Trending Topics:

Israeli prosecutors try to make Ahed Tamimi a terrorist

Israel/Palestine
on 149 Comments

Ahed Tamimi was indicted by the Israeli military prosecutor on Monday, on five counts of assaulting security forces and throwing stones.

The five counts, as reported by Haaretz, include: “Threatening a soldier, attacking a soldier under aggravated circumstances, interfering with a soldier carrying out his duties, incitement, and throwing objects at individuals or property”.

My focus here is going to be on the not-so-obvious insertion in that list: “incitement”. While this may seem the least ‘physical’, I believe this is what, for Israeli Hasbara, will be the most important issue regarding Ahed Tamimi. Let me explain.

Those other issues listed would not easily be seen in the rest of the world as grave issues really – not ones that would justify long incarceration, certainly not for life, as Education Minister Bennett had suggested. While in Israel, throwing a stone can entail 20 years in prison, the rest of the world would find it hard to accept such harsh punishment (certainly for life!), and Israel’s PR would suffer.

“Interfering with a soldier carrying out his duties”? What, seriously? His duties of occupying her village, her house, shooting her cousin in the face? No, that wouldn’t stick. This is way too far from the UN General Assembly Resolution 3246 of 1974, which “Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle”. That resolution also legitimizes indirectly the throwing of stones, which, as Haaretz journalist Amira Hass writes, is “the birthright and duty of anyone subject to foreign rule”.

That principle also renders Ahed’s slap to the soldier to be a relatively benign form of resistance, as much as it may offend Israelis and endanger their sense of superiority. Was Ahed’s slap under “aggravated circumstances”? Surely the prosecution didn’t have in mind the aggravated circumstance that Ahed was in, with her cousin put in coma by a bullet to the face, on top of a long history of maiming, killing and torturing of several family relatives. No, all that means nothing – Ahed Tamimi was just a very naughty girl.

No, all that wouldn’t stick. But you know what would catch on? Terror. If it could somehow be construed that Ahed Tamimi is an aspiring terrorist, or that her words and actions led to terrorism, that would catch a lot of people both in Israel and elsewhere. Because clichés like “war on terror” are emotionally determinative for many people. And that’s why Ahed needs to be made a terrorist.

Just like with Marwan Barghouti. When Marwan Barghouti was captured by Israel in 2002 upon the direct orders of then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak said:

“Have you lost your mind? What’s the story with Barghouti? If it’s part of your struggle against terrorism, it’s meaningless. But if it’s part of a grand plan to make him a future national leader of the Palestinians, then it’s a brilliant scheme, because what’s really missing in his résumé is direct affiliation with terrorism. He will fight for the leadership from inside prison, not having to prove a thing. The myth will grow constantly by itself.”

These words, with all their inherent mockery, could just as well be applied to Ahed Tamimi. Pretty much the same has already been said about Ahed, as for example by Uri Avnery in his piece titled “Joan of Arc in a West Bank Village” (Haaretz), subtitled “The Israeli army wants to punish Ahed Tamimi ‘so all should see and fear.’ Instead, Palestinian teenagers see the photos and think: I want to be like her.” Avnery:

“She’s 16, from a family of peasants in an isolated village. The foreign occupation outraged her, and she set out to fight it. Her actions excited her oppressed people, whose spirits rose from the depths of despair to renewed hope. She was captured by her occupiers, who imprisoned and prosecuted her. You’re probably thinking I mean 16-year-old Ahed Tamimi, who slapped the face of an Israel Defense Forces officer. But actually, I’m referring to Joan of Arc, known as “the maid of Orléans”, Avnery writes.

So how will Ahed, who has resisted her oppressor with her bare hands, and allegedly even with a stone – be made a terrorist? Through ‘incitement’. That’s the item we need to look at.

Let’s see how Haaretz cites the military prosecution on this count, quoting Ahed Tamimi from a live Facebook feed, with the prosecution’s translation:

“I hope everyone will participate in the protests, because that is the only solution to reach a result. Our strength is in our rocks and I hope that the entire world will unite to liberate Palestine because Trump announced a decision and they will need to bear responsibility for every response that will come from us – whether it is a stabbing attack, or a suicide bombing or throwing rocks, everyone needs to do something and unite in order for our message to reach those who want to liberate Palestine”.

Now, I have spent many hours yesterday trying to obtain the original live Facebook feed which is being quoted from*. As well, I have asked a few Arabic speaking friends to help with the translation of that cited passage**. I have cross checked the individual versions, and have reached a conclusion regarding the imprecision of the Israeli prosecution translation. Bear with me, this needs careful and slow analysis:

Putting aside what I would consider semantic differences in translation, the critical divergence appears in what the military prosecution translates as “stabbing attack, or a suicide bombing or throwing rocks”.

Here, both my contact’s versions (which they had not corroborated) translate what the prosecution refers to as “suicide bombings”, to “martyrdom operations” – taken from Ahed’s words (‘amaliyat istish’hadiya’, phonetically in Arabic). Now before making quick conclusions, let’s consider this carefully.

Imagine the translation was thus more exact, and went like this:

“Whether it is stabbing attacks, Martyrdom operations – or throwing rocks”.

First of all, Ahed was not necessarily suggesting that people engage in such operations, beyond, apparently, the one regarding the throwing of stones. In fact, her first proclamation that “our strength is in our rocks” suggests that. Furthermore, her words could arguably be pointing to the notion that Trump’s unilateral decision in favor of Israel and against Palestinians may itself be a cause for such more radical actions – ones which she would not necessarily advocate herself. So she could arguably be saying  that Trump’s decision ‘could result in’ the actions she describes.

Now, does “martyrdom operations” necessarily mean “suicide bombings”, as the prosecution translated it? The Arabic term “Shahid”, meaning “martyr”, is a term that has a Muslim religious meaning as “one who bears witness”, but is also applied in the secular-nationalist sense of one that has died facing off the Israeli occupation. Consider, for example, that Ibrahim Abu Thuraya, who lost both his legs from Israeli fire in 2008 and who was killed by a sniper’s bullet to the head near the Gaza fence, is also a Shahid. He was in his wheelchair, with a flag, and by one account also had a slingshot. He was not a suicide bomber. But he was killed alongside several others whilst demonstrating against Trump’s declaration on Jerusalem. For Palestinians, even completely non-violent resistance can mean their death – their martyrdom.

Now, what if Ahed’s reference to “martyrdom operations” refers to “stabbing operations” as an extension? The translation is from her speech, so it could be written like this:

“stabbing operations (martyrdom operations), or throwing stones”.

Thus we need to consider “stabbing operations”. Are these always and necessarily acts of terror? By Israel’s legal precedence definitions, they are – regardless of whether the attacked is a soldier or a civilian. This, despite the fact, that according to the Council on Foreign Relations discussion on terrorism, “terrorism is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops”. (See once again here).

We can see this interpretation in the case of the medic/killer Elor Azarya, when the court referred to the alleged stabber Abdel Fattah Al Sharif as “the terrorist Al Sharif”, consistently. This is despite the fact that eyewitnesses at the scene had claimed that it was not Al-Sharif who was the stabber (a second man, who was also shot dead) but rather a bystander. Others said that even if he was, he would have been attacking a combat-ready, protected and fully armed occupation soldier.

But in Israel all these distinctions are basically rendered meaningless. If the military prosecution against Ahed would translate the words “martyrdom operations” as ”martyrdom operations”, then its message would be weakened. Not only because it would be repeating the heroic notion of “martyrdom” (which Israel seeks to weaken), but also because the term has various meanings. Hence, the prosecution decided to go with an interpretation – not a translation – into “suicide bombings”.

Thus, the prosecution disseminates a code-word, which gets recycled in international media. For Israelis, “suicide bombing” triggers associations of exploding buses full of civilians. They get thrown back to the 2nd Initifada, and the distance from there to calling Ahed Tamimi a terrorist is conceptually small. And for Westerners, “suicide bombings” is associated with 9-11, and so they can be expected to react with revulsion at Ahed’s alleged words.

Finally, lest one thinks this is all really just semantic, consider this:

Israeli-Palestinian poet Dareen Tatour has been detained for over two years, in a case which revolves around her poem “Resist them”, and her usage of the word “Shahid” – “martyr”. That word has been a subject of huge controversy, involving various translators, and a dispute about whether it actually suggests any kind of incitement to terror, or not. The discussion has been ongoing, in court – around that very word. But the Israeli military prosecution is now getting past that discussion by substituting the words “suicide bombing”. Whatever Ahed actually said or meant, the misleading translation immediately gives Israel and the prosecution propaganda points in a supposed ‘war on terror’, and Ahed Tamimi is made a terrorist.

* Thanks to Daniela Conde for providing me the link to Ahed Tamimi’s live Facebook feed of December 15th.

** Thanks to Alis Amali and Khalid S. Barghouti for their translation and consultation.

About Jonathan Ofir

Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

149 Responses

  1. Jon66
    January 3, 2018, 11:29 am

    Jonathan,
    I don’t speak Arabic, but there seems to be a difference between ‘martyrdom’ and ‘martyrdom operations’.
    The term ‘martyrdom operations is conventionally understood to mean suicide bombing.
    I have not seen the death of Mr. Thuraya referred to as an operation.

