Park Slope Food Coop puts up firewall against boycott of Israeli goods

Activism
on 183 Comments

Earlier this week, the Park Slope Food Coop in Brooklyn held a general meeting at which it passed a measure to require a super-majority of 75 percent on resolutions to boycott products at the coop, as opposed to a simple majority. The 75 percent rule is aimed at holding back the forces that want to boycott Israeli goods. Four years ago, those forces lost a vote to hold a membership-wide referendum on a boycott of Israeli goods by about 60-40. Israel supporters surely feel that the margin was too close for comfort. Thus the 75 percent firewall.

I’m told that the meeting at a Brooklyn school on Tuesday night was jammed and that pro-boycott forces lodged numerous complaints about the procedure– for instance, that the 75 percent rule is a change to the bylaws, and bylaws can’t be changed without a two-thirds vote. And also, that the Food Coop has been footdragging about holding a vote on a resolution from last spring to boycott Sodastream products, the seltzer-maker manufactured in occupied territories. But still the 75 percent rule went through.

This is sad news and also not the end of the story. The Park Slope Food Coop is a great progressive institution that has boycotted other problematic goods in the past, no problem; by shutting down Israeli boycott, it’s demonstrating its PEP Pedigree — Progressive Except Palestine. The vote is surely a reflection of the attachment to Israel of the Jewish community. And if you live in Brooklyn, the Food Coop is a special place; it’s hard to find better, cheaper foodstuffs.

It’s not the end of the story because Palestinian human rights are too important for young American progressives to trample them any longer. And speaking of the battle inside the Jewish community, our friend Sarah Wellington, a Jewish anti-Zionist, will be giving a talk tomorrow at the coop on her efforts to boycott Israeli goods. That’s her flyer at the top of this piece.

183 Responses

  1. JustJessetr
    January 30, 2016, 6:45 pm

    In your haste to believe all things Palestinian, you assume way too much, Philip.

    • Mooser
      January 30, 2016, 9:53 pm

      “In your haste to believe all things Palestinian, you assume way too much, Philip.”

      Are you reading from some kind of a script? What’s the next line supposed to be?

      • JayB
        January 31, 2016, 8:40 am

        Mooser,
        If you know JustJessetr is reading from a script, than you already know what the next line will be.

      • Mooser
        January 31, 2016, 12:17 pm

        ” than you already know what the next line will be.”

        Well, I would think “Justjessetr” will probably say that Phil assumes too much if he thinks the talk will take place as scheduled on Sunday. Something like that.

  2. hophmi
    January 31, 2016, 8:11 am

    I imagine the Co-op board is tired of being hijacked over this issue. As they do on the world stage, where Andi-Israel bigots waste the time of international fora with their obsessive hate, so to, the same forces, allied with oppressive Arab dictatorships, are attempting to do the same here.

    • Mooser
      January 31, 2016, 12:39 pm

      “where Andi-Israel bigots waste the time of international fora with their obsessive hate, so to, the same forces, allied with oppressive Arab dictatorships, are attempting to do the same here.”

      Well, if Israel had stuck to a diet of traditional Jewish-Chinese-American food, and left the hummus olives and dates alone, that wouldn’t have happened.

      • Atlantaiconoclast
        February 1, 2016, 7:26 pm

        You have some nerve complaining about Arab dictatorships, when Israel has yet to grant full rights to the people of Palestine and the Arab citizens within Israel. And do tell us if you prefer Al Qaeda to Assad? I bet you do. And so does the Israeli govt.

    • talknic
      January 31, 2016, 8:08 pm

      @ hophmi

      Calling for Israel to adhere to International Law is bigotry and obsessive hatred? How AMAZING!!!

      Say, is there something that precludes Israel from living up to its legal obligations?

  3. JustJessetr
    January 31, 2016, 9:09 am

    If you read Rosenfeld’s speech in the other article, you’ll see he mentions only coop unity. He never mentioned any particular boycott or country. Don’t assume that bc some people disliked it that it was aimed at them.

  4. Les
    January 31, 2016, 11:55 am

    Too few anti-zionist Jews see this as a Jew versus Jew issue, in spite of this made manifest everywhere. It takes courage to use language that challenges the norm.

    • Mooser
      January 31, 2016, 12:32 pm

      “Too few anti-zionist Jews see this as a Jew versus Jew issue…”

      That is very, very true, Les. I think it’s been pretty obvious that most anti-Zionist Jews do not want to see this as a Jew-versus-Jew issue. Whether it’s “too few” I don’t know.

      But Zionists, you might notice, are very, very eager to put it on that Jew-versus-Jew basis.

      • JayB
        February 1, 2016, 2:10 pm

        Mooser,
        If Philip Weiss is a Jew or even pretending to be one, and are at odds with the 3,288 year Jewish State of Israel, even an idiot could see what that truly is, regardless of how eager one might be.

      • eljay
        February 1, 2016, 2:43 pm

        || JayB: … the 3,288 year Jewish State of Israel … ||

        What’s a “3,288 year Jewish State of Israel”? Is it like a “Thousand Year Reich”?

        Israel has existed for less than 70 years. Religion-supremacist “Jewish State” shouldn’t exist at all. (No state has a right to exist as a supremacist state of any kind.)

      • Mooser
        February 1, 2016, 2:51 pm

        “If Philip…/… one might be.”

        Is that supposed to mean something? Makes no sense.

        “with the 3,288 year Jewish State of Israel”

        Sorry I bothered you, Jay B. I won’t do it again. But thanks for the immediate confirmation about “Jew-versus-Jew” That much, I could decipher.

      • talknic
        February 1, 2016, 5:04 pm

        @ JayB

        “the 3,288 year Jewish State of Israel”

        The Jewish State of Israel simply DIDN’T exist for the vast majority of your alleged 3,288 years.

      • RoHa
        February 2, 2016, 4:02 am

        “The Jewish State of Israel simply DIDN’T exist for the vast majority of your alleged 3,288 years. ”

        But there was a Christain Kingdom there for nearly 200 years.

        And before that, the Romans established a Temple to Jupiter there. I don’t know how Christian the area became when the Roman Empire officially adopted Christianity.

  5. Ossinev
    January 31, 2016, 1:14 pm

    @Hophmi
    “the same forces, allied with oppressive Arab dictatorships, are attempting to do the same here.”
    Those b….y Saudis – one day it`s the Yemen next day it`s a Co-op store in Brooklyn. Why can`t they just give it a rest. And as for all the other Andi – Israel bigots they should learn to spell.

  6. jon s
    January 31, 2016, 4:06 pm

    Sodastream is closing its factory in the West Bank and has opened a new facility in Rahat, in the Negev , so it doesn’t make much sense to boycott it as a company involved in the occupation.

    • echinococcus
      January 31, 2016, 4:12 pm

      No shloot, John S, who would be stupid enough to limit the boycott to only post-1967 occupation –as if it weren’t the selfsame Zionist entity? You aren’t really making sense, you know? The Najaf is in Palestine, too, and it is occupied (and still being ethnically cleansed as we speak.)

    • lysias
      January 31, 2016, 6:10 pm

      In the Negev? How has it treated the Bedouins there?

    • eljay
      January 31, 2016, 6:42 pm

      || jon s: Sodastream is closing its factory in the West Bank and has opened a new facility in Rahat, in the Negev , so it doesn’t make much sense to boycott it as a company involved in the occupation. ||

      From the maps, it appears that Rahat is situated outside of Israel’s / Partition borders, in which case Sodastream remains involved in the occupation of Palestine.

      • yonah fredman
        February 1, 2016, 11:47 am

        eljay- Name one country that recognizes Israel but considers past the partition line to be occupied territory. This is the talk of internet purists, but not international lawyers. Call all of Israel occupied and join all those who do not recognize Israel. Call past 67 Israel occupied and join all the nations who recognize Israel. Call past the partition lines occupied and join talknic.

      • eljay
        February 1, 2016, 12:07 pm

        || yonah fredman: eljay- Name one country that recognizes Israel but considers past the partition line to be occupied territory. … ||

        Off-hand, I can’t name one. But I don’t see how that changes my opinion that what lies outside of Israel’s / Partition borders does not rightfully belong to Israel.

        || … Call all of Israel occupied and join all those who do not recognize Israel. … ||

        Why would I do that? There’s a lot wrong with Israel, but it isn’t occupying itself.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        February 1, 2016, 12:21 pm

        “Name one country that recognizes Israel but considers past the partition line to be occupied territory.”

        All of them. Not one nation on earth considers the occupied territories to be a part of Israel. Not even the US. Ask yourself where all of these countries situate their embassies to Israel.

      • Sibiriak
        February 1, 2016, 12:50 pm

        Maximus Decimus Meridius: Not one nation on earth considers the occupied territories to be a part of Israel.

        ————–

        But it’s the pre-1967 border (aka “Green Line”) – not UN res. 181 recommended “partition borders” — that marks the division between Israeli territory and occupied Palestinian territory. It least that’s the position taken by the UNGA, the UNSC, the International Court of Justice, the state of Palestine in its UN application, the 193 UN member states which have recognized Palestine , the US, the PLO, the Arab League, the BDS movement, etc.. etc.

      • inbound39
        February 1, 2016, 2:11 pm

        67 Borders are acknowledged by the 193 members because that is what the Palestinians asked for. Israel rejected and still rejects 67 Borders. All Nations only ever accepted Israel on its Partition Plan Borders because that is what the Provisional Israeli Government declared in 48. It has never legally annexed any other land. So, therefore ,Israels only legitimate Borders are those of 1948 WHICH IT DECLARED,until by legal process, the State of Palestine is legally rendered legitimate and Israel withdraws its troops and illegal settlers from Occupied territory outside of its declared Borders.

      • talknic
        February 1, 2016, 3:07 pm

        @ Jonah fredman

        “Name one country that recognizes Israel but considers past the partition line to be occupied territory.”

        The State of Israel was recognized how the Israeli Government asked for the State of Israel to be recognized, as ” an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947 , and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, “ link to wp.me

        Try producing official recognition by any state of territories beyond partition as Israeli
        … go ahead … I’ll wait

        Meanwhile on May 22nd 1948 Israel itself admitted to occupying territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

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

        ” Call all of Israel occupied and join all those who do not recognize Israel”

        Israel is recognized by the majority (161) of Nations as it asked to be recognized ” as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947 ,” . The remainder (32) do not recognize Israel for a variety of valid legal reasons. The majority prevailed.

        “Call past 67 Israel occupied and join all the nations who recognize Israel”

        The nations who recognize Israel have only ever recognized it as it asked to be recognized, ” as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947 ,”
        Israel was not a UN Member when it breached its recognized borders, there are no UNSC resolutions mentioning Israel al all until it applied and after being accepted for UN Membership based on its recognition as ” an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947 ,”

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 5:15 pm

        “Name one country that recognizes Israel but considers past the partition line to be occupied territory.” “yonah fredman” – See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

        Well, “Yonah”? Well?

        Anyway, watch how fast “Yonah” blithely ignores everything (text, links, everything) told to him here and flies the same quackpot canard in another thread.
        With “Yonah” there is never ” a failure to communicate”.

      • yonah fredman
        February 2, 2016, 7:03 pm

        I consider Sibiriak’s response to be my response as well. Name one nation that recognizes Israel that tells Israel that it needs to withdraw from territory of the June 4, 1967 armistice line/ border.

      • yonah fredman
        February 2, 2016, 7:03 pm

        mooser- what we have here is a failure to excommunicate. get your hole out of my yard.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 2, 2016, 7:21 pm

        ouch – the sh*ts about to fly!

        game on

      • Kris
        February 2, 2016, 7:25 pm

        @yonah fredman: “mooser- what we have here is a failure to excommunicate. get your hole out of my yard.

        What are you talking about?

      • Annie Robbins
        February 2, 2016, 8:01 pm

        kris, yonah is trying to have a private conversation with mooser in a public forum. and he’s upset that mooser challenged him over the discussion that happened upthread. and yesterday (or the day before or the day before that i can’t recall) he even told mooser — i can’t recall — something about really telling him off or he was going to do something to him or he’d like to do something (hostile no doubt) but if it weren’t for the moderator…

        he should book a room if he wants privacy — just ignore him. you know he goes through these phases sometimes. mooser’s too quick and smart and slippery for him and he’s frustrated. something like that.

      • yonah fredman
        February 2, 2016, 7:36 pm

        kris- I was talking to mooser. Cool hand luke is a great movie and contains all the wisdom of the cosmos (if properly interpreted). and what business is it to you, what i say to mooser?

