Anti-Semitism accusations against ‘Dyke March’ prove pro-Israel lobby will torch LGBT rights for marginalized people

Activism
on 149 Comments

As the annual LGBTQ Pride parades took place last weekend, a small collective of LGBT organizers with pro-Palestinian views attracted international controversy when they were accused of anti-Semitism by an employee of a pro-Israel advocacy group. Chicago’s chapter of the annual Dyke March, an annual march of mostly lesbians held since 1981, and nationally since 1993, was subjected to a wide-reaching smear campaign initiated by Laurel Grauer who alleged that the Dyke March either ejected Jews or individuals carrying Jewish symbols from the march out of apparent anti-Jewish prejudice.

Grauer is a manager of programs and operations for A Wider Bridge, a nonprofit that organizes LGBT-themed trips to Israel and sanitizes Israel’s image as a human rights violator by coordinating pro-Israel support within American LGBT communities. Her accusations were repeated in multiple media outlets.

But organizers and eyewitnesses gave a different story. According to individuals present at the march, many paraders wore kippas, Stars of David, and other visible symbols of the Jewish faith without being asked to leave. March organizers clarified that three individuals, including Grauer, were asked to leave after repeatedly expressing support for Israel and Zionism. During the march, Grauer and others attempted to change protest chants to remove the word “Palestine.” This rhetoric, in conjunction with their use of rainbow flags with superimposed Star of David that loosely resembled the Israeli flag, sparked an initial discussion. During that two-hour discussion, Grauer and the others reaffirmed their support for Zionism, prompting the marchers to ask her and her party to leave.

Text messages sent from Laura Grauer to the Chicago Dyke March. (Image: the Chicago Dyke March)

March organizers repeatedly clarified that Jewish symbols were welcome, so long as they did not signify support for the Israeli government. Witnesses corroborated this version of events. Text message screengrabs published by the Dyke March organizers show that Grauer was aware of the march’s stance on supporting Palestinian liberation and she may have anticipated a confrontation; those messages reaffirm that the Dyke March was permissive of Jewish pride flags provided they were not used to signify support for Israeli policy.

A Wider Bridge has a history of issuing allegations of anti-Semitism against its critics, including a 2016 incident in which its volunteers falsely claimed that leftists had protested a Jewish prayer service they had organized, when in fact the protesters targeted a pro-Israel lobbying reception.

The Chicago Dyke March takes a strict policy regarding racism, and holds that Zionism is a form of white supremacy, citing Israel’s legalized discrimination against Palestinians and the forced displacement of Palestinians to build Israeli settlements. In particular, the Dyke March emphasized in a statement released this week, its “priority is to ensure a safer space for those who are most marginalized” and that the March “welcome[s] and include[s] people of all identities, but not all ideologies.” Among those people who are most marginalized, of course, are Palestinians, Arabs, and immigrants who are queer.

Palestinians who are queer have repeatedly expressed their position that Palestinian queers face different challenges that are often misunderstood by those involved in the Western LGBT movement. Among the most jarring of those challenges is the fact that Israeli intelligence agencies have blackmailed gay Palestinians into working as informants, lest they be “outed”. Members of the Muslim community, regardless of nationality, have also pointed out that they are often forced to pick between their faith and sexual orientation. The cynical use of LGBT rights in anti-Muslim discourse has further contributed to the erasure of Muslim queers. In addition, LGBT immigrants who may qualify for asylum for persecution suffered because of their status as LGBT persons are often forced to go into graphic detail about their trauma in front of judges and asylum officers, and therefore rarely have the luxury of choosing when to come out; as a result, they often lack the communal support systems that others have and may be compelled to simply stay undocumented and closeted as they remain vulnerable to deportation.

All of these challenges are exactly why the universalist and inclusive message underpinning the Chicago Dyke March’s support for Palestinian rights and stringent opposition to state violence and oppression are so important–and why A Wider Bridge’s smear campaign is so dangerous. While the United States has made considerable progress in opening up public spaces for LGBT persons from some backgrounds, LGBT persons from other backgrounds–like those at the Dyke March–remain in a very vulnerable and precarious state. Using bogus allegations of anti-Semitism to sink the Dyke March or intimidate it into bending strict policies designed to ensure inclusion for people from marginalized backgrounds is an outright attack on one of the few spaces where those individuals can be queer and proud.

A Wider Bridge’s smear campaign closely resembles the objectionable and challenged practices of other organizations that have co-opted LGBT pride marches. In New York City, twelve demonstrators from No Justice No Pride were arrested for holding a sit-in to block an NYPD-sponsored pride march, pointing to the NYPD’s violence against black, brown and indigenous communities and citing police discrimination against black, brown, and indigenous LGBT persons. In Washington D.C., members of No Justice No Pride were arrested in a separate protest against Wells Fargo’s sponsorship of a pride event, citing Wells Fargo’s investment in the Dakota Access Pipeline through the Sioux Standing Rock Territory.

While all of these controversies differ, all of them highlight the challenges that members of marginalized groups face in the context of LGBT pride marches that seek to normalize state violence and corporate complicity in it. The use of LGBT discourse to pinkwash Israeli state violence–and A Wider Bridge’s slanderous allegations against those who do not comply–are simply one part of an ugly trend to turn pride events from a commemoration of the sacrifices of marginalized peoples into an effort to sanitize their marginalization.

About Amith Gupta

Amith Gupta is a law student at New York University, where he is an Institute of International Law & Justice scholar. He is a Palestine solidarity activist.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

149 Responses

  1. Emory Riddle
    July 4, 2017, 5:47 pm

    Accusations of anti-semitism? Unheard of.

    Seriously though, how much longer will this strategy smearing people with that label continue to have any effectiveness? And how bad is the backlash going to be when it all blows up?

    • oldgeezer
      July 4, 2017, 6:30 pm

      Apart from some public figures how effective is the accusation now? I would suggest that it has very little impact on most people and it has been for quite a while. It isn’t hard for a rational person to see through it.

      It is still seems to be very effective for a lot of zionists, permitting them to intellectually ignore the facts which are plain for all to see.

      • JosephA
        July 5, 2017, 6:37 pm

        It will be the same result as it was when McCarthyism died, I predict.

  2. echinococcus
    July 4, 2017, 6:58 pm

    March organizers repeatedly clarified that Jewish symbols were welcome, so long as they did not signify support for the Israeli government.

    That ship sailed off a long time ago.

    Which “Jewish symbol” is not an official Zionist entity symbol?
    Even conceding that some are not, which aren’t highly suspect?
    Even if those identifying themselves as “Jewish” wanted to reclaim these symbols, they haven’t done it on time.

    They will remain suspect as long as they are not accompanied by a clear anti-Zionist symbol or statement.

  3. goldmarx
    July 4, 2017, 9:39 pm

    The problem with the Chicago Dyke March’s position is that it is contradictory. On the one hand, Ilona Figueroa of CDM said Grauer & Co were expelled because of their Pride Flag; Alexis Martinez of CDM said it had nothing to do with the Flags; it was because disruptive chants were heard coming from Grauer’s contingent. In contrast, Grauer and fellow marcher Eleanor Anderson gave a consistent account of their version of events.

    The above-cited correspondence between Martinez and Grauer confirms Grauer’s claim that she had marched in the CDM for many years prior,and no one complained or witnessed any disruptions or provocations coming from her. So why would Grauer veer off course in 2017 and decide to be disruptive? Anyone interested in the truth would pose this rather obvious question.

    Prior to this year’s march, the CDM never explicitly stated that it is an anti-Zionist organization, just pro-Palestinian. Since Grauer supports an independent Palestine, it made sense that she would not feel excluded.

    • YoniFalic
      July 5, 2017, 12:16 am

      Obviously, people are beginning to realize that after Auschwitz it was vile and criminal to found a state in post-Auschwitz genocide. There is no place on the planet for Zionism.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 5, 2017, 4:21 am

        You mean capitalist nationalism. Zionism didn’t come out of nowhere.

      • AlienCat
        July 5, 2017, 11:12 pm

        Your attempt to conflate Zionism with genocide is reprehensible of course, but not surprising. Do you understand the meaning of the word genocide? It is attitudes such as yours which make a Jewish state in the world a continuing necessity.

  4. goldmarx
    July 5, 2017, 7:15 am

    “…people are beginning to realize that after Auschwitz it was vile and criminal to found a state in post-Auschwitz genocide.”

    Seriously? In the previous years of the March, they were not ‘aware’ of this? Is that what the Chicago Dyke Marchers who approached Grauer’s group said at the time, or are you just providing them with a rationalization to deflect from their arguably anti-Semitic action?

    • echinococcus
      July 5, 2017, 11:40 am

      Goldmarx,

      In the previous years of the March, they were not ‘aware’ of this?

      Drip, drip.

      their arguably anti-Semitic action?

      Argue all you want. You Zs devalued that word to absolute meaningless. It doesn’t scare any longer.

      Now it’s up to so-called Jewish propaganda to prove (or pretend) itself anti-Zionist if they want to be acceptable.

    • Mooser
      July 5, 2017, 1:42 pm

      “Seriously? In the previous years of the March, they were not ‘aware’ of this?”

      Hey, live and learn. Better late than never.

      • Mooser
        July 5, 2017, 1:47 pm

        “Seriously? In the previous years of the March, they were not ‘aware’ of this?”

        Oh, sorry, “Nathan”. I forgot that our history teaches us to be complacent about our entitlements and privileges.

  5. Sibiriak
    July 5, 2017, 11:49 am

    @goldmarx

    By your own account, it appears to be a anti-Zionist action, not an anti-Semitic one.

    1) she had marched in the CDM for many years prior…

    2) Prior to this year’s march, the CDM never explicitly stated that it is an anti-Zionist

    Clearly, what had changed wasn’t that the CDM had suddenly become anti-Semitic. What had changed was that it had become explicitly and vehemently anti-Zionist, and, rightly or wrongly, they ejected Grauer et al. because of their Zionist convictions , if not actions.

    Grauer’s account confirms this (emphasis added):

    Jewish members of the Dyke Collective , or those who were Jewish and said they were speaking on behalf of the March organizers, said I had to leave because even if I saw this a Jewish Pride flag, “this is seen as an Israeli Pride Flag and offensive to others.”

    * * *
    “Are you a Zionist?” “This march is pro-Palestine and explicitly anti-Zionist.” Just as I did not hide my flag, I did not hide when asked point-blank, that, yes, I care about the State of Israel. Yes, I believe it does exist and that it should continue to exist.

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.797845

    Rightly or wrongly, the flag was seen as a Zionist symbol and was objected to on that basis, not because it was a Jewish symbol.

    So, I don’t how you can argue that Grauer et al.’s ejection was an anti-Semitic action.

    • goldmarx
      July 5, 2017, 2:39 pm

      Well, it wasn’t an openly anti-Semitic action. However, there’s more than one way to skin a cat. Jewish history is replete with anti-Semitic actions disguised in code words. As echinococcus pointed out, every Jewish symbol can be seen as a Zionist symbol (with the alibi being that Israel has used it at one time or another) so the context is decisive in determining whether a hate action occurred.

      • Mooser
        July 5, 2017, 3:27 pm

        ,” every Jewish symbol can be seen as a Zionist symbol”

        And which Jewish symbol is not a Zionist symbol?
        Which symbol, which aspect of Jewishness, has Zionism explicitly rejected, to the point that it is plainly unfair to associate it with Zionism?

        Did it ever occur to you that we will have to take responsibility for Zionism? That we will have to give an accounting for it?

      • goldmarx
        July 5, 2017, 3:57 pm

        “Did it ever occur to you that we will have to take responsibility for Zionism? That we will have to give an accounting for it?”

        You or I are not responsible for intentionally conflating the two sets of symbols. That is the fault of Israeli governments, Left and Right, so it’s their responsibility to clean up the mess they made.

        Marchers have the responsibility to educate themselves so as not to fall for hasbarah. Else, they will fall into a pile of kharah (shit).

        Come to think of it, I knew there’s a reason why those 2 words rhyme.

      • Mooser
        July 5, 2017, 4:56 pm

        .” That is the fault of Israeli governments, Left and Right, so it’s their responsibility to clean up the mess they made.”

        Yeah, I bet they are working on making clear distinctions between Judaism and Zionism right now! After all “Jewish history is replete with anti-Semitic actions disguised in code words!”

      • JoeSmack
        July 5, 2017, 7:17 pm

        @goldmarx, at this point it seems like you are conceding that the action was not apparently anti-Semitic, and could only be anti-Semitism “by code”. The way to determine whether or not someone of any background was subject to covert discrimination would be to look at the actions that took place in a holistic manner.

        The fact that individuals were at the march publicly presenting themselves as Jewish without being asked to leave, the fact that Grauer concedes that she emphasized her support for Israel and thereby corroborated the claims of the organizers that it was about Israel rather than Jewishness, and the fact that the march organizers made exactly that distinction during previous conversations with Grauer (see the screengrab) would all indicate that she was not subject personally to anti-Jewish discrimination when being asked to leave. Hence, no anti-Semitism, just an attack on an LGBT march that embraced Palestinian rights.

      • echinococcus
        July 5, 2017, 11:43 pm

        every Jewish symbol can be seen as a Zionist symbol (with the alibi being that Israel has used it at one time or another) so the context is decisive…

        The only relevant context is that of clear anti-Zionist action (and I don’t mean JDL-style antisemitism witchhunt, either) while exhibiting said symbol. So context works for Neturei Karta, very clearly Ashkenaze and Jewish and firmly anti-Zionist. Haven’t seen much else.

