Israel slams UNESCO World Heritage decision on Hebron as Palestinians celebrate 12-3 vote in favor

Israel/Palestine
on 101 Comments

The UN Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) voted 12 to three on Friday to recognize Hebron’s Old City and the Tomb of the Patriarchs as a World Heritage Site, with six countries abstaining — a move acclaimed by Palestinian officials and slammed by their Israeli and American counterparts.

The committee simultaneously added Hebron to the list of World Heritage Sites in Danger.

Palestine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs applauded the outcome as “the only logical and correct decision,” adding that the vote would help to recognize the Old City of Hebron as a site “under threat due to the irresponsible, illegal, and highly damaging actions of Israel, the occupying power,” which the office said “maintains a regime of separation and discrimination in the city based on ethnic background and religion.”

“Today, Palestine and the world, through UNESCO, celebrate Hebron as part of world heritage, a value that transcends geography, religion, politics, and ideology,” the Palestinian Foreign Affairs statement read. “This vote celebrated facts and rejected the shameless high-profile political bullying and attempts at extortion. Hebron is a city in the heart of the State of Palestine that hosts a site invaluable to world heritage and holy to billions of people around the world of the three monotheistic religions.”

Hebron’s old city is the only city-center in the occupied West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem, where Palestinians and Israeli settlers live side-by-side. There are around 200,000 Palestinians and a few hundred Israeli settlers living in the city center. However, the cohabitation is anything but peaceful — instead Hebron is considered one of the most intense focal points of violence in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt).

Rejecting the vote, the spokesperson for Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Emmanuel Nahshon, took to Twitter after the decision to condemn the UNESCO outcome as a promotion of “lies.”

“The UNESCO decision on Hebron and the Tomb of Patriarchs is a moral blot. This irrelevant organization promotes fake history. Shame on UNESCO,” Nashon said. “The Jewish  people’s glorious history in Israel started in Hebron. No UNESCO lies and fake history can change that. Truth is eternal”

Naftali Bennet, Israel’s education minister and the chairman of the country’s committee to UNESCO, called the UNESCO ruling an attempt to “serve those who try to wipe the Jewish state off the map.”

“Israel won’t renew cooperation with UNESCO as long as it continues to serve as a tool for political attacks instead of being a professional organization,” he said, according to Haaretz.

Palestinian Tourism Minister Rula Maaya told Mondoweiss that she is “overwhelmingly happy” over the outcome of the UNESCO vote, which she believes will offer protection to the contentious city.

“We cannot thank the UNESCO committee enough for voting to protect the Old City of Hebron and the Ibrahimi Mosque,” Maaya said. “I believe this will positively affect the situation in Hebron because now the site is and should be preserved by UNESCO, which is more than needed.”

“As the Minister of tourism I think this decision is going to boost tourism as well, I think more and more tourists will make Hebron a stop on their visit — the UNESCO decision has nothing but positive impacts and we cannot give enough thanks to UNESCO and all the countries that voted in favor.”

Despite the plethora of religious and historically significant sites in the oPt, the tourism industry accounts for just 6 percent of its GDP, according to the Palestinian Investment Promotion Agency. Maaya’s office is constantly trying to fight the barriers working against the growth of the industry, which struggles due to side effects of the occupation, she explained.

While Maaya said she looks forward to the potential financial boost from an increase in tourism in Hebron, she also thinks foreigners making their way to Hebron, one of the most controversial and dangerous cities in the occupied West Bank, will foster support for the greater Palestinian cause.

“The situation in the Old City of Hebron and the area around it is very difficult, the Israelis are creating daily problems in the Old City that arise from the presence of Israeli settlers and army,” she said. “When I mentioned that this site will be protected under the new classification, it also means UNESCO will not allow the Israelis to do whatever they want there. As it is now, the Israelis think and work only as an occupying force in Hebron, they don’t care about protecting the Palestinians there anymore than they care about protecting the historical Old City and other important sites.”

Omar Abedrabo, a professor of Islamic history and archeology at Bethlehem University, told Mondoweiss that several historically important sites in Hebron have been destroyed by settlers renovating homes and business without any input or regulation from the Israeli or Palestinian Departments of Antiquities.

Abedrabo said he hopes the UNESCO ruling will help change the status quo and move toward better protection of the historical sites in the city.

“As it is now the settler population has destroyed many important artifacts and structures without looking up any documentation of the historical significance of a building or structure. This should be forbidden,” Abedrabo said. “It is a complicated situation in Hebron but I hope this UNESCO decision can help to improve things, we will see with time what happens.”

According to Abedrabo, there are areas in Hebron’s Old City that document periods in history which are rare.

“We must celebrate UNESCO’s decision because It is particularly important to protect this area — there are sites of historical importance that will be lost forever if not protected, for instance, the remains of the Sufi period in Hebron during the Mamluk rule between 1250-1516 AD, if those are lost there is no getting it back”

Abedrabo said that as it is now, the Palestinian Authority has no power in the area, meaning the Israeli government will be in charge of upholding the UNESCO status, which he believes is problematic since the Israeli government worked against the UNESCO vote.

“The city of Hebron is an open archive of history, it’s so important to protect these sites, which are under threat from the Israeli occupation,” he said. “But the UNESCO vote is no guarantee — a huge threat to the area are the Israeli settlers who act with impunity — the settlers are protected by Israeli soldiers, and the Israeli soldiers are protected by the Israeli government, and the Israeli government does not support Hebron’s Old City and Tomb of Patriarchs as a UNESCO site.”

About Sheren Khalel

Sheren Khalel is a freelance multimedia journalist who works out of Israel, Palestine and Jordan. She focuses on human rights, women's issues and the Palestine/Israel conflict. Khalel formerly worked for Ma'an News Agency in Bethlehem, and is currently based in Ramallah and Jerusalem. You can follow her on Twitter at @Sherenk.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

101 Responses

  1. Citizen
    July 7, 2017, 4:31 pm

    Zionists don’t give a crap about any history but what they select or claim is their historical heritage. Nobody else matters in the least. This leaves the rest of the whole world with any interest to uphold actual world history, including all aspects that includes Jewish activity. At any rate, Jewish history is not world history, but Jewish history is a part of world history. Jewish humans are a part of the history of humans on earth, but only one part–actually, a small part. This arena reminds me of the debate over whether the Allies during WW2 did enough for the Jews by concentrating on ending Hitler’s and Tojo’s rule. A lot of non-Jewish blood was spilled in the Allies winning WW2; so, not enough?

    • Nathan
      July 8, 2017, 1:28 pm

      Actually, this article doesn’t care much for history. It would have been just fine to have mentioned that the Ibrahimi Mosque (appearing in the photo) is a structure that was built in the first century BC. It was built by King Herod, the king of Judea. Actually, with all due respect to the “the Sufi period in Hebron during the Mamluk rule between 1250-1516 AD”, the fact that the building was constructed by King Herod during the first century BC is without doubt the most interesting world heritage issue in Hebron. I’m trying to figure out what might be the reason that this fact was overlooked.

      • YoniFalic
        July 8, 2017, 2:23 pm

        Herod was of Idumean and Nabatean (Arab) ancestry. Herod’s father was Antipater the Idumaean and his mother was Cypros. The Greek names indicate the deep Hellenization of at least the upper classes of the Hasmonean kingdom.

        Herod practiced a religion that was far closer to Orthodox Christianity than to Rabbinic Judaism, a religion that originates in Mesopotamia and that does not crystallize until the 10th century CE.

        Palestinians descend from Greco-Roman Judeans while the Slavic and Turkic ancestors of Nathan and of me were relatively recent converts to Judaism.

        Obviously Hebron’s Old City and the Tomb of the Patriarchs rightfully comprise a Palestinian cultural heritage site while white racist genocidal Euro settler colonist invaders like my family are attempting to steal cultural product to which they have no legitimate claim whatsoever.

      • Nathan
        July 8, 2017, 3:16 pm

        YoniFalic – The question is the following: Why isn’t it mentioned in the article that the building shown in the above photo was built in the first century BC by King Herod of Judea?

        The origins of King Herod, the roots of Palestinian Arabs, your ancestors (or mine) and the invasion of your family are really interesting topics for discussion and debate. However, I was wondering why an article about a world heritage site neglects to mention who built the building and when. Do you have a theory? It certainly is strange. After all, the writer could have just checked google. What is so terrible to say that the building was built in the first century BC by King Herod of Judea?