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 8:50 pm

        “Cool hand luke is a great movie and contains all the wisdom of the cosmos”

        “Yonah” I get it, I get it! You think you are a brutal Southern Florida jailer, and I am a blue-eyed prisoner you can torturer. You’re so farblondzhet. Pathetic.

        “what business is it to you, what i say to mooser?”

        If you are talking to me, you are talking to Kris. He’s welcome to answer for me anytime. What a brave little macher you are on the end of a CAT 5 cable!

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 8:59 pm

        “What are you talking about?”

        God alone knows what that lonely, truncated soul, and shriveled character is thinking or trying to do. He seems to be fantasizing about “excommunicating” me now.

        I think he’s a little ‘off’, frankly.

        “Cool hand luke is a great movie and contains all the wisdom of the cosmos”

        “Yonah” got off during the torture scenes. That did it for the Torah. It’s strictly the Gospel of Paul for “Yonah” from now on.

      • talknic
        February 2, 2016, 10:19 pm

        @ yonah fredman ” Name one nation that recognizes Israel that tells Israel that it needs to withdraw from territory of the June 4, 1967 armistice line/ border.”

        Why would they? It’s none of their business. It’s between Palestine and Israel.

        While Palestine is willing to cede 78% of its rightful territory to Israel for peace, Israel refuses to recognize any peaceful resolution and has not accepted any borders.

        Israel has not acquired any further territories by any legal agreement or instrument, so until such time as there is an agreement, Israel’s borders remain those it proclaimed and was recognized by. That’s why there are no foreign embassies in Jerusalem.

      • Dan
        February 2, 2016, 11:32 pm

        @talknic

        “Why would they? It’s none of their business. It’s between Palestine and Israel”

        You repeatedly tell us that the territory is illegally occupied and now you tell us it’s none of the worlds business. An illegal occupation is none of the worlds business? Is that your position?

      • Sibiriak
        February 3, 2016, 1:02 am

        talknic: @ yonah fredman ” Name one nation that recognizes Israel that tells Israel that it needs to withdraw from territory of the June 4, 1967 armistice line/ border.”

        Why would they? It’s none of their business. It’s between Palestine and Israel.
        ————————————-

        Of course it’s their business. The I/P conflict threatens international peace and security and involves fundamental violations of human rights. The UNSC and UNGA have been deeply involved in the conflict from day one and that makes it the business of all UN member states.

        *There are numerous UN and ICJ statements affirming that it is the pre-1967 border (aka “Green Line”) which divides Israeli territory from occupied Palestinian territory and that Israeli settlements in OPT, thusly defined, are illegal.

        *There are ZERO UN or ICJ statements affirming that it is the UN res 181 recommended “partition border” which divides Israeli territory from occupied Palestinian territory.

        *There are ZERO UN or ICJ statements affirming that Israeli settlement across the UN recommended partition border but inside the Green Line is illegal.

        *There are numerous UN resolutions and ICJ statements which apply the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war to the territory Israel acquired in 1967.

        *There are ZERO UN resolutions or ICJ statements which apply the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war to the territory Israel acquired in 1947-49.

        The international legal and political consensus is clear: it is the “Green Line” (pre-1967 border) not the UN res 181 recommended partition border which divides Israeli territory from occupied Palestinian territory.

      • Sibiriak
        February 3, 2016, 1:20 am

        talknic: Israel has not acquired any further territories by any legal agreement or instrument, so until such time as there is an agreement, Israel’s borders remain those it proclaimed and was recognized by.

        Not true.

        1)The UN/ICJ has never applied the principle of the inadmissibility of territorial acquisition by war to territory acquired by Israel in 1947-9. That principle has only been applied to territory acquired by Israel during the 1967 war. The legal reason for this was that the first war of expansion, unlike the second, was viewed as a non-international conflict to which international law largely did not apply. (There were of course many political reasons.)

        Hostage has explained this many times:

        [Avi_G.:] Phil, Finkelstein, and others sometimes like to separate the legal precedent that is the UN Partition Plan and Declaration of Independence, from the war of aggression of 1967, forgetting that land acquired in 1948 by force cannot be legally annexed.

        [Hostage:] The principles of international law regarding annexation of territory did not apply to the civil war (a non-international armed conflict) between the communities of the Palestine mandate.After the mandate was terminated, Israel declared its independence and the Arabs declared a union between Transjordan and Arab Palestine. Once Israel and Jordan were both admitted to the UN as member states, and none of their citizens shared a common Palestinian nationality, the on-going conflict was transformed into an international one. The ICJ noted that, in 1967, both sides were High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions. So the situation then was completely different. [emphasis addd]

        link to mondoweiss.net
        ——————

        2)The Armistice agreements of 1949 gave Israel full and unchallengeable jurisdiction (sovereignty) over territories on the Israel side of the “Green Line” ( subject to possible border modifications in a final agreement, neither side being under any legal compulsion to agree to such future modifications. )

        So, with the signing of the 1949 agreements, Israel ceased being an Occupying Power inside the Green Line.

        Again, Hostage has explained this on numerous occasions, for example in this exchange:

        talknic: The territories Israel had acquired by war, outside of it’s declared and recognized Sovereign extent, were considered to be “occupied”. I.e., NOT Israeli Sovereign territory.

        Hostage: Sovereignty is just a synonym for jurisdiction. The two sides signed international armistice agreements that permit them to govern the respective territories until hell freezes over absent any mutually agreed upon modifications of the armistice borders.

        […]
        After the Lausanne protocols were signed, all of the parties extended the application of their municipal laws to the territory under their control and no one considered them to be merely occupiers anymore. [emphasis added]

        ———

        3) “Annexation is nothing more than the de jure application of a State’s municipal laws to a new territory.” (Hostage)

        The UN sponsored and internationally recognized 1949 Armistice Agreements gave Israel the legal right to extend its municipal laws to the territory acquired in 1947-9.

        Therefore, that territory was legally annexed .

        See this talknic/Hostage exchange:

        talknic: The 1949 Armistice Agreements specifically did not change any borders, they only set Armistice Demarcation Lines.

        Hostage: The Armistice Demarcation lines can’t ever be altered without Israel’s consent. They have indicated the limits of the civil jurisdiction of Israel’s Courts since at least 1950. Annexation is nothing more than the de jure application of a State’s municipal laws to a new territory. [emphasis added]

        link to mondoweiss.net

        ————-
        Cf. Hostage:

        The parties concerned entered into international armistice agreements which granted the belligerents civil jurisdiction to apply their municipal laws up to the “Green Lines”. That is the normal definition of annexation. [emphasis added]

        link to mondoweiss.net

      • echinococcus
        February 3, 2016, 1:55 am

        67 Borders are acknowledged by the 193 members because that is what the Palestinians asked for.

        Wrong.
        **Some** Palestinians and a lot of US and other colonial puppets. What Palestinians as for is not to be adjudicated without a plebiscite and in the absence of occupation and duress.
        Not 193, but even the unanimity of other governments are not the holders of sovereignty over the entirety of Palestine. The Palestinian people are, and they were never asked.

      • echinococcus
        February 3, 2016, 2:14 am

        Talknic,

        While Palestine is willing to cede 78% of its rightful territory to Israel for peace

        This is a lie, repeated ad nauseam. It’s not “Palestine” , but a handful of handpicked Palestinians giving away the rights of all others.
        Not representative. No plebiscite of the entire population before the conquest called “partition”, no plebiscite of all heirs and assigns of the 1947 Palestinian population in the absence of occupation or other duress. No concert of “x00 nations” under colonialist domination and no clique of Palestinian puppets has the right to sovereignty over any of Palestine.
        This objection keeps being repeated. You never answer it, yet you repeat the false statement as if it were established and uncontested.

      • yonah fredman
        February 3, 2016, 2:45 am

        let kris defend mooser. let mooser talk like an idiot. let annie robbins run her 7th grade members only clubhouse.

      • yonah fredman
        February 3, 2016, 2:46 am

        and tell me kris: why did you bring up my name when i hadn’t commented and played the fredman feldman game. that’s obnoxious.

      • talknic
        February 3, 2016, 2:48 am

        @ Sibiriak “Of course it’s their business. The I/P conflict threatens international peace and security and involves fundamental violations of human rights. The UNSC and UNGA have been deeply involved in the conflict from day one and that makes it the business of all UN member states”

        It’s their business in regards to International peace that a UN Member state or states might be in breach of the law outside of their recognized territories

        “*There are numerous UN and ICJ statements affirming that it is the pre-1967 border (aka “Green Line”) which divides Israeli territory from occupied Palestinian territory”

        Best read very very carefully. There are statements relative to occupied Palestinian territories per the Palestinian declaration of statehood. There are no statements actually affirming that it is the pre-1967 border (aka “Green Line”) which defines Israeli territories. While Israel refuses to redefine its borders it is simply impossible. Until such time as it does, its borders are those proclaimed and recognized, despite their having illegally acquired by war non Israeli territories before they became a UN Member state. That’s why there are no foreign embassies outside of Israel’s UNGA res 181 borders

        “*There are ZERO UN or ICJ statements affirming that it is the UN res 181 recommended “partition border” which divides Israeli territory from occupied Palestinian territory.”

        Correct. The UN cannot directly censure (“demand” of) a non-member state or retrospectively demand of a Member state for its actions prior to becoming a UN Member. The UN can only “call on” (request) those parties in breach to adhere to their legal responsibilities to International Law and inform UN Members how they may treat those non-members

        “*There are numerous UN resolutions and ICJ statements which apply the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war to the territory Israel acquired in 1967.”

        Israel was a UN Member by 1967. The the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war to the territory stood before Israel became a UN Member, however as above, the UN cannot directly censure (“demand” of) non-members

        “*There are ZERO UN resolutions or ICJ statements which apply the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war to the territory Israel acquired in 1947-49”

        Israel wasn’t a UN Member. The illegality of acquiring territory by war was never the less in force.

        “The international legal and political consensus is clear: it is the “Green Line” (pre-1967 border) not the UN res 181 recommended partition border which divides Israeli territory from occupied Palestinian territory”

        There are no foreign embassies in Israel outside of the UNGA 181 borders

      • yonah fredman
        February 3, 2016, 2:57 am

        and back to the discussion which was substantive until mooser’s arrival: sibiriak has shown that talknic’s talking points belong on the street corner and have no validity. “why should they?” that’s 7th grade too.

      • yonah fredman
        February 3, 2016, 4:19 am

        again to substance, talknic, you can not cite jerusalem which kind of belonged to the UN under the partition agreement to the parts of palestine that were captured in 48. to make this equation and say that since there is no embassy in Jerusalem therefore all the territory not included in the partition agreement is occupied territory is a leap that i do not think is justified by the law or the positions of the countries of the world and your willlingness to take this leap shows that you are on thin ice legally. you are one lawyer saying that you know the law when all the lawyers at the UN (of countries that recognize Israel) would tell us something different.

        i accept the validity of trying to hold onto the partition agreement until such time as a negotiated settlement is reached. the PLO made the decision in 1988 not to go in that direction. nothing in its statements signed with Israel since 1993 have indicated any objection to the armistice lines of 1949, with the possible exception of jerusalem, again.

        talknic, i’m sorry if i let my agita vis a vis annie robbins, kris and mooser, taint my rhetoric with unnecessary animus.

      • talknic
        February 3, 2016, 5:05 am

        @ Dan “You repeatedly tell us that the territory is illegally occupied and now you tell us it’s none of the worlds business. “

        Sloppy reading. This is what I answered to

        ” Name one nation that recognizes Israel that tells Israel that it needs to withdraw from territory of the June 4, 1967 armistice line/ border.”

        Why would they? It’s none of their business. It’s between Palestine and Israel.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        Where borders are finally agreed upon is between Israel and Palestine. No one else.

        I’ll go even further. The Green line was the November 30, 1948 ceasefire line between Israel and Jordan only, signed by Moshe Dayan (Israel) & Abdullah el-Tel (Jordan). It was later adopted into the 1949 Israel/Jordan Armistice Agreement because it was the only official document indicating the dividing line agreed to by Israel and Jordan

        Jordan has since handed sovereignty over the West Bank back to the Palestinians. The Israel/Jordanian Armistice Agreement was superseded by the Israel/Jordan Peace Treaty

        There has never been an Armistice Agreement between Israel and Palestine.

