrian land: oil.

      Last month Afek, an Israeli subsidiary of the U-S-based Genie Energy, announced the discovery of huge reserves of oil in the region.

      The company’s chief geologist in Israel, Yuval Bartov, said the reserves could potentially hold billions of barrels of oil.

      Afek’s license to do exploratory drilling was renewed by the Israeli government for two years in October, shortly after the finding of the oil reserves.

      But the land on which the oil is located is actually Syrian territory.

      And despite the Israeli government claim to the oil, and the licensing of ten experimental wells, analysts say the discovery of oil in Golan may re-ignite the conflict between Israel and Syria over the control of the Golan Heights.

      SOURCE – http://www.imemc.org/article/73890

    • Annie Robbins
      December 12, 2015, 12:48 am

      great link and video dickerson — thank you!

  6. Kay24
    December 11, 2015, 10:33 pm

    Let’s not get carried away here. Israel is a damned nation that steals without conscience, justifies it’s crimes by making stupid excuses that never make sense, and keeps what it steals blaming the victims of it’s crimes. They may have seized the Golan Heights as a result of a war, but they do not have the decency to give it back, just like the illegal settlements being built on stolen lands. Have we ever heard one of their war mongering leaders even refer to the fact that they should give it back at some time or the other. They are greedy and arrogant. The Arabs are their “enemies” who want to always attack them, but the Arab lands are good for stealing.
    Those who keep supporting Israel’s crimes never seem to realize that perhaps one of the reasons they are hated by their neighbors could be because of their arrogant land theft. It seems
    Israeli supporters lack common sense, and are not honest enough to admit land grabs are a provocative act by this rogue nation. The victim act by Israel is disgusting.

    • inbound39
      December 18, 2015, 7:23 am

      Yes Kay……Adam Sandler can knock Roger Waters Israel Boycott all he likes on Howard Stern’s Show but in no way can Adam Sandler, with a clear conscience and maintenance of his integrity, claim Israel’s actions currently are legitimate nor can he claim many of its actions constitute War Crimes. That seemingly is what Adam Sandler supports when he knocks people supporting BDS.

  7. talknic
    December 12, 2015, 12:27 am

    O/T

    Good source for info on Palestinian resources as well as resources in the Israeli occupied Golan http://www.rigzone.com/search.asp?q=palestine

      • talknic
        December 12, 2015, 6:35 pm

        The Wikipedia article completely omits the legal aspect

        Furthermore Wikipedia is by its own editorial criteria, third hand opinion

      • Mooser
        December 12, 2015, 6:49 pm

        “The Wikipedia article completely omits the legal aspect”

        “mcohen” (being a big mystic and man of peace,) is suggesting the “legal aspect” is nothing more than ‘Israel won it fair and square’.

      • inbound39
        December 20, 2015, 5:20 am

        @mcohen. Camera.org run by Eli Hertz a known Zionist and former member of the IDF, was caught by Wikipedia staff infiltrating Wikipedia and changing ALL Israeli information on the site to fit the Zionist propoganda viewpoint. No point using Wikipedia as a source given anyone can manipulate its data.

  8. MaxNarr
    December 12, 2015, 4:10 am

    The author of this article is insane. How about France give Marseilles to Islamic State?

    • talknic
      December 12, 2015, 9:07 am

      MaxNarr ” How about France give Marseilles to Islamic State?”

      Why? Have the majority of the legitimate citizens of Marseilles expressed any desire to become a part of the Islamic State?

      How many wrongs make a right?

      • inbound39
        December 18, 2015, 7:35 am

        Ivri…..you cannot put Israel and the word normal together in any sentence. Israel is the furthest thing from normal unless you consider dysfunctional and criminal behaviour as normal.

    • inbound39
      December 18, 2015, 7:29 am

      Max….given your proposition to France it seems your insanity far exceeds the Author of this article……..but any smoke screen is a good smoke screen for a Zionist as long as it deflects from Israel’s wrongdoing eh?