    “The term “martyrdom operation” refers to when the Mujahed (the one who fights for the cause of Allah) puts explosive materials in his car or encircles himself with, sneaks into the enemy land, then blows it up where he determines their harm, killing some of them and is killed as well.”
    http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/62P52.htm

    “Martyrdom or self-sacrifice operations are those performed by one or more people, against enemies far outstripping them in numbers and equipment, with prior knowledge that the operations will almost inevitably lead to death.
    The form this usually takes nowadays is to wire up one’s body, or a vehicle or suitcase with explosives, and then to enter amongst a conglomeration of the enemy, or in their vital facilities, and to detonate in an appropriate place there in order to cause the maximum losses in the enemy ranks, taking advantage of the element of surprise and penetration. Naturally, the enacter of the operation will usually be the first to die.”
    https://www.religioscope.com/pdf/martyrdom.pdf

    Do you have examples in which The term ‘martyrdom operations’ is used when referring to someone killed NOT as part of a suicide bombing or other attack.

    • amigo
      January 3, 2018, 12:31 pm

      Jon 66 , stop talking through your posterior.

      Your post is one long exercise in supposition.

      Give us some credible proof instead of your interpretation of how Arabs think.

      Btw, when I learned my Catechism longer ago than I care to remember , A Martyr was someone who voluntarily chose death by Burning at the stake or at the hands of lions rather than deny their God .Palestinians could very well mean the same and why not , given the IDF,S penchant for extra judicial killings,,,aka , Murder.

      You as a zionist need to interpret every action against Israel in the most negative possible way .Post your tedious nonsense elsewhere.

      • Jon66
        January 3, 2018, 5:38 pm

        Amigo,
        “Palestinians could very well mean the same and why not ”
        They could, that’s why I asked the question.
        KS actually answered it.

      • amigo
        January 3, 2018, 6:50 pm

        “They could, that’s why I asked the question.”jon 66

        Your question seemed superfluous after the following screed.

        ““Martyrdom or self-sacrifice operations are those performed by one or more people, against enemies far outstripping them in numbers and equipment, with prior knowledge that the operations will almost inevitably lead to death.
        The form this usually takes nowadays is to wire up one’s body, or a vehicle or suitcase with explosives, and then to enter amongst a conglomeration of the enemy, or in their vital facilities, and to detonate in an appropriate place there in order to cause the maximum losses in the enemy ranks, taking advantage of the element of surprise and penetration. Naturally, the enacter of the operation will usually be the first to die.”Jon 66

      • Jon66
        January 3, 2018, 10:10 pm

        Amigo,
        That quote and the other reference were amongst those that confused me about the difference between martyrdom operations and martyrdom.

      • John O
        January 4, 2018, 1:15 pm

        @Jon66

        You said you do not speak Arabic. You would be well advised not to venture your opinion on the finer nuances of a language you admit you don’t understand.

    • KS Barghouti
      January 3, 2018, 2:16 pm

      Jon 66
      Answering your question on examples of Martyrdom Operations, yes, Ghassan Kanafani was a Palestinian Writer. His writings were considered by Palestinians as Martyrdom Operations. He was assassinated by the Zionist Mossad by a letter bomb in 1972.

      Every Palestinian who resists the Zionist Occupation, by raising a flag, carrying a Banner Writing poetry (Dareen Tatour) or throwing a stone, is performing a Martyrdom Operation against their enemy.

      When they write poetry against their Occupier, or leave home to resist, their mothers and family members pray for them and consider them to be “Martyr Project” i.e a Martyr to be.

      I am a Muslim Arab Palestinian, this is our culture, and we are proud of our Martyrs in their Operations against the Occupation forces.

      • Jon66
        January 3, 2018, 5:33 pm

        KS,
        Thanks for the answer.

      • Marnie
        January 4, 2018, 12:39 am

        Jon, are you going to be able to respect KS Barghouti’s explanation, meaning leaving it exactly as it is, or will you ziospray all over it for the edification of the bastards you ‘teach’?

    • Mooser
      January 3, 2018, 3:15 pm

      “Jon66” the “husband, father and surgeon” (shudder) is contending that since Palestinians know that any action against the Occupier may result in death, martyrdom, it gives Israel the right to kill them.

      • Jon66
        January 5, 2018, 12:52 pm

        Amigo,
        “These attacks were deliberately carried out against “Arab ” Markets with the explicit goal of Killing (murdering ) Arabs.What part of “Thrown into an Arab Market ” do you not understand.Jewish terrorists drove by Arab Markets and threw bombs into the crowd and sped off .Google my last sentence and see for yourself.”

        Attacks like these were terrorism. Violence against civilians for a political purpose.
        Same as Goldstein in Hebron.
        It is despicable that anyone can approve of what he did.

      • Mooser
        January 5, 2018, 1:37 pm

        “Attacks like these were terrorism. Violence against civilians for a political purpose.”

        Don’t ever say that “Jon66”! You are attacking the entire basis of Zionism. Remember what “Jon s” says:

        .” No Jew is an invader in the Jewish historic homeland”!!!

        “The Jews are not foreigners or invaders in Israel because you’re not an invader in your homeland. It’s not as if the Jews were in the country in ancient times, and then left and forgot about it and then suddenly in the 19th century it occurred to them to manufacture a claim to it.” “Jon s”

        I mean, could it be any more totally “not as if”? I ask you.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 5, 2018, 2:23 pm

        could it be any more totally “not as if”?

        sure, it could be

        It’s not as if the Jews were in the country in ancient times, and then left and aside from a minute(tiny) sprinkling of them didn’t even try to come back for waaayyy over a thousand friggin years, and then suddenly in the 19th century it occurred to them….

        oh, except it is exactly like that.

      • Mooser
        January 5, 2018, 2:55 pm

        “oh, except it is exactly like that.”

        Ain’t it, tho. I think “Jon66” and “Jon s” both deserve a dozen “Jews sui generis!” lapel-buttons.

      • Talkback
        January 5, 2018, 3:58 pm

        Jon66: “Attacks like these were terrorism.”

        That’s how Israel was founded.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_military_decorations#Service_ribbons

    • Annie Robbins
      January 3, 2018, 4:07 pm

      i think it’s irrelevant whether she had stated explicitly suicide bombing (which she didn’t) or martyrdom operations. and i agree with her that “because Trump announced a decision and they will need to bear responsibility for every response that will come from us – whether it is a stabbing attack, or a suicide bombing or throwing rock“.

      and, i agree with her that “everyone needs to do something and unite in order for our message to reach those who want to liberate Palestine”.

      because she said both those things, it does not mean she is advocating suicide bombings any more than me saying “everyone needs to do something and unite in order for our message to reach those who want to liberate Palestine” means that i am advocating for suicide bombings when i say i think trump et al will need to bear responsibility for every response that will come from palestinians – whether it is a stabbing attack, or a suicide bombing or throwing rocks as a response to his grotesque jerusalem announcement.

      remember. these are spoken words from a live Facebook feed.

      I hope everyone will participate in the protests, because that is the only solution to reach a result.

      Our strength is in our rocks and I hope that the entire world will unite to liberate Palestine because Trump announced a decision and they will need to bear responsibility for every response that will come from us whether it is a stabbing attack, or a suicide bombing or throwing rocks.

      Everyone needs to do something and unite in order for our message to reach those who want to liberate Palestine

      i agree with each sentence, or paragraph depending on how one edits this spoken statement (however, primarily, i believe palestinian greatest strength is in their truth, will, and sumud. primarily truth, because israel doesn’t have any of that. their entire justification for being there is myth based and they constantly lie and depend on lies an myths to sustain their presence there. i think truth will always be palestinians strongest weapon — but that’s just me).

      she straight up says “I hope everyone will participate in the protests” and “protests .. is the only solution to reach a result”. she straight up says “Our strength is in our rocks”.

      so construing her message (which i share and think is absolutely common sense), that trump will have to bear responsible for the response to his announcement whatever that may be, including throwing rocks, and “Everyone needs to do something and unite” is a call for suicide attacks, is a radical interpretation — helped along with the editing of punctuation; comma vs period. she’s clearly calling for protests!

      • Citizen
        January 3, 2018, 7:05 pm

        I agree, Annie. Trump couldn’t care less what we think, nor about Mondoweis.net. It remains to be seen if he can be called to practical account by anyone, for anything.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 17, 2018, 3:15 am

        what’s more crucial citizen, is how her words are taken out of context. they are trying to set her up for advocating suicide bombings. by cherrypicking her words, and beginning a sentence with a word (“whether”) which is mid-sentenced in her speech, to make it appear she is saying something she is not, to accuse her, is vile.

        times of israel: https://www.timesofisrael.com/amnesty-demands-israel-release-soldier-slapping-palestinian-teen/

        “Whether it is stabbings or suicide bombings or throwing stones, everyone must do his part and we must unite in order for our message to be heard that we want to liberate Palestine,” she concluded.

        her words:

        …they will need to bear responsibility for every response that will come from us whether it is a stabbing attack, or a suicide bombing or throwing rocks.