        “An illegal occupation is none of the worlds business? Is that your position?”

        The UNSC tells us Israel’s attempts to change the status of territories occupied in the recent conflict (’67) are illegal and that settlement by Israelis in those occupied territories are illegal and reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalemlink to wp.me

      • talknic
        February 3, 2016, 6:52 am

        Correction: link to mondoweiss.net

        It was later adopted into the 1949 Israel/Jordan Armistice Agreement because it was the only official document indicating the dividing ceasefire line agreed to by Israel and Jordan

      • talknic
        February 3, 2016, 8:42 am

        @ Sibiriak

        Closer reading necessary “[Hostage:] The principles of international law regarding annexation of territory did not apply to the civil war (a non-international armed conflict) between the communities of the Palestine mandate. “

        The Mandate terminated midnight 14th May 1948. At 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) Israel was no longer a community of the mandate. Nor was whatever remained of Palestine. It was no longer a civil war

        “[Hostage:] After the mandate was terminated, Israel declared its independence …”

        … within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, link to trumanlibrary.org @ 00:01 on the 15th May 1948 (ME time) no territory outside of the UNGA 181 defined boundaries belonged to Israel

        22nd May 1948 the Israeli Government itself claimed it had territories “outside the State of Israel” under Israeli military control link to pages.citebite.com

        Territories under Military Control are occupied Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III @ 22nd May 1948 no territory outside of the UNGA 181 defined boundaries belonged to Israel

        12th Aug 1948 Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation link to mfa.gov.il @ 12th Aug 1948 still no territory outside of the UNGA 181 defined boundaries belonged to Israel

        31st of August 1949 Israel tried to lay claim to those territories (as a UN Member state) link to wp.me @ 31st of August 1949 still no territory outside of the UNGA 181 defined boundaries belonged to Israel

        Israel’s 31st August 1949 claims were rebuffed, citing the Armistice Agreements, specifically the Armistice Demarcation Line is not to “be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary”

        Summary: As late as 31st August 1949 the territories acquired by war as of 00:01 May 1948 (ME time) were quite simply not yet Israeli.
        ————–
        “Hostage: Sovereignty is just a synonym for jurisdiction. The two sides signed international armistice agreements that permit them to govern the respective territories until hell freezes over absent any mutually agreed upon modifications of the armistice borders”
        A) “govern” It did not assign those territories to them, in fact the Armistice agreements specifically stated the Armistice Demarcation Lines were not to be construed as territorial boundaries
        B) The Armistice Agreement between Jordan and Israel was superseded by the Israel Jordan Peace Treaty. At which point hell froze over and the issue became one between Palestine and Israel.

        3) “Annexation is nothing more than the de jure application of a State’s municipal laws to a new territory.” (Hostage)

        ‘de jure’ being the operative word. Israel’s 31st August 1949 claims were rebuffed (see above)

        The UN sponsored and internationally recognized 1949 Armistice Agreements gave Israel the legal right to extend its municipal laws to the territory acquired in 1947-9

        Israel’s 31st August 1949 claims were rebuffed (see above)

      • talknic
        February 3, 2016, 9:01 am

        @ yonah fredman “you can not cite jerusalem which kind of belonged to the UN under the partition agreement to the parts of palestine that were captured in 48. to make this equation “

        The Israeli Government did !
        A) By it’s proclamation in its plea for recognition link to trumanlibrary.org

        B) Israeli Government statement UNSC S/766 May 22nd 1948 link to pages.citebite.com

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

        D) By it’s refused August 1949 attempt to claim those territories it said on May 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel”

        “and say that since there is no embassy in Jerusalem therefore all the territory not included in the partition agreement is occupied territory is a leap that i do not think is justified by the law or the positions of the countries of the world”

        What other reason is there for NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD having an embassy outside of Israel’s proclaimed and only recognized borders? Make something up … go ahead.

        ” when all the lawyers at the UN (of countries that recognize Israel) would tell us something different”

        Cite them

        “i accept the validity of trying to hold onto the partition agreement until such time as a negotiated settlement is reached. the PLO made the decision in 1988 not to go in that direction.”

        Israel didn’t. The only borders Israel has ever officially agreed to and been officially recognized by are those of UNGA 181

      • Mooser
        February 3, 2016, 11:36 am

        “let kris defend mooser. let mooser talk like an idiot. let annie robbins run her 7th grade members only clubhouse.”

        And let “Yonah” write such brilliant and incisive comments that the Mods must pass them, no matter how bad they make the rest of us look.

        And BTW, “Yonah” I didn’t make it to 7th grade. Got kicked out in 6th, and never went back. Hell, I was Bar Mitzvah why would I need anything more education that that?

      • Mooser
        February 3, 2016, 11:41 am

        “i’m sorry if i let my agita vis a vis annie robbins, kris and mooser, taint my rhetoric with unnecessary animus.”

        “taint my rhetoric with unnecessary animus”

        “Animus”? Such a fancy word for petulance and whining andkvetching

        “my agita vis a vis”

        Is that Hebrew?

      • jon s
        February 3, 2016, 3:50 pm

        The 1947 partition borders are relevant only in the Mondoweiss universe, not in the real world.

      • talknic
        February 3, 2016, 6:56 pm

        @ jon s “The 1947 partition borders are relevant only in the Mondoweiss universe, not in the real world”

        Oh? In the real world there are no foreign embassies outside of the 1947 partition borders. As a bottom line, it’s the only territory officially recognized as Israeli. The last line of defense

      • Mooser
        February 3, 2016, 7:11 pm

        “The 1947 partition borders are relevant only in the Mondoweiss universe, not in the real world.” “Jon s”

        “An Israeli history teacher,long-time activist on the Israeli Left. – See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

      • Dan
        February 3, 2016, 9:09 pm

        @Talknic,

        There previously were countries that had their embassies in Jerusalem, but they moved them to protest Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem, so I suspect it’s basically a political/diplomatic decision (who needs that diplomatic headache) and less so based on technical legal considerations.

        BTW – I agree with the decisions not to have embassies in Jerusalem.

        link to washingtonpost.com

      • Sibiriak
        February 4, 2016, 12:03 am

        Dan: There previously were countries that had their embassies in Jerusalem, but they moved them to protest Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem…

        ———————–

        Important point. Thanks.

        The July 29, 1980 Venezuelan embassy move from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, which your linked new article reports, came on the heels of UN Security Council resolution 471 of June 5, 1980 (preceded by resolutions 465, 478, 469), which has explicit references to “Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967 .

        (See quotes here: link to mondoweiss.net)

        Another complicating factor is that the EU still officially supports the 1947 UN Partition Plan’s recommendation that Jerusalem be internationalized as a “corpus separatum.”

        link to news.bbc.co.uk

        Nevertheless, the EU clearly holds the pre-1967 borders, not the 1947 UN recommended partition borders, to be the dividing line between Israeli territory and occupied Palestinian territory and to be the basis for any final settlement.

        …[The EU ]will not recognise any changes to pre-1967 borders with regard to Jerusalem, unless agreed between the parties. It has also called for the reopening of Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem, in accordance with the Road Map, in particular Orient House and the Chamber of Commerce,[45] and has called on the Israeli government to cease all discriminatory treatment of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, especially concerning work permits, access to education and health services, building permits, house demolitions, taxation and expenditure.”[46]

        “The European Union set out its position in a statement of principles last December. A two-state solution with Israel and Palestine side by side in peace and security. A viable state of Palestine in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, on the basis of the 1967 lines. A way must be found to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of both Israel and Palestine.” – Catherine Ashton, High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union

        [emphasis added]

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        Keep in mind that if Jerusalem were to be a “corpus separatum”, then East Jerusalem couldn’t be under Palestinian sovereignty as its capital. Yet, Palestine has claimed East Jerusalem as its capital, and most countries, including EU countries, support that claim.

        In any case, Yonah Fredman is quite right to say it’s an unjustified leap of logic to go from the lack of embassies in Jerusalem today to the claim that all territory outside the UN recommended partition borders (not the Green Line”) is occupied Palestinian territory.

      • Sibiriak
        February 4, 2016, 2:19 am

        talknic: There are no statements actually affirming that it is the pre-1967 border (aka “Green Line”) which defines Israeli territories.

        ———————-

        Not true.

        Here are some examples from the 2004 International Court of Justice “Wall” case.

        1)

        “Gravely concerned at the commencement and continuation of construction by Israel, the occupying Power, of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure from the Armistice Line of 1949 (Green Line)and which has involved the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources, the disruption of the lives of thousands of protected civilians and the de facto annexation of large areas of territory, and underlining the unanimous opposition by the international community to the construction of that wall”. [emphasis added]

        Palestinian land is on one side of the Green Line, and Israeli land on the other.

        The plain meaning of that text is that “Occupied Palestinian Territory” is defined as a “ departure from the Armistice Line of 1949 (Green Line)“, not a departure from the 1947 UN-recommended partition lines.
        ————————–

        2) Paragraph 67, p. 32 :

        The Court notes furthermore that the request of the General Assembly concerns the legal consequences of the wall being built ” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem”. As also explained below (see paragraphs 79-84 below), some parts of the complex are being built, or are planned to be built, on the territory of Israel itself; the Court does not (consider that it is called upon to examine the legal consequences arising from the construction of those parts of the wall. [emphasis added]

        Please focus in on that expression “on the territory of Israel itself.” That refers to portions of the wall that are outside 1947 recommended partition borders but within the “Green Line.” That territory is described as “the territory of Israel itself”. It’s clear as day.

        ———————–

        3). Page 35:

        The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories […] [emphasis added]

        The Court makes it crystal clear that on the Palestinian side of Green Line, not UN res 181 recommended partition border, Israel is an “occupying Power”; on the Israeli side, Israel is NOT an “occupying Power.”
        ———————-

        4.) From the separate opinion of Judge Al-Khasawneh :

        The Green line, to quote Sir Arthur Watts, “is the starting line from which is measured the extent of Israel’s occupation of non-Israeli territory” (CR200413, p. 64, para. 35). [emphasis added]

        ———————–
        Again, please focus in on that expression “non-Israeli territory“– it logically implies that territory on the other side of the “Green Line” is Israeli territory.

        The plain meaning of all these statements shows clearly that the UN/ICJ has indeed affirmed that it is the “Green Line”–not the UN recommended partition line– which divides Israeli territory from non-Israeli territory, i.e. Occupied Palestinian Territory.

        You are free, of course, to present your own personal legal opinion like anybody else, but that doesn’t change the fact that the UN/ICJ legal consensus does not agree with you.

      • talknic
        February 4, 2016, 4:27 am

        In all my years of searching and asking, no one has yet been able to point to any document whereby territories acquired by war by Israel post 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) have been legally acquired by or legally assigned to or agreed by consensus of a majority, to be Israeli.

        The ICJ statements define Occupied Palestinian Territories based on the Palestinian declaration of statehood, wherein Palestine is willing to accept only 22% of its territory. Because the question they were asked to consider didn’t include the extent of Israel’s sovereignty, the ICJ statements do not actually define Israel’s territories

        In respect to the “embassies” moved from Jerusalem:
        1) they were 13, a minority of nations
        2) of the 13, were they all before moving in fact embassies or were some only consulates to Israel or;
        3) of the 13, were they all embassies to Israel or were some embassies in what was expected to have been the Corpus Separatum?
        4) The majority of nations who recognized Israel have never had embassies to Israel outside the UNGA res 181 borders
        5) The British have an Israeli embassy in TelAviv. The British Consul-General in Jerusalem meanwhile is not accredited to any state

        Some countries including the US, now maintain a consulate in Jerusalem as part of the “Consular Corps of the Corpus Separatum”. Corpus Separatum was of UNGA res 181, same as the US’s recognition of Israel per Israel’s plea for recognition. This would seem to indicate that the US has yet to recognize any further territories as Israeli

        —-

        @ Sibiriak

        Re all the references to the Armistice Agreements of 1949. You are presuming that by default the territory is Israeli. But they do not actually define Israeli territory. The Armistice Agreements specifically state that the Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed as a territorial border.

        The ONLY document defining Israeli territory is the Israeli Government plea for recognition

      • Sibiriak
        February 4, 2016, 5:35 am

        talknic: The ICJ statements define Occupied Palestinian Territories based on the Palestinian declaration of statehood…

        —————————–

        ICJ quotation? Which statehood declaration document? Thanks.