        And yes, of course it is the responsibility of anyone who wants to call himself “Jewish”. Where the hell were they all these years? Now it is a bit too late to expect people to see anything but symbols of obsurantism, aggression, racism and genocide in any symbol used by the Zionists.

  6. lyn117
    July 5, 2017, 1:20 pm

    “Jew Dyke” used to sound like an insult. On the “Wider Bridge” website mission statement, there’s a lot about supporting Israel and virtually nothing about dealing with the specific issues Jewish LBGTQ folk face, e.g., the aforementioned term sounding derogatory.

    At least the the Chicago Dyke March folks are proudly trying to take the insult out of “Dyke”. It’s pretty clear the “Wider Bridge” is more about supporting Israel than LBGTQ rights or supporting the other “diversity” issues in Israel they claim.

    • echinococcus
      July 6, 2017, 7:19 am

      In fact, if the description below is accurate, that “Wider Bridge” is a gang of criminals intent on using and deviating to their own, criminal ends the protest movement against sexual preference discrimination:

      Grauer is a manager of programs and operations for A Wider Bridge, a nonprofit that organizes LGBT-themed trips to Israel and sanitizes Israel’s image as a human rights violator by coordinating pro-Israel support within American LGBT communities.

      It’s hard to understand how come the “Wider Bridge” slime haven’t been thrown out and slammed hard by the march organizers from day 0, as their participation, by definition, automatically brings into disrepute all American lesbian, gay etc. activists.

  7. Elliot
    July 5, 2017, 10:43 pm

    The Jewish LGBTQ flag is central here as goldmarx pointed out. Several of the versions of what happened at the Dyke March focus on the flag, including Electronic Intifada.

    In its statement supporting the eviction of the three Jewish women, Jewish Voice for Peace attacked the Jewish LGBTQ flag as a “rainbow flag with a blue Star of David identical in color, size and placement to the one on the Israeli flag” and went on to say that “Palestinians can justifiably feel unsafe around a blue Star of David in the center of a flag.”

    The inclusion of some Jews wearing Jewish symbols does not put the charge of anti-Semitism to rest. You can attack just part of an ethnic group and still be guilty of prejudice.

    The “your-opinions-are-making-me-feel-unsafe” argument used to be used by Israel supporters on college campuses against BDS. Now both sides are too fragile to handle disagreement.

    This was a big win for A Wider Bridge. They set the test – or trap – and the Dyke March walked right into it. Watch A Wider Bridge grow in influence and funds in the months to come.

    • chocopie
      July 6, 2017, 12:29 pm

      This was not a win for the pinkwashing group A Wider Bridge. CDM stuck by their position, did not back down or apologize, and their constituent organizations all supported them and issued statements to that effect.

      There was some negative coverage of the event in the mainstream press, some of it mildly critical of CDM, but there was no follow-up, no drama, no drawn-out controversy in the media. Nobody really cares. And the radical groups taking part in CDM aren’t too concerned with what the mainstream writes. I know some of the people involved and believe me, they do not see this as a win for A Wider Bridge at all. The radical groups did not back down and the mainstream shrugged its shoulders and moved on.

      I agree that A Wider Bridge set a trap and Dyke March walked right into it, innocently. However, it didn’t work out the way AWB expected. There was very little mainstream interest in this event. And among radicals and progressives, support for DM was rock solid. Zionists are on notice they are OUT of the progressive movements. And this position is heading towards the mainstream.

      The dumb “unsafe” arguments were not a centerpiece of DM’s position. The Palestinians I know of who first spotted the Zionists in the march did not feel unsafe. They felt angry and knew they had wide support when they first approached the Zionists and began questioning them. This isn’t Israel and it isn’t Israeli occupied territory–Palestinians here are US citizens, born here, some of them are privileged people and have ties within a community that supports them. They know their rights. They are not scared of Zionists and not afraid to confront them. The tide is turning.

      • echinococcus
        July 6, 2017, 1:58 pm

        Thank you, Chocopie.
        In fact, it was an even more important failure for the Reichspropagandaabteilung.

        See the very recent post “In war against ‘cell phones,’ Israeli launches social media app” (already pulled from the menu?)

        http://mondoweiss.net/2017/07/against-israeli-launches/

        Big points are earned, for example, by signing a petition that requests a full apology from Chicago Dyke March organizers for excluding Zionist marchers or another that calls for the boycott of Roger Waters over the musician’s active BDS support.

      • Elliot
        July 6, 2017, 5:24 pm

        Chocopie: “Nobody really cares.”

        I agree. There was a brief big splash when giant, international media outlets such as Newsweek and the BBC giving this story prominent coverage. And then it quickly died down because, as you say, nobody really cares.
        The Dyke March incident was win-win for the activists on both sides of the Zionism debate. The radicals got their opinions reinforced as you noted. AWB is riding high on the wave of victimhood after successfully entangling with the Dykes.
        And still nobody really cares.
        So how did this passing drama help anyone in the real world?

      • JanetB
        July 6, 2017, 5:45 pm

        Thank you for telling us DM are being supported by other groups, I am currently having a break from posting on another board because apparently, I am anti-Semitic for not automatically believing that the Jewish women were being discriminated against.

    • echinococcus
      July 6, 2017, 2:10 pm

      “Eliot” too shoots himself in the foot. I mean, if even JVP agrees that it was a glaringly Zionist symbol and “attacks” it, there’s no argument.

      Also, he notes that the “your-opinions-are-making-me-feel-unsafe” argument was used by, typically, the JVP. Normal people reject Zionist nonsense not because of that nonsense (typically the last refuge of Zionist crybabies calling for repression and censorship) but because they oppose Zionist criminality, period.

      • Elliot
        July 6, 2017, 5:20 pm

        “if even JVP agrees that it was a glaringly Zionist symbol and “attacks” it, there’s no argument.”

        This may be news to you but there are Jewish anti-Semites. Many here have argued that Jewish Zionism is anti-Semitic because of its anti-Semitic premise that Jews don’t belong in Europe and elsewhere. Just because an organization or a movement that identifies as Jewish says the Jewish LGBTQ flag looks uncomfortably like the Israeli flag doesn’t change the Jewish star from a Jewish to a Zionist symbol.

      • echinococcus
        July 6, 2017, 8:41 pm

        Elliot,

        there are Jewish anti-Semites

        When you don’t define what you are talking about, any absurdity will be true –to whoever says it.

        If you define “antisemitism” as racism, i.e. strictly related to accident of birth (ancestry, not religion or any acquired traits), then whoever you are talking about is a total outlier, destined for the loony bin. Also, in that case, there is no need for an extra-fancy word for plain racism.

        If you define it as opposition to anything other than accident of birth, it is fully justified to bring criticism or opposition. I am biologically of Jewish ancestry with a well-known surname, so what? I won’t stand anyone calling me Jewish because I have a lot of objections to both the stupid, perverted German-romantic idea of a “people” (including the non-religious, a concept uniquely shared by Nazism and Zionism) and to the ridiculous superstition of a tribal (=”racial”) deity.

        If that makes me antisemite or antiseptic who the flute cares? It is not racism, period.

        Just because an organization or a movement that identifies as Jewish says the Jewish LGBTQ flag looks uncomfortably like the Israeli flag doesn’t change the Jewish star from a Jewish to a Zionist symbol

        Of course it doesn’t. Strawman.

        But the fact that it is used at all by the Zionists does change any symbol from a Jewish to a Zionist symbol. Because an overwhelming majority of people who call themselves “Jewish” out of either religion or tribal nationalism do materially support and are accessories to the Zionist crimes, and because the three blind mice among them, who somehow oppose Zionism or dissociate themselves from it (or even do not even dissociate but try to put a “human face” on genocidal practice), were nowhere to claim it back all these years.

        If you want to use any “Jewish” symbol, you have to first claim it back. As done by the late Bund or Neturei Karta: Flaunt that symbol if you must but along with a vehement, obvious fight against Zionism. And not as some “pan-Jewish” fascist nonsense but as a religious or strictly cultural (ie Yiddish, Mizrahi, etc.) ethnicity marker.

      • Elliot
        July 6, 2017, 11:19 pm

        EN,
        “But the fact that it is used at all by the Zionists does change any symbol from a Jewish to a Zionist symbol.”
        Lots of racist groups use some form of the cross. Neo-nazi skinheads use a form of the cross. By your logic the cross is no longer Christian but a racist symbol.

      • Mooser
        July 7, 2017, 11:17 am

        “If you want to use any “Jewish” symbol, you have to first claim it back.”

        Oh, no “echin”. It is the Gentiles job to keep those symbols well-delineated, and hand them back in good order, any time we want them. Even if it is for one demo.

      • Mooser
        July 7, 2017, 1:54 pm

        “By your logic the cross is no longer Christian but a racist symbol.”

        Hey, under that sign they conquered, “Eliot”. How do you think a cross appears to a ‘pagan’, or a Muslim, or perhaps a Jew?

      • Elliot
        July 7, 2017, 4:05 pm

        @ Mooser:
        ” How do you think a cross appears to a ‘pagan’, or a Muslim, or perhaps a Jew?”
        As a Jew, the Christian cross makes me feel unsafe. Anybody wearing a cross should be thrown out of any civilized group. In fact, any two lines that are at right angles to each other remind me of the cross which White hate groups use. In fact, even if the angle between the two lines is 60 degrees or more – that’s way too close enough for me. It makes me feel unsafe.

      • Mooser
        July 7, 2017, 4:29 pm

        “As a Jew, the Christian cross makes me feel unsafe.”

        Well, considering what Christians have done to you, I shouldn’t wonder.
        Christmas season must be hell for you.

      • Mooser
        July 7, 2017, 4:43 pm

        “Eliot” if it is of any comfort (and I certainly hope it is) you are not the first or only person to tell us about the chilling and frightening effect of the Christian cross. “Yonah” has mentioned it, and so has “Jon s”, so don’t feel isolated in your fear.

      • gamal
        July 7, 2017, 4:52 pm

        “Christmas season must be hell for you.”

        everywhere you go money worries

        https://youtu.be/cwJ6RDkjgjE

      • Elliot
        July 7, 2017, 5:12 pm

        @ Mooser
        Thank you, I think, for your concern. The cross doesn’t bother me one bit and Christmas is a hoot. But if the cross makes anybody feel unsafe it should be banned, just like the Jewish star.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 7, 2017, 5:17 pm

        Elliot:

        “Anybody wearing a cross should be thrown out of any civilized group..”

        Does this mean only on a personal level?? All the Nordic Countries have a Christian Cross in their flags.. All though I am not a religious person, I must say that our (Nordic) civilization owes a lot to the Christianity in the past..

      • Elliot
        July 7, 2017, 5:43 pm

        @ Kaisa
        Are you kidding me?! The Nordic countries make folks feel more unsafe than anywhere else. Your flags are the principal reason Christian crosses should be outlawed!

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 7, 2017, 6:01 pm

        Elliot:

        “Are you kidding me?! The Nordic countries make folks feel more unsafe than anywhere else. Your flags are the principal reason Christian crosses should be outlawed..”

        An interesting point of view.. Could you open it up for me a little bit??

      • Mooser
        July 7, 2017, 6:05 pm

        “But if the cross makes anybody feel unsafe it should be banned, just like the Jewish star.”

        Okay, I realize you are being flippant Eliot. And that’s alright, because the idea of anybody except us Jews defining us, or symbolizing us, is indeed a hoot, and not to be given serious consideration. It’s never happened before, and is unlikely to happen in the future. Besides it can always be handled with cries of “anti-semitism”.

      • gamal
        July 7, 2017, 6:29 pm

        “How do you think a cross appears to a ‘pagan’, or a Muslim, or perhaps a Jew?”

        Now thats interesting, say suppose if my Islam didn’t protect me from such fear? what use would it have?

        say on the other hand suppose if it never let you down and one day you stumbled in to the ghetto just as Jah Shaka threw this one on, never let me down, everywhere i go never let me down, wolete seyon

        I am telling you burn one big spliff put on your seinheissers and listen, never let you down Elliot.

        https://youtu.be/sWm5FG-Bjns

      • RoHa
        July 7, 2017, 7:13 pm

        A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine!

      • echinococcus
        July 7, 2017, 9:01 pm

        Elliot,

        Neo-nazi skinheads use a form of the cross. By your logic the cross is no longer Christian but a racist symbol

        It has been so many times in history.

        Apart from that, your pretending that you can’t read is a bit inane: you do write. More specifically, when did the overwhelming majority of all people calling themselves “Christian” actively support the skinheads? Did you get a shave inside the skull?

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 7, 2017, 10:26 pm

        About the “Neo-Nazis” in Nordic Countries:

        They call themselves a “Nordic resistance movement” and their symbol is a black arrow (?) on a green backgroud (see the link). They are a couple of hundred people around the Nordic Countries and they oppose all the immigration and admire Putin and Russia. They also oppose democracy. At the moment they are so few, that I don’t think anyone is really worried. The police know who they are and they are under constant observation.

        https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-9711208

      • Elliot
        July 7, 2017, 11:41 pm

        Ecchinoccus –

        You wrote: ““But the fact that it is used at all by the Zionists does change any symbol from a Jewish to a Zionist symbol.”

        I wrote: “But the fact that it is used at all by the neo-Nazis does change any symbol from a Christian to a neo-Nazi symbol.”

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 8, 2017, 6:10 am

        “Neo-nazi skinheads use a form of the cross..”

        This sentence left me wondering.. What cross are we now talking about here?? If you are talking about the swastika, you should know it has nothing to do with the Cristianity.. The swastika, is an ancient religious symbol traditionally used in the Indian subcontinent, East Asia and Southeast Asia and it was used in many other contexts (like the Finnish Air Force 1918-45) before the Nazis took it and “spoiled” it’s meaning.