    • eljay
      December 18, 2015, 10:16 am

      || MaxNarr: The author of this article is insane. … ||

      If you want to see crazy – and hateful and immoral – just look in the mirror.

  9. ivri
    December 12, 2015, 4:22 am

    If dealing with fantasies is open now I have another great idea – except in the opposite direction. If you look in the ancient maps of the kingdoms of the Hebraic kings David and Solomon, or read in the Bible the contours of the Promised Land, you see that most of Syria (and part of Jordan) is actually part of that. Now if you adopt a prophetic vision you might say that what we see now is the coming-true of yet another times-old design.
    As most of Syria is actually being now abandoned by its citizens as a cursed land that they cannot live in anymore and are ready to risk their life to leave it for other (essentially unwelcoming) countries and as Israel already has a foothold there and also given that the Iranians (with their Hezbollah allies) want to turn it into a base of theirs – which is very dangerous for Israel`s security –you see emerging an altogether different potential geo-strategic design. Recall here Netanyahu`s visit to Russia, right before the latter moved in, for all kinds of coordination and filling in what is missing with a bit of imagination and you can begin to see things.
    I admit this vision is in the same category as of that of Mr. Bird`s but perhaps the very establishment of the State of Israel would have been seen so just one century ago. So who knows?

    • talknic
      December 12, 2015, 9:03 am

      @ ivri ” If you look in the ancient maps of the kingdoms of the Hebraic kings David and Solomon, or read in the Bible..”

      Completely irrelevant as of the moment the provisional Israeli Government (not democratically elected by Israelis) proclaimed Israel’s internationally recognized borders as “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      “As most of Syria is actually being now abandoned by its citizens”,

      “abandoned” ? Nonsense. They’re fleeing the violence of a civil war

      • ivri
        December 12, 2015, 2:01 pm

        @Talknic “Completely irrelevant…..”
        Well, that was then. Things are dynamic.
        As for Syria this is not just about leaving a place because of ongoing violence – the country itself stopped functioning (remember also that it all began with a 5 years drought, which was partly responsible for the unrest). A quarter of its residents already left it and right now it is the middle-class that is moving, which is also why Germany became generous – they can see the economic potential.
        The writer of the article above is right about one thing – the Israeli held part of Syria still functions normally (and as an “Israel-lover” he wants to see it get destabilized too). Right now Israel is an island of normalcy in the Mid-East even as it suffers disturbances in the West-Bank and Gaza – which is inevitable given broader regional – and now already beyond – trends within the Arab world.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 12, 2015, 6:48 pm

        Israel is an island of normalcy in the Mid-East even as it suffers disturbances in the West-Bank and Gaza

        israel doesn’t suffer disturbances in the West-Bank and Gaza, it imposes disturbances on the West-Bank and Gazaas a regular feature of it’s ongoing colonization process. and there’s nothing normal about that — not in the least. not in the middle east, not anywhere.

      • talknic
        December 14, 2015, 12:10 am

        @ ivri

        “Well, that was then. Things are dynamic”

        The law has not changed. Israel’s actual borders have not changed.

        “As for Syria this is not just about leaving a place because of ongoing violence – the country itself stopped functioning (remember also that it all began with a 5 years drought, which was partly responsible for the unrest). A quarter of its residents already left it and right now it is the middle-class that is moving….”

        Stats please

        ” the Israeli held part of Syria still functions normally “

        Occupation and illegal settlement are normal? WOW!!

        “Right now Israel is an island of normalcy…”

        I seriously doubt any apartheid, illegally occupying, illegally settling, war mongering, civilian slaughtering state can be called normal

    • talknic
      December 12, 2015, 6:43 pm

      @ ivri “If you look in the ancient maps of the kingdoms of the Hebraic kings David…”

      As others have pointed out, there are only relatively modern maps depicting those alleged ancient areas.