        In the meantime, I’ll point out that in General Assembly resolution ES-10/14 which requestied the ICJ “Wall” opinion specifically cited UN res 181 as a “relevant” resolution along with many other resolutions and instruments of international law:

        Recalling relevant General Assembly resolutions, including resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which partitioned mandated Palestine into two States, one Arab and one Jewish,

        Recalling also the resolutions of the tenth emergency special session of the General Assembly,

        Recalling further relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973,
        [etc. long list of resolutions][emphasis added]

        link to unispal.un.org

        So the ICJ ‘s was in no way restricted to a Palestinian declaration of statehood as the basis for the definition of what constituted “Occupied Palestinian Territories” .

        The ICJ Wall opinion itself states:

        68. The question put by the General Assembly concerns the legal consequences of the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. However, in order to indicate those consequences to the General Assembly the Court must first determine whether or not the construction of that wall breaches international law (see paragraph 39 above). It will therefore make this determination before dealing with the consequences of the construction.

        69. To do so, the Court will first make a brief analysis of the status of the territory concerned, and will then describe the works already constructed or in course of construction in that territory. It will then indicate the applicable law before seeking to establish whether that law has been breached. [emphasis added]

        In order to determine the legal consequences of the Wall, the Court had to, among other things, determine the legal status of the territory involved. In doing so, the Court reviewed and analyzed the whole history of the territory, from the mandate, through UN res 181, the Armistice agreements up to the time of the Court case.

        The Court determined that the Wall was in Occupied Palestinian Territory (“Palestinian land”) when it crossed over the “Green Line”, and when it did not cross the “Green Line” it was in “Israeli territory”.

        There is no indication that the Court based that legal determination simply on a Palestinian declaration of statehood, as you claim.

        With all due respect, that sounds like another ad hoc hypothesis conjured up to to deal with evidence that contradicts your legal theory.

        However, if you can quote the Court to back up your assertion, I’d certainly like to see it.

      • Sibiriak
        February 4, 2016, 6:20 am

        talknic; . You are presuming that by default the territory is Israeli.
        —————

        No, I wasn’t presuming anything. I simply quoted the ICJ opinion verbatim. The Court used the unequivocal expression “on the territory of Israel itself” when describing portions of the wall that were outside 1947 recommended partition borders but within the “Green Line.” See my previous post for the full quote.

        Btw, one question. Do you seriously claim that Israeli homes, settlements, cities etc. within in the “Green line” have the same status under international law as Israeli settlements across the “Green line”?

        I mean not that you can’t construct a theory which says they should have the same status –illegal–but that the UNGA, UNSC and ICJ actually DO assign them the same status.

      • YoniFalic
        February 4, 2016, 10:14 am

        The continued existence of the State of Israel is incompatible with the international anti-genocide legal regime defined by Nuremberg Tribunal caselaw, The International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and subsequent caselaw relating to Rwanda, Sudan, and the former Yugoslavia.

        Note that the State of Israel is a signatory to the International Convention and is under obligation to subject itself to the authority of the ICJ.

        After Auschwitz it is simply disgusting to found a state in post-Auschwitz genocide.

  7. Steve Grover
    January 31, 2016, 6:17 pm

    Phil,
    Maybe you could hook up Park Slope Food Coop with the local wines you were enjoying when you visited the Yehuda and Shomron areas of Israel.

  8. talknic
    January 31, 2016, 6:26 pm

    As the company moves from the West Bank to the outskirts of the Rahat township in the Naqab … … campaigners will be organizing against SodaStream’s active role in the displacement of Palestinian Bedouin communities in “unrecognized” villages. Such communities, which are ignored by the Israeli government, are facing ongoing loss of traditional agriculture and violations of the right to natural resources, including water.

    “They are denied the most basic services, anything from schools to roads to clinics — and also water,” Westbrook explained. “So the water that’s in the slogan for SodaStream — ‘Water Made Exciting’ — is something that must sound incredibly cruel to these communities that are living without any running water.” link to electronicintifada.net

    Seems there’s nothing vile enough

    • Mooser
      January 31, 2016, 6:33 pm

      “Seems there’s nothing vile enough…”

      Yes, “jon s” will have to go a long way to top reporting the murder of an innocent Eritrean man in Beersheva as a “terrorist attack”. His breathless report on the survival of the settlement’s children was especially riveting.

      • inbound39
        February 1, 2016, 2:43 pm

        Yes Mooser, one wonders what kind of Parents put their children in harms way by illegally settling on someone elses land without legitimate permission . If legally only military personnel are allowed there it should tell these parents they are entering at the very least a conflict zone or at its worst a war zone. And if only military personnel are allowed there then the settlers are saying by their actions they are miltary personnel and therefore legitimate targets.

      • jon s
        February 2, 2016, 4:37 am

        For the record:
        On Oct.18, 2015 a terrorist attack took place at the Beersheva Central Bus Station.
        The perpetrator has been identified as Mohind al-Okbi (21), from Hura. He followed a soldier, 19 year-old Omri Levy, into the men’s room, mudered him there, took his weapon, and came out shooting , injuring several people. He was then shot dead by security personnel.
        Horribly and tragically ,in the confusion and panic , an innocent Eritrean man, Haftom Zarhoum was misidentified as a “second terrorist”, shot and beaten to death by the crowd. He died of his wounds. The participants in the lynching have been identified and are being prosecuted.
        Those are the facts.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 2, 2016, 9:56 am

        Those are the facts.

        except by definition a soldier — is not a civilian therefore it’s not technically murder.

      • talknic
        February 2, 2016, 5:46 am

        @ jon s February 2, 2016, 4:37 am

        “On Oct.18, 2015 a terrorist attack took place at the Beersheva Central Bus Station.
        The perpetrator has been identified as Mohind al-Okbi (21), from Hura. He followed a soldier, 19 year-old Omri Levy, into the men’s room, mudered him there …”

        Military are a valid target. It isn’t terrorism or murder

      • amigo
        February 2, 2016, 8:45 am

        “he perpetrator has been identified as Mohind al-Okbi (21), from Hura. He followed a soldier, 19 year-old Omri Levy, into the men’s room, mudered him there,”jon s

        No , he did not murder him.He took out a member of the occupying force who was crapping on Palestinian land.

        Moral of the story is, “if you must occupy / steal other peoples land and slaughter them in the thousands , expect to pay a price.No terrorism on the part of the brave “resistance ” hero.Condolences to hi family and friends.

      • MHughes976
        February 2, 2016, 10:40 am

        Is it so completely clear, talknic, that military personnel are always valid targets? If we call on soldiers not to use violence against members of the civil population who are not openly resisting them then it is hard to see how we can give members of that civil population the right to ambush soldiers, ie suddenly change from being unresisting civilians to bring combatants or resistants. If we gave that right to civilians in general then ‘not openly resisting’ would not be a stable or reliable description.
        I don’t get much involved in the legal arguments here but I’ve come across the phrase ‘distinguishing themselves from the civil population’ as an obligation of resistants, presumably by more than actually attacking someone. That does seem to make some sense.

      • lysias
        February 2, 2016, 10:46 am

        I wouldn’t want to conclude that members of the resistance movements in Europe were wrong to kill soldiers of the Wehrmacht.

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 10:56 am

        “He followed a soldier, 19 year-old Omri Levy, into the men’s room, mudered him there, took his weapon,”

        Here, “Jon s” let me write it correctly for you: “He followed a poor, weak, myopic, Jewish boy, studying for the Rabbinate,(who got lost on his way to the 92nd St. Y) into the men’s room…”

        BTW, doesn’t the IDF teach their soldiers to, you know, hold on to their weapons?

        Those are the facts.

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 11:39 am

        ” If we call on soldiers not to use violence against members of the civil population “

        What a fantazyor! Has Israel done that? In fact, haven’t they done the opposite, encouraged their “soldiers” (and remember all the info on the ‘security gangs’ they use?) to use violence, and made every effort not to account for it?

      • Kris
        February 2, 2016, 12:11 pm

        @
        MHughes976: “I’ve come across the phrase ‘distinguishing themselves from the civil population’ as an obligation of resistants, presumably by more than actually attacking someone.”

        How would it make any sense for resistants to distinguish themselves from the civil population? It would be like painting targets on themselves, and would make guerilla warfare/resistance impossible.

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 12:32 pm

        “How would it help resistants to distinguish themselves from the civil population?”

        “Kris” unfortunately “MHughes976” has it bass-ackwards. Is he reading the phrase (“distinguishing themselves from the civil population”) as if it is inerrant? He shouldn’t.

      • amigo
        February 2, 2016, 2:14 pm

        “BTW, doesn’t the IDF teach their soldiers to, you know, hold on to their weapons”Mooser

        He was holding on to his weapon.

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 2:40 pm

        “He was holding on to his weapon.”

        Why do I see a platoon of new soldiers in their initial weapons training reciting (a capella, en masse) a little ditty which goes “This is my rifle, and this is my[…]…”
        But I forget the rest, I go blank right there. Must be some kind of censorship.

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 2:45 pm

        “He followed a soldier, 19 year-old Omri Levy, into the men’s room,”

        Uh-oh, I think “Jon s” is gonna go for “the Guardsman’s defense”.
        As the occupation takes time out for a bathroom break.

      • Jon66
        February 2, 2016, 3:45 pm

        Hughes,

        That is my understanding as well. Resistance members in order to be considered combatants must be led by an individual responsible for subordinates actions, be subject to an internal disciplinary system for violations of the law, and distinguish themselves from civilians while engaged or preparing for an attack. Otherwise they are just criminals. I would love to hear from someone with a legal background about this question. These rules were developed to protect the civilian population.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 2, 2016, 4:12 pm

        Resistance members in order to be considered combatants must be led by an individual responsible for subordinates actions, be subject to an internal disciplinary system for violations of the law…Otherwise they are just criminals

        you might find this helpful: link to en.wikipedia.org

        On the lawfulness of armed resistance movements in international law, there has been a dispute between states since at least 1899, when the first major codification of the laws of war in the form of a series of international treaties took place. In the Preamble to the 1899 Hague Convention II on Land War, the Martens Clause was introduced as a compromise wording for the dispute between the Great Powers who considered francs-tireurs to be unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture and smaller states who maintained that they should be considered lawful combatants.[2][3] More recently the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, referred in Article 1. Paragraph 4 to armed conflicts “… in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes…” This phraseology contains many ambiguities that cloud the issue of who is or is not a legitimate combatant.[4] Hence depending on the perspective of a state’s government, a resistance movement may or may not be labelled a terrorist group based on whether the members of a resistance movement are considered lawful or unlawful combatants and whether they are recognised as having a right to resist occupation.[5] Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.

        there’s a lot more at the link but nothing confirming what you wrote. do you have a source?

        and “internal disciplinary system for violations of the law” sounds a tad sketchy because the nature of resistance is it doesn’t conform to the law imposed by a colonial authority because it resists it.

      • MHughes976
        February 2, 2016, 5:55 pm

        As to Jon’s list of requirements, I would not want to exclude desperate resistance where some small group or even one individual is subject to the enforcement of the will of a hostile force, Ie is already being attacked. If someone lashes out, turns the tables and kills someone I would not call him or her a criminal simply because of not belonging to an organisation with rules.

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 6:26 pm

        “As to Jon’s list of requirements…”

        “976” you seem to have forgotten that might does not make right. Two wrongs don’t make a right, either.

      • talknic
        February 2, 2016, 6:32 pm

        @ Jon66 “Resistance members in order to be considered combatants must be led by an individual responsible for subordinates actions, be subject to an internal disciplinary system for violations of the law, and distinguish themselves from civilians while engaged or preparing for an attack”

        Wrong. You’re describing who qualifies as a belligerent

        Annex to the Convention
        REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS
        OF WAR ON LAND
        SECTION I
        ON BELLIGERENTS
        CHAPTER I
        The Qualifications of Belligerents
        Article 1.

        The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:

        To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

        To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

        To carry arms openly; and

        To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

        In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination “army.”
        Art. 2.

        The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.
        Art. 3.

        The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In the case of capture by the enemy, both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.
        link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        Say …… do Israel undercover ops carry their arms openly and fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance?