        Everyone needs to do something and unite in order for our message to reach those who want to liberate Palestine

        do you see the difference? they chopped it up worse than that. she was calling for protests. she said up front

        I hope that everyone will take part in the demonstrations as this is the only means to achieve the result.

        they are trying to frame her for calling for suicide bombings. it’s disgraceful. and what trump thinks is irrelevant. this is a decades long fitna. trump is a gruesome blurp, their tool. ahed is a queen against the the apartheid colonialist empire of a racist occupation.

    • echinococcus
      January 3, 2018, 4:27 pm

      Well, John66, we know you have a problem with every kind of resistance to illegal occupation by your bastard intruder state. And yes, violent resistance to armed occupation is exactly what is meant by “all means available”.

      You may want to state at the start that you are, as the phrase goes, “a disinterested, impartial observer with no vested interest in either solution”.

      • Jon66
        January 4, 2018, 8:42 am

        Echi,
        “Well, John66, we know you have a problem with every kind of resistance…”
        That’s incorrect.
        One area in which we differ is the limitation of legitimate resistance.
        For example, i do not believe that killing a wheelchair-bound retired American on cruise ship is legitimate. Or, bombing a civilian pizzeria. Or, hijacking a neutral parties airplane. Or, firing an anti-tank missle at a school bus carrying children. Or, stabbing a 13 year old boy in a candy store. Etc.
        I believe that resistance is not a limitless category.
        Although off topic, I think it’s also illegal for an army medic to shoot a disarmed attacker and the medic should be sentenced to prison.

      • amigo
        January 4, 2018, 11:13 am

        “For example, i do not believe that killing a wheelchair-bound retired American on cruise ship is legitimate. Or, bombing a civilian pizzeria. Or, hijacking a neutral parties airplane. Or, firing an anti-tank missle at a school bus carrying children. Or, stabbing a 13 year old boy in a candy store. Etc.”Jon 66

        I take it , you would have had a problem with the following “resistance”, and I remind you that very few , if any of your heroes were wearing uniforms to conform with the laws of war as pointed out by you during your conversation with Echi.
        It,s along list and includes throwing bombs into crowed civilian Arab Markets and into buses or using barrel bombs in open populated areas.

        The time for you zionists honouring yourselves is way past over and you hold no moral high ground in the the business of “legitimate resistance”.

        1937, March 2 Arabs killed on Bat Yam beach. [12]
        1937, November 14 10 Arabs killed by Irgun units launching attacks around Jerusalem, (“Black Sunday”) [13][14]
        1938, April 12 2 Arabs and 2 British policemen were killed by a bomb in a train in Haifa. [14]
        1938, April 17 1 Arab was killed by a bomb detonated in a cafe in Haifa [14]
        1938, May 17 1 Arab policeman was killed in an attack on a bus in the Jerusalem-Hebron road. [14]
        1938, May 24 3 Arabs were shot and killed in Haifa. [14]
        1938, June 19 18 Arabs killed (9 men, 6 women and 3 children), 24 injured by a bomb that was thrown into a crowded Arab market place in Haifa. [15][16][17][18]
        1938, June 23 2 Arabs were killed near Tel Aviv. [14]
        1938, June 26 7 Arabs were killed by a bomb in Jaffa. [14]
        1938, June 27 1 Arab was killed in the yard of a hospital in Haifa. [14]
        1938, July 5 7 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks in Tel Aviv. [14]
        1938, July 5 3 Arabs were killed by a bomb detonated in a bus in Jerusalem. [14]
        1938, July 5 1 Arab was killed in another attack in Jerusalem. [14]
        1938, July 6 18 Arabs and 5 Jews were killed by two simultaneous bombs in the Arab melon market in Haifa. More than 60 people were wounded. The toll over two days of riots and reprisals was 33 dead, 111 wounded. [14][19][20][21]
        1938, July 8 4 Arabs were killed by a bomb in Jerusalem. [14]
        1938, July 16 10 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jerusalem. [14]
        1938, July 25 43 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa. [14][22]
        1938, August 26 24 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jaffa. [14]
        1939, February 27 33 Arabs were killed in multiple attacks, incl. 24 by bomb in Arab market in Suk Quarter of Haifa and 4 by bomb in Arab vegetable market in Jerusalem. [23]
        1939, May 29 5 Arabs were killed by a mine detonated at the Rex cinema in Jerusalem. [14]
        1939, May 29 5 Arabs were shot and killed during a raid on the village of Biyar ‘Adas. [14]
        1939, June 2 5 Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem. [14][24]
        1939, June 12 1 British bomb expert trying to defuse the bombs killed, during a post office in Jerusalem was bombing [14]
        1939, June 16 6 Arabs were killed in several attacks in Jerusalem. [14]
        1939, June 19 20 Arabs were killed by explosives mounted on a donkey at a marketplace in Haifa. [14][25]
        1939, June 29 13 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks around Jaffa during a one-hour period. [14][26]
        1939, June 30 1 Arab was killed at a marketplace in Jerusalem. [14]
        1939, June 30 2 Arabs were shot and killed in Lifta. [14]
        1939, July 3 1 Arab was killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa. [14][27]
        1939, July 4 2 Arabs were killed in two attacks in Jerusalem. [14]
        1939, July 20 1 Arab was killed at a train station in Jaffa. [14]
        1939, July 20 6 Arabs were killed in several attacks in Tel Aviv. [14]
        1939, July 20 3 Arabs were killed in Rehovot. [14]
        1939, August 27 2 British officers were killed by a mine in Jerusalem. [14]
        During the Jewish insurgency (1944–47)[edit]
        For more details on this topic, see Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine.
        Date Casualties References
        1944, September 27 Unknown number of casualties, around 150 Irgun members attacked four British police stations [28]
        1944, September 29 1 Senior British police officer of the Criminal Intelligence Department assassinated in Jerusalem. [28]
        1945, November 1 5 locomotives destroyed in Lydda station. Two staff, one soldier and one policeman killed. [29]
        1945, December 27 3 British policemen and 4 Sotho soldiers killed during the bombing of British CID headquarters in Jerusalem; 1 British soldier killed during attack of British army camp in north Tel Aviv [30][31]
        1946, February 22 Destroyed 14 aeroplanes at 5 RAF stations. [32]
        1947, June 18 One Haganah member killed by a booby trap while sealing a tunnel dug by Irgun to blow up the British [33]
        1946, July 22 91 people were killed at the bombing of the King David Hotel (which was the British headquarters), mostly civilians, staff of the hotel or Secretariat,
        41 Arabs, 15-28 British citizens, 17 Palestinian Jews, 2 Armenians, 1 Russian, 1 Greek and 1 Egyptian. [34][35][36]
        1946, October 30 2 British guards killed during Gunfire and explosion at Jerusalem Railway Station. [37]
        1946, October 31 Bombing of the British Embassy in Rome. Nearly half the building was destroyed and 3 people were injured. [38]
        1947, January 12 4 killed in bombing of British headquarters. [39]
        1947, March 1 17 British officers killed, during raid and explosion. [40]
        1947, March 12 1 British soldier killed during the attack on Schneller Camp. [40]
        1947, July 19 4 locations within Haifa are attacked, killing a British constable and injuring 12. [41]
        1947, July 29 2 kidnapped British sergeants hanged. [42]
        1947, August 4 Two Suitcase time-bombs explode in the basement of the Hotel Sacher, Vienna (British Army Headquarters) [43][44]
        1947, August 5 3 British policemen killed in bombing of British Labour Department office in Jerusalem [45]
        1947, August 9 Jewish train engineer killed in Cairo-Haifa train bombing [46]
        1947, August 12 1 British soldier injured in bombing of London-Villach military train outside Tauern tunnel near Mallintz, Austria. A second bomb failed to explode, the two were intended to derail the train over a steep cliff. No injuries from a second explosion outside British camp commandant’s office in Velden. [43][47][48]
        1947, September 26 4 British policemen killed in Irgun bank robbery. [39]
        1947, September 29 10 killed (4 British policemen, 4 Arab policemen and an Arab couple) and 53 injured in Haifa police headquarters bombing by Irgun. One ton of explosives in a barrel was used for the bombing and Irgun said it was done on the first day of Sukkot to avoid Jewish casualties. [39][49][50]
        During the Civil War (1947–48)[edit]
        For more details on this topic, see 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine.
        Date Casualties References
        1947, December 11 13 killed in attack on Tireh, near Haifa [51]
        1947, December 12 20 killed, 5 wounded by barrel bomb at Damascus Gate. [52]
        1947, December 13 6 killed, 25 wounded by bombs outside Alhambra Cinema. [53]
        1947, December 13 5 killed, 47 wounded by two bombs at Damascus Gate. [53][54]
        1947, December 13 7 Arabs killed (including two women and two children, 3 and 4 years old) and 7 others seriously wounded (two women and girl of 4 among them) in attack on Yehudiya. 24 Irgun men attacked the village, approaching from Petah Tikva shooting guns, dynamiting houses and throwing grenades. An armored British police car was also fired on. [53][54][55]
        1947, December 16(ca) 10 killed by bomb at Noga Cinema in Jaffa. [56]
        1947, December 29 Two British constables and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs wounded when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi at Jerusalem’s Damascus Gate. [39][57][58]
        1947, December 30 6 Arabs killed and, 42 injured by grenades at Haifa refinery, precipitating the Haifa Oil Refinery massacre, which led to the Balad al-Shaykh massacre. [59]
        1948, January 1 2 Arabs killed and 9 injured by shooting attack on cafe in Jaffa. [60]
        1948, January 5 14 Arabs killed and 19 injured by truck bomb outside the 3-storey ‘Serrani’, Jaffa’s built Ottoman Town Hall [61]
        1948, January 7 20 Arabs killed by bomb at Jaffa Gate. [62][63]
        1948, February 10 7 Arabs killed near Ras el Ain after selling cows in Tel Aviv [64]
        1948, February 18 12 Arabs killed and 43 wounded at a marketplace in Ramla [65]
        1948, March 1 20 Britons killed and 30 wounded in the Bevingrad Officers Club bombing [66]
        1948, April 9-April 11 107-120 Arabs killed and massacred (the estimate generally accepted by scholars, instead the first announced number of 254) during and after the battle at the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, by 132 Irgun and 60 Lehi fighters. [67][68][69][70][71]
        1948, April 6 7 British soldiers, including Commanding Officer, killed during an arms raid on Pardes Hanna Army camp.