      • MHughes976
        July 8, 2017, 5:16 pm

        I think that the Mosque is mainly a pre-Islamic structure of mysterious origin and purpose, since it may not have had an entrance, but is built in the style associated with Herod the Great, King of the Jews, whose religion was centred on the Jerusalem Temple, which the Christians came to think unnecessary – here I may differ from Yoni. The idea that the site is the second holiest in Judaism is hard to sustain in that there is little ancient reference to it and in that the religion of the Second Temple period did not really admit the idea of a second holy site. Unesco may not be providing a balanced and objective history but neither is the Israeli government.

      • YoniFalic
        July 8, 2017, 5:38 pm

        Few people know who Herod was, and Zios lie about him. Herod’s construction of the shrine complex of the Cave of the Patriarchs has never been of interest to Rabbinic Jews because Herod is a bad guy in Talmudic literature.

        To be accurate Herod was never King of Judea. He was first a tetrarch and then King of the Judeans — a phrase that meant to the Romans either

        “King (imposed) over the Judeans”

        or

        “King against the Judeans”.

        Zios use a twisted version of the history of Herod to justify Zionist theft of Palestinian cultural product.

        Here is what UNESCO said about the new Palestinian cultural heritage site.

        http://en.unesco.org/news/world-heritage-committee-inscribes-new-site-and-approves-extension-existing-site-unesco-s-world

        It seems eminently fair to me as an historian.

      • John O
        July 8, 2017, 6:24 pm

        @Nathan

        “The question is the following: Why isn’t it mentioned in the article that the building shown in the above photo was built in the first century BC by King Herod of Judea?”

        Well, if you go to the Wikipedia article on the Ibrahimi mosque (from where the photo was copied), you will see that the building shown is – and it’s blindingly obvious to anyone with any knowledge of architecture and archaeology – medieval. It was built around the Herodian temple, much like the cathedral built around the mosque in Córdoba, Spain. That is also a UNESCO world heritage site for the exact same reason as Hebron.

        It is common, here in England, for early churches to have been built on the sites of Roman temples, which were built on the sites of Iron Age sacred spaces. Not a big deal.

      • Nathan
        July 9, 2017, 12:00 am

        YoniFalic – No one in this article is telling “Zio-lies” about King Herod. He simply isn’t mentioned. Why not? You seem quite busy trying to prove that King Herod was not Jewish, that he wasn’t the king of Judea, that the rabbinic tradition doesn’t like him, that you have Slavic and Turkish descent, and that the Palestinians are of Judean descent. Is this the reason that the article doesn’t mention that King Herod built this wonderful edifice?

        John O – The structure is Herodian. It was built in the first century BC. The building shown in the photo above is the original building from antiquity. It is not a medieval structure on the site of some earlier temple. The UNESCO announcement claims that the building is from the first century – although, for some reason, they refrain from mentioning that King Herod of Judea built the building.

        MHughes – The building shown in the photo above is essentially a copy of the Second Temple, so it was obviously built when the Temple was still in plain view (before AD 70). It’s origin, therefore, is not a mystery at all. It is a Second Temple era building. It is the only Second Temple era building still intact, which is really quite amazing. You would think that such a fact would deserve to be mentioned when choosing a world heritage site.

      • DaBakr
        July 9, 2017, 2:26 am

        Forget it. You’ll get nobody here to acknowledge the point your trying to make (which is in no way pro-israeli). They have a line they will never cross because their own little cult is more intolerant of dissent then any right wing Israeli govt has ever been.

      • echinococcus
        July 9, 2017, 11:47 am

        “Nathan” can’t even tell at a glance the difference between a Roman-era Palestinian building and a medieval one.
        Looks like the pups in the Zionist cocoon are not allowed to open their eyes at any time.

      • Mooser
        July 9, 2017, 1:13 pm

        ” They have a line they will never cross…”

        “DaBakr”, you should charge Mondoweiss with illegally occupying this website.

      • John O
        July 9, 2017, 2:42 pm

        @Nathan

        “The UNESCO announcement claims that the building is from the first century – although, for some reason, they refrain from mentioning that King Herod of Judea built the building.”

        The UNESCO announcement says no such thing, rather that the buildings are in a compound built in the 1st century CE. They refrain from mentioning that Herod built the building because that cannot be proven.

      • MHughes976
        July 9, 2017, 4:03 pm

        I accept that the building is very likely pre-70. It may well be one of Herod’s monuments, though it’s odd that Josephus doesn’t mention it. It may well be an image of the Temple but then descriptions of the Temple were available for some time after 70. It’s strange that it lacked both a roof and an obvious entrance and perhaps hard to believe that it was a secondary cult centre, since second or secondary cult centres don’t seem to have been permitted in Second Temple Judaism.
        But perhaps these strange features are not really central to the topic. Unesco is wrong to have – and discredits itself unnecessarily by having – failed to mention the fact that it is quite likely, to say the least, one of Herod’s works – though things are not quite as clear cut the other way as people are saying.

      • MHughes976
        July 9, 2017, 4:24 pm

        I’be just had a look at the Unesco citation for Canterbury Cathedral, which does not mention the word Catholic, though the edifice was undoubtedly constructed by Catholics, and does mention my spiritual gang, the Church of England, the custodians of (as is also said) five (merely five!) centuries’ standing. It does mention massively un-Protestant things like Benedictine monasticism.
        As John O notes, there is obviously a problem in these contexts about mentioning things that can’t quite be proved: where do you stop if you go beyond the hardest facts? I still think that some way of acknowledging the Jewish Claim should have been found.
        However, there has never been any Catholic protest about Unesco’s Canterbury tale as far as I am aware.

      • echinococcus
        July 9, 2017, 8:28 pm

        Hughes,

        Thanks for reviewing so well the Ibrahimi mosque story.
        But then, if the Herodian origin of the incorporated building is just “likely” (no more, and with a number of facts you cited militating against it) and it cannot be dated with a likely terminus a quo, then all one can say safely is that a pagan origin cannot be excluded. It’s in fact well probable.

        So the only possible statement that could be made is that the mosque incorporates an earlier, pre-Islamic construction, a situation somewhat analogous to the Córdoba Mezquita as John O already observed but with no possible attribution of the earlier structure.

        In fact, you have mentioned all these elements –I wonder how one can mention a Jewish claim without wandering outside the frame.

      • Nathan
        July 9, 2017, 9:11 pm

        John O – There really is no reason to play games. One can utter the word “Judea” and “King Herod” and “the Second Temple era” and still remain anti-Zionist and anti-Israel if that’s your ideology. The building in the picture above was built by King Herod of Judea during the era of the Second Temple. Actually, it is a copy of the Second Temple (also built by King Herod), although on a smaller scale. It doesn’t make sense that such a monument is declared a world heritage site without telling the public about the origins of the building. The above article mentions only the Mameluk era from the Middle Ages. That’s intellectual cowardice.

      • echinococcus
        July 9, 2017, 10:44 pm

        The building in the picture above was built by King Herod of Judea

        Not the building seen there, but some that you don’t see in the picture is a pre-Byzantine structure, possibly of Herod’s time and as possibly a much earlier one. Do you suddenly have solid evidence of its relation to Herod when the specialists cannot give it an earliest date?

        Actually, it is a copy of the Second Temple (also built by King Herod), although on a smaller scale.

        Evidence?

        The mosque also incorporates a Byzantine church and a later synagogue in addition to other curiosities. So what?

        It doesn’t make sense that such a monument is declared a world heritage site without telling the public about the origins of the building

        According to which rule? The only safe statements are that it is the mosque dedicated to Ibrahim, containing a cave that all superstitions believe to be some saint’s tomb, incorporating a possibly Roman era, possibly more ancient pre-Byzantine part, a Byzantine church, a later synagogue, a cave and a Mameluk mosque. You don’t write the rules of normal (=non-Zionist) language.

      • YoniFalic
        July 10, 2017, 1:17 am

        @Nathan,

        I have to reiterate that it is as ignorantly stupid to call Greco-Roman Judeans Jews as it is to call ancient Romans Italians, Greco-Roman Gauls French, and Greco-Roman Teutons Germans.

        To tell the truth if I had written the UNESCO description of the site, I would probably have mentioned the common ascription of the commissioning of the walls of the temenos to Herod even though NO ancient authority states that Herod commissioned the enclosure. I would probably also have mentioned that Herod’s son Archelaos may have commissioned them.