        “These rules were developed to protect the civilian population”

        Now you want to talk about rules? So was GC IV developed to protect the civilian population, including those of the Occupying Power, ignored by Israel for 67 years, endangering its own civilians by purposefully supporting and encouraging them to settle in non-Israeli territories held under military occupation in order to create its putrid illegal facts on the ground

      • talknic
        February 2, 2016, 9:03 pm

        @ MHughes976 “Is it so completely clear, talknic, that military personnel are always valid targets? “

        Not only military personnel. Military supply lines, support services, infrastructure, command, equipment

        “If we call on soldiers not to use violence against members of the civil population who are not openly resisting them then it is hard to see how we can give members of that civil population the right to ambush soldiers, ie suddenly change from being unresisting civilians to bring combatants or resistants. “

        It’s absolutely impossible to cover every condition that might arise. When soldiers are part of an occupying force, all the occupied are the enemy so soldiers have to be on their guard against anything that might happen. Under attack they have a right to protect themselves BTW

        jon s tells us that Mohind al-Okbi followed a soldier, 19 year-old Omri Levy, into the men’s room”

        Maybe he simply went to the men’s room because he needed to go to the men’s room, where the IDF goon, with a gun and an over inflated sense of power, purposefully tried to enrage Mohind, refused to let him use the facility, poked him with his gun, pissed on him. Who knows? Nothing would surprise me

      • Mooser
        February 3, 2016, 12:37 am

        “If we call on soldiers not to use violence against members of the civil population who are not openly resisting them then it is hard to see how we can give members of that civil population the right to ambush soldiers”

        That’s right, you’re supposed to let the occupiers load your industrial plant, your artworks, gold, currency, resources, and as many of your people up as they want and take it out of the country, as long as they don’t do it violently? Or work you for their purposes. What the hell do you think occupations are for, because the scenic tours are too expensive, so let’s invade? Holy Mole’!

      • echinococcus
        February 3, 2016, 2:01 am

        Hughes,

        The entire Palestinian population is civilians. There is no “state”, no matter the ridiculous fiction. Even if one would agree to participate to the charade, that state has no army. So there is nothing to distinguish oneself from.

      • MHughes976
        February 3, 2016, 8:54 am

        I don’t know where this will end up in the sequence – in reply to talknic, I agree that individual situations may have exceptional features – but that doesn’t and shouldn’t entirely prevent discussion of principles.
        If soldiers in these situations are always on duty and always amid enemies then it follows that they are always under attack and always have the right (which you accord them, I think) to self protection, presumably including lethal forms of precaution and deterrence, just as if they faced an ambush in conventional battle. Unless, surely, there is a practical distinction between active and inactive enemies. It’s still my argument, which I don’t think anyone has answered, that you can’t regard that distinction as practical if instant transition from one status to another is generally permitted.
        Mooser, you refer to excesses and atrocities, theft, forced labour and the like. Some invading foreigners, even Nazis, have shown some temporary restraint in these respects – the occupation of France, by contrast with Poland and the Netherlands, was regarded as ‘correct’ initially and it was more clearly like that in Denmark for a while, which was why the crisis of Danish Jewry did not arrive for some two years. (I do not attribute good intentions to the Nazis in any respect.) Is the point that the form of resistance should be what most deters excesses by the foreign forces?

      • Mooser
        February 3, 2016, 11:52 am

        “but that doesn’t and shouldn’t entirely prevent discussion of principles.”

        Okay!

        1) Might doesn’t make right.
        2) Two wrongs don’t make a right.

        I might also suggtest you read Robert Jackson’s remarks on aggressive war at the Nuremberg trials.

        If thyat doesn’t work, I suggest you show you comments and your ideas on “principles” concerning occupation to British WW2 vets in Berkshire, and ask them about it..

        Now, I know this is hard to grasp, but once you invade and occupy a place, you sorta lose the right to make rules for it. You gotta take whatever comes.
        Please educate yourself on what happens when one country “occupies” another during war.

        And BTW, when rules are made for an occupation, who gets to make those “rules” and enforce them? Now think real hard! IT’S THE OCCUPIER isn’t it? Get a clue!

    • MHughes976
      February 2, 2016, 12:52 pm

      Thanks for comments, lysias and Kris. There were many in British circles who were preparing to give the Wenrmacht a very ferocious welcome in 1940. The Independent yesterday had an article about the formation of the Home Guard, often portrayed as a comic organisation, was a cover for a plan of ruthless terrorist resistance. The head of the Secret Intelligence Service was asked ‘Is anything banned’? and replied ‘Nothing’. The almost ununiformed nature of the Home Guard and the assassination of senior Germans planned by the Auxiliary, secret behind enemy lines, units both raised certain problems. Joseph Kennedy was horrified to hear that some Americans in London wanted to form a Home Guard unit, saying that the Germans would feel entitled to shoot all Americans they could find. The ruthlessness of the plans is understandable, of course.
      Kris is quite right to say that the requirement to be distinguished from the mass of people may set a standard that in effect forbids that kind of resistance.
      However, none of that shows that the argument I mentioned is invalid. If we ask the occupiers and conquerors to keep to the rules we surely have to accept that the rules will limit resistance also, or limit what can be done against horrible people doing bad things.

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 1:45 pm

        “If we ask the occupiers and conquerors to keep to the rules we surely have to accept that the rules will limit resistance also,”

        MHughes976, would you prefer Bavarian or Swiss? Any particular hour you would prefer?

        (BTW, I’ve heard mentioning the defeat of Germany without mentioning the Battle of Britain and the heroic RAF which stopped Goering’s much larger Luftwaffe by sacrifice, adaption and courage might get you banned from Berkshire, since Hitler planned to destroy Britain by air and could never mount an invasion after the Battle of Britian.)

      • MHughes976
        February 2, 2016, 1:46 pm

        Just to add that I”m not saying that the point I make is conclusive, only that I don’t think that Jon66’s ‘facts’ can be dismissed quite as conclusively and simply as may first appear.

      • RoHa
        February 2, 2016, 3:15 pm

        “the heroic RAF which stopped Goering’s much larger Luftwaffe by sacrifice, adaption and courage”

        But also by the use of radar (recently invented in Britain), good planning, and good organization.

      • MHughes976
        February 2, 2016, 3:37 pm

        There was fear of invasion even after the Battle of Britain – do you know the 1943 film ‘Went the day well?’ which is about a dastardly German raid on an English village, quite possibly in Berkshire,. They are preparing the way for an invading force with the aid of a rich smoothie collaborator.
        I didn’t say that any argument is beyond error or critique.

      • MHughes976
        February 2, 2016, 3:42 pm

        Sorry, 1942, dir. Alberto Cavalcanti – ‘loosely based’, they say, on a story by no less a person than Graham Greene.

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 3:50 pm

        “There was fear of invasion even after the Battle of Britain”

        Oh, tremendous fear, well justified. At that time the Axis controlled, occupied a big chunk of Europe, had a non-agression pact with Stalin, and the English Channel is not very wide (less than 50 miles at many points?) America had not entered the war yet.
        An invasion, or even major raids could very well have been attempted. In spite of the air defeat in the Battle of Britain. A terrible time for Britain.

      • jon s
        February 2, 2016, 4:10 pm

        Annie: “except by definition a soldier — is not a civilian therefore it’s not technically murder. ”

        That could be true in a combat situation, not in this case. Certainly if an American serviceman on leave, passing through Penn Station would be killed by a terrorist, it would be defined as murder. And let’s not forget that the terrorist also opened fire, spraying indiscriminately, causing several injuries to both civilians and military personnel.

      • lysias
        February 2, 2016, 4:28 pm

        So when members of the French Resistance killed Wehrmacht soldiers traveling around Paris, you consider that murder?

      • amigo
        February 2, 2016, 4:30 pm

        “”And let’s not forget that the terrorist also opened fire, spraying indiscriminately, causing several injuries to both civilians and military personnel”Jon S

        Collateral damage is the term I believe the modern axis of evil , (US/Israel) uses.

        In any event , by your own logic , those Jews who shot British soldiers who were not engaged in combat were terrorists and murderers.As were those who threw bombs into civilian markets and onto buses and sent letter bombs to British diplomats in the UK.At least two of your former PM,s were part of these crimes.Do you agree , they too were terrorists??.

        I can supply you with a link to the hundreds of such attacks , if you care to look them up.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 2, 2016, 4:50 pm

        That could be true in a combat situation

        what do you mean by “combat situation”. it seems to me the scene, as described, became a combat situation.

        and if we were in combat with iraq, and iraqi operatives came to the US and started shooting army personal — blowing up markets etc —- the way we turned civilian areas into combat situations in iraq killing scores of civilians, then i assume the streets of this country would seem like combat situations fairly quickly.

        Certainly if an American serviceman on leave, passing through Penn Station would be killed by a terrorist, it would be defined as murder.

        not so sure about that. for example — they didn’t call the san bernadino killers murderers. they called it a terrorist attack. however, they referenced sandy hook as mass murder.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        The attack was the second-deadliest mass shooting in California after the 1984 San Ysidro McDonald’s massacre, and the deadliest in the U.S. since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, a domestic mass murder.[8][9] It was the worst terrorist attack to occur in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks.[10]

        the situation is changed by the fact of the occupation. it’s sort of odd how israelis have an army that treats a civilian population however they want, turning their towns and villages into combat situations whever they want, at the whims of settlers or whomever (like this: link to mondoweiss.net or of course in gaza ) and then thinks israel bus stations or where ever are not fair game or appropriate locations for combat situations? think of the way they enter into refugee camps shooting up the place whenever they want. but they wear uniforms therefore …what? they have commanders and therefore if the commander calls their community a combat situation it’s different?

        i’m not calling for violence, but i think it’s sketchy defining one population one way and the other another just because the colonial power doesn’t allow them to be armed or protect themselves. there’s as much validity or legitimacy to go into a residential neighborhood in tel aviv and start shooting up the place as there is going into aida refugee camp and doing the same thing. and i don’t see you calling that murder. and how many times has it happened in jenin refugee camp?

        what if a palestinian girl was killed in a car accident and her grandmother happened to work on Ismail Haniyeh’s personal staff and had all these colleagues in the upper eschelon of hamas. and hamas invaded 2 jewish neighborhoods and kidnapped 19 jewish children eventually settling on 5 after torturing them all and getting confessions from them claiming they killed the little palestinian girl. then they locked these teens away for 15 years.

        do you think israeli society would be supportive of bombing gaza over that? or what about just infiltrating and killing a bunch of people?

        who’s the terrorist jon? who gets to choose or define a combat situation? whose the hero for getting retribution?

      • MHughes976
        February 2, 2016, 5:13 pm

        I think that it may well have been murder if the Wehrmacht soldier was simply there – perhaps if he was taking part in a military operation it may have been different. I did suggest an argument. I’d be interested to know your view.

      • oldgeezer
        February 2, 2016, 5:25 pm

        @MHughes
        “I think that it may well have been murder if the Wehrmacht soldier was simply there – See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

        The only reason he was there was because he was part of a military operation.

        Uniformed personnel are valid targets regardless of the label assigned to it.

        The only person murdered was Haftom Zarhoum who was murdered by a wild pack of racists.

        @jon s
        No free pass for sodastream. It is still part of the ongoing land theft. The message can’t be you can continue to oppress as long as you do it in the right way. All of Israel should be boycotted anyway since all of Israel both funds and benefits from it’s crimes.

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 5:35 pm

        “But also by the use of radar (recently invented in Britain), good planning, and good organization.”

        C’mon, that was all included. And unlike drone operators “Fighter Command” installations were targets for German bombers.
        And the British had to somehow step up the number of airplanes available which meant big production.
        Those were dark days for Britain, and relief was a long way off then. It was several years,(and some startling unexpected changes) I think, from those days, before they could see their way clear out of WW2.

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 5:46 pm

        “who gets to choose or define a combat situation? whose the hero for getting retribution?”

        “But why would the Turk want to kill you, my son? What have you ever done to him?”

      • MHughes976
        February 2, 2016, 5:50 pm

        Well, oldgeezer, I am still uncertain about how you can demand that the Wehrmacht man not kill civilians not openly resisting while permitting any civilian at any time to kill him: I don’t see how ‘not openly resisting’ would in that case be a significant, action-guiding category, since it can cease to apply at less than a moment’s notice.
        Perhaps there is a distinction between a soldier actively patrolling and searching for resistants and one not so engaged: there is a difference there, surely? There was an incident mentioned in Le Chagrin et Le Pitie, I think, where a patrol was ambushed in the countryside by people pretending to be working the fields. Survivors were still complaining of a ‘murderous’ attack years later. Perhaps we would say that if they were taken by surprise it was their own folly.
        Mooser rightly mentions our invasion fears back then and the readiness of our leadership to tear up the rule book – nothing banned, higher law and higher necessity perhaps. The Higher Law argument has its own dangers. On the other hand, the more the other side breaks every law of God and humanity the harder everything gets.