      There are however far older maps of Palestine actually drawn in the time they depict http://wp.me/pDB7k-GO

  10. ckg
    December 12, 2015, 9:16 am

    Carson thinks Gaza Palestinians should be “slipped into” Egypt, the Sinai Dessert.

    • ivri
      December 13, 2015, 2:46 am

      @ckg
      This is no by the way a fantasy but a serious reading of real possibilities for some kind of a reasonable arrangement in the conflict.
      Using common parlance here, it will be part of a “3 states-3 Nations” configuration. One state will be Gaza, allowed to expand into Sinai, which will give it living space. Then there will be a “2 States – 3 Nations” configuration with Israel and Jordan as the 2 states, which jointly managing a commonly administered West-Bank, whose Jewish residents vote in Israel and Palestinians – in Jordan. The 3 nations involved are the Jews, Bedouins and Palestinians with Israel being the base of the former and Jordan – of the 2 latter.
      This arrangement kind of solves all issues: voting, affiliation, enough land and space for all, formal status for the West-Bank and a normal state potential for Gaza. It will replace the present belligerency and instability – caused by a lingering tacit hope of Arabs to see Israel gone (which only brought them troubles, or worse, and holds no hope for them apart form more of the same given Israel`s enormous capabilities) – with potential cooperation and common economic growth (in a troubled region that lacks it).

      • ckg
        December 13, 2015, 2:14 pm

        “a serious reading”

        @ivri You are living in an alternate universe. Evolution-denying, global warming-denying Ben Carson lives in your universe.

      • ivri
        December 13, 2015, 3:53 pm

        @ckg “You are living in an alternate universe”
        Don`t bet on it. The “old” solution proposals are clearly dysfunctional and unrealistic – notice how nothing is moving in their direction. And the drastic changes in the entire region only fortifies that. You lack vision here – find it convenient to stick to worn-out and debunked ideas while everything is changing. Carson got it right and I bet Cruz, Rubio and all the rest are even further than him in that regard – just listen to what they say.

      • talknic
        December 14, 2015, 12:17 am

        @ ivri “The “old” solution proposals are clearly dysfunctional and unrealistic – notice how nothing is moving in their direction”

        While Israel refuses to adhere to the law and is protected by the US UNSC veto vote, nothing can move

        And the drastic changes in the entire region only fortifies that”

        Strange, there was no movement before the enactment of the PNAC plan / so called Arab Spring

  11. Whiteworld
    December 12, 2015, 9:54 am

    You have to accept that wars can change borders. After WW2 Russia acquired part of Poland and Poland in turn acquire part of Germany. No one is suggesting the previous borders should be restored.
    The article indicates that Israel is occupying ten per cent of Syria. This is false, do the math. The true figure is less than 0.62% (440 out of 71,479 square miles). The reason Israel does not relinquish the Golan Heights is in the name. It cannot afford to have Syrian guns once more firing down into Israel in the valley below.
    As the Syrians cannot be trusted not to make war on each other, why should Israel jeopardize its security by handing over this territory. At least one policy unites the factions in Syria-they all hate Israel.

    • diasp0ra
      December 12, 2015, 10:36 am

      Except that in this situation the borders haven’t changed, and everyone views the Golan as occupied territory.

      Who to return it to or when is an entirely different discussion, but there is no doubt that it must be returned eventually.

      As for the tired “security” answer to why Israel can’t abide by international law, it’s becoming a bit absurd. It can’t retreat from the West Bank because “security”, it can’t give people equal rights because of “security”. Blah blah blah.

      • inbound39
        December 20, 2015, 5:33 am

        Israel’s claim of “security reasons” is not only tired but totally dishonest given it effectively defended those borders in 1948 and after and its military strength exceeds anyone elses in the region……or is it saying even with ALL THAT WEAPONRY its Military is incompetent? And don’t forget the 67 war was launched from outside Israel’s declared borders by illegally crossing into Palestinian Territory to launch its attack.