        Then I would have taken a teaching moment to point out that it is ignorantly stupid to call Greco-Roman Judeans Jews, and that Greco-Roman Judeans, Galileans, Idumeans, Samarians, etc. are ancestors of the native Palestinians and not of the white racist European settler colonist invaders, who are commonly but incorrectly called “Jews” and who have been committing genocide since 1947 and who including my white racist genocidal invader relatives should be bombed by an international coalition under the precedent of Serbia in Kosovo until they leave.

        In other words, international law is non-existent as long as fake “Jews” are given license to commit genocide while Zios are murderous criminals that deserve hatred from all decent human beings.

        Herod albeit a Palestinian king definitely was not a Jewish king. The Romans did appoint him to be King of Judeans although a large part of his subject population was not Judean.

        The Cambridge History of Judaism: The early Roman period, Volume 3 edited by William David Davies, Louis Finkelstein, William Horbury provides a pithy summary of the state of knowledge of the walls at the following URL.

        https://books.google.com/books?id=AW2BuWcalXIC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=temenos+hebron&source=bl&ots=rFMSIu5j7v&sig=eCjO4RMPrMdTV3a2aYwombJ4y94&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij1LWI9f3UAhWKHT4KHWbdCDoQ6AEIQDAF#v=onepage&q&f=false

      • YoniFalic
        July 10, 2017, 1:32 am

        BTW, we should all recall the impetus for the correct designation of the old city of Hebron and the Shrine of the Patriarchs to be PALESTINIAN national heritage sites.

        Netanyahu to the criticism of Obama and Clinton designated the Shrine of the Patriarchs and the Tomb of Rachel in Bethlehem to be Israeli national heritage sites.

        http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-slams-israel-over-designating-heritage-sites-1.263737

        White racist Euro Zios like Nathan and my family have only fictional connection to Palestine, and the rants of Zios over UNESCO’s courage to state a (partial) truth are little more than delusional ramblings of very sick perverted minds.

    • YoniFalic
      July 10, 2017, 8:00 am

      Zios are enraged by the UNESCO decision because it is a direct attack on Zionist ideology, which postulated that Palestinians are not a people in the völkisch or organic nationalist sense. As a not-people there was nothing wrong according to Zionists in transferring Palestinians out of Palestine, which was not the homeland of a Palestinian people. In fact, by Zionist thinking Palestine was only the homeland of one true people, the Jewish people, and by Zionist ideology it was simple justice to relocate rootless Palestinians as Jews are moved in.

      Once Palestinians are recognized as having a culture and cultural product deeply rooted in Palestine, world consciousness must develop that Zionism is an evil, criminal, and genocidal ideology, that Zionist invaders must be removed from Palestine, and that Zionists must be arrested and tried for the international crime of genocide.

      As I pointed out, conviction means seizure of Zionist assets along with execution of many Zionist leaders according to the Nuremberg Tribunal precedents of customary international anti-genocide law. It is noteworthy that customary international anti-genocide law does not permit an honorable execution by firing squad but requires execution at least as degrading as hanging. (There was an explicit Tribunal decision on this issue.)

      Dealing with the genocidal crimes of Zionists would in many ways break new legal ground, and it would probably be worthwhile to consider proportionate response to Zionist crimes since the late 19th century when (according to Ahad haAm) Zio invaders were already behaving in a brutal and uncivilized fashion toward the native population.

      • Keith
        July 10, 2017, 10:16 am

        YONI FALIC- “Once Palestinians are recognized as having a culture and cultural product deeply rooted in Palestine….”

        Which is exactly why those hundreds of Palestinian villages were destroyed and planted over with European Flora, to erase as much Palestinian history as possible.

  2. JosephA
    July 7, 2017, 10:29 pm

    This is a step in the right direction, of course, but the losers, their heads are still in the sand and will be for the foreseeable future.

  3. Kay24
    July 8, 2017, 6:52 am

    It must be a shock in their system. Israel simply claims, grabs, and steals, and they cannot take it when a world entity has stepped in to preserve Palestinian heritage, and give the Palestinians some rights. Bullies usually cannot take rejection. Aw Nutty, just open a bottle of pink champagne and keep fuming.

    • US Citizen
      July 8, 2017, 2:22 pm

      Oh silly me, I get it now; Palestinians only have those rights which do not conflict with the “right” that Israeli Jews have to take/control what they think is theirs.

      The face of the Zionist entity is worth watching – the face of an entitled bully surprised by the absence of obeisance.

      I think I’ll grab a bottle of wine, a bag of popcorn, a nice comfy deck chair and enjoy the sh*t show that is Israel to come.

      • Kay24
        July 11, 2017, 9:23 am

        Israel brought it upon themselves. How long can you keep depriving people of their rights, and how long will the US keep protecting them?

      • echinococcus
        July 11, 2017, 7:54 pm

        How long can you keep depriving people of their rights, and how long will the US keep protecting them?

        As long as the two-part single-party keeps running the US, and as long as you work to get all the gullible to vote for them.

  4. LHunter
    July 8, 2017, 9:42 am

    Great news – brick by brick the Palestinians continue to rebuilt that which was and is being stolen by Zionist invaders.

    Every little bit helps

  5. JLewisDickerson
    July 8, 2017, 12:51 pm

    RE: “Israel slams UNESCO World Heritage decision on Hebron as Palestinians celebrate 12-3 vote in favor”

    NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART (a feint, of sorts):
    “Go West Native, Young Man, Go West Native!”

    P.S. “Go West, young man” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_West,_young_man

    • JLewisDickerson
      July 8, 2017, 1:38 pm

      P.P.S. LOOKING FOR ‘SILVER LININGS’: If this vote had been taken before the “Time(s) of Trump”, the U.S. probably would have succeeded in recruiting the support of enough member states to vote this down. The Trumpsters tried to do this, but their efforts failed ( Haaretz ). The tired, old arguments that worked in the past no longer seem credible when coming from the likes of Trump and his “Pistol Packin’ Mama”!

  6. Boris
    July 8, 2017, 2:09 pm

    Well, the reaction is fairly predictable. UNESCO completely ignores historic truths when it relates to Jewish places in the Middle East and Jew-haters rejoice. What else is new?

    However, I asked that question before. How do mosers on this board feel about their friends denying their history and identity?

    • JLewisDickerson
      July 8, 2017, 2:48 pm

      FROM BRITANNICA.COM [cognitive dissonance]

      cognitive dissonance – the mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The unease or tension that the conflict arouses in a person is relieved by one of several defensive maneuvers: the person rejects, explains away, or avoids the new information, persuades himself that no conflict really exists, reconciles the differences, or resorts to any other defensive means of preserving stability or order in his conception of the world and of himself. The concept, first introduced in the 1950s, has become a major point of discussion and research.

      SOURCE – http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/124498/cognitive-dissonance

      FROM WIKIPEDIA AS OF 1/28/14 [Defence mechanisms]:

      [EXCERPTS] . . . In Freudian psychoanalytic theory, defense mechanisms are psychological strategies brought into play [primarily ~ J.L.D.] by the unconscious mind[4] to manipulate, deny, or distort reality in order to defend against feelings of anxiety and unacceptable impulses to maintain one’s self schema [and to minimize cognitive dissonance – J.L.D.].[5]
      These processes that manipulate, deny, or distort reality may include the following: repression, or the burying of a painful feeling or thought from one’s awareness even though it may resurface in a symbolic form;[3] identification, incorporating an object or thought into oneself;[6] and rationalization, the justification of one’s behavior and motivations by substituting “good” acceptable reasons for the motivations.[3][7] Generally, repression is considered the basis for other defense mechanisms.[3]
      Healthy persons normally use different defences throughout life. An ego defence mechanism becomes pathological only when its persistent use leads to maladaptive behaviour such that the physical or mental health of the individual is adversely affected. The purpose of ego defence mechanisms is to protect the mind/self/ego from anxiety and/or social sanctions and/or to provide a refuge from a situation with which one cannot currently cope.[8]
      Defence mechanisms are unconscious coping mechanisms that reduce anxiety generated by threats from unacceptable impulses [i.e., a refuge from cognitive dissonance – J.L.D.]..[9]
      Defence mechanisms are unconscious coping mechanisms that reduce anxiety generated by threats from unacceptable impulses.[9] . . .
      . . . The list of defence mechanisms is huge and there is no theoretical consensus on the number of defence mechanisms. . .