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 6:06 pm

        “I think that it may well have been murder if the Wehrmacht soldier was simply there “

        Would you kindly read a little WW2 history if you get a chance.
        Now, was the Resistance targeting the ordinary Wermacht soldier, or did the Resistance try to target SS Officers, and the Occupation Officials appointed by the Nazis? And, oh yes, possibly their own nationals acting as collaborators.

        Gosh, the Berkshires must be beautiful. Must have the most tranquilizing effect on the nerves.

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 6:13 pm

        “Well, oldgeezer, I am still uncertain about how you can demand that the Wehrmacht man not kill civilians not openly resisting while permitting any civilian at any time to kill him: “

        You must have some funny ideas about what the Germans were up to in WW2.

      • oldgeezer
        February 2, 2016, 6:14 pm

        @MHughes
        ” I am still uncertain about how you can demand that the Wehrmacht man not kill civilians not openly resisting while permitting any civilian at any time to kill him: – See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

        C’est la vie. Countries agreed to the risk when they signed the Geneva Conventions which are concerned primarily with civilians and noncombatants (ie captured and/or wounded military personnel).

        That things could change at any instant is truly irrelevant as such is the nature of warfare.

        The premise of your scenario is no different than that faced by civilian police forces on a daily basis. Generally we don’t approve of it when they declare open season on the citizens they should protect.

        An argument could be made under the GC that some identifier is required but under the same argument groups such as seals, SAS, etc are primarily criminals when on assignment as they rarely wear insignia.

      • lysias
        February 2, 2016, 6:30 pm

        MHughes, I agree with oldgeezer: the Wehrmacht soldier in Paris was taking part in a military operation merely by being part of the occupying force.

        (When I was part of the American military force occupying Berlin, I think that was a military operation.)

      • echinococcus
        February 2, 2016, 6:30 pm

        M Hughes: “I am still uncertain about how you can demand that the Wehrmacht man not kill civilians not openly resisting while permitting any civilian at any time to kill him”

        Of course we can demand it, both are expressly the demands of the law: occupying forces have no right to be there; the occupied have the right to resist by all means available. So it also applies to anyone “openly resisting”, too.
        The demand can be very simply met by not occupying.
        The occupier can perform that in less than a day –a credible announcement of withdrawal also limits further losses. It doesn’t cost much, either.
        Anyway, we are not talking about the Wehrmacht, either, but its successor.

      • talknic
        February 2, 2016, 6:44 pm

        @ jon s “That could be true in a combat situation, not in this case.”

        So why was the soldier carrying arms? “He followed a soldier, 19 year-old Omri Levy, into the men’s room, mudered him there, took his weapon,”

        “Certainly if an American serviceman on leave, passing through Penn Station …”

        Got a brain? Try using it! Penn Station is in America. Beersheva has never been annexed or acquired by Israel by any legal instrument.

        ” And let’s not forget that the terrorist he also opened fire, spraying indiscriminately, causing several injuries to both civilians and military personnel

        Collateral is allowed on all sides of a conflict

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 6:55 pm

        ” I agree with oldgeezer: the Wehrmacht soldier in Paris”

        Oh, for God’s sake, Paris? France, for whatever reasons, capitulated, and set up a Vichy regime, remember? A completely artificial situation. Not exactly the same as the Occupation the Germans imposed on others.
        What about SS and German soldiers in Eastern Europe? Czechoslovakia? Poland? As far as the Wehrmacht-occupied Russian territory, later?
        And what was supposed to be the position of resistance in Japan-occupied places during the Japanese Imperial expansion during the same period?
        Just sit there and let them (G or J) strip the place, and take people away for slaves?

      • Jon66
        February 2, 2016, 10:08 pm

        Annie,

        Those requirements define a combatant in GC protocol 1977.

        In addition from the ICRC,
        “The ICRC once more reminds all those taking an active part in the violence that whenever force is used the choice of means and methods is not unlimited. It reiterates its appeal to all those involved in the violence or in a position to influence the situation to respect and to ensure respect for international humanitarian law and its underlying principles in all circumstances. Terrorist acts are absolutely and unconditionally prohibited, as are reprisals against the civilian population, indiscriminate attacks and attacks directed against the civilian population.

        To avoid endangering the civilian population, those bearing weapons and all those who take part in violence must distinguish themselves from civilians. Armed and security forces must spare and protect all civilians who are not or are no longer taking part in the clashes, in particular children, women and the elderly. The use of weapons of war against unarmed civilians cannot be authorized.”

        Echi,

        Occupying forces have a ‘right’ to occupy the defeated country. The behavior of the occupier is regulated as is the behavior of the occupied. After we defeated Japan in WWII we were allowed by law to occupy the country. you may argue that the occupation of the West Bank is illegally conducted, but the victor does have a right to occupy the loser. The occupied have a right to resist within the limits of law.

      • Jon66
        February 2, 2016, 11:03 pm

        Oldgeezer,
        “The premise of your scenario is no different than that faced by civilian police forces on a daily basis. Generally we don’t approve of it when they declare open season on the citizens they should protect.

        – See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

        If a civilian attacks a policeman we treat the attacker as a criminal, not as a lawful combatant. We would not justify the attack or blame the officer for being in enemy territory. the analogy doesn’t hold.

      • Mooser
        February 3, 2016, 12:21 am

        “Jon66” Everything you quoted there is directed at the occupier not the occupied people!!

        Get it? At the occupier, not the occupied. But great jumpin’ Jehoshaphosphate, that was such a breathtaking example of entitlement.

        Be an illegal occupier, but feel entitled to the protection usually afforded the occupied. Then quote the very thing that condemns you. Only a Zionist could be so completely insensible to the contradiction.

        And you are the people who will take Zionism the 21st Century? Oy Gevalt!!

      • echinococcus
        February 3, 2016, 2:54 am

        Jon66,

        Wrong again: that’s Zionist (or caveman) law, no doubt learned during your Zionist-occupied US schooling.
        Occupiers are illegally there if they are occupying as a result of aggression. That’s a no-no and you get hanged in Nuremberg, or whatever is supposed to be done today wherever it’s supposed to be at, for it. Occupation necessary to the normalization of a situation is of course legal for the aggressed party occupying the aggressor territory or territory liberated from an aggressor.
        Then, the right of occupied peoples to defend themselves is not “within the limits of the law” but “by all available means”, that’s the limit of the law.

      • jon s
        February 3, 2016, 3:59 pm

        Talknic’s fantasy about the “IDF goon” is a vile attempt to dishonor and disrespect the murdered soldier. Shameful.

      • Mooser
        February 3, 2016, 4:12 pm

        “Talknic’s fantasy about the “IDF goon” is a vile attempt to dishonor and disrespect the murdered soldier. Shameful.”

        Dishonor and disrespect”

        When a 19 yr. old Israeli soldier makes an immoral proposition to a Palestinian man, he better be ready for the consequences. The kid should not have offered to..oh never mind.

        “Shameful’

        Brass, I tell you. Solid, 100% brass, both of ’em. An illegal settler trying to shame someone. Go wipe the blood off your Nikes.

        That “shameful” crap doesn’t work for “MaxNarr”, but I see you’ve decided it might work for you? Who the hell do you think you are? Oh, that’s right, you’re a guy with a ticket out when he makes Israel too hot to hold him.

      • amigo
        February 3, 2016, 5:20 pm

        “Talknic’s fantasy about the “IDF goon” is a vile attempt to dishonor and disrespect the murdered soldier. Shameful” Jon s

        Well , unless that IDF goon was a member of Breaking the silence he could not be disrespected or dishonoured.He was a member of a criminal army involved in the persecution of Human beings and their ethnic cleansing.The shame lays with him and those who apologise for his actions.

      • talknic
        February 3, 2016, 8:21 pm

        @ jon s “Talknic’s fantasy about the “IDF goon” is a vile attempt to dishonor and disrespect the murdered soldier. Shameful”

        The IDF goon is just another victim of the Zionist Federations colonization program.

        What is shameful is the use of Jewish youth in order to create illegal facts on the ground in non-Israeli territories and your support of it

        Go whine to the people who’re the cause of the conflict, the vile Zionists perpetuating the Greater Israel pyramid scheme since 1897

    • jon s
      February 2, 2016, 4:26 pm

      As to Sodastream: For those of us who oppose the settlements and support and practise a boycott of the settlements and their produce, sodastream’s decision to pull out of the WB was a victory of sorts. Continuing the boycott at this point sends the wrong message: “companies that pull out of the settlements will still be boycotted”. The message should be: “you did the right thing, thanks, the boycott is over…”.
      And Sodastream should be commended for choosing to open a facility in Rahat, providing much-needed jobs.

      • jon s
        February 2, 2016, 4:50 pm

        lysias, No , that would be legitimate resistance.

        amigo, yes, they were terrorists.

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 5:00 pm

        “As to Sodastream: For those of us who oppose the settlements”

        DON’T YOU LIVE AT ONE? “us who oppose the settlements”? Oh please.
        You are an American citizen, who lives in an illegal, if longstanding settlement. That’s why you are there, to oppose them?

        “sodastream’s decision to pull out of the WB was a victory of sorts”

        Gosh, I can only imagine how hard Beersheva worked to make that victory (of sorts) possible!

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 5:10 pm

        “Terrorist attack in Beersheva this evening.
        My family and I are ok, thank God. I also asked all the kids in my class to check in and they all reported that they’re ok, although some sound shaken.”
        “Jon s” – See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

        The time-stamps tell the story.

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 5:23 pm

        BTW, “Jon s” who is “those of us who”? You use that wheeze quite a bit.
        We’re supposed to be placated by the thought of “those of us who” working to make Israel better?

        And yet “those of us who” never seems to include any of the actual Israel-based organizations working for those things?

        “Those of us who” is a phrase which might impress children, tho. Rolls over and out the gluteus maximus in a most mellifluous way.

      • amigo
        February 2, 2016, 5:27 pm

        Jon s , there is a flaw in your whole argument.You seem to claiming that the only time a resistance fighter can kill his enemy is when said enemy is shooting at him.That is pure nonsense.A soldier is like a cop and is always on duty even when playing at tourist in the territory he is helping to occupty.His/her eyes are always open and gathering information.He /She is essentially a spy in civilian clothing behind enemy lines and like any spy is subject to being shot.

        Otherwise , why not just occupy a nation then throw all your uniforms away and just stroll around and claim to be off duty..No one can shoot you, according to your rules. I dont think so.I am not going to allow a known member of the occupying force to sit among us and then go back to barracks and carry on as normal the next day and thereafter.

        Nice work if you can get it.

      • oldgeezer
        February 2, 2016, 5:34 pm

        @amigo

        Maybe Israel/IDF could host a conference designed to promulgate a new Geneva Convention which codifies meal, nap and potty breaks for all armed combatants.

        Perhaps this would of greater benefit than the recent conference they held designed to reduce the current GC protections for civilians.

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 5:52 pm

        “A soldier…/…behind enemy lines”

        Remember all the great videos and info “JLDickerson” contributed, detailing the unholy, illegal mix of IDF, police and all kinds of “regional defense” contractors which run rampant throughout the illegal settlements.
        The entire operation is militarized and criminalized.

        But we’re supposed to forget all that because “Jon s” insists he’s a nice person.

      • amigo
        February 2, 2016, 6:06 pm

        @Old geezer
        ” Perhaps this would of greater benefit than the recent conference they held designed to reduce the current GC protections for civilians”.

        Yes and claim that bombing police graduates in Gaza during cast lead was legal.

      • echinococcus
        February 2, 2016, 6:17 pm

        Thank you, John S, for the recommendations to the Palestinian Resistance on how to avoid resisting, and to the anti-Zionist boycott movement on how not to boycott the Zionist entity. I’m sure both have been dying to hear the recommendations from their mortal enemy as to how to conduct their policy.

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 6:18 pm

        “amigo, yes, they were terrorists.”

        “Jon s” has no problem making that admission, (on Mondo in English) as long as you understand it doesn’t obligate him to anything. That’s just how countries get started. Over to you “Mr. Whataboutery”

      • talknic
        February 2, 2016, 6:50 pm

        @ jon s “For those of us who oppose the settlements “

        You’re an illegal settler in territory never legally acquired by Israel by any agreement

        “The message should be: “you did the right thing, thanks, the boycott is over…”

        Why? As previously outlined SodaStream CONTINUES its vile practices link to mondoweiss.net

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 11:21 pm

        “I’m sure both have been dying to hear the recommendations from their mortal enemy as to how to conduct their policy.”