        Here is the link to Jewish Martyr Operations.

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

      • Jon66
        January 4, 2018, 12:07 pm

        Amigo,
        I can’t find details in your reference, but if these attacks were against civilians than they were wrong. I don’t have a problem condemning attacks targeting civilians by Israelis. They are a violation of the laws of war. I believe that these apply not only to the Palestinians but the Israelis as well. I can’t justify the targeting of civilians and won’t.
        Can we agree that bombing a civilian bus is terrorism and wrong?

      • yonah fredman
        January 4, 2018, 12:20 pm

        amigo- the numbers in your cut and paste are wrong.

      • yonah fredman
        January 4, 2018, 12:26 pm

        Many Palestinians have recognized the importance of public relations, that a weak people cannot afford to alienate world opinion by utilizing any means of vengeance. Usually this recognition does not deny the deep anger that has its basis in the unjust facts, but nonetheless tactics should be guided by utility rather than vengeance. Some commenters here, see no need to think about tactics in this way.

      • echinococcus
        January 4, 2018, 1:28 pm

        Don’t try to drown the topic.
        You are defending Nazi occupation law against international law.

      • amigo
        January 4, 2018, 1:42 pm

        “amigo- the numbers in your cut and paste are wrong.”YF

        No s–t shinola.Should I withdraw it

        Yonah , if you wish to point out errors then do the work and provide evidence.Otherwise stop wasting my/our time.

      • amigo
        January 4, 2018, 2:00 pm

        “Can we agree that bombing a civilian bus is terrorism and wrong?”Jon 66.

        When have I ever suggested that bombing civilian buses is acceptable.

      • Jon66
        January 4, 2018, 2:55 pm

        Amigo,
        “When have I ever suggested that bombing civilian buses is acceptable.”
        Excellent. I’m in agreement as well.
        But there are others here who don’t feel the same.

      • Mooser
        January 4, 2018, 4:33 pm

        “Excellent. I’m in agreement as well. But there are others here who don’t feel the same.” “Jon66”

        “Jon66” you are right, and I support your right to completely exclude Mondo from your comments, or even read the articles until such time as those people (“others here who don’t feel the same”) are banned.

      • amigo
        January 4, 2018, 6:11 pm

        “I can’t find details in your reference,” Jon 66

        Look closer Jon.Here is just a small example .It is not if it happened.It did.

        “1938, June 19 18 Arabs killed (9 men, 6 women and 3 children), 24 injured by a bomb that was thrown into a crowded Arab market place in Haifa. [15][16][17][18]

        “1938, July 5 3 Arabs were killed by a bomb detonated in a bus in Jerusalem. [14]”

        “1938, July 16 10 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jerusalem. [14]

        1938, July 25 43 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa. [14][22]

        1938, August 26 24 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jaffa. [14]

        1939, February 27 33 Arabs were killed in multiple attacks, incl. 24 by bomb in Arab market in Suk Quarter of Haifa and 4 by bomb in Arab vegetable market in Jerusalem. [23]

        1939, May 29 5 Arabs were killed by a mine detonated at the Rex cinema in Jerusalem. [14]

      • Mooser
        January 4, 2018, 6:17 pm

        “I can’t find details in your reference, but if these attacks were against civilians than they were wrong”

        Are you really this stupid “Jon66”? Palestinians and others in Palestine (“Arabs” in the report) were all civilians.!! There is no Palestinian Army. And there wasn’t any then. Any soldiers would have been British, whom the Zionists also had no right to kill.

        Who the hell do you think was there to be killed by the Zionist terrorists except civilians?

      • eljay
        January 4, 2018, 8:59 pm

        || Mooser: … Who the hell do you think was there to be killed by the Zionist terrorists except civilians? ||

        Yeah, but, y’see, the difference is that while MooslimArabs do evil, Zionists only do “necessary evil”.

        So if Zionists were killing civilians as a prelude to establishing a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine:
        – it must’ve been necessary; and, in all likelihood,
        – those crafty MooslimArabs – who hate Jews more than they love their own children – made the Zionists do it.

      • Talkback
        January 5, 2018, 4:42 am

        Jon 66: “They are a violation of the laws of war. I believe that these apply not only to the Palestinians but the Israelis as well.”

        Really, you actually DO BELIEVE that laws of war not only apply to Palestinians? What a remarkable believe. But don’t overplay it and claim that it is a legal fact for both sides. That would sound to egalitarian, wouldn’t it?

        Jon66: “Can we agree that bombing a civilian bus is terrorism and wrong?”

        Let’s expand this. Can we agree that any violence against civilians, whether deliberate or taken into account is wrong? Can we also agree that long term occupation is wrong? That expulsion and keeping rrefugees expelled is wrong? That confiscating land of occupied people and settling in occupied territories is wrong? That settler colonialism is wrong? If yes then I “believe” that this doesn’t apply only to Jews but to Nonjews as well.

      • Jon66
        January 5, 2018, 1:18 pm

        Talk,
        “Can we agree that any violence against civilians, whether deliberate or taken into account is wrong? ”
        Targeting civilians is illegal and a crime.
        “When military objectives are attacked, civilians and civilian objects must be spared from incidental or collateral damage to the maximum extent possible.”
        https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law1_final.pdf

        “Can we also agree that long term occupation is wrong?”
        Yes. I want to see an end to the occupation. We disagree on the causes of the continued occupation. There was no occupation before June 1967 and there wasn’t peace.

        “That expulsion and keeping rrefugees expelled is wrong? ”

        UN 194. “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, “. I have not seen evidence of the peace wish.
        In addition, I think we define refugee differently.
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/palestinian-refugees-and-the-un/2012/05/14/gIQAgFW0OU_blog.html?utm_term=.e84cc82b6667

      • Annie Robbins
        January 5, 2018, 2:13 pm

        I have not seen evidence of the peace wish.

        really? you’ve never seen any evidence of any palestinian refugee wanting to live in peace? hmm.

      • Talkback
        January 5, 2018, 3:54 pm

        Jon66: “Yes. I want to see an end to the occupation. We disagree on the causes of the continued occupation. There was no occupation before June 1967 and there wasn’t peace.”

        There wasn’t peace, because Zionist took over Palestine through war and expulsion. You always seem to forget the originial sin which is called Zionist settler colonialism.

        Jon66: “I have not seen evidence of the peace wish.”

        Of course not. You think that they will act like Zionists.

        Jon66: “In addition, I think we define refugee differently.
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/palestinian-refugees-and-the-un/2012/05/14/gIQAgFW0OU_blog.html?utm_term=.e84cc82b6667

        Of course you do. You just have to think the same way like the author Jennifer Rubin who “has supported the Likud government and other conservative factions in Israel” (Wikipedia) and opens her article with the same psychopathic attitude towards the UN:
        “There are many reasons to detest the United Nations. … It is among the most anti-Semitic institutions on the planet.”

        I understand why such a nutcase has to redifine the definition of a Palestinian refugee.

        But she is wrong. Even under UNHCR the same principle is applied:
        “UNHCR‘s Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for determining Refugee Status provides in paragraph 184: “If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, [for refugee status] his dependants are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity.””
        https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/features/exploding-myths-unrwa-unhcr-and-palestine-refugees

        But feel free to apply your immoral standards unto Jews, too. Especially unto those who claimed that they “returned” and showed to Palestine how peaceful their goal of overtaking Palestine has been since then.