    • talknic
      December 12, 2015, 10:54 am

      @ Whiteworld “You have to accept that wars can change borders”

      Not since 1933 http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897#art11

      This is reflected in numerous UNSC resolutions affording Israel the opportunity to adhere to the binding laws and UN Charter those resolutions reaffirm and emphasize http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/b86613e7d92097880525672e007227a7/6de6da8a650b4c3b852560df00663826?OpenDocument

      “After WW2 Russia acquired part of Poland and Poland in turn acquire part of Germany”

      By agreements/treaties

      “No one is suggesting the previous borders should be restored”

      That’s because they were changed by agreements/treaties

      ” The reason Israel does not relinquish the Golan Heights is in the name. It cannot afford to have Syrian guns once more firing down into Israel in the valley below.”

      No state has any right to acquire another state’s territory for its own defense unless by agreement with the legitimate citizens of that territory (sans any illegal settlers) and; no UN Member State has any more right to defense than any other UN Member State Article 1 UN Charter The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members

      In fact the Syrians have a right to “restore” sovereignty over their territory according to Schwebel Lauterpacht and Herzog http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#Schwebel Israel does not have the right to “acquire” any territory by war http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/7D35E1F729DF491C85256EE700686136

      ” At least one policy unites the factions in Syria-they all hate Israel”

      You would give roses to a state that invades your territory and illegally claims it as its own?

    • talknic
      December 12, 2015, 11:17 am

      @ Whiteworld “As the Syrians cannot be trusted not to make war on each other, why should Israel jeopardize its security by handing over this territory”

      A) Israel has had since 1967 to withdraw from territories it occupied in the ’67 war. Long before this latest sudden outbreak of violence

      B) Because it’s the law

      C) Read the Egypt/Israel Peace Treaty. Israel was to withdraw from Egyptian territory before peaceful relations were assumed http://wp.me/pDB7k-ZZ

      D) Want peace? P*ss off back to Israel, that’s what Israel is for, the Jewish state. Other folk’s territories are not included.

  12. Ossinev
    December 12, 2015, 10:12 am

    “If you look in the ancient maps of the kingdoms of the Hebraic kings David and Solomon, or read in the Bible the contours of the Promised Land, you see that most of Syria (and part of Jordan) is actually part of that”.

    So hilarious that these Zionist freaks either totally rely on or when pressured totally fall back on fairy tales from a work of fiction. Stuff International Law, stuff human rights,stuff the opinion of the vast majority of civilised humanity – Israel and Zionists are always right because it says so in this here novel.

    • MHughes976
      December 12, 2015, 12:12 pm

      There are of course no maps actually drawn in ancient times showing any such thing. It is true that some Biblical passages claim, or claim as promised by God, territories seeming to lie beyond current Israel. Though I would like the Zionists, if they wish to claim Biblical authority, to remember the instructions about strangers in the midst.

    • inbound39
      December 20, 2015, 5:39 am

      What is even more hilarious is Israel refuses to abide by democratically arrived at decisions in the UN and elsewhere and then has the blatant chutzpah to claim it is a democracy………Israel is a Clown State.

  13. Kay24
    December 12, 2015, 11:04 am

    This is about rabid dogs, seems there are some in the Netanyahu family:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/israel-first-canine-quarantine_566bd728e4b0e292150e12b3

  14. Citizen
    December 12, 2015, 1:56 pm

    Did you know Obama’s direct connection with AIPAC? http://www.muckety.com/Lee-Rosenberg/97142.muckety

  15. James Canning
    December 12, 2015, 2:19 pm

    Turkey came close to brokering a peace deal between Syria and Israel in 2008. The failure of that opportunity proved catastrophic for the region, and of course badly hurt the EU. (Assuming a deal would have meant no civil war in Syria.)