      Vaillant’s categorization of defence mechanisms [EXCERPTS]

      Level 1: Pathological
      The mechanisms on this level, when predominating, almost always are severely pathological. These six defences, in conjunction, permit one to effectively rearrange external experiences to eliminate the need to cope with reality. . .
      • Delusional Projection: Delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature. . . [i.e., characterizing legitimate criticism of Israel as “Anti-Semitism” ~ J.L.D.]
      • Denial: Refusal to accept external reality because it is too threatening; arguing against an anxiety-provoking stimulus by stating it doesn’t exist; resolution of emotional conflict and reduction of anxiety by refusing to perceive or consciously acknowledge the more unpleasant aspects of external reality. . .

      Level 2: Immature
      These mechanisms are often present in adults. These mechanisms lessen distress and anxiety provoked by threatening people or by uncomfortable reality. . .
      • Fantasy: Tendency to retreat into fantasy in order to resolve inner and outer conflicts. . .[i.e., the belief that the interests of the U.S. and Israel are identical is a nice example of fantasy ~ J.L.D.]

      Level 3: Neurotic
      These mechanisms are considered neurotic, but fairly common in adults. Such defences have short-term advantages in coping, but can often cause long-term problems . . .
      Intellectualization: A form of isolation; concentrating on the intellectual components of a situation so as to distance oneself from the associated anxiety-provoking emotions . . .
      Withdrawal: Withdrawal is a more severe form of defence. It entails removing oneself from events, stimuli, interactions, etc. under the fear of being reminded of painful thoughts and feelings. . .

      Level 4: Mature
      These are commonly found among emotionally healthy adults and are considered mature . . .
      • Thought suppression: The conscious process of pushing thoughts into the preconscious; the conscious decision to delay paying attention to an emotion or need in order to cope with the present reality; making it possible to later access uncomfortable or distressing emotions whilst accepting them. . .

      SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanisms

    • US Citizen
      July 8, 2017, 3:44 pm

      Do you mean how Israel ignores and denies ANYTHING that has to do with Palestine and the Palestinians?

      My favorite is the classic : “There was never a state called Palestine” – they stick the word ‘state’ in there like it proves their worthless point.

      I find this one especially entertaining and hilarious. In the end it amounts to “We are under existential threat from the people who don’t exist.”

    • oldgeezer
      July 8, 2017, 3:57 pm

      @boris

      Most people have the intelligence to know that neither connection nor history of Jewish people grant Israel sovereignty. There is no right which enables Israeli theft of territory.

    • YoniFalic
      July 8, 2017, 5:13 pm

      “Jewish” only refers to persons, places, or writings after the 10th century CE when Rabbinic and Karaite Judaism crystallize. Before the tenth century, one should apply terms like “Judean” or “Judaic”.

      To call Herodian structures Jewish is as ignorantly stupid as calling Romans Italians, Gauls French or Teutons Germans.

      I am also quite offended that Boris is allowed to call moderns mosers (informers) if they like me are honest about the ethnic ancestry and history of Eastern European Jews, but my comment gets moderated out when I point out that those people are pathetic self-haters who try to steal the cultural product of the ancestors of others.

    • Mooser
      July 8, 2017, 5:15 pm

      “However, I asked that question before. How do mosers on this board feel about their friends denying their history and identity?”

      It really doesn’t matter, “Boris”. As you yourself noted, Hitler would have killed me anyway, and the Russians hated me just for being a Jew.

      And I don’t deny our history. We are good at religion, not so good at national politics. I’ll be the first to admit it, right in line with the Prophets.

      • Boris
        July 9, 2017, 12:34 am

        Well, “Moooser”, some Jews are also good at informing on other Jews to non-Jewish authorities – essentially being traitors (mosers).

        But this is not what I asked you.

        People like YoniPhallic even in this thread deny you your history. Apparently, you have no problem with it.

        Maybe the term “self-hating” does apply to people like you?

      • Mooser
        July 9, 2017, 1:02 pm

        “People like YoniPhallic even in this thread deny you your history. Apparently, you have no problem with it.”

        No, “Boris”, not at all. “Yoni” is not denying my history with all that East-European-Slavo-Turk stuff. That’s not my history. That is the history of a whole bunch of other Jews.

        I am a direct descendant of King David. My Jewish lineage comes right out of ancient Israel. I never doubt that for a second. I’ve got cless.

      • echinococcus
        July 9, 2017, 3:31 pm

        Mooser,

        Is that coming from the same Boris who defends his 100%-Holy-Land history with such unusual energy?

        As 100% as in

        My Soviet issued birth certificate…

        Surely when Stalin was occupying Safad. No Slavo-Turkic blood there.

        Zionists have replaced slapstick and vaudeville, and they’re better.

      • Boris
        July 9, 2017, 3:57 pm

        Oh, “Mooser”, so you are a “better” Jew!

        How Jewish!!!

      • Mooser
        July 9, 2017, 4:10 pm

        “Oh, “Mooser”, so you are a “better” Jew!”

        “Boris”, please, I have nothing against ordinary Jews. If it were up to me, they would all have my aristocratic lineage.

      • Talkback
        July 10, 2017, 11:12 am

        What “Boris” is not even from Ancient Israel, but from the former Sowjet Union? What a fraud. For I moment I thought that time travelling Jews were a reality.

      • Talkback
        July 10, 2017, 11:25 am

        Mooser: ” am a direct descendant of King David. My Jewish lineage comes right out of ancient Israel”

        Well, that means you get a free ticket to disenfranchise Palestinians, too. It’s your birthright, Mooser! What’s your preference? Killing? Expulsion? Disposession? Deportation? Torture (Children included). House demolishion? Stealing resources? Restricting movement? Building walls? Wait, I’ll better get you a Zionist brochure, the opportunities are staggering.

      • echinococcus
        July 10, 2017, 2:15 pm

        Talkback,

        That story reminded me of a parallel one of a Nazi relic I had met in my youth. A Russia German still boasting that his birth certificate identified him as (in his words) Aryan.

      • Mooser
        July 10, 2017, 3:46 pm

        “. It’s your birthright, Mooser!”

        I was hoping Boris would tell me what my exalted Jewish provenance entitles me to.

      • Boris
        July 10, 2017, 4:36 pm

        I did, but it did not pass “moderation”

      • Talkback
        July 11, 2017, 9:54 am

        Yes echi, this poor, poor, poor Aryans.

        They wanted only one Aryan state in all of their homeland, differentiate between nationals and citizens, maintain an Aryan majority and enact laws befitting the values of an Aryan state. 22 Arab states, but no Aryan state? That was just hatred towards Aryans, right?

        (Just kidding)

      • gamal
        July 11, 2017, 10:34 am

        ” That was just hatred towards Aryans, right?”

        Keeping in mind that Aryans are also Indians or Iranians, in fact Aryans of Colour are probably the primary victims of White Supremacy, Aryans usually are supreme, in most things.

      • Mooser
        July 11, 2017, 12:13 pm

        “I did, but it did not pass “moderation”

        And now I will never know. Oh well, If I knew, I’d probably just get above myself, and I’m high enough already.

      • Mooser
        July 12, 2017, 12:49 pm

        BTW, “Boris” I remind you: Little David was small, but oh my, he slew big Goliath, who lay down and dieth.

  7. James Canning
    July 8, 2017, 5:42 pm

    Most Americans are completely ignorant regarding the virtually insane Jewish colonizer presence in the old city of Hebron.

    • DaBakr
      July 9, 2017, 2:45 am

      @jc

      You had me at “most Americans are completely ignorant.”

      You personally may not be (an American either) but seem to be ignorant of the ‘virtually insane Muslim conquering colonizing presence in the old city and ancient tombs of Hebron that the indigenous Jews there endured for centuries until finally, we regained sovereignty of our forefathers land. You obviously have a big problem with that simple concept. I’m sure there are just millions of ‘serious’ articles proving the whole Abraham thing is just bs fairy tale.*

      * And billions of ‘serious’ articles proving that even if the whole Abraham thingy isn’t total bs, that it’s all completely irrelevant to the existence of a Jewish Nation and anything even resembling Jewish sovereignty. I’m sure there are plenty of fairy tales I can read about that.