      • Marnie
        January 6, 2018, 1:16 am

        After reading posts by jon66, the only thing I take from his extensive yammering is this: jon66 will not see palestinian suffering, their right to protest it, their dignity, their humanity or anything else because it makes him feel uncomfortable. He has to frame everything from his POV only, because that’s all that matters to him. Because he lives in his hysterical homeland. Because he has no problem living in someone else’s home. No matter the reassurances you’ve received from other people that yeah, bombing buses of ‘civilians’ is wrong, it’s not enough. If you can’t get 100% of the people to agree with your whining, sniveling bullshit 100% of the time, then you can’t agree with anything on the other side, no matter the proof, the witnesses, the history, etc. Nobody going to plant a juicy raspberry or your zionst behind and most people disagree with most of what you say. You’re beating a dead horse. You spend a lot of time trying to get others to say what you want them to say. You aren’t schooling us. Take it from Mooser:

        Are you really this stupid “Jon66”? Palestinians and others in Palestine (“Arabs” in the report) were all civilians.!! There is no Palestinian Army. And there wasn’t any then. Any soldiers would have been British, whom the Zionists also had no right to kill.

      • Jon66
        January 6, 2018, 8:55 am

        Marnie,
        “Because he lives in his hysterical homeland. Because he has no problem living in someone else’s home. ”
        You appear to be confused and your reply incoherent.

        I live in America. I am American as were my parents and grandparents. I don’t know of anyone else claiming the right to my house, except for the mortgage company.

        You may have me confused with someone else, but then again why bother to identify individuals when you can group everyone into categories of ‘good’ and ‘evil’.

        As to your point about the Palestinians, of course I recognize their suffering and rights. I would like to see two independent states to fulfill the needs of both peoples.

        I also recognize that celebrating or conding the deliberate slaughter of civilians by any party is repugnant. Do you?

      • eljay
        January 6, 2018, 10:24 am

        || Jon66: … I would like to see two independent states to fulfill the needs of both peoples. … ||

        By which every individual Zionist like you …
        i) … does not mean:
        – a secular and democratic Israel for all people indigenous to and up to n-generations removed from Israel; and
        – a secular and democratic Palestine for all people indigenous to and up to n-generations removed from Palestine.

        ii) … does mean:
        – as large as possible a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” of Israel primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews; and
        – something for Palestinians including most if not all of the non-Jewish refugees from Israel.

        People all over the world – citizens of homelands throughout the world – who have chosen to embrace the religion-based identity of “Jewish” are not entitled to a (religion-)supremacist state anywhere in the world.

      • Jon66
        January 6, 2018, 11:18 am

        Eljay,
        “secular and democratic Israel”

        I agree with you that I want to live in a secular democracy. However, this is not the only form of government that is legitimate. Many countries have constitutional monarchies, republics, or even technocratic rule. I leave it up to the people’s of each country to decide for themselves, although I agree that democracy and secularism hold significant benefits.

        “all people indigenous to and up to n-generations removed from Israel”
        Can we define ‘n’ =1 and indigenous = being those born in a place?

      • eljay
        January 6, 2018, 12:46 pm

        || Jon66: Eljay,
        “secular and democratic Israel”

        I agree with you that I want to live in a secular democracy. … I agree that democracy and secularism hold significant benefits. … ||

        I’m glad we agree. :-)

        || “all people indigenous to and up to n-generations removed from Israel”
        Can we define ‘n’ =1 and indigenous = being those born in a place? ||

        IMO:
        – Indigenous means “inhabiting a place at any given time”. For example, Palestinians were indigenous to Palestine at the time of Partition. Jewish citizens of Russia and Poland were not.
        – “n” is whatever a country decides it should be. I believe it’s usually three or four generations but if Israel wants to extend preferential citizenship and immigration rights to Jews up to, say, 100 generations removed from Israel that’s fine as long as it extends the same preferential rights to non-Jews up to 100 generations removed from Israel.

      • Mooser
        January 6, 2018, 1:16 pm

        “I live in America. I am American as were my parents and grandparents.” “Jon66”

        I live in America. I am American as were my parents and grandparents. “Jon66”

        Ah, so that’s why you are so willing to watch Israel go over a cliff for your amusement. Typical American faux Zionist. I bet you haven’t given a penny to Israel this year.

        “You may have me confused with someone else…”

        No, you have never been honest about who you are.

      • Jon66
        January 6, 2018, 1:30 pm

        Eljay,
        I understand that you think ‘n’ should be3-4, but would 1 be legit?

      • Talkback
        January 6, 2018, 3:00 pm

        Jon66: “Can we define ‘n’ =1 and indigenous = being those born in a place?”

        The typical Zionist support for ethnic cleansing. It’s like Israel’s nationality law. First expell as much Nonjews as you can and then declare that everybody is a citizen who hasn’t been expelled, yet.

        What a perverted “sense of justice”.

        Jon66: “As to your point about the Palestinians, of course I recognize their suffering and rights. I would like to see two independent states to fulfill the needs of both peoples.”

        Sure, as long as the need to return is only realized by one people, right?

      • eljay
        January 6, 2018, 6:34 pm

        || Jon66: Eljay,
        I understand that you think ‘n’ should be3-4, but would 1 be legit? ||

        I think ‘n’ should be whatever a(n ideally) secular and democratic government decides it should be. If the government of Israel were to decide that it should be 1, I’d have no problem with that.

        Just to be clear: IMO preferential immigration (“PI”) rights are a separate issue from the right of refugees to return to their homes and lands. So while PI rights might be limited to 1 generation, the right of return of non-Jewish and Jewish refugees from Israel should be whatever international law says it should be.

    • Mahmoud El-Yousseph
      January 4, 2018, 10:20 am

      Jon66 asked a the naive question to give him a proof where the term ‘martyrdom operation is used when referring to someone killed NOT as part of sucide bombing or other attack?

      The Marh 11, 1978 martyrdom operation of Dalal Mughrabi and her other 10 Palestinian and Lebanese freedom fighters comes to mind.

      Their goal was to attack the ISISraeli Ministry of Defense in Tel Aviv or the Knesset and to demand the freedom of Palestinian prisoners (like 4 of the Tamimi women) held in israHell.

      Like Ahed Tamimi, Dalal Mughrabi have a choice to be assigned and work at the PLO office in Italy. She turned that luxurious offer down . Asked her mom to fix her her favorite food, gave her pistol as gift to her father and left on the that day without telling them where she was going.

      She and her comrades-in -arm did not have suicide west. 8 of them fell as martyrs in a shootout with the IOF, Two survived. As Dalal laid down motionless due to a severe injury, the leader of IOF unit in-charged of the operation on the day was no other than Former ISISraeli prime minister Ehud Barak. He told his subordinates, leave her for me. He then empty his magazine into her body, lift her up by her hair and have his picture with her body as trophy.

      I share Annie Robins views. the IOF and the illegal Jewish settlers are illegal and nothing more. They are criminal trespassers. So, the are a fair targets. They are lucky they are not in the US. Under US law, you have the right to shoot them dead. It is called Make my day Law.

      A better question for jonn 66 to pose would be, ” who is responsible for luring Jews from all over the world into Palestine, put them on a stolen lands and in the middle of war zone? Blaming Palestinians for the violence is like blaming a woman for kicking her rapist in the stomach.

      • Jon66
        January 4, 2018, 11:59 am

        Mahmoud,
        This Mughrabi?
        “Landing at the beach, Mughrabi’s group met American photographer Gail Rubin, who was taking nature photographs on the beach, and asked her where they were, after which they killed her.[13] Both surviving members of the group later confirmed that it was Mughrabi who killed Rubin,”
        “A total of 38 Israelis, including 13 children, were killed”
        She did not attack soldiers or settlers, she landed in Tel Aviv. She did not attack the Ministry, but did kill a taxi driver.
        That’s your hero?

      • gamal
        January 4, 2018, 1:59 pm

        no this one born in Sabra :

        “On March 11, 1978, Dalal along with her group of fighters managed to infiltrate the Lebanese-Israeli border to the coastal plain near Tel Aviv using rubber dinghy boats. She and her comrades destroyed the boats the moment they reached the coast. It was a one-way trip, as they had returned home to stay. They hijacked an Israeli military bus and took its passengers, some three dozen soldiers, as hostages after driving the bus along the coastal highway to the colony of Herzliya, where a nine-hour battle took place between them and Israeli forces. The group was killed in the fighting, so were the majority of the Israeli soldiers on the bus.

        After killing Dalal al-Mughrabi, Israeli commander Ehud Barak (now Deputy Prime Minister of Israel) unclothed her in front of the cameras, fondled her breasts, stuck the bayonet of his rifle into her body and performed other atrocities on intimate parts of her body.