    • ivri
      December 14, 2015, 11:54 am

      @JC
      Well, that was actually a manipulation by Erdogan. At that time he was very close to Assad, even personally (they used to take vacations together), and most likely promised him that because of Israel`s great desire to keep good relations with their only ally in the region it will have no choice but to agree to his mediation and he will of course make the Golan go back to Syria. Israelis are not exactly fools and as much they wanted to keep good relations with Turkey it was already clear then where Erdogan is generally heading. So, when Erdogan was refused he began his anti-Israel campaign in earnest – partly, because, as a consequence, he lost many points with his friend Assad. Then came the insurgency in Syria and cards were reshuffled and Erdogan stabbed his friend Assad in the back just as he did earlier with Israel. He kind of overplayed that general approach of his now with Russia – but was lucky enough to be able to blackmail the EU over their immigrants` fear, and so remain in the game.

  16. lysias
    December 13, 2015, 6:01 pm

    Another sign of an approaching August 1914: Russia warns Turkey over Aegean warship incident.

  17. lysias
    December 14, 2015, 10:47 am

    Well, we already knew from Seymour Hersh’s articles that it wasn’t Assad’s government that used the sarin, but now we get confirmation from a Turkish MP: RT: EXCLUSIVE: Sarin materials brought via Turkey & mixed in Syrian ISIS camps – Turkish MP to RT:

    Islamic State terrorists in Syria received all necessary materials to produce deadly sarin gas via Turkey, Turkish MP Eren Erdem has told RT, insisting there are grounds to believe a cover up has taken place.

    The main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) member, Erdem, brought up the issue for public discussion in parliament last week, citing evidence from an abruptly-closed criminal case. He accused Ankara of failing to investigate Turkish supply routes used to provide terrorists with toxic sarin gas ingredients.

    “There is data in this indictment. Chemical weapon materials are being brought to Turkey and being put together in Syria in camps of ISIS which was known as Iraqi Al Qaeda during that time,” Erdem told RT.

    We already knew about the case from Turkish media at the time the sarin was discovered in Adana, Turkey: Today’s Zaman: Report: Police foil al-Nusra bomb attack planned for Adana (May 20, 2013).

    The RT story is now being reported all over the place in the Turkish media, as a google search on “erdem sarin” will reveal. Here, for example, is Çağdaş Ses a couple of hours ago: Eren Erdem: IŞİD sarin gazını Türkiye’den aldı [Eren Erdem: ISIS got sarin gas from Turkey].

  18. Theo
    December 14, 2015, 12:23 pm

    lysias

    You beat me to this info, as I was about to report on the story in RT. It seems the report I read last year was true, that the Assad forces had no opportunity to fire those gas canisters, therefore the rebels were the ones, as I have mentioned further above. There is another story circulating that Mossad arranged the use of poison gas to force the USA to start bombing Syria. Perhapd Obama did once the right thing, not falling for the story.
    With Erdogan and his circle of crooks we have a rotten apple in the NATO, I wonder how long will Washington and the EU cover up his aiding of IS, the buying of their oil, and other deeds against the interests of the NATO.

  19. lysias
    December 14, 2015, 3:05 pm

    France24: French aircraft carrier to move to Gulf ‘in a few days’, says Hollande (Dec. 4, 2015):

    The French aircraft carrier the Charles de Gaulle is to move into the Persian Gulf in a “few days” to take over a command role in air strikes against the Islamic State group, French President François Hollande said on Friday as he visited the ship.

    Mysterious move, as the Persian Gulf is not closer to the territory of ISIS than the coast off Syria. It is in fact much farther away from the areas within Syrian borders that are controlled by ISIS.

    What is also mysterious is how this move has not, to my knowledge, been reported in the media of English-speaking countries. (France24, although it is in English, is based in France.)

  20. lysias
    December 16, 2015, 10:28 am

    RT: Turkish MP faces treason charges after telling RT ISIS used Turkey for transiting sarin:

    A treason investigation has been launched against a Turkish MP who alleged in an exclusive interview with RT that Islamic State jihadists delivered deadly sarin gas to Syria through Turkey.