        In Finland all the children who are baptized, become automatically members of the church, mostly Lutheran. And so did I. Since I am not religious, for many years I was thinking about “separating” from the Church, because being a member means, you automatically pay taxes to the Church, to support it’s work and I was not sure, if it represented my values.

        The past years the Lutheran church has shown it’s humanity and ability to open up for difficult issues, like Gay marriages and their adoption rights, speak up for those, who for somereason “have fallen” from their normal lives and/or the society and when we had that huge amount of refugees suddenly crossing the boarder 2015, the Lutheran Church opened up it’s doors to accomodate just anyone without a shelter, not asking what their religion was. Finnish Lutheran church also has projects in Gaza and West Bank, to support the normalization of the lives of the Palestinians.. So for me the Finnish Lutheran Church has started to mean many kind of work for the humanity and all though the Bible itself, does not mean that much to me, at the moment, the Lutheran Church mostly shares the same values I have and I’ve decided to “stay”.

        So I would be interested in hearing more about this anxiety about the cross.. For me, at the moment, it symbolizes the humanity.

      • echinococcus
        July 8, 2017, 11:33 am

        Elliott,

        You wrote: ““But the fact that it is used at all by the Zionists does change any symbol from a Jewish to a Zionist symbol.”
        I wrote: “But the fact that it is used at all by the neo-Nazis does change any symbol from a Christian to a neo-Nazi symbol.”

        The quote was:
        “But the fact that it is used at all by the Zionists does change any symbol from a Jewish to a Zionist symbol. Because an overwhelming majority of people who call themselves “Jewish” out of either religion or tribal nationalism do materially support and are accessories to the Zionist crimes…” etc

        That’s why you were called on your typically malignant (if not totally ditsy) distortion. And now you even have the undying crust to insist.
        I don’t have time to research your history to decide if this is deliberately malignant propaganda tactics or plain ditsiness.

      • Mooser
        July 8, 2017, 11:40 am

        ” More specifically, when did the overwhelming majority of all people calling themselves “Christian” actively support the skinheads? “

        A little empathy, please. The scars of persecution last for several generations, and overstated fears are part of it.
        Also the demand that everybody respect and delineate your symbols just the way you want.

      • Elliot
        July 8, 2017, 1:17 pm

        Ecchinococus –
        Sez you. If all Jews are automatically accessories to Zionist crimes., then all Catholics are, by definition, accessories to paedophelia, mysoginy and the other ills of the Vatican and the worldwide Catholic Church, all Americans to any number of crimes an on and on.
        I don’t see either of us learning anything from the substantive part of our exchange and frankly am not interested in seeing any more of your trolling commentary.
        You are welcome to enjoy the last word.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 8, 2017, 3:49 pm

        Elliot:

        ““Are you kidding me?! The Nordic countries make folks feel more unsafe than anywhere else. Your flags are the principal reason Christian crosses should be outlawed..”

        An interesting point of view.. Could you open it up for me a little bit??”

        You did not answer to me.. ?!?

      • Elliot
        July 8, 2017, 8:10 pm

        @Kaisa –
        Of course, Christianity, like other institutions is not nearly as anti-Semitic or prejudiced as it once was. And I[‘m happy for you that the Finnish Lutheran church is where it is.
        I was challenging Echinococus’ anti-Semitic statement by showing what it looked like to say the same stuff about Christians.

      • echinococcus
        July 8, 2017, 9:10 pm

        Elliott,

        If all Jews are automatically accessories to Zionist crimes., then all Catholics are, by definition, accessories to paedophelia, mysoginy and the other ills of the Vatican and the worldwide Catholic Church, all Americans to any number of crimes an on and on

        Distorting yet again.
        All self-identifying Jews are statistically suspect of sympathy or complicity with the political criminal group called Zionists, unless they clearly dissociate themselves, because an overwhelming majority of them are in fact sympathizers or accomplices.
        Not “automatically accessories” –that is your downright vicious distortion.

        Now, pedophilia is not the main criminal political aim of a fake-nationalist organization that the overwhelming majority of Catholics do aid and abet. If you have data to prove all that, please forward.
        So there is the second of your perverted distortions. Should we can take the charitable view and attribute it to emotion?

      • Elliot
        July 8, 2017, 10:33 pm

        @Kaisa –
        I’m happy for you that the Finnish Lutheran church is where it is. As I wrote, crosses are ask by me.
        I was using Echinococus’ anti-Semitic language and showing what it looked like to say the same stuff about Christians. As you indicate, it doesn’t look so good on Christians, Lutheran, Finnish or otherwise. But it’s ok to slam Jews (all in the name of defending Palestinians, of course).

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 9, 2017, 4:30 pm

        Elliot:

        I am not sure, if I got an explanation to what you meant when you wrote that: “Your flags are the principal reason Christian crosses should be outlawed..”

        Anyway, using anti-semitism as an argument when talking about the human rights of the Palestinians, is both cheap and coward way to avoid the main point of the whole issue, which is the fact that the Palestinians are entitled to have a normal life without an occupation and without those daily experiences of oppression and humiliation they now have to live with.

        Atleast here in the North, it would be the same human right activists, who now are defending the rights of the Palestinians, who would also defend the rights of the Jews, if such oppression started to arise here. So “working” against “us”, would be the same as “stubbing” your own legg..

        Life is too short to fight over piece of a land, and by the death, no-one will be able to take even a smallest piece of that land with them. So it is only about, how you choose to use your life.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 9, 2017, 4:34 pm

      • Mooser
        July 9, 2017, 4:37 pm

        .” But it’s ok to slam Jews (all in the name of defending Palestinians, of course).”

        Yup, “Elliot”, that’s about the way it is. Do you have a way of stopping this reaction? I’m glad you are starting to face the consequences of Zionism.

      • echinococcus
        July 9, 2017, 8:08 pm

        Kaisa,

        … it would be the same human right activists, who now are defending the rights of the Palestinians, who would also defend the rights of the Jews, if such oppression started to arise here

        Congratulations for wording it so well*.

        Unfortunately, it will have the opposite effect from the one you probably intended. Prove that you are anything but racist with regard to so-called Jewish people, and you get doubly hated for that. Such people are unhappy when the whole world cannot be imagined as one big hell inhabited by “antisemitic” devils, all intent on harassing and destroying “Jews”, whatever that means to the complainant.

        Why, they even have a big “non-Zionist” organization whose main goal is not to oppose the Zionist abomination but to sniff out and practice character assassination on stout antizionists who are called “antisemitic” without even a clear and credible indictment.
        —-
        *apart from a comma or two

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 10, 2017, 6:36 am

        Echino:

        Yes, I know. I got so well practised in Israel, so what ever they’ll try, they can’t silence me (unless they’ll shoot me).

        I am aware of the fact, I’d never be able to win that huge Zio-machinery, but I can promise to you, that as long as I live (or things won’t change), I’ll be (as we say in Finnish) “A THORN IN THEIR FLESH”, reminding them and not leting them forget what they really are doing. (As we also say in Finnish: “A small bother, is a bother too”.. ) :)

      • echinococcus
        July 10, 2017, 9:35 am

        Piikki,

        Fancy that! Looks like we’ve been speaking Finnish all along, here in the States, too.

      • eljay
        July 10, 2017, 10:33 am

        || Elliot: … If all Jews are automatically accessories to Zionist crimes … ||

        Not “all Jews”: Thanks to your fellow Zionists here at MW – who have pointed out more than once that most Jews are Zionists and support “Jewish State” project – it’s only “most Jews”.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 10, 2017, 12:17 pm

        Echi, or Eki, as I could call you in Finnish:

        “apart from a comma or two..”

        I have to admit, that my bad English grammar is not the Finnish school system to blame. I used to use my time in High School rather hanging out with my friends than studying, so my English comes mostly from the music and the movies I’ve listened to/watched.. And it has really been enough, when speaking with other non-natives, but when writing in here.. Those missed English lessions really show.. So it is not about the bad teachers, just about the lazy students.. :)

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 10, 2017, 1:04 pm

        hanging out.. what??! ..hanging around (I think, it should have been..)

      • echinococcus
        July 10, 2017, 1:54 pm

        hanging & grammar was fine

      • RoHa
        July 10, 2017, 8:09 pm

        “Fancy that! Looks like we’ve been speaking Finnish all along, here in the States, too.”

        It obviously wasn’t English.

      • echinococcus
        July 10, 2017, 10:27 pm

        RoHa,

        You’re lucky you can write: it gives you a chance to be understood by anyone at all.

  8. goldmarx
    July 5, 2017, 10:46 pm

    JoeSmack: I am not conceding anything. The CDM’s action was implicitly anti-Semitic, period. The fact that there were Jews supporting CDM does not negate the possibility that they were fulfilling the time-honored role of court Jews doing the dirty work of others.

    Grauer never said she emphasized her support for Israel – she only talked about it when she was interrogated by hostile marchers. (By the way, in the same breath , she mentioned her support for an independent Palestine). If they hadn’t approached her to start a provocation, nothing would have happened and she would not have said one word about Israel. The screen grabs only confirm that CDM’s leaders had no explicitly anti-Zionist policy until they did an about-face in the middle of the march to retroactively justify the expulsions.

    If, prior to the march, Alexis Martinez had stated EXPLICITLY that Zionists of any kind are not allowed to join in, then Grauer and Co. never would have shown up, and again, no incident.

    • Elliot
      July 6, 2017, 10:45 am

      @ Goldmarx, Thank you.

      One point:

      “The fact that there were Jews supporting CDM does not negate the possibility that they were fulfilling the time-honored role of court Jews doing the dirty work of others.”

      I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. The Dykes are not the Poritz and the Dyke March is not his court. These Jews believed they were acting in solidarity with Palestinians by validating the organizers’ decision to evict other Jews. They did a disservice to the organizers of the march by not speaking up re Jewish concerns and perceptions of anti-Semitism.

      Beyond intersectionality and solidarity these Jews were trying to accomplish an internal, Jewish goal. They want to accelerate the schism between non-Zionist and Zionist Jews. By proudly displaying their Jewish symbols at this march (where else do they walk around with Jewish symbols?) they were claiming their anti-Zionist Jewishness as authentically Jewish.

      But the second goal contradicts the assumptions of the first. If Judaism has become so corrupted by Zionism that even a Jewish star (of that right size and placement, of course) is now an offensive symbol of Israeli oppression, then we have to recognize that and engage those who are wrestling with that.

      The decision to kick out the three Jews validates the fusion of Zionism=Judaism while simultaneously rejecting it.

      Which is it?

    • JoeSmack
      July 6, 2017, 7:00 pm

      Goldmarxx: if you don’t think you are conceding anything, you should go back over your own comments in which you point to testimony suggesting this was about Israel.

      The presence of other visibly Jewish people at a small march who were NOT “interrogated” suggests that Jewishness was NOT a motivating factor in the initial “interrogation”. Rather, as the piece suggests, it was Grauer’s attempts to shout down pro-Palestine chanting. This, in conjunction with symbols whose meaning is ambiguous without greater context and commentary, plus the statements during the conversation, were grounds for the expulsion. Whether you think they were right or not, it is clear that it was over a political dispute over “Zionism” — not Grauer’s Jewish identity.

      Grauer’s lip-service about Palestinian independence is irrelevant to the issue of “Zionism”. Liberal Zionists and even official Israeli state maneuvering nominally accept Palestinian statehood, albeit over a shrinking landmass. Zionism is a question of identifying with the state engaging in the active colonization of Palestine, hence saying that one is ready to throw the Palestinians some leftovers in the abstract says nothing significant about one’s stance on “Zionism”.

      • Elliot
        July 6, 2017, 8:49 pm

        @ JoeSmack
        At this point there are so many competing versions of what happened that we can all pick and choose, as you did.

        What we do have is the positions various organizations and individuals have taken wrt the version of events that they hold to be true. This includes Jewish Voice for Peace’s statement marking the Jewish LGBTQ flag as oppressive to Palestinians and therefore not welcome at a rally where Palestinians are present – even though the Dyke March wasn’t about Zionism.

        Regarding the version of events that you believe: “Grauer’s attempts to shout down pro-Palestine chanting”. Why is that an evictable offense? Haven’t you never marched with people whose views and chants are offensive or at least problematic? And remember that none of this wasn’t a Palestine solidarity march. These are not core issues.

        I don’t think the eviction was anti-Semitic but how many people were won over by kicking them out? What was achieved by this and what was lost?

      • JoeSmack
        July 6, 2017, 11:29 pm

        @Elliot

        I find your comments misleading. First of all, there aren’t competing versions of what happened — all appear to corroborate the same series of events, while attaching different significance to them.

        Re: the flag — the issue, as is stated in the article above, is that the flag’s symbolism was *ambiguous*. It only became clear what it meant *to the flag-holder* once that person expressed their views on Israel/Zionism. That is, nobody (including JVP) argued that the flag or Jewish symbols, in the abstract, are offensive, but that they can become offensive depending on how they are used. The JVP statement gave the examples of so-called “price tag” attacks in which Jewish symbols are used to vandalize Palestinian homes, or the use of the Star of David on Israeli warplanes, etc. Here, like there, the flag itself and the symbol itself were not a problem on their own. They only *became* a problem once it became clear that Grauer attached a Zionist significance to the symbol and was using the flag to signify support for Israel. The screengrab is also consistent with this version of events.

        That version of the events is consistent with *all accounts*, including Grauer’s.

        “Haven’t you never marched with people whose views and chants are offensive or at least problematic? And remember that none of this wasn’t a Palestine solidarity march. These are not core issues.”