        Dalal al-Mughrabi, the 20-year old woman, who had never seen her homeland until the moment of her death, was born in the refugee camp of Sabra in Lebanon in 1958. After Dalal’s death, her mother said that she preferred that her daughter’s body be buried in Palestine”

        http://325.nostate.net/tag/dalal-al-mughrabi/

      • Jon66
        January 4, 2018, 2:51 pm

        Gamal,
        She shot and killed an unarmed photographer. The bus was filled with bus drivers and their families out for a day trip. They also attacked random civilians in cars. Which aspects of this are not terrorism? These were not military targets.
        “They then walked less than a mile up to the four-lane highway, opened fire at passing cars, and hijacked a white Mercedes taxi, killing its occupants.[6] Setting off down the highway toward Tel Aviv, they hijacked a chartered bus carrying Egged bus drivers and their families on a day outing, along the Coastal Highway. During the ride, the militants shot and threw grenades at passing cars, shot at the passengers and threw at least one body out of the bus. At one point they commandeered Bus 901, traveling from Tel Aviv to Haifa, and forced the passengers from the first bus to board it.[6]

        At one point, the bus stopped, and one of the perpetrators got out and fired directly into a passing car, killing a teenager, Omri Tel-Oren, and injuring his father Hanoch. Sharon Tel-Oren, Omri’s mother, testified: “We were in our station wagon, driving along the coastal highway. We saw something odd ahead – a bus, but it seemed to be stopped. Then we saw someone lying on the road. There was shattered glass all over, children screaming. Then we heard the gunshots. Omri was asleep in the back seat. The bullet passed though the front seat and hit his head, killing him instantly. My husband was shot in the arm, and lost the movement in his fingers.”[14][15]”

      • echinococcus
        January 4, 2018, 4:10 pm

        Stop screeching “terrorism”, Johnny66. That is exactly what YOUR Zionist government is doing, murdering civilians. By the carloads. When you start a war, that is exactly what you start and you should expect war in return. So stop playing the victim; your sob stories are not sincere and everybody knows it.

      • gamal
        January 4, 2018, 4:26 pm

        “Gamal,”

        not a word you say carries any weight colonialist scum, we don’t owe you shit or didn’t you check Joe Sacco’s “Footnotes in Gaza”, I ain’t talking to you liar, don’t capitalize my name because my 3/5ths of an opinion reckons you can go fuck yourself with your accusations and yes she or they killed the photographer so, I would suggest you don’t holiday where Zionist scum are colonizing us…it’s the only way to be sure….I ain’t talking to you boy I wouldn’t lower myself.

      • echinococcus
        January 4, 2018, 4:58 pm

        By the way, John 66, didn’t these people know that Palestine is illegally occupied by Zionists who have started a war of aggression and as a result no one can be guaranteed safety there?
        It’s all over all the news since November 1947.
        What business have any people from anywhere going to settle or even travel in Palestine without a Palestinian invitation?
        It is dangerous and that must be repeated ad nauseam, at every opportunity.

        In fact, it’s been a basic principle of all human life since times immemorial: don’t go to a war zone.

      • amigo
        January 4, 2018, 6:23 pm

        Jon S , how do you expect to be taken seriously here when I provide you with a list of crimes committed by Jewish terrorists , your response is prefaced by!

        “I can’t find details in your reference, but if these attacks were against civilians than they were wrong.”

        However you show no such doubt when posting about Palestinian attacks.

        No siree.No doubts there.

      • Mooser
        January 4, 2018, 6:37 pm

        ” but if these attacks were against civilians”

        Who else was there besides Arab civilians?

      • lonely rico
        January 4, 2018, 8:10 pm

        > Mooser

        Who the hell do you think was there to be killed by the Zionist terrorists except civilians?

        Damn civilians kept hiding on their farms, in their villages, hiding behind goats, sheep, decent peaceful lives;
        then popping up, just trying to make the IDF look bad !

        Zionist terrorists (is there any other sort of Zionist?)
        have always enjoyed killing Palestinian civilians.
        Civilians are less dangerous,
        move sorta slowly,
        squishy;
        when you pull the trigger – BOOM !
        Like blowing away a slow-moving watermelon.
        Fun !

        Palestinians fighters who hit back (see Ahed Tanimi) can make some Zionists uncomfortable.
        Damn Anti-Semites.

      • Jon66
        January 4, 2018, 8:46 pm

        Amigo,
        “Jon S , how do you expect to be taken seriously here when I provide you with a list of crimes committed by Jewish terrorists , your response is prefaced by!”
        Many of the attacks younlist simply give the ethnicity and the number killed. There is no detail. I have no idea if it was a firefight between two armed forces or a terrorist attack. I don’t know how you could know either. But if they are attacks on civilians then they should be condemned.

      • Jon66
        January 4, 2018, 8:55 pm

        Echi,
        “It is dangerous and that must be repeated ad nauseam, at every opportunity.”
        There are many dangerous situations. This isn’t skydiving. One person has decided to intentionally target and take the life of another. The victim is unarmed and defenseless. She didn’t walk into the middle of a minefield. If I visit a friend in a dangerous neighborhood no one has the right to murder me. It’s one of those “niceties” that most folks agree with.

      • Jon66
        January 4, 2018, 8:59 pm

        gamal,
        Sorry to capitalize your name. I didn’t realize it was offensive.
        You really shouldn’t sell yourself short. I think you are entitled to a full opinion even if I disagree with it.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 4, 2018, 9:51 pm

        This isn’t skydiving. One person has decided to intentionally target and take the life of another. The victim is unarmed and defenseless. She didn’t walk into the middle of a minefield.

        i’m curious how you know Dalal asked Gail Rubin where they were on the beach.

        The bus was filled with bus drivers and their families out for a day trip. They also attacked random civilians in cars. Which aspects of this are not terrorism? These were not military targets.

        I’m wondering if you’ve heard of the dahiya doctrine? israel’s slaughtered lots of civilians justifying it with this lawfare.

        The Dahiya doctrine or, Dahya doctrine,[1] is a military strategy of asymmetric warfare, outlined by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of General Staff Gadi Eizenkot, which foresees the destruction of the civilian infrastructure of regimes deemed to be hostile as a measure calculated to deny combatants the use of that infrastructure.[2] and endorses the employment of “disproportionate power” to secure that end.[3][4][5]

        note how it doesn’t even mention civilians. i wonder how many of those bus drivers or random people in cars are called up on reserve duty? think of those buses and cars as “civilian infrastructure”.

        The legal scholar David Kennedy claims that lawfare “demonstrates an emergent relation between modern war and modern law” (see Of War and Law, Princeton University Press, 2006). It is exemplified in the way that, for example, military lawyers in the midst of a campaign “legally [condition] the battlefield” by poring over target-maps and informing soldiers in what way they are entitled to kill civilians. IHL then becomes the ethical vocabulary for marking legitimate power and justifiable death.

        https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/legislative-attack

        israel justifies killing civilians all the time. takes out whole families aunts and grandparents and children are collateral damage if they think one person in the house (or even not in the house) might be a militant. what’s the difference? no lawyers “legally conditioning the battlefield” by poring over target-maps and informing militants in what way they are entitled to kill civilians? take away the lawyers and what do you have? i’ll tell you what you have, you have 5 or 10 or a hundred palestinians dead for every israeli dead. cry me a river. so really, you make a big deal about gail rubin, as a colonizer who moved to israel, she had a choice to be on that beach. whereas zakaria baker, what choice did he have? he lived in an outdoor prison. and lawfare with a fancy name legalizes his murder. all those people on the bus, according to the dahiya doctrine, they are fair game in a battlefield that includes civilian infrastructure (which is a polite way of saying civilians are fair game). of course, israel will never admit “decided to intentionally target and take the life of another”. it’s always a mistake or something collateral damage or something. but you don’t call it terrorism and you don’t call zakaria’s murder squad terrorists.

        but i do.

      • Jon66
        January 4, 2018, 10:56 pm

        Annie,
        “i’m curious how you know Dalal asked Gail Rubin where they were on the beach.”

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalal_Mughrabi

        As to your other points, are you saying that there are no standards or laws regarding war? Are you saying that Israel does it so the Palestinians can also? I really don’t get the principle.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 5, 2018, 1:41 pm

        As to your other points, are you saying that there are no standards or laws regarding war?

        when i ask how you knew Dalal asked Gail Rubin where they were on the beach, i was not making a point. i was merely curious because if everybody’s dead who would know what they discussed? but now i realize 2 members of the group were not killed and this is what israel learned during interrogation (likely utilizing extreme torture). i was just curious.

        i was also curious if you’d ever heard of the dahiya doctrine. so it’s rather odd that you’d ask me if i was saying there are no standards or laws regarding war. because clearly they are. i even linked to an article about one (perhaps you didn’t bother opening it). it’s rather odd you would not get the principle of that doctrine being applied differently depending on whom the civilians, or the perpetrators, are. and while you acknowledge pre state jewish terrorism for what it is, as well as baruch goldstein’s massacre, you don’t recognize the massacre of the bakr boys as terrorism and i’ve yet to hear you reference anything done by the iof as terrorism nor address the perpetrators of those crimes against humanity as terrorists. and you can’t seem to figure out what my point is. somehow, i can’t really fathom you’re that stupid.

        so, i’ll just take your non answer as sign you have no wish to engage in any of the questions or ideas i put forth and would rather lobby questions at me instead. hence, i will bid you adieu.