    Ankara’s Chief Prosecutor’s Office opened the case against Istanbul MP Eren Erdem of Republican People’s Party (CHP) after his interview about sarin was aired on RT on Monday.

    Because certain commenters are bound to complain about RT, let me post a link to a similar story in the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet Hürriyet: Eren Erdem hakkında soruşturma başlatıldı [Investigation opened of Eren Erdem].

    The Hürriyet story is partly based on the RT report, but a leading Turkish newspaper has considered the report worth publishing. And the Hürriyet story is also based on a Turkish source in Malatya, who is said to have reported the same charges.

  21. lysias
    December 16, 2015, 11:47 am

    ZeroHedge’s headline says it all: The Humiliation Is Complete: Assad Can Stay, Kerry Concedes After Meeting With Putin.

    Article quotes some significant statements from the AP reporting:

    As AP reports, “U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday accepted Russia’s long-standing demand that President Bashar Assad’s future be determined by his own people, as Washington and Moscow edged toward putting aside years of disagreement over how to end Syria’s civil war.”

    “The United States and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change,” Kerry said, adding that the focus is no longer “on our differences about what can or cannot be done immediately about Assad.”

    In a testament to the fact that mainstream media is beginning to understand just how weak America’s negotiating position has become, AP offered the following rather sarcastic assessment:

    President Barack Obama first called on Assad to leave power in the summer of 2011, with “Assad must go” being a consistent rallying cry. Later, American officials allowed that he wouldn’t have to resign on “Day One” of a transition. Now, no one can say when Assad might step down

    Kerry also called demands by the “moderate” opposition that Assad step down before peace negotiations begin an “obvious nonstarter.”

  22. Star Blue Bright
    December 19, 2015, 3:33 am

    What a totally ridiculous article. Of course the Golan Heights is part of Israel and in the future, most of Syria will be part of the State of Israel. What’s even better, is that Western governments and the Western media will totally agree with our attempts to stabilize the situation in Syria. I look forward to the day when the Star of David flies over Damascus.

    • umrayya
      December 21, 2015, 3:03 pm

      You are quite the comedian!

    • eljay
      December 21, 2015, 3:20 pm

      || Star Blue Bright: … Of course the Golan Heights is part of Israel and in the future, most of Syria will be part of the State of Israel. … ||

      Every Zio-supremacist dreams of the “Thousand Year Reich ‘Jewish State'”.

  23. talknic
    December 19, 2015, 7:06 am

    I’m spamming this one

    Security Council Unanimously Adopts Resolution 2254 (2015), Endorsing Road Map for Peace Process in Syria, Setting Timetable for Talks

    http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12171.doc.htm

    Resolution

    The full text of resolution 2254 (2015) reads as follows:

    “The Security Council,

    “Recalling its resolutions 2042 (2012), 2043 (2012), 2118 (2013), 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2170 (2014), 2175 (2014), 2178 (2014), 2191 (2014), 2199 (2015), 2235 (2015), and 2249 (2015) and Presidential Statements of 3 August 2011 (S/PRST/2011/16), 21 March 2012 (S/PRST/2012/6), 5 April 2012 (S/PRST/2012/10), 2 October 2013 (S/PRST/2013/15), 24 April 2015 (S/PRST/2015/10) and 17 August 2015 (S/PRST/2015/15),

    “Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic, and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

    “Expressing its gravest concern at the continued suffering of the Syrian people, the dire and deteriorating humanitarian situation, the ongoing conflict and its persistent and brutal violence, the negative impact of terrorism and violent extremist ideology in support of terrorism, the destabilizing effect of the crisis on the region and beyond, including the resulting increase in terrorists drawn to the fighting in Syria, the physical destruction in the country, and increasing sectarianism, and underscoring that the situation will continue to deteriorate in the absence of a political solution,