        Uhh, actually, it was a Palestine solidarity march. That was the point. It wasn’t just a general “lesbian march” or something. It was very clearly also a Palestine solidarity march, otherwise they would not have taken a stance on Zionism in the first place. You are misreading the platform of the march.

        As for marching with people who suck, yes, I’ve done it. I have also seen people get kicked out of marches for behaving inappropriately, for example, people who clearly hold the opposite views of those stated by the sponsoring organizations that are primarily there as provocateurs. Usually police are asked to remove them and send them to the other side of a barrier. Shouting down pro-Palestinian chanting when support for Palestine is part of the march’s message is an obvious “evictable offense”. You are trying to narrow the scope of what the marchers were marching about and ignoring the agenda that they set for themselves by replacing it with your own agenda. The whole point is that it *was* a core issue.

      • echinococcus
        July 7, 2017, 1:20 am

        Regarding the version of events that you believe: “Grauer’s attempts to shout down pro-Palestine chanting”. Why is that an evictable offense?

        Active accessory to crimes against humanity, including genocide.
        It is a hanging offense.

      • Elliot
        July 7, 2017, 9:00 am

        @JoeSmack
        “there aren’t competing versions of what happened — all appear to corroborate the same series of events, while attaching different significance to them.”

        I don’t know who you are reading but, for starters, compare Electronic Intifada (all about the flags):

        https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/chicago-dyke-march-accuser-wider-bridge-has-record-fabrications

        then JVP (partly about the flags):

        https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VG2cPkufLCFVSv4DmvRbOSQnzMdUt7so8AlrQHcXSyA/pub

        and to the statement in the Windy Times report (no mention of flags at all).

        “nobody (including JVP) argued that the flag or Jewish symbols, in the abstract, are offensive, but that they can become offensive depending on how they are used”

        This is entirely your opinion which doesn’t exist in the text. Read the JVP statement again.

        “It was very clearly also a Palestine solidarity march, otherwise they would not have taken a stance on Zionism in the first place. You are misreading the platform of the march.”

        I looked thru the 10 minute video of the march. I saw lots of flags and signs and banners. Just one Palestinian flag in the whole march. I hung out on the CDM website clicking around from the home page to mission statement to the 2017 march. I was looking for “Palestine” or “Zionism” or anything that might support your claim. Couldn’t find it. It may be buried somewhere that I missed but, if the Dyke March wanted this to be a Palestine solidarity march they weren’t telling the rest of the world very clearly.

      • Mooser
        July 7, 2017, 12:42 pm

        “It is a hanging offense.”

        Or in this case, a hanging-out offense.

      • JoeSmack
        July 7, 2017, 7:49 pm

        @Elliot

        I checked your sources and all of them describe the same version of events with no material differences or inconsistencies between them; the JVP statement, which you asked me to “read again” says literally the same things I did.

        From the EI piece, the only eyewitnesses quoted are those from the FTP Collective and Stefanie Skora, who make the same point I/this piece did — that the flags were ambiguous, and the holders were approached to asked what their intentions were given that the flag was ambiguous in meaning i.e. they did not simply reduce the issue to the flag itself, but the intentions of the flag holder. The FTP Collective did not mention the chants being drowned out as one of the factors for originally approaching AWB in conjunction with the flag, but it also didn’t deny them. Therefore, there is no inconsistency.

        The JVP piece explicitly states “The A Wider Bridge contingent loudly encouraged fellow participants to erase mentions of Palestine during solidarity chants” before going on to discuss the fact that the flag is ambiguous and “not inherently connected to the State of Israel”. In other words, the JVP version of events is identical to the one in the piece above and the version published by the Dyke March Collective. There is no difference or ambiguity. We are all talking about the same series of events.

        Lastly, there are the screengrabs themselves. Those show that the flag *in and of itself* is fine, but the spirit of the March and its support for Palestine were central. Again, consistent with saying that the flag was not a problem, rather the ideology held by the flag-holders and the way they used the flag to further that ideology was what was in question.

        Finally, you asked where it says they ever supported Palestine. The screenshots put that question to rest: they explicitly told Grauer that the March supports Palestinian liberation. Separate from that, the Dyke March statement also says that they published memes and art on their page suggesting their position, and Grauer had seen them. Moreover, even had they said nothing in advance, what difference does it make? They could also choose to express that position at the march itself. It is up to them, it is their march, not AWB’s.

      • Elliot
        July 7, 2017, 11:59 pm

        @ Joe Smack –

        Since the flag features so prominently in several of the reports, the point you note that “the FTP Collective did not mention the chants being drowned out as one of the factors for originally approaching AWB in conjunction with the flag” points back to the flag as the problem. Or, as you choose to interpret it, not. We each have our version of this mess.

        JVP explicitly accuses the AWB contingent of holding “a rainbow flag with a blue Star of David identical in color, size and placement to the one on the Israeli flag” before going on to unambiguously explain why “Palestinians can justifiably feel unsafe around a blue Star of David in the center of a flag.”

        AWB are spinning their eviction as anti-Semitism. The fumbled response from the organizers and their allies has only strengthened AWB.

  9. Boris
    July 6, 2017, 11:20 am

    Zionism started as a national liberation movement of Jewish people. After the creation of Israel it transformed into a movement to support the only Jewish state in Jewish ancestral lands.

    Anti-Zionism rejects the right of Jews – of all people – to have their own national home. It is obviously antisemitic.

    • eljay
      July 6, 2017, 12:27 pm

      || Boris: Zionism started as a national liberation movement of Jewish people. … ||

      Zionism was and remains all about Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine. Zionism was and remains an unjust and immoral ideology. The religion-supremacist “Jewish State” remains an unjust and immoral construct.

      || … After the creation of Israel it transformed into a movement to support the only Jewish state in Jewish ancestral lands. … ||

      There is no such thing as “Jewish ancestral lands” given that people in homelands all over the world have chosen and continue to choose to be/come Jewish.

      || … Anti-Zionism rejects the right of Jews – of all people – to have their own national home. It is obviously antisemitic. ||

      People should and do have a right to choose to be/come Jewish. But the religion-based identity of Jewish does not comprise a right to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” – not in Palestine or anywhere else in the world.

      Jewish supremacism – like all forms of supremacism – is unjust and immoral. There’s nothing unjust or immoral about opposing Jewish or any other form of supremacism.

    • talknic
      July 6, 2017, 12:52 pm

      @ Boris July 6, 2017, 11:20 am

      “Zionism started as a national liberation movement of Jewish people. “

      Is that why Herzl never bothered to move to Palestine when in his lifetime, he could have moved to Palestine, achieved citizenship, bought land and settled anywhere in the Jewish People’s alleged Historic Homeland?

      “After the creation of Israel it transformed into a movement to support the only Jewish state in Jewish ancestral lands”

      Bullsh*t . The Zionist Federation decided to colonize Palestine and set up the Jewish Colonial Trust, to loan money specifically at interest, to specifically poor Jews on condition they specifically put themselves on the front lines in Palestine. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8632-jewish-colonial-trust-the-judische-colonialbank
      And
      so what? Israelis belong in Israel, not in occupied territories illegally acquired by war.

      “Anti-Zionism rejects the right of Jews – of all people – to have their own national home. It is obviously antisemitic.”

      More bullsh*t. Not all Zionists are Jews

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 6, 2017, 5:27 pm

        Talknic:

        “Not all Zionists are Jews…”

        This is true. In Finland the loudest Zionist voices come from the Pentecostals. They have their own private tv-channel, which is full of pro-Israel propaganda. And to give you the weirdest detail: They claim that Finland and Israel have a “God given” special relationship and the strongest sign of it is the “similarity” of our flags = Finnish flag has a blue cross on a white background and the flag of Israel has a blue star of David on a white background.. See, a clear sign.. !!

        These kind of arguments make me speechless.. But luckily they are a small minority.

      • echinococcus
        July 6, 2017, 5:49 pm

        Talknic,

        so what? Israelis belong in Israel, not in occupied territories illegally acquired by war.

        “Israel” is itself an occupied territory illegally acquired by war, as you know and I know you know. Ergo, “Israelis” do not belong anywhere in Palestine.

        Ever heard of something called “logic”?

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 6, 2017, 5:50 pm

        I just found out a short time ago that in 1971 a group of religious (Christians) Finns got a piece of land from Golda Meir to build their own small village in Israel. The village still excists, it is called Jad Hashmona and many of it’s inhabitants have Finnish background or are Finnish.. There are also Messianic (?) Jews living there. The more I learn about Israel, the more it confuses me. The system really does not make any sense.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 6, 2017, 7:36 pm

        Echi:

        “Ever heard of something called “logic”?”

        I don’t know, if you meant the same as me, but I was just writing at the same time with you.. And when I wrote “The system really does not make sense”, I meant, that it seems like almost everybody else is wellcome to move to Israel, except those Palestinians who had to leave as refugees and are now living in “Diaspora” around the world.. So one man’s nation means another’s diaspora??

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 6, 2017, 8:08 pm

        Dropped the last line there, but it was supposed to be: “There is no logic to me”.

      • echinococcus
        July 6, 2017, 9:17 pm

        Kaisa,

        Yes, I mean roughly the same thing.

        [By the way, expressing your closing thought in the form “there is no logic to me” is ambiguous; it might be read by some as “minulla ei ole logikkaa”]

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 7, 2017, 3:28 am

        Echi:

        “By the way, expressing your closing thought..”

        Thanks!! So what would be the right way to say it?? (Just to be able to use the right form next time??!)

      • talknic
        July 7, 2017, 6:11 am

        @ echinococcus July 6, 2017, 5:49 pm

        ” “Israel” is itself an occupied territory illegally acquired by war, as you know and I know you know.”

        Israel either exists or it does not. You say it does. In that we appear to agree. It’s declared and recognized territories were acquired through secession and declaration despite the fact that prior to declaration they and other non-declared and non-recognized areas were under control via Jewish terrorism.

        “Ever heard of something called “logic”?

        Yes. Ever used it?

      • echinococcus
        July 7, 2017, 8:38 am

        Talknic,

        You never, ever even tried to respond to a single one of the multiple objections raised to your unceasing repetition of the same irrelevant statements.

        Add your continuous defense of simultaneous A and non-A. This reaches insanity.

      • echinococcus
        July 7, 2017, 9:03 am

        Kaisa,

        It would not be ambiguous if you moved around parts of the statement.
        Like: to me/as I see it/etc, there is no logic to it.

      • Sibiriak
        July 7, 2017, 9:54 am

        echinococcus: “Israel” is itself an occupied territory illegally acquired by war…
        ———————–

        That’s your opinion, and you are, of course, entitled to it.

        But it’s not the opinion of the UNGA, UNSC or the International Court of Justice. There has never been a UN resolution or ICJ opinion that has affirmed that Israeli territory was illegally acquired within the “Green Line” .

        Needless to say, they may well be wrong in that position– just as the U.S. Supreme Court can be wrong in theirs. Nevertheless, it’s important to distinguish between “settled law” and the multiple opinions, including yours, that have no official standing.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 7, 2017, 10:35 am

        Echi:

        Thanks, I’ll keep that in mind..

        By the way, if you understand some Finnish, here is a link to an article about Jad Hashmona.

        These kind of things irritate me here, because they are a way to maintain a “glossy picture” of Israel and to disrupt other kind of “message” getting through..

        http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000005229748.html

      • Talkback
        July 7, 2017, 2:19 pm

        Talknic: “It’s declared and recognized territories were acquired through secession and declaration”

        Nope, through war and expulsion. On cannot acquire territory by mere “declaration” if the territory wasn’t a terra nullius. And recognition and entitlement are still two pair of shoes.

        Simply answer this question: Did the citizens of Palestine in 1948 had the right to decide their future and goverment by majority ruling? If yes, then “Israel’s” acquisition violated the territorial integrity of Palestine and it didn’t acquire the territory in the euphemismistic way you wan’t to paint it.

      • Mooser
        July 7, 2017, 4:50 pm

        “echin”, any time you want to know how much Israel’s original partition or even pre-67 borders mean to Zionism, ask a Zionist about going back to them.

      • echinococcus
        July 7, 2017, 7:54 pm

        Mooser,

        That is irrelevant albeit correct. You are repeating yourself to boredom. Yes, they don’t accept that their theft be limited, and no, it’s not a reason to recognize a right to theft.

      • talknic
        July 7, 2017, 8:02 pm

        Talkback July 7, 2017, 2:19 pm

        Talknic: “It’s declared and recognized territories were acquired through secession and declaration”

        “On cannot acquire territory by mere “declaration” if the territory wasn’t a terra nullius. “

        Declaration can be a decision by the majority of the inhabitants. Montevideo Convention on the rights and duties of states http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897

        The majority of the world’s states have recognized Israel per it’s plea for recognition. The PLO even further via the Palestinian declaration of statehood. I’ll go with that as a starting point to final withdrawal of Israel forces from all non-legally acquired territories since its plea for recognition, evacuation of all Israeli settlers, compensation for exploitation of resources and the appropriation of properties and territories since May 15th 1948. Compensation for illegal dispossession and refusal of RoR. Etc etc

      • echinococcus
        July 7, 2017, 8:05 pm

        Sibiriak,

        No need to repeat that imperialist illegality is OK with you. Stating it once was enough.

        You confirm that some imperialist-dominated –all essentially US-dominated– international bodies continue to try to justify invasion, aggression and theft. We know they do.

        What I’ll keep asking for is one solid example of an invaded, dispossessed people who gave up, accepted the injustice and “got over it” –short of successful genocide. Even then, isolated remaining individuals continue to nurse the wound, as in Wounded Knee.