      • echinococcus
        January 5, 2018, 1:58 am

        John 66 is hard of hearing, too.

        If you don’t want war, you don’t start it. You’ll get it. That simple.

        If you are not a war criminal, a criminal against peace, an ideological madman or a plain m0r0n, you don’t go to a war zone anyway. Especially not by committing the crime of illegal immigration and occupation of someone else’s land without the the owners’ permission.

        You want to walk into a blazing furnace while it’s obvious it’s a blazing furnace, be my guest. Don’t complain.

        All the “gentlemen-soldier” aristocratic cricket rules for conduct in war have been abolished by the Zionist atrocities since 1947 and the Zionist atrocities against exclusively civilians, just as they had been abolished by the Nazi occupation of Europe. They wanted an empire, they got Dresden, no matter the rules. The rule is that what you start will bite you.

        We know exactly what side John 66 and his wailers stand on: that of the cowards who start war from a couple continents away and don’t even have the courage to do what they preach and go get hit by some stray bomb in warring Palestine. That’s why all second person plural personal pronouns, above, don’t mean anyone is addressing them, it’s just the usual American indeterminate person.

      • echinococcus
        January 5, 2018, 2:08 am

        PS
        To all: one thing that must be publicized as much as humanly possible will be more effective than any BDS:

        The Zionist entity is a war zone. It is dangerous to go there or even think of going there. It does not help your lungs, liver or bone marrow, no matter your ideological stance. DO NOT GO THERE. WAR ZONE.

        Our US Zionists know that. They ain’t moving. They continue to inflict their unbearable presence on the rest of the US population, while sending over there the slower minds as cannon fodder.

      • Talkback
        January 5, 2018, 4:44 am

        Jon66: “One … has decided to intentionally target and take the life of another. The victim is unarmed and defenseless.”

        The history of Palestine under Zionist target in a nutshell.

        Jon66: “I have no idea if it was a firefight between two armed forces or a terrorist attack. I don’t know how you could know either. But if they are attacks on civilians then they should be condemned.”

        Oh, so every attack by an Israeli soldier against a Palestinian civialian should be condemned, too. And every attack by Palestinians against Israeli citizens could be explained away by claiming that one has no idea if it was a firefight between to armed forces. Btw. are settlers armed?

      • Talkback
        January 5, 2018, 4:49 am

        Mooser: “Who else was there besides Arab civilians?”

        They were demilitarized by the British after their revolt in the 1930s.The Palestinians didn’t even have the means to counter attack the Zionist onslaught on Palestine in 1947/48 who illegaly stashed weapons to prepare themselves to conquer Palestine thtough war and expulsion.

      • amigo
        January 5, 2018, 8:51 am

        “Anonymous soldiers, we are here without uniforms
        And fright and fear of death surround us
        We have all joined for life
        Only death will release us from our duty”

        For the rest of this “diddy” by your heroes who operated in contravention of International Law ,(by your own statement to Echi)without identifying themselves from civilians while carrying out attacks on “Arab” markets as evidenced in my list.

        https://donabravanel.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/anonymous-soldiers-the-anthem-of-the-lehi/

        ““I can’t find details in your reference,”There may have been a firefight.Jon 66

        The list covers firefights and attacks on British forces so all you have to do is scan through it , but apparently you lack the intellectual courage to do so.

        ““1938, June 19 18 Arabs killed (9 men, 6 women and 3 children), 24 injured by a bomb that was thrown into a crowded Arab market place in Haifa. [15][16][17][18]”

        What part of this confuses you.

        or this ,

        ““1938, June 19 18 Arabs killed (9 men, 6 women and 3 children), 24 injured by a bomb that was thrown into a crowded Arab market place in Haifa. [15][16][17][18]”

        or this .

        “1939, February 27 33 Arabs were killed in multiple attacks, incl. 24 by bomb in Arab market in Suk Quarter of Haifa and 4 by bomb in Arab vegetable market in Jerusalem. [23]”.

        These attacks were deliberately carried out against “Arab ” Markets with the explicit goal of Killing (murdering ) Arabs.What part of “Thrown into an Arab Market ” do you not understand.Jewish terrorists drove by Arab Markets and threw bombs into the crowd and sped off .Google my last sentence and see for yourself.

      • Nathan
        January 5, 2018, 9:41 am

        Talkback – You claim that the Jews had “illegally stashed weapons” before the war in 1947-8. Are you trying to say that they should have stashed weapons legally?

        You also claim that “the Palestinians didn’t even have the means to counter-attack the Zionist onslaught….” Well, that’s not true at all. The Palestinians had weapons, and they also had forces in the field of battle. It’s true that the Palestinians rebelled against the British (1936-9), and they suffered very heavy losses – but you would have to be quite naive to believe that in 1947 they were unarmed. Moreover, the neighboring Arab states were committed to intervene in the war on their behalf, so obviously that should be a reasonable definition of “the means to counter-attack the Zionist onslaught”.

        Anyway, let’s just assume that reality was exactly as you described it (only the Jewish side had weapons). Why did the Arab side insist on going to war? You would imagine that the clear expectation of utter defeat would have convinced the Arab side to strike some kind of deal with the Jews. The conclusion should be that either the Arabs made a very serious strategic/political blunder or that they felt very confident that the Jews would be soundly defeated in the war.

        Actually, this conclusion is true today as well: Either the Palestinians are making a very serious strategic/political blunder in their refusal to negotiate the final-status agreement with Israel (thus ending the conflict) or they feel very confident that in the absence of a political compromise Israel will eventually be soundly defeated.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 5, 2018, 10:01 am

        You claim that the Jews had “illegally stashed weapons” before the war in 1947-8. Are you trying to say that they should have stashed weapons legally?

        nathan, when you write “you claim”, are you trying to say jews legally stashed weapons?

        Why did the Arab side insist on going to war?

        why did the jewish side insist on ethnically cleansing all those villages?

        Actually, this conclusion is true today as well: Either the Palestinians are making a very serious strategic/political blunder in their refusal to negotiate the final-status agreement with Israel (thus ending the conflict)

        why would you think palestine negotiating “today” would end the conflict when they’ve negotiated time and time again for decades which has only resulted in the occupation becoming more entrenched? as you may recall http://mondoweiss.net/2014/04/the-borders-stupid/ :

        Yasser Abed Rabbo, deputy head of the PLO, cautioned on Wednesday against simply returning to an “empty routine” at the negotiating table. He reaffirmed that Palestinians wanted talks to focus on setting the future borders of their state.

        “We can’t return to the empty routine, a search for a framework for talks – this empty routine which is negotiating about negotiating,” he told reporters.

        Continuing the talks beyond the end of this month, he said, “must proceed from and depend on one main point, and this is looking into the issue of borders.“

        don’t you remember? the last time palestine agreed to negotiate, israel refused. in lieu of negotiating a solution, israel just wanted to negotiate a framework on how to negotiate. big waste of time. more at the link It’s the borders, stupid.

      • Talkback
        January 5, 2018, 11:43 am

        Nathan: “You claim that the Jews had “illegally stashed weapons” before the war in 1947-8.”

        British claims, not mine.

        Nathan: “Are you trying to say that they should have stashed weapons legally?”

        No. I was saying that their stashing was illegal. The Haganah was illegal, too. But the first High Commissioner of Palestine Herbert Samuel – the first Jewish Zionist ruler of occupied Palestine – closed both eyes.

        Nathan: “The Palestinians had weapons, and they also had forces in the field of battle. It’s true that the Palestinians rebelled against the British (1936-9), and they suffered very heavy losses – but you would have to be quite naive to believe that in 1947 they were unarmed.”

        I said that the didn’t have the means to counter-attack the Jewish onslaught on Palestine. I didn’t say that none of them had weapons. How many 3000?

        Nathan: “Moreover, the neighboring Arab states were committed to intervene in the war on their behalf, so obviously that should be a reasonable definition of “the means to counter-attack the Zionist onslaught”.”

        Even the small armies that were assembled had not the means. And Jordan was taken out of the equation by collaborating with the Jewish Agency.

        Nathan: “Why did the Arab side insist on going to war?”

        They wanted to save Palestinians from the Jewish onslaught and expulsion. Can you imagine what the Jewish terrorists would have done to the rest of the Palestinians if Egypt (Gaz) and Jordan (West Bank) hadn’t intervened?

        Nathan: “You would imagine that the clear expectation of utter defeat would have convinced the Arab side to strike some kind of deal with the Jews.”

        What clear expectations? And again, Jordan stroke a deal.

        Nathan: “Either the Palestinians are making a very serious strategic/political blunder in their refusal to negotiate the final-status agreement with Israel (thus ending the conflict) or they feel very confident that in the absence of a political compromise Israel will eventually be soundly defeated.”