      • zaid
        July 10, 2017, 12:00 pm

        Only modern day Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine.

        The fairy tale of the Levantine origin of Ashkenazi and Mezrahi Jews failed the test of genetics and archaeology.

      • Talkback
        July 11, 2017, 9:27 am

        DaBakr: “… that the indigenous Jews there endured for centuries until finally, we regained sovereignty of our forefathers land. You obviously have a big problem with that simple concept.”

        The operative word being “Jews”, right? Otherwise it wouldn’t be the concept of a racist simpleton who wants everybody to believe that he can prove being not a descendant of converts and that in post Nazi international law this is legally relevant and the admission of territory through war admissable. Simple as a brownshirt’s concept can be.

      • eljay
        July 11, 2017, 9:54 am

        || DaBakr: … You personally may not be (an American either) but seem to be ignorant of the ‘virtually insane Muslim conquering colonizing presence in the old city and ancient tombs of Hebron that the indigenous Jews there endured for centuries until finally, we regained sovereignty of our forefathers land. You obviously have a big problem with that simple concept. … ||

        You Zionists have a big problem with the simple concept that geographic Palestine was the homeland of its indigenous non-Jewish and Jewish population and not the homeland of every person in the world who chose to acquire or hold the religion-based identity of Jewish.

        The religion-based identity of Jewish does not transform a person into a geographic Palestinian (or an ancient Israelite or Judean) and it does not comprise a right to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine or anywhere else in the world.

        It must suck to know that your evil desires are nothing more than evil desires, but no-one ever said aggressor-victimhood was an easy gig… :-(

      • Nathan
        July 11, 2017, 10:41 pm

        eljay – I don’t quite follow your argument. What is the point of debating the right of Jews to have founded a state? It has already happened, and it happened a very long time ago. A child born today in Israel is probably the grandchild or even the great-grandchild of a native born Israeli, so he belongs to “geographic Palestine” (to use your terminology). It would be a wonderful idea to suggest ways in which the conflict might end or ways in which people can learn to live together. But what’s the point in explaining that it shouldn’t have come into being? It came into being, and it’s not going to be undone. You should be able to live with that (well, actually, you do live with it).

        zaid – One doesn’t have to pass a genetics test (or an archeology test) in order to be a native of his own country. A person is born, and he doesn’t have to explain his having come into being. You can scream that “he’s an illegitimate child”, but it doesn’t make any difference. He has the right to live his life, and he has the right to defend his life. If you find one’s DNA to be an issue for discussion, then that should be defined as racism.

      • eljay
        July 12, 2017, 8:52 am

        || Nathan: eljay – I don’t quite follow your argument. What is the point of debating the right of Jews to have founded a state? … ||

        I don’t debate “the right of Jews to have founded a state” because Jews did not (and do not) not have that right. The religion-based identity of Jewish did not (and does not) comprise a right to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine or anywhere else.

        The point I do make is that Israel must be reformed…
        – from a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews,
        – into a secular and democratic Israeli state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally.

        || … A child born today in Israel is probably the grandchild or even the great-grandchild of a native born Israeli, so he belongs to “geographic Palestine” (to use your terminology). … ||

        I agree that a child born in Partition-borders Israel belongs in Israel as an Israeli. Similarly, a child born in Partition-borders Palestine belongs in Palestine as a Palestinian. (If Jewish Israelis don’t want their children to be Palestinian, they should reconsider their on-going, unjust and immoral colonization of Palestine.)

        I believe that refugees from Israel also belong in Israel, and refugees from Palestine belong in Palestine.

        And I believe that immigration privileges to Israel should exist only for non-Jews and Jews up to n-generations removed from Israel. (Similarly, immigration privileges to Palestine should exist only for non-Jews and Jews up to n-generations removed from Palestine.)

        || … It would be a wonderful idea to suggest ways in which the conflict might end or ways in which people can learn to live together. But what’s the point in explaining that it shouldn’t have come into being? It came into being, and it’s not going to be undone. … ||

        I know you’re f*cking with me here, but I’ll play along: I do not explain that Israel shouldn’t exist or that it should be dismanted. I explain that religion-supremacist “Jewish State” shouldn’t exist – because it has no right to exist – and that Israel must be reformed.

      • eljay
        July 12, 2017, 9:10 am

        || eljay: I don’t debate “the right of Jews to have founded a state” because Jews did not (and do not) not have that right. … ||

        Correction: I don’t debate “the right of Jews to have founded a state” because Jews did not (and do not) not have that right. …

      • YoniFalic
        July 12, 2017, 9:13 am

        White racist genocidal Euros justified settler colonial invasion, theft, and genocide in Palestine on the basis of fictions about history 2000 years ago.

        By that standard dismantling Israel, removing the invaders, and trying Zios under international law for past and ongoing crimes of the last 70 years is quite reasonable.

        There are neither laches nor statute of limitations in international anti-genocide law. If there were, genocidaires could just wait out their victims in order successfully to get away with their crime and with their ill-gotten gains.

        The descendants of Zio invaders have no legal connection to Palestine and are far less rooted than Algerian pieds noirs were, whose disappearance was no loss whatsoever to the world.

        To tell the truth, I felt much more connected to my family’s ancestral home city of Lviv when I visited after I made yeridah than I ever did in Israel, which is stolen Palestine.

      • Mooser
        July 12, 2017, 12:45 pm

        “What is the point of debating the right of Jews to have founded a state? It has already happened, and it happened a very long time ago”

        Well, yes, it has already happened, but every indication is that diminishing numbers of Zionist Jews, (and diminishing number of Jews generally) unwillingness of Jews to move to Israel, and cratering support for Zionism will force the Zionist project to collapse.
        And Zionism has no answers for this, so you go on blathering about your “rights”.
        But I’ll give you Zionists one thing, “Nathan”. When the crunch comes, I’m pretty sure you can take Judaism with you over the cliff. Nobody else could do that, but I’m pretty sure Zionists can.

      • Talkback
        July 12, 2017, 4:24 pm

        Nathan: “What is the point of debating the right of Jews to have founded a state? It has already happened, and it happened a very long time ago.”

        Yep, like Apartheid South Africa.

      • Nathan
        July 12, 2017, 8:03 pm

        eljay – If the Partition Plan sets the standards for you, you should note that according to the Partition Plan one could live in the territory of the proposed Arab state and be a citizen of the proposed Jewish state (and vice versa). So, a Jew could be born outside the borders of the Jewish state and still be a citizen thereof. It’s quite boring to read the Partition Plan, but you might want to make the effort.

        It’s quite surprising that you do refer to the Partition Plan as the basis of legitimacy. As you know, the Partition Plan proposed the founding of a JEWISH state. You claim that the Jews had / have no right to found a Jewish state. So, it would seem that you reject the Partition Plan and accept it at one and the same time.

        Anyway, the continued existence of the Jewish state is not depended on your approval, as frustrating as that may be for you. There is a very substantial number of Jews who are determined to maintain its existence, and they seem to be quite a capable community.

      • eljay
        July 12, 2017, 8:37 pm

        || Nathan: eljay … It’s quite surprising that you do refer to the Partition Plan as the basis of legitimacy. As you know, the Partition Plan proposed the founding of a JEWISH state. You claim that the Jews had / have no right to found a Jewish state. So, it would seem that you reject the Partition Plan and accept it at one and the same time. … ||

        1. Geographic Palestine was partitioned. It shouldn’t surprise you that I refer to the Partition Plan.

        2. I accept that Palestine was partitioned. I don’t accept that either state in partitioned geographic Palestine should have been established as or should exist as anything other than the secular and democratic state of and for all of its respective citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally.

        3. Jews had / have no right to found a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” any more than Muslims had / have a right to found a religion-supremacist “Islamic State” or any other group had / has a right to found any other type of supremacist state.

        || … Anyway, the continued existence of the Jewish state is not depended on your approval … ||

        No shit, Sherlock. But won’t you be awful sad when you realize that its downfall won’t be prevented by your protests that Jews have a right – a gawd-given right! – to be supremacists. :-(

      • talknic
        July 13, 2017, 2:15 am

        @ Nathan July 12, 2017, 8:03 pm

        ” you should note that according to the Partition Plan one could live in the territory of the proposed Arab state and be a citizen of the proposed Jewish state (and vice versa). So, a Jew could be born outside the borders of the Jewish state and still be a citizen thereof. It’s quite boring to read the Partition Plan, but you might want to make the effort.”