      • echinococcus
        July 7, 2017, 8:11 pm

        Kaisa,

        Thanks but no thanks, I don’t think I need reading about this kind of crazies. What I get already is enough for severe depression over many lifetimes.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 7, 2017, 8:44 pm

        Sibiriak,

        Stop trying to derail the conversation by bringing up legalist BS that has no bearing on ground realities. Imperalists make up laws as they go, not for the purpose of enacting universal justice and fairness but to protect their material interests by any means necessary.

        Legality should never be a criteria for our protests against oppression, because it is through the legal systems that oppression is maintained. Slavery was legal, genocide of natives was legal, dropping a fucking atomic bomb on civilian population made up of mostly women and children was legal.

        We tolerate laws as long as it benefits us, materially and spiritually. But laws that were designed to keep us under control, keep us subservient to the interests of those who despise us, laws that deny our humanity are not something we need to accept and live by…unless of course, we are indeed subhumans the law see us as.

        Check yourself. Legal structures are man made no different from the assault rifles and ballistic missiles. Only its capacity for inflicting harm on people is unparalleled and we should acknowledge its potential use as a weapon by the ruling class.

      • Sibiriak
        July 7, 2017, 10:22 pm

        echinococcus: echinococcus Sibiriak,No need to repeat that imperialist illegality is OK with you.
        ——————–

        I can’t repeat what I never said. I stated facts; I didn’t say I was okay with them.

      • Sibiriak
        July 7, 2017, 10:49 pm

        Bont Eastlake: Stop trying to derail the conversation by bringing up legalist BS…
        ——————-

        Nice try, Silamcuz.

        Your idea that international law is nothing more than “legalist BS” is precisely the Zionist position, and of course, you’d love to see the Palestinians and their supporters adopt that position, being a Zionist yourself.

        The Palestinians’ right under international law to self-determination is not “legalist BS.”

        The Palestinians right to return under international law is not “legalist BS”.

        The Geneva Conventions that dictated the illegality of Israeli settlements in the WB are not “legalist BS”.

        International law rejecting the acquisition of territory by force is not “legalist BS.”

        International law criminalizing genocide, apartheid, crimes against humanity and war crimes are not “legalist BS.”

        BDS fully embraces international law and bases all it’s goals on the enforcement of international law.

        The Palestinians are up against many very strong forces, but one powerful force they do have on their side is international law.

        International law is a weapon to be used. Using it as a weapon doesn’t mean accepting every aspect of it, but if you are going to wield it as a weapon, you do have affirm its basic legitimacy.

        However flawed international law is–and it certainly is flawed– the Palestinians and their supporters would be making a colossal strategic error to reject it.

        But of course, that’s exactly what you suggest. For obvious reasons.

      • echinococcus
        July 7, 2017, 11:12 pm

        Eastlake,

        No need for exaggeration. We are talking about a blatant violation of all usual principles and of the letter of the UN Charter.

      • Sibiriak
        July 7, 2017, 11:20 pm

        @Bont Eastlake

        Using the words of the great Gamal, what a miserable insult to intelligence your whole schtick is; its a sign of ideological exhaustion and the very definition of bad faith.

        Let’s see, now you are telling us:

        [Bent Eastlake:] Stop trying to derail the conversation by bringing up legalist BS that has no bearing on ground realities…

        But a little while ago you were telling us:

        [Bent Eastlake:] No matter how much you feel entitled to hold on and fight for your views, you will lose because you are strategically on weak ground. Hence, your inability to argue on a legal basis, using the framework of international law and doctrines of universal human rights that are recognised by all nations.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2017/05/sullivan-american-exceptionalism/#comment-881336

        ————————————————–

        Bont Eastlake “is spinning so fast, and typing so hard, he could very well cause a logorrhea cyclone or tornado!” (the immortal Mooser)

      • RoHa
        July 8, 2017, 5:02 am

        Legality should never be a criterion for our protests against oppression, but if we can show that an immoral act or situation is also illegal, it greatly strengthens the force of the protest.

      • Talkback
        July 8, 2017, 8:34 am

        Talknic: “Declaration can be a decision by the majority of the inhabitants.”

        Here go again. The same boring repetitions.

        Yes, it CAN be, what a strawman. So what? First of all the right to territorial integrity is enshrined in the UN. When it comes to the right to self determination only the citizens of Palestine had the right to exercise it within Palestine. Jewish citizens of Palestine were NOT a nation on their own and therefore “Jewish” is not the citizenship of the newly created state. Most of the Jews weren’t even citizens of Palestine, so there wasn’t a majority of Jews within proposed partition borders. And not a single citizen within proposed partition borders was asked by referendum, not even Jews.

        Talknic: “Montevideo Convention on the rights and duties of states http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897

        Again. The Montevideo Convention was a treaty between the US and other states. In international law it CAN serve as one test to identify STATEHOOD. That doesn’t mean that everybody has a right to create states within states or that the mere declaration of a state qualifies for statehood. The declaration of Israel even violated Security Council resolution 46 (1d), because the members of the UN were discussing to put Palestine under UN trusteeship. Now why would they do that, if Jews had a “right” to secede no matter how?

        Talknic: “The majority of the world’s states have recognized Israel per it’s plea for recognition.”

        Again. The same goes for Ashdod being part of Israel allthough being outside partition borders. And again, recogniton and entitlement are two pair of shoes. There’s a reason why the majority of the UNGAR in 1948 prevented the case to be refered to the International Court of Justice. And btw. Apartheid Southafrica and Nazi Germany were recognized, too.

        Talknic: “The PLO even further via the Palestinian declaration of statehood.”

        And again. Via this declaration within 67 lines it implicitly recognized Ashdod, etc. to be part of Israel and not occupied Palestinan territory, allthough it lies beyond partition borders.

        Talknic: ” I’ll go with that as a starting point to final withdrawal of Israel forces from all non-legally acquired territories since its plea for recognition, …”

        Again, since you emphasize recognition so much, why don’t you recognize that the countries who recognize Israel recognize that Ashdod and other areas beyond partition borders is a part of Israel and that the UN accepted Israel as a UN member by acknowledging its statement that the boundaries will be decided by negotiation? Do I have to quote Israel’s statement for the fourth time?

        Israel’s creation was NOT an exercise of the right to self determination by Palestinian citizens, to the contrary. Palestinian Jews who also weren’t asked were even a minority withing partition borders and “Jewish” is not the citizenship of the newly created state, so Jewish Palestinians were and are NOT a nation . Compare this to other secessions. And despite of that Israel is recognized even beyond partition borders. Not even the State of Palestine makes a claim to Ashod, etc.

        But Instead of arguing that Israel shouldn’t be recognized at all because of this grave injustice and allthough it keeps Palestinians and their descendants expelled who should by right have Israeli citizenship you are stuck in your partition borders loop and claim that these still ARE Israel’s recognized borders. So prove that any country that recognizes Israel holds the view that Ashdod is a Palestinian town occupied by Israel. Any resolution from the UN would be magnificient. I can wait another month.

      • Talkback
        July 8, 2017, 8:42 am

        Sibiriak: “But it’s not the opinion of the UNGA, UNSC or the International Court of Justice.”

        That’s the one side of the scam. The partition resolution was rigged by the US who threatened to cut their aid to some countries who weren’t even favor. The resolution was postponed several time to have some time to think about it and provide the necessary vote for the 2/3 majority. And several proposals to refer this case to the International Court of Justice was prevented by a simple majority of UN members. Not to mention that Israel’s creation through war and expulsion violated the right to self determination of the citizens of Palestine who weren’t even asked within partition borders.

        Sibiriak: “There has never been a UN resolution or ICJ opinion that has affirmed that Israeli territory was illegally acquired within the “Green Line” .”

        That’s the other side of the scam, but one Talknic fails to acknowledge.

      • RoHa
        July 8, 2017, 9:30 am

        Siberian, I have to say that I am pleased that the force of my arguments has lead Bont to realise that morality is more important than legality. I hope that he will now see the value of legality in support of morality.

        Also that he will learn the difference between singular and plural.

      • Sibiriak
        July 8, 2017, 9:57 am

        Talkback: That’s the other side of the scam, but one Talknic fails to acknowledge.
        ————–

        True. And to attempt to explain away that reality, Talknic has concocted the completely baseless notion that the UN is somehow prevented from condemning non-member states ….etc. etc.– you know the argument. (And even if that were true, which it isn’t, nothing would prevent the UN/ICJ from affirming that Israeli territory inside the Green Line was illegal acquired.)

      • Sibiriak
        July 8, 2017, 10:12 am

        echinococcus : No need to repeat that imperialist illegality is OK
        ——————–
        Of course international law and institutions are deeply flawed and subject to manipulation by great powers, particularly the U.S.

        But that’s not the issue. The issue is whether and how Palestinians and their supporters can use international law as a weapon in their battle to attain moral ends.
        (Cf. RoHa)

        The official BDS Movement has three stated goals:

        Ending [Israel’s] occupation and colonization of all Arab Lands and dismantling the Wall. International law recognizes the West Bank including East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the Syrian Golan Heights as occupied territory. […]

        Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality. […]

        Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194. […]

        https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds

        A large part of the BDS movement’s success has come from the fact that it strategically adopted a rights-based approach grounded in international law. This gives it enormous global appeal and legitimacy. It’s hard to argue against international law and human rights.

        Echinococcus , however, claims that the official BDS movement is a Zionist- controlled entity.

        He calls for the BDS movement to change its position to something like:


        We reject international law and institutions as imperialist projects.

        We seek the destruction of the imperialist-colonialist state of Israel.

        We demand the right to expel all Zionist invaders from all parts of Palestine.

        Of course, such an official position would be–as a practical matter— a complete disaster for the Palestinian cause.

        It’s no accident that Echinococcus, Bont Eastlake, Hophmi et al. are all in the same boat when it comes to strategically delegitimizing international law and institutions.

      • Sibiriak
        July 8, 2017, 12:19 pm

        Since echinococcus rejects the official BDS movement and any rights-based approach grounded in international law, one might wonder what strategy he proposes for the Palestinians.

        Well here it is, the Echino Plan:

        [echinococcus:] In the absence of some worldwide war, the only way to do to [save the Palestinians from genocide] is by turning around the US, and it’s not your insignificant “American Jews” but only the general population, the masses of Americans, the people who just voted Trump because they’ve had it, who can do that. Every cent we can spare should go to informing them.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2017/06/the-israelis/#comment-881919

        Hope, in echino’s view, lies in worldwide war or the re-education of America’s Trump voters.

        Of course a worldwide war is unlikely to bring any great benefits to the Palestinians, so that leaves the informing- the-Trump- voters plan.

        And what better way to “inform” those potential agents of Palestinian salvation than to drop the appeals to international law, UN resolutions etc. and inundate them in echino-style rhetoric about “imperialist illegality”, “genocidal Zionist invaders” and the hoped-for “destruction of Israel”!

        Surely, that kind of rhetoric will get the Trump voters to become pro-Palestinian, defeat the Zionist lobby, and reverse U.S. policy… right?

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 8, 2017, 12:22 pm

        Sibiriak,

        You are comparing two statements based on diametrically opposed context and malignantly constructing a false equivalence as an direct attack on my character.

        Lets review the context of both statements.

        1. Rebuked the use of legalistic notions as basis for the oppressed to secure their rights. My reasoning is, its unfair for an oppressed group having to demand justice through a legal framework that wasn’t designed to function through their enthusiastic participation. In a position of disadvantages imposed by the oppresor, they should not be handicapped further by legal constraints. If anything, the obligation for ensuring legal representation and delivery of justice is on those running the court system.

        2. Demanded that any policies advocated by a privileged group within a state or nation or whatever political entity, to be pursued strictly through the legal systems that is accessible by all parties who may be affected by said policies. This way the less-privileged group, i.e. immigrants, are able to protect their interests in an fair and equitable manner without infringing upon their fellow countrymens rights.

        So why would you attempt to smear me like you did?

      • echinococcus
        July 8, 2017, 12:27 pm

        Sibiriak,

        Fully agreed about the following:

        The issue is whether and how Palestinians and their supporters can use international law as a weapon in their battle to attain moral ends.

        And you are completely wrong in your insistent distortion:
        Yes, international law as a whole is to be used for a basis. But then, what I keep repeating is that the mismanagement of the LoN mandate was totally illegal by the colonialists’ own international law and the creation of the Zionist entity is totally illegal by all international law and the UN Charter. There is absolutely no doubt about it.

        That the so-called international bodies, as slavish organs of the US and its clients (and the SU, too), are imposing illegality doesn’t change this.

        Your observing that such executive decisions “exist” remains irrelevant: overturning such illegality should clearly be the goal.

        Confusing this insistently with Zio-propaganda efforts is not productive.

        Echinococcus , however, claims that the official BDS movement is a Zionist- controlled entity.

        I’ll repeat that the official BDS movement is based under the full control of both the Zionist occupation and of the local Vichy puppets who are the Zionist police of the post-67 occupation. Without the benefit of clandestinity.

        That’s why their total surrender (as different from compromise) of Palestinian rights, their limiting their most important action objectives (to post-67 occupation as requested by “liberal” Zionists), and their playing antisemitism-witchhunters are highly suspect, even if they (and you) indicate some wrongheaded tactical considerations in support.

        He calls for the BDS movement to change its position to something like:

        Nonsense. Boycotting is fine but won’t achieve much anyway, apart from playing a very important role in publicity and education. It doesn’t need goalsetting, as every one of us will have her own goals and will decide how long to continue boycotting or calling for sanctions.