        Their entitlement, arrogance and stupidity knows no bounds. Comparing Israel to the US occupying Japan and Germany for a short period after WW2.
        Gee, “Jon s” how come that occupation turned out so different than Israel’s ongoing attempt at illegal annexation?

      • amigo
        February 3, 2016, 5:08 pm

        “amigo, yes, they were terrorists.”jon s

        I just bet you teach that to your students in your eternal efforts to be fair , truthful and balanced.

        Your career would come to a sudden stop after one of your brain washed charges rushed home to tell their brainwashed parents that teach called Israel,s heroic and revered leaders—“terrorists.

        Pull the other leg Jon s.

      • jon s
        February 4, 2016, 2:15 am

        Talknic, calling the murdered soldier a goon and posting an imagined scenario like the one you did shows a total lack of any simple human decency, something like the comments we can expect from Mooser.

      • MHughes976
        February 4, 2016, 4:42 am

        Mooser, you say that occupiers etc. don’t get to make rules for those under their thumb. They do get to make them, quite a lot, and often secure obedience to grievous effect. You may say they have no validity under the universal moral law. I did say that someone lashing out against enforcement of some horrible rule, ie under attack and driven beyond endurance, might kill an oppresor without injustice,, so maybe we’re not that far apart.
        Might is not right – absolutely true. No one acquires rights by killing and stealing, still less by pursuing a ruthless programme of conquest mendaciously called an occupation. However, I think that if you make a moral demand that the full might of the conqueror be not used and that a certain distinction (resisting and not resisting) be treated as very important you may also, if you are to be consistent, have to impose certain restrictions on yourself.
        Echino – I think you have no patience with making this sort of moral demand, treating that distinction as important, since for you it either doesn’t exist – there’s nothing from which resistants can distinguish themselves – or at least should be reduced as much as possible, the law solemnly giving everyone the right, which sounds close to the duty, of resisting by any means to hand. This was the view taken in occupied France by those who despised the idea of restraint or ‘correctness’ on both sides – the resistants de la premiere heure. I understand that idea, though its implications are terrifying in multiple ways.
        We’ve come a long way from the peaceful world of food co-ops, haven’t we?

      • echinococcus
        February 4, 2016, 4:54 am

        Hughes,

        At least you see where I am coming from. There was no difference, by the way, between première and dernière heure –not for the people out fighting, only for the conservative exiles in London. It would be absurd to assume that either occupier or victim conform to any rules if these hamper their respective efficiency.
        So we know from the start that all rules will be broken (asymetrically, i.e. way more frequently and egregiously by the stronger party.)
        It is equally absurd, however, to condition what is right in principle to conditions of practical possibility –the latter is the domain of the invader or of the fighter, not of theoretical rights. That’s possibly why the essential texts like the UN Charter, Human Rights declarations, etc. just give the basics: no right of conquest, no right to occupy, imprescriptible right of occupied populations to use all available means, etc. It’s when the armies of lawyers for the occupier get in the mix that the rules are turned on their head.
        Also, as you well know it’s not about co-ops –they are just one face of the all-out 70-years-war.

      • talknic
        February 4, 2016, 6:41 am

        @ jon s “calling the murdered soldier”

        He was armed Israeli military personnel in territory never legally acquired by Israel. A valid target

        “posting an imagined scenario like the one you did shows a total lack of any simple human decency”

        Whatever you need to keep your bile dripping pal

        It’s quite human to speculate what might have transpired in the men’s room, especially given the level of antagonism, hatred, vile treatment and cruelty against the Palestinians as can be clearly seen in hundreds of videos, showing a total lack of any simple human decency by the IDF, supported and justified by people like you

      • eljay
        February 4, 2016, 7:42 am

        || jon s: Talknic, calling the murdered soldier a goon and posting an imagined scenario like the one you did shows a total lack of any simple human decency … ||

        It always cracks me up when hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists – who advocate, excuse, defend and/or justify Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine as well as related past and on-going (war) crimes – dare to lecture others on “simple human decency”.

    • rugal_b
      February 4, 2016, 5:44 am

      “No , he did not murder him.He took out a member of the occupying force who was crapping on Palestinian land.

      Moral of the story is, “if you must occupy / steal other peoples land and slaughter them in the thousands , expect to pay a price””

      I agree with this sentiment, but have some doubts. Aren’t white Americans and Australian occupiers of foreign land as well? Does the native Americans have the right to enact violence against any random white American he or she encounters and wishes violence against? I certainly won’t have any sympathies for the victims, but what is the ethical or moral reasoning here?

  9. JayB
    February 1, 2016, 2:59 pm

    It seems I was right, this blog is run by cowards and whom are incapable of debating the issues on its own merits.

    • Annie Robbins
      February 1, 2016, 3:51 pm

      jay, i made every effort to inform you to adhere to the comment policy. nakba denial is not allowed. that’s not something we debate — we’ve moved past it. just like we don’t debate whether the holocaust took place under the guise of free speech or “incapable of debating the issues on its own merits.”

      we also do not host debates on the merits of our moderation policies in the comment section. if you choose to try engaging in speech contrary to our comment policy your comments will continue to be trashed and eventually you will be banned.

      p.s. i tried a slight edit “[..]”to make one of your earlier comments publishable and you came back and bi*ched about it — so i trashed it. i won’t bother next time.

      • MaxNarr
        February 2, 2016, 9:01 am

        So Annie it seems like you can talk terribly about Holocaust memorials and the “Holocaust Industry” does that mean I can defame so called “Nakba Industry” and propaganda?

      • Annie Robbins
        February 2, 2016, 9:50 am

        what? when have i talked terribly about holocaust memorials? i already had this conversation w/jon link to mondoweiss.net

      • eljay
        February 2, 2016, 10:08 am

        || MaxNarr: So Annie it seems like you can talk terribly about Holocaust memorials and the “Holocaust Industry” does that mean I can defame so called “Nakba Industry” and propaganda? ||

        This is a perfect example of just how f*cked up Zio-supremacists are: MaxNarr is so offended by Annie’s behaviour that he wants to emulate it.

        It would be funny if it weren’t so loathsome.

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 10:25 am

        ” does that mean I can defame so called “Nakba Industry” and propaganda? “

        Go ahead, “MaxNarr”, Blogger is free!!. Start your own blog and you can say whatever you want.

        But Mondo does not owe you a spot to crap in.

    • amigo
      February 2, 2016, 2:01 pm

      “It seems I was right, this blog is run by cowards and whom are incapable of debating the issues on its own merits.”JayB

      Calling people cowards , hmmm.

      “We are all adults and should act as such.” Jay B

    • talknic
      February 2, 2016, 9:05 pm

      @ JayB “It seems I was right, this blog is run by cowards and whom are incapable of debating the issues on its own merits”

      Strange. There’s plenty of debating the issues on its own merits.

    • oldgeezer
      February 2, 2016, 10:19 pm

      If your level of debate hinges on either holocaust or Naka denial then it’s really superficial and without any depth.

    • jon s
      February 4, 2016, 2:20 am

      Amigo,
      I have no problem pointing out terrorist acts committed by the groups led by Begin and Shamir or any other terrorist deeds.
      Don’t worry about my career.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 4, 2016, 3:52 am

        no problem pointing out terrorist acts … led by Begin and Shamir

        anything more current?

  10. JayB
    February 1, 2016, 5:48 pm

    Annie Robbins
    As for my re-posting of the deleted part of my comment, this was done before I had seen your reply, and at the time I had just thought it was some sort of error on your site.
    But a “comment” as understood by many, is one’s expression of what they believe to be the truth.
    The nakba and even the holocaust are equally debatable. One should not have an affect on the other. We are all adults and should act as such. There is plenty of documented evidence out there to prove the truth, if the truth is the desired goal.
    What would be the purpose for posting other than expressing what one believes to be true, and those in opposition can equally try to prove the other wrong, is what debate is about.
    After all this blog’s topic is about Israelis vs. Palestinians, and all that pertain to it is fair game.
    I.e. Jews will try to justify the Israelis position and their desires for true peace, and you will try to justify your beliefs that if Israel would stop doing that which you wish them to stop doing, (call it occupation, whatever,,, defense to survive, is what it really is) than the Palestinians would allow the Jews to live in their home land of Israel in peace, (of which can all be proven at the negotiating table.) If this is your position, than you must lift all restrictions to posting in order to obtain the truth and reach true peace between our fellow. If your position is to destroy the Jews or push us into the sea, than there is no use in debating the Israeli and Palestinian issues with those who do not wish peace.
    If you are Palestinians disguised as others, perhaps because you fear the US government or what have you, than I consider your actions justified and my deepest sympathies are with you (for the Jews are not going away) and I hope you will join me in prayer for peace and a better understanding between us, the only sensible option, unless you enjoy more violence.
    But on the other hand, if you are whom you state you are, than I stand in complete opposition to you, for your positions on the issues at hand are totally misguided to say the least, and your answer to my question “can you handle the truth ?” would than be a resounding NO!!!!!

    • Annie Robbins
      February 1, 2016, 5:58 pm

      The nakba and even the holocaust are equally debatable.

      not on mondweiss. if you’d like to debate the nakba by claiming all the palestinians who did not leave their homes were allowed to stay you will have to find another website to do that. we don’t debate that here regardless of it being “the expression of what you believe to be the truth”. capisce? take it elsewhere. bye.

      p.s. if you want restrictions lifted on the comment policy write phil and adam – see the about page for contact info.

    • Mooser
      February 1, 2016, 6:11 pm

      “But on the other hand…/…a resounding NO!!!!!”

      Dude, Blogger (and many other blogging services) is free! FREE!
      And NO pesky moderators for you, and YOU moderate us if we show up. (Heh, heh, heh) How can you lose?

    • Mooser
      February 1, 2016, 6:18 pm

      “If you are Palestinians disguised as others, perhaps…/…unless you enjoy more violence.”

      I’ll never have to make sure the ipecac in the medicine chest hasn’t dried up if I just print that paragraph out. I’ll just put that on the shelf, available if needed.

    • talknic
      February 1, 2016, 8:45 pm

      @ JayB “The nakba and even the holocaust are equally debatable”

      Only in as much as Israel is breach of laws and a UN Charter adopted largely because of the ghastly treatment of our Jewish fellows under the stinking %^&$#@ Nazis

      “… Jews will try to justify the Israelis position and their desires for true peace “

      You’ll not find many Jews here who justify Hasbara crappolla. If Israel wanted peace it would have withdrawn from ALL non-Israeli territories and got peace as it did with Egypt. It’s called withdrawal for peace link to wp.me

      “call it occupation, whatever…”

      That’s what the highest courts in their opinions have called it and the UNSC have called it link to wp.me “Israel, the Occupying Power”

      “… defense to survive, is what it really is..”

      Nonsense. No Israeli territory has ever been invaded . Israel has for 67 years been maintaining an occupation and purposefully encouraged its civilians to illegally settle in non-Israeli territories in order to create illegal facts on the ground, thereby making it more and more difficult to withdraw and thereby reach a peaceful settlement as it did with Egypt.

      “… the Palestinians would allow the Jews to live in their home land of Israel in peace”

      The Palestinians have agreed in front of the world at the UN to cede 78% of their rightful territories for peace with Israel

      Israel’s response was to build more illegal settlements

      ” (of which can all be proven at the negotiating table.)”

      What’s to be proven or negotiated? The Palestinians ask only for their LEGAL rights and are under no legal obligation to forgo ANY of their legal rights to anyone.

      Israel is in breach of the law. Israel has no legal right to claim any non-Israeli territory. It has no legal right to illegally settle its citizens in non-Israeli territory. It has no legal right to demand non-Israeli territory for defense (then illegally settle it with civilians). It has no legal right to demand negotiations or to demand the Palestinians forgo any of their legal rights in negotiations. It has no legal right to demand to be recognized

      ” If this is your position, than you must lift all restrictions to posting in order to obtain the truth “

      Nonsense. Facts reveal the truth. Fact is Israel is in breach of International Law by acting outside of its borders

      “and reach true peace between our fellow”

      Most states who adhere to the law are at peace with their neighbours

      “If your position is to destroy the Jews or push us into the sea, than there is no use in debating the Israeli and Palestinian issues with those who do not wish peace”

      If Israel actually wanted peace, it would have withdrawn from all non-Israeli territories in 1949/50 and never have started all its other wars

      The rest of your post is typical Ziodrivel

    • amigo
      February 2, 2016, 1:47 pm

      “But a “comment” as understood by many, is one’s expression of what they believe to be the truth.” Jay B

      My comment is , I believe you have been warned .There are many here who understand that.