        Uh huh … Quote verbatim support for your bizarre ZioTheory https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/UNISPAL.NSF/0/7F0AF2BD897689B785256C330061D253

      • Talkback
        July 13, 2017, 5:43 pm

        Nathan: “If the Partition Plan sets the standards for you, you should note that according to the Partition Plan one could live in the territory of the proposed Arab state and be a citizen of the proposed Jewish state (and vice versa). So, a Jew could be born outside the borders of the Jewish state and still be a citizen thereof. It’s quite boring to read the Partition Plan, but you might want to make the effort.”

        Of course someone can always live in a country which allows ones immigration or staying. But since the Nuremberg Trials which criminalized the “Germanization of occupied territories” this excludes the foreign war criminals that uses the day-to-day terrorism of a war criminal occupying force to illegally settle in occupied territories, dispossess the natives and create illegal settlements for these criminals. I’m sure you know of the Security Council resolution in 1980 which called for the dismantlement of all of these illegal settlements for war criminals.

        But since you are all about being honest and respectful, etc.. Could you quote from the partition plan? You have read it, you could find the quote much faster than anybody else. I’m sure you won’t.

        Nathan: “It’s quite surprising that you do refer to the Partition Plan as the basis of legitimacy. As you know, the Partition Plan proposed the founding of a JEWISH state.”

        Yes, yes Nathan. Quite surprising, even for you. The same partition plan proposed that EVERYBODY in the newly created state should automatically become its citizen?

        But, well, you know. The Zionists and their little inhumane perversions like their so called “Transfer Committee”. An euphemism that would have even made Goebbels jealous.

        Instead of making everybody who was habitually resident in Palestine according to the partition plan a citizen of the newly created state in which he or she resides and enjoys full civil and political rights JSIL chose to make every Nonjew a citizen who it didn’t expell and made them live until 1966 under military law and the same permit system it has expanded after 1967 during its ongoing conquest for Lebensraum in the East.

        Keeping rightful citizens and therefore potential voters expelled and denationalized seems to be a new concept of electioneering and just another inventions of which the self declared “Jewish democracy” should be known for. And it even gets more perverse. JSIL differentatiates between citizens and nationals. Nonjewish citizens don’t even belong to the nation of their state. What a truly inventive people these Israelis are. (Wait, Fritz just told me that they did all of this 15 years earlier. Damn those Zionist plagiarists.)

        Be honest, Nathan. The partition plan definitely doesn’t set the standards for you. It was comparatively humane in its violation of the Palestinian’s citizens right to self determination.

      • Nathan
        July 14, 2017, 4:45 pm

        Talkback – Here’s the quote from UN Resolution 181 (the Partition Plan – 29 Nov 1947) regarding the possibility of being a Jew living in the proposed Arab state while being a citizen of the Jewish state (and vice versa):

        Chapter 3

        “1. Citizenship. Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State, providing that no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State. The exercise of this right of option will be taken to include the wives and children under eighteen years of age of persons so opting.

        “Arabs residing in the area of the proposed Jewish State and Jews residing in the area of the proposed Arab State who have signed a notice of intention to opt for citizenship of the other State shall be eligible to vote in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of that State, but not in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of the State in which they reside.”

        So, it turns out that (as I told eljay) “according to the Partition Plan one could live in the territory of the proposed Arab state and be a citizen of the proposed Jewish state (and vice versa). So, a Jew could be born outside the borders of the Jewish state and still be a citizen thereof. It’s quite boring to read the Partition Plan, but you might want to make the effort.”

        Talknic seems to have an impressive acquaintance with documents, so it was surprising that he, too, was not familiar with the content of the Partition Plan.

        I know that politeness on this site is quite rare, so I wonder if Talkback will say “thanks” for my searching for the quote at his request. Well, anyway, you’re welcome.

      • Nathan
        July 14, 2017, 5:44 pm

        eljay – You make the claim that the Jews had no right to found a state based on the Jewish religion, just as the Moslems should not found a state based on Islam. Again, I suggest to you to read the Partition Plan of 1947. The proposal is for a JEWISH state and an ARAB state. The two parallel terms are “Jewish” and “Arab”. We can assume that “Jewish” refers to religion, and therefore “Arab” also refers to religion – but that would be ridiculous. The better assumption would be that “Arab” refers to an ethnicity, and therefore “Jewish” also refers to an ethnicity. The “Jewish state” means a state set up for a particular peoplehood. Your reference to an “Islamic state” (parallel to the proposed Jewish state) is a misquote of the Partition Plan. I can’t imagine that you are not aware of the correct language of the proposal (Jewish state / Arab state), so I would imagine that you know that “Jewish” was a reference to an ethnicity.

        Anyway, none of the above is meant to convince you to accept the validity of the Partition Plan. The logic of the plan was based on the agreement of both sides (thus avoiding war), but there was no such agreement. The two sides have since agreed (28 Sept 1995) to negotiate the final borders between them – so whatever will be agreed upon will be final and valid.

      • eljay
        July 14, 2017, 6:19 pm

        || Nathan: eljay – You make the claim that the Jews had no right to found a state based on the Jewish religion, just as the Moslems should not found a state based on Islam. … ||

        That’s right: I believe that neither religion-based identity comprises a right to a religion-supremacist state. You seem to think that ISIL is an acceptable construct. Huh.

        || … Again, I suggest to you to read the Partition Plan of 1947. The proposal is for a JEWISH state and an ARAB state. … ||

        So what? Like I said, I don’t accept that either state in partitioned geographic Palestine should have been established as or should exist as anything other than the secular and democratic state of and for all of its respective citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally.

        || … The two parallel terms are “Jewish” and “Arab”. … ||

        The terms are not parallel: Jewish is a religion-based identity; Arab is not.

      • talknic
        July 14, 2017, 7:07 pm

        @ Nathan. You’re an idiot.

        1. Citizenship. Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident

        worth repeating … shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident

      • Talkback
        July 15, 2017, 3:11 pm

        Nathan: “I know that politeness on this site is quite rare, so I wonder if Talkback will say “thanks” for my searching for the quote at his request. Well, anyway, you’re welcome.”

        Maybe you misunderstood me. I asked you to quote from the Partition plan what you claim: “a Jew living in the proposed Arab state while being a citizen of the Jewish state”. For example: “Jews who are citizens of the Jewish state are allowed to live in the Arab state.” or similar sentences.

        I’m not saying that it would be prohibited by the Arab state to allow Jewish Israeli citizens to live there with the consent of the Arab state. But your claim is that they can do so according to the partition plan (and without consent). Would you care to quote something similar or explain that your claim can be concluded from a certain sentence of this paragraph.

        And could you please answer the question if your claim goes both ways and that Nonjewish Palestinian citizens could live in the “Jewish state” according to the partition plan?

        Nathan: “eljay – You make the claim that the Jews had no right to found a state based on the Jewish religion,…”

        That’s the difference between eljays’s position and mine. I think that foreign settlers who were enforced upon the native population don’t have the right to create a state at all. The violation of the natives right to self determination was allready violated with the Balfour Declaration and the enforced immigration which followed.

      • Talkback
        July 15, 2017, 3:56 pm

        Nathan: “Talknic seems to have an impressive acquaintance with documents, so it was surprising that he, too, was not familiar with the content of the Partition Plan.”

        You must be pretty selfdelusional if you assume that we asked you to quote from the partition plan, because we do NOT know its precise wording.

    • Nathan
      July 16, 2017, 3:20 am

      Talknic – Read over again the ENTIRE quote that I brought to your attention, and you’ll see that according to the Partition Plan a Jew residing in the proposed Arab State can become a citizen in the proposed Jewish state. In other words, a Jew living anywhere in Palestine (whether in the proposed Arab state or in the proposed Jewish state) can be a citizen of the Jewish state. Obviously, the children of this Jewish citizen born in the proposed Arab state will also be citizens of the Jewish state while being residents of the Arab state in which they were born. Why is it that you ignore quotes that you ask to see? What is the ideological problem for you that a Jew living in the Arab state would be a citizen of the Jewish state (or an Arab living in the Jewish state would be a citizen of the Arab state)? It was an interesting idea at the time.