        We seek the destruction of the imperialist-colonialist state of Israel

        Absolutely. Because it is totally and irremediably against international law.

        We demand the right to expel all Zionist invaders from all parts of Palestine.

        Wrong. First, it’s not up to BDS or supporters.
        Second, that right already already exists (doesn’t have to be “demanded”) and it belongs exclusively to the Palestinian people, as of the date the Zionist movement announced its hostile takeover intention, or the date its project officially received British support.

      • Mooser
        July 8, 2017, 12:49 pm

        “Well here it is, the Echino Plan:”

        I wonder how he sees his role in the plan. I warned him weeks ago he was due for a white feather.

      • echinococcus
        July 8, 2017, 1:58 pm

        Sibiriak again

        Since echinococcus rejects the official BDS movement and any rights-based approach grounded in international law

        Are you serious? Why reject the official BDS movement?
        With all its flaws, even its limited actions are generally in the right direction and should be supported. If they stop short of my goal, no skin off my nose, others will take over of I can continue personally.

        As for the rights-based approach, the only rights-based approach is to oppose any and all illegal decisions of the so-called international bodies in flagrant violation of the basic principles of non-aggression, non-conquest, and self-determination in general. Which means anything according any legitimacy at all to the Zionist entity.

        Hope, in echino’s view, lies in worldwide war or the re-education of America’s Trump voters

        The reeducation of America has the goal of stopping US support to the Zionist entity.
        If that can happen before the Z are successful with their genocide of Palestinians, then it would certainly ease the conditions and pull away much of the international support.
        But that will not by itself achieve justice.

        In the long run, worldwide geopolitics will certainly change a lot and we don’t know how much the Palestinians, provided US support to Z ends, can achieve. If it comes to an internal and international balance of forces definitely unfavorable to the Z, the likelihood of these crazies giving up instead of committing large-scale mayhem and collective suicide seems low to me. I wish you can prove me wrong there.

      • talknic
        July 8, 2017, 9:11 pm

        A) The Montevideo Convention was adopted into the UN Charter 1945. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by any coercive measure, making it by default illegal for Member states to recognize territories acquired by war.

        Re Ashdod. de facto recognition is not de jure. No state has ever recognized any territories acquired by the State of Israel by war since the Israeli plea for recognition

        B) No one has been able to show me a UNSC resolution directly censuring and directly naming a non-member state. The examples previously shown me plead with parties to the issue without actually naming the state. Until Membership, “Israel”, was not named in any UNSC resolution other than those dealing with its admission to the UN

        C) echinococcus July 7, 2017, 8:38 am

        “You never, ever even tried to respond to a single one of the multiple objections raised to your unceasing repetition of the same irrelevant statements.”

        Nonsense, I am answering to your opinion. As to ‘repetition of the same irrelevant statements’, the fact that the Palestinians have declared their state hasn’t changed, nor has the fact that Palestine, as declared, has been recognized by the majority of the International Comity of Nations.

        ” your continuous defense of simultaneous A and non-A. This reaches insanity”

        I have based my opinion and argument in accordance with the Palestinian declaration of statehood, same as the ICJ opinion as asked by the Palestinians

        D) The ICJ gave an opinion only, based on specific questions asked by the Palestinians which were in turn based on the Palestinian stance per their declaration of statehood. Were the ICJ asked to make a ruling on the same questions, it would of course assign what the Palestinians have ceded to Israel as Israeli from the Palestinian POV despite the fact that Israel has yet to accept or place any limitations on its expansionism. The ICJ has not yet been asked for or delivered a ruling and Israel has not yet accepted any limitations to its illegal expansionist ideals

        E) Talkback July 8, 2017, 8:34 am

        Talknic: “Declaration can be a decision by the majority of the inhabitants.”

        “Here go again. The same boring repetitions. Yes, it CAN be, what a strawman. So what?

        First of all the right to territorial integrity is enshrined in the UN. “

        The 1988 Palestinian Declaration was by a body representing the Palestinian majority! I’d really be interested in you pointing out where and when the Palestinians rescinded their declaration of statehood and was un-recognized by the those states who have already given recognition to the Palestinian territorial claims.

        “When it comes to the right to self determination only the citizens of Palestine had the right to exercise it within Palestine. Jewish citizens of Palestine were NOT a nation on their own and therefore “Jewish” is not the citizenship of the newly created state. Most of the Jews weren’t even citizens of Palestine, so there wasn’t a majority of Jews within proposed partition borders. And not a single citizen within proposed partition borders was asked by referendum, not even Jews.

        I concur. http://wp.me/PDB7k-Q#jews-can-live-anywhere and why Palestine, even tho it has declared its territories, in effect ceding 78% of its territories to Israel and thereby forgoing the right to persistent objection, http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=persistent+objection might still pursue the notions put forward by echinococcus and massive compensations far beyond what echinococcus puts forward

        “The declaration of Israel even violated Security Council resolution 46 (1d), because the members of the UN were discussing to put Palestine under UN trusteeship. Now why would they do that, if Jews had a “right” to secede no matter how?”

        Jews didn’t actually have the right, only a body representative of the majority of the legitimate inhabitants of a territory has that right. The cleansing by Jewish terrorists under Plan Dalet was an attempt to control as much territory as possible by 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) when the Mandate ended, the Israel plea for recognition however was limited to the borders outlined in UNGA res 181. Not that the Zionist state cares, they are inveterate liars. it was on the basis of Zionist/Jewish Agency lies that the International Comity of Nations recognized Israel and UNGA accepted Israel into the UN. I’ve never claimed it was correct or legal. We are however, now dealing with the State of Israel, a UN Member

        Talknic: “The majority of the world’s states have recognized Israel per it’s plea for recognition.”

        “The same goes for Ashdod being part of Israel allthough being outside partition borders. “

        de facto recognition is not de jure.

        Talknic: “The PLO even further via the Palestinian declaration of statehood.”

        “And again. Via this declaration within 67 lines it implicitly recognized Ashdod, etc. to be part of Israel and not occupied Palestinan territory, allthough it lies beyond partition borders.”

        Indeed. But Israel has never accepted the Palestinian position. Until it does, there is no agreement.

        Talknic: ” I’ll go with that as a starting point to final withdrawal of Israel forces from all non-legally acquired territories since its plea for recognition, …”

        “since you emphasize recognition so much, why don’t you recognize that the countries who recognize Israel recognize that Ashdod and other areas beyond partition borders is a part of Israel and that the UN accepted Israel as a UN member by acknowledging its statement that the boundaries will be decided by negotiation? Do I have to quote Israel’s statement for the fourth time?”

        You can quote it as many times as you like. The Israeli statements were lies and the subsequent acceptance into the UN has not changed. It merely acknowledged the Israeli statements were made. It did NOT change any determination by the UNGA resolution

        (I did BTW attempt to answer these previously asked questions many times without success due to what appear to be system glitches )

      • talknic
        July 8, 2017, 9:27 pm

        Talkback July 8, 2017, 8:42 am

        “Sibiriak: “There has never been a UN resolution or ICJ opinion that has affirmed that Israeli territory was illegally acquired within the “Green Line” .”

        That’s the other side of the scam, but one Talknic fails to acknowledge.”

        Nonsense. I have in fact addressed it now many times. The UN/UNSC doesn’t directly censure non-Member states. It instead addresses the administrative parties to the conflict, without naming the state. The Jewish agency legal team was well aware of the machinations of the UN and have played it to the full.

      • echinococcus
        July 8, 2017, 11:17 pm

        Talknic yet again.

        As to ‘repetition of the same irrelevant statements’, the fact that the Palestinians have declared their state hasn’t changed, nor has the fact that Palestine, as declared, has been recognized by the majority of the International Comity of Nations.

        Both facts are utterly irrelevant to the discussion, and that hasn’t changed.
        See what I mean?

    • Talkback
      July 6, 2017, 3:18 pm

      Boris: “Anti-Zionism rejects the right of Jews – of all people – to have their own national home. It is obviously antisemitic.”

      Now try to reformulate your claim into something that applies to all people. And soon we will find out who is obviously racist, aren’t we? Because Zionist simply can’t create a “right” that doesn’t only apply to Jews.

      • Boris
        July 6, 2017, 11:37 pm

        @Talkbackwards

        Germans have their nation state, French, Estonians, you name it.

        An ethnic German, whose ancestors lived in Russia for centuries, can move to Germany based on their Law of Return.

        Why can’t Jews have it?

        It is a reasonably universal claim.

        And please don’t tell me that being Jewish means a religious affiliation. Nazis were exterminating all Jews, religious and atheist alike.

      • Mooser
        July 7, 2017, 12:53 pm

        “Why can’t Jews have it?”

        Uh, “Nathan”, can we get one little thing straight? Are you begging the world to give it to you, or telling the world it is within the power and numbers of the Zionist Jews to take it, no matter what the world thinks of the claim?

        Which is it? Remember, Israel has atomic weapons, so there’s no need for false humility. And 180 million Jews is a huge number.

      • Talkback
        July 7, 2017, 2:08 pm

        Boring: “Germans have their nation state, French, Estonians, you name it. ”

        Russians and Ukrainians too, “Boris”. It is a citizenship. Neither a religion nor an ethnicity. “Jewish” isn’t.` and will never be. Nobody can become Jewish by acquiring any citizenship.

        Boring: “It is a reasonably universal claim.”

        If it refers to people habitually living in a certain territory it is. But it’s not the right of foreigners and settlers. Just answer this question. Did the people who were citizens of Palestine in 1948 and despite their heritage and faith had the right to decide Palestines future and goverment by a referendum? Yes or No?

        Boring: “And please don’t tell me that being Jewish means a religious affiliation. Nazis were exterminating all Jews, religious and atheist alike.”

        I’m telling you that “Jews” is not a term of constitutive people living in a certain territory. German, French and Palestinian is. And if you think that Jews are defined by Nazis I was right about finding out who is obviously racist.

      • Mooser
        July 7, 2017, 2:48 pm

        “And please don’t tell me that being Jewish means a religious affiliation. Nazis were exterminating all Jews, religious and atheist alike.”

        And gosh darn it, if you can’t trust Hitler and the Nazis to define the Jews accurately, who can you trust?

      • MHughes976
        July 7, 2017, 4:11 pm

        I think that most people think that ‘Jewish’ means (of persons) something like ‘practising the Jewish religion or being sufficiently close in blood to someone who practised it’. There is obviously room for considerable dispute in applying a definition in these terms but that difficulty is likely to persist if other defs are used.

      • Mooser
        July 7, 2017, 5:07 pm

        “There is obviously room for considerable dispute in applying a definition in these terms but that difficulty is likely to persist if other defs are used.”

        But it is important that a definition which presents no difficulties must be settled on! We must know who is a Jew and who is not!

      • Boris
        July 7, 2017, 6:14 pm

        Yes, “ooser”, that’s what the issue boils down to – who is a Jew.

        And one does not need Hitler to figure it out. My Soviet issued birth certificate stated that my father and mother are Jews, and my internal passport stated that I am a Jew. Other ethnicities included Russian, Ukrainian, Kazakh, Chukcha, etc., but not Christian, Buddhist, or any other religion.

        BTW, it was the Soviet Union that had defeated Nazi Germany.

      • Talkback
        July 8, 2017, 8:54 am

        Boris: “Yes, “ooser”, that’s what the issue boils down to – who is a Jew.”

        And when it comes to that you as a Zionist has to take the view of those who want to see Jews being a seperate people and an alien body within their nation.

        Btw. why don’t you live in the Jewish Autonmous Oblast? Not national homey enough for you?

      • Mooser
        July 8, 2017, 11:27 am

        ” My Soviet issued birth certificate stated that my father and mother are Jews,”

        You bet! If you can’t go by Hitler, the Bolsheviks are the next best thing. Just the folks to define you as a Jew.

        And I thought us Jews had our own way of defining who is a Jew. But I guess that would be a minority definition, so you use more authoritative sources.

      • Mooser
        July 8, 2017, 12:25 pm

        “And when it comes to that you as a Zionist has to take the view of those who want to see Jews being a seperate people and an alien body within their nation.”

        Well, of course he does! I mean, in all of history, when has being seen as a separate nation done anything but bring advantage to Jews? And glory, I might add. No trauma ‘long us!

        And look what has happened to the Jews in the US, were Jews are merely citizens and not even counted by the government!

      • Boris
        July 8, 2017, 2:02 pm

        Well, Zionism, as a movement, started in 19th century – long before Nazis and Communists – as an answer to European antisemitism. There were pogroms in Russia, various laws against Jews in Poland, Dreifus affair in France, etc. And that followed centuries of persecution in various countries. If there were no antisemitism, I don’t think Zionism would have existed. Furthermore, it is strengthen by antisemitism.

        In that aspect – one can argue that Mondoweis works to do just that. I, for example, get extra energy when reading this site articles and comments. Keep up good work!

        And, yes, American Jews have it nice – that’s why we have so many MOOOSERs. But this is a fairly recent phenomenon – less that 60 year old. Give it a century or two.

      • Keith
        July 8, 2017, 3:42 pm

        BORIS- “Well, Zionism, as a movement, started in 19th century – long before Nazis and Communists – as an answer to European antisemitism.”

        If that is true, then it seems strange that prior to World War II, and even after, The vast majority of Jews were either non-Zionists or anti-Zionists. Jews fleeing persecution overwhelmingly chose to go to the Western democracies if able rather than Palestine. Even immediately after the war, Zionists had to send agents into the refugee camps to coerce Jews to go to Palestine. Initially, Jewish support for Zionism came from the Jewish elites who sought to counteract the forces of assimilation and the disappearance of Jewish “peoplehood.” A quote from an early, well-known Zionist to make the point.