      B Jay-sus , I suggest you find a site that caters to your needs . Try Y Net or the JPost.You can make any comment you desire there as long as you do not tell the truth about Israel.

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 2:08 pm

        “B Jay-sus , I suggest you find a site that caters to your needs “

        “Amigo”, my friend, please, don’t blame him. This is actually all my fault. I had often told Ziobots (as good a name as any) to go start their own blogs. I realized how unfair that was, and made the only reasonable reparation I could; I offered to start a blog, call it “Palestine” and they could come take it from me.
        But I never followed through. So blame me.

      • amigo
        February 2, 2016, 4:39 pm

        ” I offered to start a blog, call it “Palestine” and they could come take it from me.
        But I never followed through. So blame me.”Mooser

        Look , maybe Jaybee is a young student and cannot afford to start a blog , so why don,t I make a donation and you do the grunt work and Jaybee can be on his way to having his own blog with his own comments policy and total control of content.

        It,s a win / lose plan.He wins a blog and we lose him.

      • Mooser
        February 2, 2016, 4:51 pm

        “cannot afford to start a blog”

        “Blogger” and many other blogging services, are free. Takes fifteen minutes to start a blog. Don’t even have to give a real name.

    • eljay
      February 2, 2016, 2:00 pm

      || JayB: … I.e. Jews will try to justify the Israelis position and their desires for true peace … ||

      1. Some Jews will. Some Jews won’t. Don’t anti-Semitically lump all Jews into the same category.

      2. Which “Israelis position” will they try to justify? Is it the position of:
      – Jewish Israelis;
      – non-Jewish Israelis;
      – Zionist Israelis;
      – non-Zionist Israelis; or
      – some combination of the above?

      3. Some Israelis – the Zio-supremacist ones, at least – may desire “true peace” (what ever that is) but what they despise, abhor and reject are justice, accountability and equality.

      || … and you will try to justify your beliefs that if Israel would stop doing that which you wish them to stop doing, (call it occupation, whatever,,, defense to survive, is what it really is) … ||

      1. Israel doesn’t need to occupy and colonize any territory outside of its / Partition borders in order to survive.

      2. What concerns you – a Zio-supremacist – is not the survival of Israel, but the survival of Israel as a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”.

      || … than the Palestinians would allow the Jews to live in their home land of Israel in peace … ||

      1. Israel is the homeland of Israelis. Israel is not the homeland of all people in the world who happen to be Jewish.

      2. Why do you Zio-supremacists insist on anti-Semitically conflating Israel with all Jews and all Jews with Israel? Why do you hate Jews so much?!

    • Froggy
      February 3, 2016, 9:08 am

      JayB :: “Jews will try to justify the Israelis position and their desires for true peace, and you will try to justify your beliefs that if Israel would stop doing that which you wish them to stop doing, (call it occupation, whatever,,, defense to survive, is what it really is) than the Palestinians would allow the Jews to live in their home land of Israel in peace, (of which can all be proven at the negotiating table.)”

      What a mouthful!

      “…(call it occupation, whatever,,, defense to survive, is what it really is)…

      When the Germans invaded Poland they called it ‘Lebensraum‘.

      “…the Palestinians would allow the Jews to live in their home land of Israel in peace…”

      The Palestinians don’t owe the Jews anything. Get it? Nothing. Nada. Nichts. Nichevo. Nobody does.

      Why would the Palestinians give their land away to a bunch of financially-comfortable, fat-arsed foreign chancers from the EU and the US? More to the point, why should they?

      The zionists – whether Jewish or non-Jewish – have shown themselves to be self-serving liars, slanderers, murderers, racists, and thieves.

    • jon s
      February 5, 2016, 2:44 am

      Annie, I mentioned Begin and Shamir in response to amigo who referred to “two former PMs” and I assume he was referring to them. Begin as commander of the IZL, Shamir as one of the leaders of the LHY (though not in overall command).

      As you must know, I despise all terrorists, from whatever side, including current manifestations.

      • Mooser
        February 5, 2016, 12:24 pm

        “As you must know, I despise all terrorists, from whatever side, including current manifestations.”

        But sometimes, that nauseating sanctimony slips a bit:

        “The 1947 partition borders are relevant only in the Mondoweiss universe, not in the real world.” – See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

        Now, there’s a guy who just despises terrorists. In the “real world”, of course.

  11. JustJessetr
    February 2, 2016, 7:46 am

    I think it’s very telling that barely anyone here is debating the actual event/article.

    • Mooser
      February 2, 2016, 11:09 am

      “I think it’s very telling that barely anyone here is debating the actual event/article.”

      Gee, maybe they feel constrained by some kind of self-interest, or the inability to be objective. Or even worse, since they haven’t been honest about themselves, they know their comments will be seen as manipulative.
      Can you blame them “Justjessetr”?

  12. Eva Smagacz
    February 2, 2016, 7:55 am

    I give it three – four years maximum before pro BDS crowd will command 75% of votes in any progressive organisation.

    So, in Park Slope Food Coop in Brooklyn pro-Israel interested partieswon a battle, and generated the interest in the issue in otherwise PEP or DHACAP (Don’t Have a Clue About Palestine) members of the collective, which ultimately will help them to loose a war.

    • JustJessetr
      February 2, 2016, 12:16 pm

      That’s what they said 4 years ago. And if anything, less people support BDS at the Coop, at least per capita which affects any perce tage of vote tallies. For all their efforts to derail Coop unity, pro BDS candidates draw fewer votes each time when they run for office or submit proposals that are relatedto BDS.

      • amigo
        February 2, 2016, 2:41 pm

        “And if anything, less people support BDS at the Coop, at least per capita which affects any perce tage of vote tallies. For all their efforts to derail Coop unity, pro BDS candidates draw fewer votes each time when they run for office or submit proposals that are relatedto BDS.” Just Jessetr.

        Well BDS can,t win them all.See my comment below @8,10 am and wonder how long the coop will be “occupied ” by zionist infiltrators.

  13. JayB
    February 2, 2016, 8:08 am

    Annie Robbins
    I see here, you present yourself as “a human rights activist” with all due respect, does your activities involve other peoples, e.g. Jews or other minorities ?

    • Mooser
      February 2, 2016, 11:14 am

      “I see here, you present yourself as “a human rights activist” with all due respect,”

      I see here, “JayB” that you don’t present yourself at all.

      But of course, others your questions must abide.

    • Mooser
      February 2, 2016, 11:18 am

      ” Jews or other minorities ?”

      “Jay B” stop dealing in antisemitic tropes! We Jews are not a “minority”. That’s what people say when they want to convince people Jews are weak and helpless!

      We are not a “minority” (ptoo, ptoo, ptoo)! We are a small nationality! A State! And an Nuclear Armed State at that!

      So you can take all that ‘Nobody knows the trouble we’ve seen’ and stick it. Stop trying to convince people Jews are weak and few! And for G-ds sake, stop telling people that Zionism didn’t work! We got our state, (and a growing, too! Who doesn’t like “growth”?) state and now we are as good as anybody else, not a “minority”

  14. amigo
    February 2, 2016, 8:10 am

    For those Israel apologists who think BDS is no threat !!.

    “Dozens of cables sent to the Foreign Ministry each month from Israel’s embassies in Europe and the US paint a picture of an escalation by the international BDS movement. ”

    Here is a very telling para from the article.

    “Those responsible for concentrating efforts to fight boycotts against Israel admitted this week that they don’t know which direction the next boycott will pop out from. “In the past, the boycott movement would only act in the political arena – protests in front of embassies and against members of parliament who support Israel,” a senior Foreign Ministry source said. “Ever since [Fatah official] Jibril Rajoub appeared at the FIFA conference and pulled out a symbolic “red card” for Israel, we see that the movement has moved in a more civilian direction. Probably because they noted that it garnered more attention and was more effective.”

    Not at threat , eh.

    link to jpost.com

  15. Ossinev
    February 2, 2016, 9:17 am

    @amigo
    We have all the same still got to be careful out there viz one of the comments in the JP article:

    “Thank you for using an Intel chip in your computer. It was probably designed- and maybe also fabricated, here in Israel. When you do a Google search, you use an Israeli algorithm. Your flash drive? Yup- developed here. Same with the talkback system here at the JPost”.

    Heaven forbid that they stop exporting cherry tomatoes as well as intel chips,algorithms,flash drives and self assembly hasbara kits – it would truly mean the end of days.

    What would the world do without Israel ?

    • amigo
      February 2, 2016, 4:43 pm

      “What would the world do without Israel ?”Ossinev.

      In Israel,s present form , the world would be a far better place and I grow my own cherry tomatoes so no loss there.

    • Froggy
      February 3, 2016, 9:29 am

      Ossinev :: “What would the world do without Israel ?”

      The world would be safer, and more peaceful.

      “…self assembly hasbara kits…”

      And the other nations produce world-class bullshitometres to counter the hasbara. ;)

    • eljay
      February 3, 2016, 10:09 am

      ” … When you do a Google search, you use an Israeli algorithm. … “

      Hmmm…this would explain why when I search for dishes, socks, DVDs or car tires I get one of these as a result:

      Israel
      http://www.jewishstate.com
      Moral beacon and eternal homeland of the Jewish people.

      • Eva Smagacz
        February 4, 2016, 8:51 am

        http://www.JewishState.com is worth $36000.
        Guess not much value in ethno-nationalism since the second world war.

      • eljay
        February 4, 2016, 9:40 am

        || Eva Smagacz: http://www.JewishState.com is worth $36000. Guess not much value in ethno-nationalism since the second world war. ||

        Or maybe the low valuation is a result of anti-Semitism! 8-o

        Then again, it fares quite well against islamicstate.com, which comes in at an Islamophobically-low $3,700.

  16. Carol Lipton
    February 9, 2016, 10:21 pm

    Here’s the letter I wrote to the Park Slope Food Coop’s newspaper, the Linewaiters Gazette, regarding the reasons for the boycott against Soda Stream, an Israeli factory which makes upscale seltzer machines in the occupied territories. The letter was originally supposed to run in the July 9, 2015 issue, but mysteriously failed to appear after initial email confirmation that it was assigned to an editor. The Coop ignored the 4 emails I sent after July 9 asking for the name of the editor, and reasons it didn’t run. The Coop’s Disciplinary Committee, in response to my August 2015 complaint, claimed to have no sway or jurisdiction over the Gazette, or the actions of individual editors.
    On July 28, the Gazette suspended publication of all BDS letters for 7 months. As soon as the ban was lifted, I resubmitted my letter. This time, they rejected it outright for not being “timely”.
    They had other reasons as well. After delaying a prior letter for over a month, claiming it contained “unsubstantiated facts”, which I spent over 8 hours revising, my editor, Carey, rejected the current letter, noting that while it contained “robust citations and footnotes”, it nonetheless veered impermissibly towards being a “canned letter” (read: narrative unfavorable to Israel).
    And despite the fact that I wrote it to respond to accusations by Barbara Mazor, leader of the Coop’s Stop BDS movement, whose slogan is “more hummus please”, that no BDS writers ever backed up their claims about Soda Stream with citations to actual reports, my editor now claims that the letter has “nothing new or original” to add to the discussion. However, for that statement to be true, Barbara Mazor’s complaint about that long line of “unsubstantiated letters” can be seen for what it is: a complete
    fabrication published by the Gazette in bad faith.
    My human rights bona fides include a stint as Liaison Officer for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Washington, D.C., and 7 years as a volunteer human rights lawyer for Human Rights First under the tutelage of the late Arthur Helton, as well as 35 years in the National Lawyers Guild.
    Stanley Rogouski has very generously published my censored letter on his website, “Writers Without Money”. You can read it here:

    link to writerswithoutmoney.com

    • Annie Robbins
      February 10, 2016, 12:57 am

      carol, that is an excellent letter. why didn’t you mondoweiss — on july 10, 2015 after they refused to publish it?

    • Mooser
      February 10, 2016, 11:12 am

      Thank you, Ms. Lipton.

Leave a Reply