    “Recalling its demand that all parties take all appropriate steps to protect civilians, including members of ethnic, religious and confessional communities, and stresses that, in this regard, the primary responsibility to protect its population lies with the Syrian authorities,

    “Reiterating that the only sustainable solution to the current crisis in Syria is through an inclusive and Syrian-led political process that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people, with a view to full implementation of the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 as endorsed by resolution 2118 (2013), including through the establishment of an inclusive transitional governing body with full executive powers, which shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent while ensuring continuity of governmental institutions,

    “Encouraging, in this regard, the diplomatic efforts of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) to help bring an end to the conflict in Syria,

    “Commending the commitment of the ISSG, as set forth in the Joint Statement on the outcome of the multilateral talks on Syria in Vienna of 30 October 2015 and the Statement of the ISSG of 14 November 2015 (hereinafter the “Vienna Statements”), to ensure a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition based on the Geneva Communiqué in its entirety, and emphasizing the urgency for all parties in Syria to work diligently and constructively towards this goal,

    “Urging all parties to the UN-facilitated political process to adhere to the principles identified by the ISSG, including commitments to Syria’s unity, independence, territorial integrity, and non-sectarian character, to ensuring continuity of governmental institutions, to protecting the rights of all Syrians, regardless of ethnicity or religious denomination, and to ensuring humanitarian access throughout the country,

    “Encouraging the meaningful participation of women in the UN-facilitated political process for Syria,

    “Bearing in mind the goal to bring together the broadest possible spectrum of the opposition, chosen by Syrians, who will decide their negotiation representatives and define their negotiation positions so as to enable the political process to begin, taking note of the meetings in Moscow and Cairo and other initiatives to this end, and noting in particular the usefulness of the meeting in Riyadh on 9-11 December 2015, whose outcomes contribute to the preparation of negotiations under UN auspices on a political settlement of the conflict, in accordance with the Geneva Communique and the “Vienna Statements”, and looking forward to the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria finalizing efforts to this end,

    “1. Reconfirms its endorsement of the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012, endorses the “Vienna Statements” in pursuit of the full implementation of the Geneva Communiqué, as the basis for a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition in order to end the conflict in Syria, and stresses that the Syrian people will decide the future of Syria;

    “2. Requests the Secretary-General, through his good offices and the efforts of his Special Envoy for Syria, to convene representatives of the Syrian government and the opposition to engage in formal negotiations on a political transition process on an urgent basis, with a target of early January 2016 for the initiation of talks, pursuant to the Geneva Communiqué, consistent with the 14 November 2015 ISSG Statement, with a view to a lasting political settlement of the crisis;

    “3. Acknowledges the role of the ISSG as the central platform to facilitate the United Nations’ efforts to achieve a lasting political settlement in Syria;

    “4. Expresses its support, in this regard, for a Syrian-led political process that is facilitated by the United Nations and, within a target of six months, establishes credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance and sets a schedule and process for drafting a new constitution, and further expresses its support for free and fair elections, pursuant to the new constitution, to be held within 18 months and administered under supervision of the United Nations, to the satisfaction of the governance and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability, with all Syrians, including members of the diaspora, eligible to participate, as set forth in the 14 November 2015 ISSG Statement;

    “5. Acknowledges the close linkage between a ceasefire and a parallel political process, pursuant to the 2012 Geneva Communiqué, and that both initiatives should move ahead expeditiously, and in this regard expresses its support for a nationwide ceasefire in Syria, which the ISSG has committed to support and assist in implementing, to come into effect as soon as the representatives of the Syrian government and the opposition have begun initial steps towards a political transition under UN auspices, on the basis of the Geneva Communiqué, as set forth in the 14 November 2015 ISSG Statement, and to do so on an urgent basis;