      Another question for you, Talknic: You take the position that only the borders of the Partition Plan are legitimate (on the one hand), but you don’t accept the very legitimacy of the Partition Plan (on the other hand). Should one understand your position to be that at first Israel should withdraw to the Partition Plan borders, and then afterwards you propose fighting the legitimacy of the Jewish state even in the borders that you “agree” to? Obviously, it’s silly to think that such a ploy would succeed, but that’s not the important issue. The important issue is the intellectual sneakiness. Just state your opinion that the Jewish state shouldn’t exist. That’s your ideology, and there’s no need to pretend that it’s an issue of international law.

      Finally, why are you such a rude person? It shouldn’t be such a difficult task to tell someone that you disagree (“chewing gum”) while at the same time maintaining the basic rules of politeness (“walking in a straight line”). Good luck facing the challenge of normal human relations.

      • echinococcus
        July 16, 2017, 2:48 pm

        “Nathan”
        Thank you for demonstrating the contradiction in Talknic’s continuous argument to recognize squatting rights to the Zionist invaders.
        Way to go. You just discovered that the Zionist entity has no right to exist in any shape or form anywhere in Palestine.

        Complete that thought, and let’s conclude together that what gets the highfalutin name “international community” is responsible for correcting their own crime and making that abomination disappear.

        But you are totally wrong about “human relations”: “normal human relations” do not apply to Zionists.

      • Talkback
        July 16, 2017, 6:52 pm

        Nathan: “Talknic – Read over again the ENTIRE quote that I brought to your attention, and you’ll …”

        So far you are just repeating your claim without proving or explaining anything. Maybe because you know you can’t, because your claim is nonsense. I could also claim that this paragraph is about you being a shmock. You don’t believe me? Read over again the ENTIRE quote that you “brought to our attentention”.

      • Nathan
        July 16, 2017, 9:01 pm

        echinnocus – Why would you conclude that the Zionist entity has no right to exist? Of course it has a right to exist. A state succeeds in being established, so it is legitimate. Welcome to planet Earth. Statehood is an abstract idea. A state exists because people think it exists.

        Talkback – I believe it was you who asked to see the quote from UNGA 181. You could have said “thank you” (that’s what good people say even if they don’t mean it). You’re welcome!

      • echinococcus
        July 16, 2017, 10:09 pm

        “Nathan”

        Nobody expects a Zionist to understand the concept of “right”. Whoever has such expectations, just because Zionists are obsessed with “delegitimation” of late (unlike you), is illuded.

        Especially now that you have demonstrated yourself that the Zionist entity has no right to be there at all. Don’t you worry your full head of hair, it’s unlikely to survive the “full-spectrum” dominance of the US.

      • talknic
        July 17, 2017, 3:09 am

        @ echinococcus July 16, 2017, 2:48 pm

        “Thank you for demonstrating the contradiction in Talknic’s continuous argument to recognize squatting rights to the Zionist invaders”

        You’re delusional. The Zionist state was recognized by the International Comity of Nations. It’s simply a fact. Has nothing to do with me or what I’d like to see or what I think is wrong or right. The person reading the weather report isn’t responsible for the weather

        @ Nathan July 16, 2017, 3:20 am

        “according to the Partition Plan a Jew residing in the proposed Arab State can become a citizen in the proposed Jewish state.”

        That’s right and by which they are then prohibited from permanently residing in the Arab State as citizens of the Jewish State without an appropriate Arab State permission. It’s NORMAL. The same as Australian immigration law and probably every other State on the planet except in the diseased mind of a ZioFool

        ” In other words, … … … “

        No thanks. The actual words are the only words applicable.

        “You take the position that only the borders of the Partition Plan are legitimate.”

        No. What I have done is point out the fact that they are the borders proclaimed by Israel in its plea for recognition and recognized as Israeli by a majority of the International Community of Nations, legitimate or not and the fact that no country has ever recognized any territories Israel has acquired by war since proclaiming those borders

        ” but you don’t accept the very legitimacy of the Partition Plan”

        It was completely against the UN Charter. Never the less, Israel now exists. Legitimate or not. As such it should be held responsible to it’s legal obligations, held to the laws it claimed it would uphold in order to be recognized, withdraw, pay reparations

        ” Should one understand your position to be that at first Israel should withdraw to the Partition Plan borders, and then afterwards you propose fighting the legitimacy of the Jewish state even in the borders that you “agree” to?”

        The Palestinian have the right to pursue their full legal rights. Israel has no valid legal claim to any territories outside of those borders by which it was recognized.

        “Obviously, it’s silly to think that such a ploy would succeed”

        What ploy? It’s simply one of the many legal options open to the Palestinians. I doubt it will ever come to pass for the simple reason that the Palestinians have stated they’d give/cede 78% of their rightfull territories to Israel for peace.

        “The important issue is the intellectual sneakiness”

        Uh huh. Stating the facts against the Hasbara is like holy water to Nosferatu

        “Just state your opinion that the Jewish state shouldn’t exist. That’s your ideology, and there’s no need to pretend that it’s an issue of international law.”

        But it does exist! I should deny reality because of what you think my ideology should be? No thanks

        “Finally, why are you such a rude person? It shouldn’t be such a difficult task to tell someone that you disagree (“chewing gum”) while at the same time maintaining the basic rules of politeness (“walking in a straight line”). “

        Why be polite to anyone who supports liars, cheats and the slaughter of innocents by the Zionist Colonization program?

        “Good luck facing the challenge of normal human relations”

        Zionism has no place in normal human relations.

      • eljay
        July 17, 2017, 7:29 am

        || Nathan: … Why would you conclude that the Zionist entity has no right to exist? Of course it has a right to exist. A state succeeds in being established, so it is legitimate. … ||

        Israel exists and IMO it should continue to exist:
        – within its / self-proclaimed / Partition borders;
        – as a secular and democratic state of and for all of its citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees (CIERs), equally; and
        – for as long as its CIERs democratically wish for it to continue to exist.

        Religion-supremacist “Jewish State” has no right to exist. No state has a right to exist as a supremacist state of any kind.

      • Talkback
        July 17, 2017, 10:24 am

        Nathan: “Why would you conclude that the Zionist entity has no right to exist?”

        Because even in the territory of the proposed Jewish state Jewish Citizens of Palestine were a minority. Israel doesn’t even have an internal legitimation, there wasn’t a referendum prior to its proclamation. The other thing is that Jews proclaimed a state through war and expulsion and in clear violation of Sec Res 46, April 1948. And its nationality law is an Apartheid post expulsion law which has nothing to to with customary international and human rights law (as envisaged in the partition plan).

        Nathan: “Of course it has a right to exist. A state succeeds in being established, so it is legitimate.”

        If that was the case then the creation of Rhodesia, Nothern Cyprus and others were “legitimate”, too. But that’s not the case. States don’t get their legitimacy by being proclaimed. Sorry JSIL, ISIL and other terrorist violaters of territorial integrity.

      • echinococcus
        July 17, 2017, 11:59 am

        Talknic,

        The Zionist state was recognized by the International Comity of Nations. It’s simply a fact

        Unanswered and disregarded by Talknic for the 1,637th time (and I betcha not the last time, either):

        1) That fact does not mean that said state has the right to continue to exist, or can or should continue to defy humanity, or that the recognition confers any legality on anything it does, that it cannot be made unexist, that the so nicely named Comity has done things legitimately, or that the Imperialist-dominated puppets of the Comity of Nations cannot be told to shove it up theirs.

        2) 99% of your output consists in repeating the above irrelevant factoid as, or in lieu of, a defense of the initial Zionist squat’s legality while at the same time berating the Zionists …for exceeding the limits of their first self-declared squat.

        3) Nobody said you shouldn’t or cannot both hold the Zionist entity to its obligations as recognized by the imperialists themselves and at the same time ask for full justice. You can walk and chew gum.

      • Nathan
        July 17, 2017, 8:19 pm

        Talkback – I did not say that a state gets its legitimacy through its proclamation. A state that succeeds in being established is a legitimate state. There is no question that Israel has succeeded in being established.

        Talknic – I would imagine that your out-of-control rudeness is an emotional problem. Did you have a difficult childhood?

      • echinococcus
        July 17, 2017, 10:19 pm

        “Nathan”,

        Sure it succeeded in getting established, not in getting any legitimacy and it will have to be disestablished.