        “It is inconceivable, from the physical point of view, that a Jew born to a family of pure Jewish blood can become adapted to the spiritual outlook of a German or a Frenchman. He may be wholly imbued with that German fluid, but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish.” (Vladimir Jabotinsky, quoted in “The Hidden History of Zionism,” by Ralph Schoenman, p26)

      • Mooser
        July 8, 2017, 5:23 pm

        “And, yes, American Jews have it nice – that’s why we have so many MOOOSERs. But this is a fairly recent phenomenon – less that 60 year old. Give it a century or two.”

        Yes, the way things are going, there will be very few pure-bred Zionist Jews in the world, outside of Israel. We will be assimilated, and practise Judaism when and how we want.

        Just think how powerful Israel will be then! There aren’t many peoples who can grow more powerful the fewer and more diffuse they are, but everybody knows “Jews sui generis

      • talknic
        July 8, 2017, 9:17 pm

        Boris July 6, 2017, 11:37 pm

        “An ethnic German, whose ancestors lived in Russia for centuries, can move to Germany based on their Law of Return.

        Why can’t Jews have it?

        We do you stupid stupid person . http://forward.com/news/154277/jews-stream-back-to-germany/

      • eljay
        July 14, 2017, 8:30 am

        || Boris: … If there were no antisemitism, I don’t think Zionism would have existed. Furthermore, it is strengthen by antisemitism. … ||

        And that explains why you Zionists work so hard to conflate all Jews with your oppressive, colonialist, (war) criminal and religion-supremacist construct.

      • Mooser
        July 14, 2017, 1:26 pm

        ” If there were no antisemitism, I don’t think Zionism would have existed. Furthermore, it is strengthen by antisemitism. …”

        “Boris” is right.
        But somebody, not saying who, (cough-cough, Gentiles-cough) didn’t keep up their end of the bargain very well.

    • JoeSmack
      July 6, 2017, 7:04 pm

      Would have been interesting to see them argue such a blatantly stupid position instead of claiming it was over their Jewish flags

    • RoHa
      July 6, 2017, 7:19 pm

      No group – whether it calls itself a “nation” or not – has a right to a “national home”.

      • Talkback
        July 7, 2017, 2:21 pm

        Ask him if the citizens of Palestine had a right to their national home called Palestine in 1948 and he will start talking about Jews, Jews and Jews. They are obsessed with Jews. ROFL.

      • echinococcus
        July 7, 2017, 8:19 pm

        Hughes,

        Why do you want to apply that definition? It sure doesn’t hold for any other religion. “Jews” have absolutely no difference from any other religion.

      • RoHa
        July 8, 2017, 5:09 am

        Talkback, I’m guessing he will say that the Palestinians were not a nation, and so had no right to a national home.

        And he’ll finagle the concept of “nation” to make sure that Jews are one and Palestinians, Raelians, and stamp collectors aren’t.

      • MHughes976
        July 8, 2017, 5:29 pm

        Well, echino, I only say that that is more or less the common definition. But no one owns words and all I think we can ask of one another is that we make ourselves reasonably clear. There is in any event no definition of ‘Jewish’ which will effectively support a rational argument for the sort of rights that Zionism claims for Jews, as I think you and I agree.
        I don’t quite follow what you say about the differences between religions. I practise Anglicanism, other people other religions, including Judaism. There are differences.

      • echinococcus
        July 8, 2017, 8:41 pm

        Hughes,

        From your answer, it appears that I must have been too sibylline yet again. To expand the indicted sentence, “Jews” have absolutely no difference, with regard to the possibility of keeping this denomination, in the eyes of today’s civilized world, even when individually excluded from the congregation, compared to the followers of any other religion.

        I said in the eyes of today’s civilized world: systems that postulate an innate religious identity, such as the Ottoman or Tsarist nationality systems, Sharia fundamentalism, etc. and, of course, Judaic tradition and Zionism, are way too ludicrous to even be discussed.

        As you noted, words are always a matter of consensus. So the Zionists are waging a raging battle to establish an exception for the word “Jewish” within a consensus that does not admit it semantically for the words Catholic, Buddhist, Hindoo or Anglican.

        Language being the social phenomenon that it is, such trends can be resisted as long as usage is not fully established. It may be a loss of time to waste energy opposing the use of “imply” for “infer” but I say it is worth its while to buck the Zionist-supported new trend of reinstating obsolete theocratic terminology .

      • Sibiriak
        July 8, 2017, 10:25 pm

        MHughes976 : There is in any event no definition of ‘Jewish’ which will effectively support a rational argument for the sort of rights that Zionism claims for Jews…
        ——————-

        I certainly agree with that. And I’m skeptical that endless discussion about “who is a Jew” will ever do much to help the Palestinian people.

        But since we are on the subject of language, we shouldn’t forget that English is not the only one in the world.

        In Russian, the word for “Jew” is “еврей ”

        However:

        The word еврей is used to refer to any person of Jewish ancestry, regardless of religious beliefs. When specifically referring to a follower of Judaism, the words иуде́й (iudéj) and иудаист (iudaist) are used.

        https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9

        While the above is not strictly true (“еврей” can be used to refer to a religious Jew), the notion that “евре́и” (“Jews”) refers to a people or ethno-nationality is deeply-rooted and widespread.

      • echinococcus
        July 8, 2017, 11:31 pm

        Sibiriak,

        And I’m skeptical that endless discussion about “who is a Jew” will ever do much to help the Palestinian people.

        Not directly. The question is the foundation stone of the whole Zionist madness and still their main recruiting instrument.

        … the notion that “евре́и” (“Jews”) refers to a people or ethno-nationality is deeply-rooted and widespread

        Because it refers very specifically to the Ashkenaze of Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states, Bessarabia and Russia. Only. These essentially German-speaking Ashkenaze are an ethnic group, of course. As a specific term of the Tsarist system of nationality classification, it won’t be applied to any Falasha or Salonicca Jews or Arab Jews, etc.

      • YoniFalic
        July 9, 2017, 1:42 am

        I have previously addressed the official Czarist change in Russian terminology for Jew.

        Zionism has little connection to Jewish religion except to justify depredations on non-Jews by slicing and dicing Judaic scripture.

        Zionism is just another expression of Central and East European ethnoracial politics.

        The obsession with Palestine is something new. Before Zionism E Euro Jews had little interest in Palestine, which was mostly a place were old people went to die and to which eccentrics were dispatched.

        There were a good number of Jerusalems among the world Jewish community: Vilna the Jerusalem of Lithuania (or North), Amsterdam the Jerusalem of the West, Saloniki la chica Jerusalem, Zakho the Jerusalem of Assyria, Sarajevo the Jerusalem of the Balkans, Carpentras the Jerusalem of Provence, Djerba the Jerusalem of N. Africa, etc. Palestinians unlike Jews loved and cared for Jerusalem, which hosted several import Islamic schools but no comparable Jewish schools (after 1127) until genocidal racist Zios began their invasion in the 19th century.

        The E Euro obsession with Palestine seems to begin after the Czarist government at Jewish request changed the official term for Jew from жид (Żyd), which had no obvious association with Palestine, to еврей (hebrajski), which was compatible with a sort of secular Hebraism.

        The Czarist government did not care about the ridiculous mythological associations of еврей but had no use for the Polish legal concept of religious estate (сословие). The name change seems to have fit with general Czarist policy.

        Factions within the Czarist government considered the originally Yiddish-speaking Polish Jewish religious community to be useful for modernization. The Czarist government did not allow freedom of movement but had an internal passport system. The different peoples of the Czarist Empire were in theory restricted to their homelands.

        Treating the originally Polish Jewish population (I follow Wexler’s terminology in calling this population Slavo-Turk) as exceptional in that it had no homeland could justify distributing members of the population throughout the Empire — something that in fact happened, for the Czarist Empire seems to have given Polish Jews more freedom of movement than any other group within the Empire.

        The Czarist Empire was not terminologically consistent but tended to consider a non-Slavo-Turk Jew to be иудейский (Judaic) and not еврейский.

        The Soviet government enforced greater consistency, and the Jewish autonomous oblast is really the Hebrew autonomous oblast (Евре́йская автоно́мная о́бласть) and was meant only for Yiddish-speaking Slavo-Turks, who lagged in the goal of Russification. As far as I know, no non-Slavo-Turk Jew ever relocated to the Евре́йская автоно́мная о́бласть, and such relocation probably would not have been permitted.

        In Soviet ideology Slavo-Turks were a nationality and not a nation. Slavo-Turks originally had a language called Yiddish but the rapidity with which Slavo-Turks switched to Russian created doubts whether Slavo-Turks could ever meet the criteria for nationhood. In historic Poland Slavo-Turks were 2nd Estate without title and provided the main commercial financial stratum of Commonwealth Poland. In the hope of Soviet ideologists (especially those of Slavo-Turk background) Slavo-Turks were to be transformed from a commercial financial stratum into the quintessential Soviet class.

        The Hebrew nationality was originally meant to be reserved for those Slavo-Turks that clung to Yiddish, and as Slavo-Turks were considered a nationality and not a nation, Slavo-Turks were not restricted in government roles in the same way as Poles and Germans, who were members of nations, whose homelands lay outside of the Soviet Union.

        When Slavo-Turks showed loyalty to Israel after the founding in 1948, Soviet leaders (and especially the highest ranking Jewish Sovs) reacted to restrict Jewish representation throughout the government (in theory in the same ways as Polish and German representation was restricted). The reason for the restriction was not anti-Semitism, but fear of disloyalty, and the architects of the policy consisted mostly of high-level Jewish Sovs.

        Clearly Soviet theory of Jewish identity had few points of contact with Zio theory of Jewish identity.

      • Talkback
        July 9, 2017, 8:57 am

        RoHa: “Talkback, I’m guessing he will say that the Palestinians were not a nation, and so had no right to a national home.”

        Sure, his perverted right to a national home doesn’t refer to people actually living there, but to foreign settlers with slavic names.

      • echinococcus
        July 9, 2017, 11:41 am

        Thank you, Yoni. You’re an invaluable resource.

    • Talkback
      July 9, 2017, 8:51 am

      Talknic: “A) The Montevideo Convention was adopted into the UN Charter 1945.”

      Again you fail to prove your this repetitive claim And again you fail to acknowledge hat it only can serve for providing one definition of statehood and says nothing about the legality or illegality which led to the creation of a state.

      Talknic: “No state has ever recognized any territories acquired by the State of Israel by war since the Israeli plea for recognition.”

      And again you fail to acknowledge that even Palestine does NOT contest Ashdod to be de jure a part of Israel. Neither do other states that recognizes Israel and who support a two state solution. Your a riding a dead horse.

      Talknic: “The 1988 Palestinian Declaration was by a body representing the Palestinian majority!”

      What’s the point of your strawman? Israel’s body didn’t represent the majority of the citizens of Palestine within partition borders since most Jews were and had not become citizens of Palestine.

      Talknic: “I concur.”

      But its not the unust FACT that you constantly repeat. And exactly this leaves the impression that you would sanction its creation within partition borders, because this FACT was recognized by the UN. The same UN which in FACT rejected proposals tp refer the Question of Palestine to the International Court of Justice and in FACT also the question of the power of the its General Assembly to make recommendations which in FACT violate the territorial integrity and the right to self determination as reflected in FACT by its rejection to hold a referendum in Palestine.

      Talknic: “Jews didn’t actually have the right, only a body representative of the majority of the legitimate inhabitants of a territory has that right.”

      So the “Jewish Agency” didn’t even have the right to secede and declare since they were not representing the majority of citizens within partition borders (because most Jews weren’t citizens of Palestine) and acquire any territory. And your initial statement “[Israel’s] declared and recognized territories were acquired through secession and declaration” is not only nonsense but misleading, because it ommits it’s illegality and how its territory actually came into its posession.

      Talknic: “it was on the basis of Zionist/Jewish Agency lies that the International Comity of Nations recognized Israel and UNGA accepted Israel into the UN. I’ve never claimed it was correct or legal.”

      The Jewish Agency lmade very clear what their position was regarding boundaries and refugees being both subject to negotiations of a final peace agreements and the UN even refered to these declaration and statements in its resolution when it accepted Israel. You may never claimed it was correct or legal, but you also never focus on it.

      Talknic: “Indeed. But Israel has never accepted the Palestinian position. ”

      Amother strawman. The point of issue is that even the State of Palestine DOES NOT contest that Ashod is a part of Israel. Like all other state who recognize Israel DO NOT. too. But you are living in the delusion that all states who recognize Israel do not “de jure” recognize Ashdod to be in Israel, but that they “de jure” recognize it as occupied Palestinian territory.

      Talknic: “You can quote it as many times as you like. The Israeli statements were lies and the subsequent acceptance into the UN has not changed. ”

      You can claim this as many times as you like. But just quote the lies of Israel’s statement regarding to terrtorial and other differences as being subject of “a process of negotiation”.

      Talknic: “It merely acknowledged the Israeli statements were made.”

      Nope. That would have been unnessecary to point out in this resolution. It took note of this statement “in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions”. So it was ok with Israel’s statements regarding the implementation of 181 and 194. Otherwise Israel wouldn’t have been accepted.

      Talknic: “(I did BTW attempt to answer these previously asked questions many times without success due to what appear to be system glitches )”

      Your constant repetitions and strawman arguments must be a system glitch, too.

      Talknic: “The UN/UNSC doesn’t directly censure non-Member states.”