    “6. Requests the Secretary-General to lead the effort, through the office of his Special Envoy and in consultation with relevant parties, to determine the modalities and requirements of a ceasefire as well as continue planning for the support of ceasefire implementation, and urges Member States, in particular members of the ISSG, to support and accelerate all efforts to achieve a ceasefire, including through pressing all relevant parties to agree and adhere to such a ceasefire;

    “7. Emphasizes the need for a ceasefire monitoring, verification and reporting mechanism, requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on options for such a mechanism that it can support, as soon as possible and no later than one month after the adoption of this resolution, and encourages Member States, including members of the Security Council, to provide assistance, including through expertise and in-kind contributions, to support such a mechanism;

    “8. Reiterates its call in resolution 2249 (2015) for Member States to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh), Al-Nusra Front (ANF), and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al Qaeda or ISIL, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the ISSG and determined by the Security Council, pursuant to the Statement of the ISSG of 14 November 2015, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Syria, and notes that the aforementioned ceasefire will not apply to offensive or defensive actions against these individuals, groups, undertakings and entities, as set forth in the 14 November 2015 ISSG Statement;

    “9. Welcomes the effort that was conducted by the government of Jordan to help develop a common understanding within the ISSG of individuals and groups for possible determination as terrorists and will consider expeditiously the recommendation of the ISSG for the purpose of determining terrorist groups;

    “10. Emphasizes the need for all parties in Syria to take confidence building measures to contribute to the viability of a political process and a lasting ceasefire, and calls on all states to use their influence with the government of Syria and the Syrian opposition to advance the peace process, confidence building measures and steps towards a ceasefire;

    “11. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council, as soon as possible and no later than one month after the adoption of this resolution, on options for further confidence building measures;

    “12. Calls on the parties to immediately allow humanitarian agencies rapid, safe and unhindered access throughout Syria by most direct routes, allow immediate, humanitarian assistance to reach all people in need, in particular in all besieged and hard-to-reach areas, release any arbitrarily detained persons, particularly women and children, calls on ISSG states to use their influence immediately to these ends, and demands the full implementation of resolutions 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2191 (2014) and any other applicable resolutions;

    “13. Demands that all parties immediately cease any attacks against civilians and civilian objects as such, including attacks against medical facilities and personnel, and any indiscriminate use of weapons, including through shelling and aerial bombardment, welcomes the commitment by the ISSG to press the parties in this regard, and further demands that all parties immediately comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law as applicable;

    “14. Underscores the critical need to build conditions for the safe and voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons to their home areas and the rehabilitation of affected areas, in accordance with international law, including applicable provisions of the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, and taking into account the interests of those countries hosting refugees, urges Member States to provide assistance in this regard, looks forward to the London Conference on Syria in February 2016, hosted by the United Kingdom, Germany, Kuwait, Norway and the United Nations, as an important contribution to this endeavour, and further expresses its support to the post-conflict reconstruction and rehabilitation of Syria;

    “15. Requests that the Secretary-General report back to the Security Council on the implementation of this resolution, including on progress of the UN-facilitated political process, within 60 days;

    “16. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.”

  24. talknic
    January 18, 2016, 8:28 pm

    @ echinococcus – Continuing discussion on Armistice Demarcation Lines vs Israel’s borders.

    I’ll get back to this in full. Still trying to find Palestinian documents I really should have bookmarked when I first caught a glimpse

    Meanwhile http://wp.me/pDB7k-l5#coveting-land
    an exchange of the 31st August 1949 between the Conciliation Commission and the Israeli Government, where:
    Israel, as a UN Member State, tried to claim territories the Israeli Government itself had previously claimed on May 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

    The Commission rebuffed the claim, referring Israel back to the Armistice Agreements

    —–

    It perhaps should be noted that three of the four Armistice agreements, Egypt/Israel 24th February 1949, Lebanon/Israel 23rd March 1949, Jordan/Israel 3rd April 1949, were made before Israel became a UN Member state 11th May 1949.

Leave a Reply