        As for civility, you’re at the wrong place. You’ll be more comfortable at: http://tinyurl.com/ydhvam2x

      • talknic
        July 18, 2017, 4:08 am

        @ Nathan July 17, 2017, 8:19 pm

        “Talknic – I would imagine that your out-of-control rudeness is an emotional problem. Did you have a difficult childhood?”

        Uh? Propagandists for the putrid Zionist Colonization of Palestine project aren’t deserving of any respect. I don’t care that you might be offended.

      • MHughes976
        July 18, 2017, 9:08 am

        I agree with Nathan – and with Hobbes – to the extent of saying that established and functional polities should not lightly be called illegitimate, thus inviting great dangers and uncertain outcomes. Even basic rights can be disregarded for a time if there is serious hope that time will make things better, if the custom and consent of the society seems to make insistence on those rights premature and if acting according to those customs brings something like benefit all round. But if there is no all round benefit, but considerable misery for many, and no general consent among those involved and if rights are being disregarded relentlessly or on what our colleague Yonah calls a cruel vector then I think that these are circumstances in which, as I think Locke shows, illegitimacy sets in.
        International recognition is important. We shouldn’t be too ready to put ourselves outside the consensus of the human race but the formalities of recognition do not always amount to human consensus and if a blind eye is being turned to something seriously wrong then the word of what is really only a committee – made up of powerful and well-informed people, maybe, but only of people, not gods – can’t be the last word.

      • Talkback
        July 18, 2017, 9:11 am

        Nathan: “A state that succeeds in being established is a legitimate state.”

        Same nonsense. Ex injuria jus non oritur.

        Nathan: “Talknic – I would imagine that your out-of-control rudeness is an emotional problem. Did you have a difficult childhood?”

        Wait, it’s not Talknic who is a Zionist.

  8. Emet
    July 9, 2017, 8:26 am

    All of those who celebrated UNESCO’s decision need to know that they are further condemning the Palestinian Arabs to the desert. By not acknowledging the Jewish connection to this site and understanding that Israel will never walk away from it, you are telling the Palestinians that their struggle is futile. It’s like saying to a Christian that Christ is no longer part of Christianity. Great victory, well done. Israel will continue to manage the site as it does with others. In the meantime be sure to send water to your “friends” in the desert. It’s hot and lonely out there. And here’s a finger to all those who are going to “double down” on their pro-Palestinian efforts as a result of this comment.

    • John O
      July 9, 2017, 3:55 pm

      @Emet

      The Jewish connection is fully acknowledged; as are the Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Shinto, Taoist, Animist, pagan, agnostic and atheist connections. It’s a WORLD heritage site.

      Why cannot you bear to share a sacred space with the rest of humanity?

      • echinococcus
        July 9, 2017, 4:06 pm

        Perhaps because they believe that they don’t belong to it?

      • Nathan
        July 9, 2017, 10:53 pm

        John O – Every time I look at the Mondoweiss website, I am told that “They fear the truth. Mondoweiss reports it”. Apparently, the above Mondoweiss article fears the truth. Reporting the Ibrahimi Mosque a world heritage site was not done in such a way as to “fully acknowledge” the historic context of this building.

      • MHughes976
        July 12, 2017, 10:13 am
    • John O
      July 10, 2017, 11:35 am

      @Nathan

      UNESCO has a policy of not commenting on the religious aspects of world heritage sites:
      http://lobelog.com/israel-takes-aim-at-unesco-again/#comment-661940

      Take your beef up with UNESCO.

      • MHughes976
        July 10, 2017, 5:24 pm

        Someone mentioned the Alhambra – I looked at the Unesco document about it and had previously looked at Unesco on Canterbury Cathedrsl. You’re right that they try not to mention religious controversies. They do of course have to mention that Canterbury Cathedral is a working Anglican place of worship. On the Alhambra they mention things that are obviously Islamic, such as the Nasrid and Hispano-Muslim style of architecture. I think in a way that Herodian style should have been mentioned in the same manner. But there’s nothing you could say that would satisfy the Zionists, who will not accept that the building is very strange one, explained by nearly nothing in the ancient record. Meanwhile, it is Palestinian in the same way that the Alhambra is in normal usage Spanish and Canterbury Cathedral Anglican, except for the recent violent appropriation of part of it.

      • Nathan
        July 10, 2017, 7:58 pm

        MHughes976 – Yes, obviously, it should have been mentioned that the building is Herodian. Why, in your opinion, was this very interesting and important fact not included in the UNESCO decision? No one seems to be willing to answer this question. There is one person who is very intense in trying to prove that King Herod wasn’t the king of Judea and that he wasn’t a Jew, and methinks he doth protest too much (but he won’t give an opinion as to why UNESCO wouldn’t mention that Herod is the builder of this site). What do you make of it?

        John O – I didn’t mention anything about religion or the religious aspects of the world heritage site in Hebron. I mentioned that the building appearing in the above photo was built in the first century BC by King Herod of Judea. I commented that the building is a smaller copy of the Second Temple. In short, I commented on the date in which the building was built, its design and its builder. My question was very simple: Why didn’t UNESCO mention that the building was built by King Herod? That’s history (world heritage), not religion. What do you think? Was it politics or does someone in UNESCO need to retake the classical course of “archeology for dummies”?

      • MHughes976
        July 11, 2017, 3:07 pm

        I’d think they’d say, by way of formal reply, that attributions of style are inessential: they were following their normal rules, in that the place is not in internationally recognised Israeli territory, in that it is in frequent use by Palestinian Muslims – as Canterbury Cathedral is in daily use by Anglicans – in that Palestine is at very least a Unesco constituent of a sort. If this isn’t Palestine for Unesco purposes what is? Enough was said to justify the judgement that it’s a World Heritage site – moreover drawing attention to the religion of the founders is not a normal Unesco practice.
        On the other hand the situation here is very strange, the buildings being undocumented, in which circumstance the Herodian style is an undeniably important, though not conclusively revealing, clue. So the ‘formal reply’ would not be quite enough, I must admit.
        So I think that the Unesco majority must have wanted to make some sort of a stand, by simply calling the place Palestinian, against the constant stream of insulting Israeli insistence that the Palestinians, living and breathing people who bleed when pricked, write poetry and study scientific matters, are somehow deficient in political rights by not having a culture ‘of their own’ – that dark stream being insufferable to many even when its insults don’t splash on us personally.

      • YoniFalic
        July 12, 2017, 12:02 am

        I’m not sure that people really understand what sort of structure is being discussed.

        Look at this document.

        http://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2684&context=etd

        Search for the following.

        Fig. 14

        The structure is essentially a big fence that is made out of stone and that surrounds the temenos. While we may be impressed by it now, the ancients tended not to take credit for such structures. For example, the Temple in Jerusalem was an object of reverence but not the wall around it.

      • RoHa
        July 12, 2017, 1:16 am

        ” living and breathing people who bleed when pricked, ”

        I saw you sneak that in. And do Palestinians laugh when they are tickled?

        And if they are wronged?

      • MHughes976
        July 12, 2017, 10:15 am

        I fear that they may have completely forgotten what being highly tickled is like.

    • zaid
      July 10, 2017, 12:04 pm

      It must be frustrating to see the World give you the finger Emet.

      The world have spoken: Al-Khalil is ours and ours only.

  9. lonely rico
    July 9, 2017, 10:05 am

    Emet –
    Israel will continue to manage the site as it does with others.

    «Manage the site.»
    How does that work again?
    Ah yes, Israel will continue its racist criminality,
    continue to humiliate, bully, steal, injure and murder the Palestinians,
    without any sign of humanity or generosity of spirit.

  10. eljay
    July 9, 2017, 6:21 pm

    … Naftali Bennet, Israel’s education minister and the chairman of the country’s committee to UNESCO, called the UNESCO ruling an attempt to “serve those who try to wipe the Jewish state off the map.” …

    Religion-supremacist “Jewish State” is an unjust and immoral construct. It has no business being on the map.

    Like Jerusalem, Hebron is in not-Israel. Israel, its military and its colonists have no business being in Hebron (or Jerusalem).

    Bennet is a Zionist ass. He has no business preaching to anyone.

    • Bont Eastlake
      July 9, 2017, 8:10 pm

      If only Western nations would stop propping up this pathetic, apartheid regime and walk the talk. One hand is criticising while the other hands over bags of money.

      There are more Zionists among the non-Jewish populations of Europe and North America than there are Zionist Jews in Israel, I think!

Leave a Reply