      It even censures non state actors who declare non menber states. United Nations Security Council resolution 541 regading Nothern Cyprus:
      Concerned at the declaration by the Turkish Cypriot authorities issued on 15 November 1983 which purports to create in independent state in northern Cyprus,
      Considering that this declaration is incompatible with the 1960 Treaty concerning the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus and the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee,
      Considering therefore that the attempt to create a “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” is invalid, and will contribute to a worsening of the situation in Cyprus,”
      https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_541

      So far according to your nonsense ISIL could legally create a state by illegaly acquiring its territory and according to the right to self determination as long as it makes sure that it represents the majority of its inhabitans by killing or expelling everyone else and by a simple declaration. And all of this because of the Montevideo Concention. And the newly created state can’t be held censured, especially if it is not a UN member. ROFL.

      • talknic
        July 13, 2017, 2:31 am

        @ Talkback July 9, 2017, 8:51 am

        Talknic: “A) The Montevideo Convention was adopted into the UN Charter 1945.”

        Again you fail to prove your this repetitive claim

        It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war/any coercive measure. Reflected in UNSC res 242. Reflected in UNSC res 252 and its nine reminders re the illegal annexation of East Jerusalem.

        ” you fail to acknowledge that even Palestine does NOT contest Ashdod to be de jure a part of Israel. “

        The Palestinians via their declaration are prepared to cede the territory to a state that has yet to accept by any agreement. It is therefore de facto, not de jure.

        “Neither do other states that recognizes Israel and who support a two state solution”

        de facto is not de jure. Trade and/or relationships with another country and Israel are not an agreement between Israel and Palestine legalizing borders between Palestine and Israel.

        Talknic: “The 1988 Palestinian Declaration was by a body representing the Palestinian majority!”

        ” Israel’s body didn’t represent the majority of the citizens of Palestine within partition borders since most Jews were and had not become citizens of Palestine.”

        A) I’m talking about the Palestinian declaration. B) Re Israel, I agree. I’ve not asserted that the Israeli declaration or subsequent recognition was legitimate even tho Israel was recognized within the recommended borders of UNGA res 181 by the majority of the International Comity of Nations at the time.

        Talknic: “I concur.”

        “But its not the unust FACT that you constantly repeat. And exactly this leaves the impression that you would sanction its creation within partition borders, because this FACT was recognized by the UN. “

        A) The UN doesn’t recognize countries. Recognition happens amongst the International Comity of Nations prior to the UN Security Council then recommending already recognized states for Membership. B) No. I base my opinion and argument on the 1988 Palestinian declaration.

        “The same UN which in FACT rejected proposals tp refer the Question of Palestine to the International Court of Justice and in FACT also the question of the power of the its General Assembly to make recommendations which in FACT violate the territorial integrity and the right to self determination as reflected in FACT by its rejection to hold a referendum in Palestine.”

        I concur. So did Balfour http://wp.me/PDB7k-Q#jews-can-live-anywhere

        Talknic: “Jews didn’t actually have the right, only a body representative of the majority of the legitimate inhabitants of a territory has that right.”

        “So the “Jewish Agency” didn’t even have the right to secede and declare since they were not representing the majority of citizens within partition borders (because most Jews weren’t citizens of Palestine) and acquire any territory.”

        That’s right. Never the less the International Comity of Nations recognized Israel based on the Israeli plea for recognition. Today, like it or not,the conflict is with the State of Israel.

        “And your initial statement “[Israel’s] declared and recognized territories were acquired through secession and declaration” is not only nonsense but misleading, because it ommits it’s illegality and how its territory actually came into its posession.”

        Israel didn’t exist until 00:01 May 15th 1948, prior to which Jewish terrorists controlled territories as assigned to the Jewish state under UNGA res 181 and under Plan DAlet, beyond those borders. What lay beyond Israel’s recognized borders have never been recognized by any state as Israeli

        Talknic: “it was on the basis of Zionist/Jewish Agency lies that the International Comity of Nations recognized Israel and UNGA accepted Israel into the UN. I’ve never claimed it was correct or legal.”

        “The Jewish Agency lmade very clear what their position was regarding boundaries and refugees being both subject to negotiations of a final peace agreements and the UN even refered to these declaration and statements in its resolution when it accepted Israel. You may never claimed it was correct or legal, but you also never focus on it.”

        The UN referred to the statements being made. That’s all it did. So what? Why focus on something that had no effect, even after Israel was admitted to the UN it was still trying in Aug 1949 to no effect to claim, without negotiation with Palestine, territories it occupied post 00:01 May 15th 1948

        “The point of issue is that even the State of Palestine DOES NOT contest that Ashod is a part of Israel. Like all other state who recognize Israel DO NOT. too. But you are living in the delusion that all states who recognize Israel do not “de jure” recognize Ashdod to be in Israel, but that they “de jure” recognize it as occupied Palestinian territory.”

        Get back to me when de facto = de jure and there is an agreement between Israel and Palestine.

        Talknic: “You can quote it as many times as you like. The Israeli statements were lies and the subsequent acceptance into the UN has not changed. ”

        You can claim this as many times as you like. But just quote the lies of Israel’s statement regarding to terrtorial and other differences as being subject of “a process of negotiation”.”

        Sure.

        Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed 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, Washington time.”

        Israel has ignored International Law and it’s proclaimed borders.

        Talknic: “The UN/UNSC doesn’t directly censure non-Member states.”

        “It even censures non state actors who declare non menber states … … … United Nations Security Council resolution 541

        As with the previous example offered elsewhere, the authorities were censured. The authorities are not the State

        “So far according to your nonsense ISIL could legally create a state by illegaly acquiring its territory and according to the right to self determination as long as it makes sure that it represents the majority of its inhabitans by killing or expelling everyone else and by a simple declaration. “

        If you say so. I haven’t.

        “And all of this because of the Montevideo Concention. And the newly created state can’t be held censured, especially if it is not a UN member. ROF”

        You’ve yet to provide an instance where a non-member STATE is directly censured. Your example on Cypres censure the Authorities, not the State. The State exists regardless of what authorities administer it. The State is a member or not, not the authorities.

      • Talkback
        July 13, 2017, 4:26 pm

        Talknic: “It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war/any coercive measure. Reflected in UNSC res 242. Reflected in UNSC res 252 and its nine reminders re the illegal annexation of East Jerusalem.”

        That doesn’t prove that the UN Charter “adopted” the Montevideo Convention or that this treaty can legitimize the creation of Israel. Simply dropping a statement which is true doesn’t prove another one.

        Talknic: “The Palestinians via their declaration are prepared to cede the territory to a state that has yet to accept by any agreement. It is therefore de facto, not de jure.”

        The Palestinians don’t have a right to cede territory which they dont even claim to be theirs according to the declaration of their state. And it also doesn’t prove that they have to agree to something they don’t dispute. Neither does it prove that their de jure declaration of their state territory doesn’t amount to a de jure recognition that Ashod is part of Israel.

        Talknic: “de facto is not de jure.”

        That doesn’t prove that all states that recognize Israel don’t de jure recognize Asdhod to be in Israel or that they de jure recognize Ashdod to be occupied Palestinan territory. It also doesn’t prove that states which recognize Israel have to officially declare that Ashdod, etc. is de jure Israeli territory, if they act accordingly. For example by following Israeli import tariffs or port regulations when importing goods via the port of Ashdod.

        Simply dropping a statement which is true doesn’t prove another one.

        Talknic: “Trade and/or relationships with another country and Israel are not an agreement between Israel and Palestine legalizing borders between Palestine and Israel.”

        The point of issue is which states do or don’t recognize Ashdod to be part of Israel. And how they can do one or the other.

        Simply dropping a statement which is true doesn’t prove another one.

        Talknic: “A) The UN doesn’t recognize countries. Recognition happens amongst the International Comity of Nations prior to the UN Security Council then recommending already recognized states for Membership.”

        My mistake. So the UN never recognized Israel or its creation.

        Talknic: B) No. I base my opinion and argument on the 1988 Palestinian declaration.”

        And B.) means B to what? Let me add C.). Despite your A.) and B.) distraction the point of issue was that you concentrate on something pretty ridiculous. After everything that Zionists and Israel have done to Palestinians you focus only on a small piece of Zionist injustice/subterfuge as if it was the main injustice. That’s misleading, ommitting and belittling the injustice and crime of settler colonialism and DISTRACTING from it. Actually a Zionist tactic.

        Talknic: “I concur.”

        Yes, but you distract from the crime of Zionist settler colonialism and its inherent Apartheid. Ooh, bad boy Israel went beyond partition borders. Ooh, the Zionists lied to the UN. AS IF it was ok, if they hadn’t. But then you say, no, no, I condem this and much more and Zionism in general, but hey, Israel is recognized, whether we like it or not. But ooh they went beyond partition borders and ooh the lied to the UN. And so on and on and on. It is pretty similar to Zionist distraction and legitimation tactics.

        Talknic: “Never the less the International Comity of Nations recognized Israel based on the Israeli plea for recognition. Today, like it or not,the conflict is with the State of Israel.”

        Exactly what I’m saying. Standard “moderate” Zionist distraction tactic. Nevertheless the International Community of Nations once recognized Apartheid South Africa, too. And today, like it or not, the Apartheid regime is gone. Should we have accepted the fact that it was recognized, too? This is not about the existence or recognition of Israel. It’s about its supremacist essence. And you are trying to distract from it with your constant 48 borders trolling. I don’t know anybody else but you who does this. Sooner or later everybody who critizes Israel gets down to the bottom of the conflict AND STAYS THERE. Do you think that anyone that has come to the conclusion that Israel’s creation was Apartheid from the get go will take a step back and start babbling about its 48 borders or that it lied to the UN? It’s pathetic, even infantile.

        Talknic: “Israel didn’t exist until 00:01 May 15th 1948, prior to which Jewish terrorists controlled territories as assigned to the Jewish state under UNGA res 181 and under Plan DAlet, beyond those borders.”

        Another attempt to whitewash Israel’s acquisition of territory. It probably was delivered by a stork.

        The GoI (the legal successor to the Jewish Agency) illegally acquired all territories through war. Whether its leading state actors took them through war or held them through war after they were acquired through war by the actors when they still were leading pre state actors. If you need to assume that they were two different parties and a transfer of territory happened between them, then it was an illegal transfer of posession illegally aquired through war. And your statement that Israel’s “declared and recognized territories were acquired through secession and declaration” is nothing more than euphemisms to evoke some kind of legitimacy or tto suggest that this was nothing more than an exercise of the right to self determination.

        Talknic: “What lay beyond Israel’s recognized borders have never been recognized by any state as Israeli.”

        I’m still waiting for you to prove that any state or international institution that recognizes Israel de jure recognizes Ashod to be occupied Palestinian territory.

        Talknic: “The UN referred to the statements being made. That’s all it did. So what?”

        The answer is in my statement that you omitted. Again, it would have been unnessecary to simply refer to it. The UN added “in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions”. So the UN accepted Israel’s statements in respecrt of the implementation of 181 and 194. Otherwise Israel wouldn’t have been accepted into the UN. It’s not very complicated, is it?

        Talknic: “Get back to me when de facto = de jure and there is an agreement between Israel and Palestine.”

        Wow Talknic. Let’s fundamentally change the game from now on and get back to me when you can prove
        1.) that the states that recognizes Israel don’t de jure recognizes it within 67 lines (excluding Jerusalem)
        2.) that they have to explicitly and officially de jure recognize this, even if they act like that way.
        3.) that they explicitily and officially de jure recognize Ashdod to be occupied Palestinian territory.
        4.) that Palestine has to agree that Ashdod is a part of Israel and has the right to cede it to Israel, allthough it doesn’t contest that Ashdod is in Israeli territory and doesn’t claim it to be Palestinan territory according to its declaration.

        Talknic: “Sure.”

        Your quote of Israel’s plea to the US for recognition within partition borders doen’t prove that Israel lied in its declarations and statements to the UN in which it said that the boundaries will be the result of peace negotiations and to which the UN refered and obviously accepted when it accepted Israel into the UN. Try again.

        Furthermore the Security Council says in resolution 2434 that it “will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;”. Why does it refer to the 1967 lines and not to partition/Israel’s proclamation borders?

        Talknic: “As with the previous example offered elsewhere, the authorities were censured. The authorities are not the State.”

        Come back to me when you can prove by using the UN Charter that the UN can’t censure non-member states, allthough it can even censure non state actors. Right now and because of the US veto and non recognition of the State of Palestine its obvious that the Security Council wouldn’t censure a Palestinian STATE and only Palestinan “authorities”.

        Me: “So far according to your nonsense ISIL could legally create a state by illegaly acquiring its territory and according to the right to self determination as long as it makes sure that it represents the majority of its inhabitans by killing or expelling everyone else and by a simple declaration.”
        Talknic: “If you say so. I haven’t.”

        Come back to me, if you can point out the main difference between your pro JSIL arguments and what I wrote regarding your nonsense.

  10. [email protected]
    July 7, 2017, 3:16 pm

    Good grief, so much of the Israel-Palestine discourse is clear to me. Ethnic cleansing, Israeli-Jewish only roads, Building permits, settlements, etc, this one comes right up to the grey line. I’ll come out, I’m gay and Palestinian. I don’t see the Jewish star used in these marches as Israeli. It’s a rainbow flag. On the other hand, the star color, size, and placement are the same, so surely a good argument can be made that the star is meant to symbolize Israel. Also other participants went to the parade wearing Jewish symbols without harassment. For me the good news is ultimately GLBTQ organizers are recognizing the intersectionality of all human rights struggles. Imagery evoking Israel and its policies is exclusionary and should be viewed in the same vein as a confederate flag for example. Weather this flag passes the smell test is up for debate. Great that the debate is finally on the table in my community.

Leave a Reply