        ROFL. What is their left to negotiate with someone who wants an exclusive claim to Jerusalem, does accept a “right to return” exclusively for Jews and wants to keep control over the West Bank? The Palestinians have decladed their state within 67 lines and recognized your beloved Aparheid Junta. When did it recognize Palestine and fixated its borders?

        And btw:
        Report: PM seeks US okay to annex settlements, cede Arab cities to Palestinians
        https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-pm-seeks-us-okay-to-annex-settlements-cede-arab-cities-to-palestinians/

        So much for Israeli style negotiations. It’s not interested in peace, but only in the “peace process”.

      • Mooser
        January 5, 2018, 12:26 pm

        “They were demilitarized by the British after their revolt in the 1930s”

        Thank you, “Talkback”. (And for much more.)

      • Mooser
        January 5, 2018, 12:37 pm

        “You claim that the Jews had “illegally stashed weapons” before the war in 1947-8. Are you trying to say that they should have stashed weapons legally?” “Nathan”

        Sure “Nate”.
        Didn’t the Balfour Declaration contain a ‘legally-stash-weapons-for- Zionist-terrorist-campaign clause’ the Zionists could have used? Eh, Probably didn’t want to bother with the paperwork.

      • Jon66
        January 5, 2018, 2:12 pm

        Annie,
        I read your link.
        “take away the lawyers and what do you have?”
        The laws of war assume that we will have conflicts and that some behaviors are regulated and allowed and others are not. The role of these lawyers seems to be to screen the behavior of the military to respect the law and advice where it will be crossed. If the lawyers never prohibit an operation or modify it, but only justify it, then they serve no purpose. But your link says the lawyers are there to delineate and expand the legal limits of military behavior.
        If the boys were identified and targeted then it is crminal and those responsible should be prosecuted.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 5, 2018, 2:59 pm

        If the boys were identified and targeted then it is crminal and those responsible should be prosecuted.

        jon, we’re talking about the same government who tried to deny the corpses of Nadeem Nawara and Mohammad Mahmoud Odeh Abu Daher even existed. they even went on numerous mainstream tv programs in the US and made this wild claim, including claiming that the boys were targeted by palestinians, as i recall. this is the same government who protected and defended the identity of the terrorist that ran over rachel corrie. so the chance anyone would ever torture the terrorist who murdered the bakr boys, to get a confession of intent, as they definitely have and would to convict a palestinian perpetrator, is absolutely nil. and the chance that the order to kill came from higher up, as it did with the USS liberty, israel — infamous for lying with impunity, would never admit it.

        this is a government who claims they have the most moral army in the world, so please, spare us. but even if some lone soldier did admit to purposely targeting the children, we would never find that out. they are way more concerned with their public image than truth or justice.

        but either way, if the iof criminals were prosecuted in a non apartheid court of law and convicted, would you call the action terrorism? would you call the perp a terrorist? do you recognize state terrorism? or is it confined armies such as iran’s revolutionary guards? do you recognize any act ever perpetrated by the iof as terrorism? just curious.

        But your link says the lawyers are there to delineate and expand the legal limits of military behavior.

        it’s fairly clear that doctrine has “enabled, not only the justification of atrocities, but crucially, the affliction of otherwise inconceivable levels of destruction”.

        If the lawyers never prohibit an operation or modify it, but only justify it, then they serve no purpose.

        sure they do. the purpose being to whitewash israel’s crimes and terrorism. there are many israeli military lawyers who do just that. the military tells them what they want to do and lawyers find ways to make that legal. you don’t recognize that goes on? you do not think the dahiya doctrine was designed to allow israel to target civilian and civilian infrastructure such as hospitals and schools?

        “modify” you mean the so called ‘knock’ on the roof before massacring whole families. this is propaganda. ‘oh, we knocked!’. we sent them messages before we completely decimated shajaiya with civilians piling out onto the streets. it’s sadistic jon, do you recognize the sadism behind that terrorism?

      • Annie Robbins
        January 5, 2018, 3:15 pm

        just thought i’d mention. because i recognize the sadism behind sanctioning a country for 10 years wiping out a million youths before unleashing massively destructive war on the civilians of that country as we did in iraq. that’s sadistic state sponsored terrorism.

      • MHughes976
        January 5, 2018, 3:29 pm

        I’ ve said before and say again that I think we should – I think it’s really important – stick to our rules against advocating violence and indeed against making personal attacks. However, even I find it hard to censure violence such as we started discussing here, which is of symbolic rather than injurious nature.

      • Mooser
        January 5, 2018, 3:58 pm

        “If the boys were identified and targeted then it is crminal and those responsible should be prosecuted.” “Jon66”

        Oh, so now we are back to “the two boys”, having avoided (by feigning blindness!) that Israel is based on terrorism?

        “Jon66” has certainly been taking his pep pilpuls lately.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 5, 2018, 4:13 pm

        4 mooser, 4 bakr boys were slaughtered. Israel exonerated itself claiming they were aiming for a hamas compound — a ridiculous allegation.

      • Mooser
        January 5, 2018, 4:21 pm

        “4 mooser, 4 bakr boys were slaughtered.”

        That’s right. Thanks, “Annie”. The “two” was errant.

      • Jon66
        January 5, 2018, 5:01 pm

        Annie,
        If the perpetrator admits to targeting civilians like Mugrahbi’s group that’s terrorism. Just like Goldstein or the Jewish attacks on Arabs during the civil war in the 30’s-40s.
        If a soldier kills civilians accidentally that is not terrorism. How do we know the intent? I’m not certain a bit in the first instances the perpetrators declared their intent. It’s a war crime to target civilians. It is not necessarily a crime if civilians die during a legitimate military attack.
        Personally I would be happiest if people would stop killing each other for any reason.

      • Mooser
        January 6, 2018, 12:45 pm

        .” Just like Goldstein or the Jewish attacks on Arabs during the civil war in the 30’s-40s.” “Jon66” (who else could be this dumb?)

        Oh, so that list of terrorist attacks by Zionists were part of a “civil war”?

        Please tell us, “Jon66” what the two sides were in this “civil war”?
        Is your “civil war” the thing most people call the “Nakba”?

        (He must be using the “Jews are not invaders in their own historical homeland” pilpul he got from “Jon s”)

      • Annie Robbins
        January 6, 2018, 1:54 pm

        If the perpetrator admits to targeting civilians

        speaking of all those iof slaughtering civilians “accidentally”, remember during the gaza massacre 08-09 what happened to the samouni family? iof ordered people out of their homes and forced them into one home, one room, something like 50-100 people i can’t recall — but mostly women, elderly, and children and then bombed the home. then they prevented ambulances from entering the area for 3 days!

        now here’s why i bring that up. of course, israel doesn’t engage in terrorism, they just don’t target civilians but i was wondering… if you took the guy who ordered that mission as well as all those soldiers who forced the family members into the house as well as the soldiers who took the samouni men and tortured/interrogated them for hours before killing them, if you took those iof and put them in separate rooms and tortured them for a few weeks, do you think any of them might “admit” they were targeting civilians?

        the iof said what happened to the samouni family was “complex”. slaughtering all those people and then leaving the others to bleed out after days and days of not letting doctors in. i mean, who does that? what kind of animal does that?? but heavens, don’t call them terrorists.

        i’m just curious. what do you call them? monsters? i think israel calls them heroes.

      • Jon66
        January 6, 2018, 3:09 pm

        Annie,
        The deaths of the Samouni family are tragic. But, “One soldier later testified to Breaking the Silence that soldiers had received information that a rocket-propelled grenade squad were located in the area. On seeing the drone photographs, the Israeli commander called for a missile strike against the men outside the house; they ran into the Samouni house for shelter, which was then struck twice with subsequent missile fire.”
        Breaking the Silence is hardly a pro-IDF PR Machine.

        Whether it’s Goldstein, Mughrabi, or McVey, these folks intentionally targeted civilians and state it. It’s not disputed.
        If the soldiers intentionally targeted the civilians without a legitimate military target then it’s a war crime.
        There are schools etc named after Mughrabi, you can’t even name the people you identify as “heroes”.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 6, 2018, 7:46 pm

        jon, the deaths are tragic but? really? iow, you’re not denying it happened. you’re excusing slaughtering innocent civilians. AND it would behoove you, before copy pasting directly from wikipedia (highly compromised site regarding i/p), to actually check the sources listed. because none of the sources listed under that quote make that specific claim.

        however, 21 months — almost 2 years after the massacre, there’s this: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/what-led-to-idf-bombing-house-full-of-civilians-during-gaza-war-1.320816

        While some Givati soldiers agreed to testify to Breaking the Silence (an organization of veteran combatants who served during the second intifada and have taken it upon themselves to expose the Israeli public to everyday life in the occupied territories) about their part in Operation Cast Lead, notably absent are the soldiers who manned the position nearest the house that was bombed on Malka’s orders.

        21 months and not even one of the soldiers manning the scene of the slaughter had spoken to breaking the waves.

        same link also says

        senior air force officers had approved the attack. The report, published on Friday by Amos Harel and Anshel Pfeffer (“IDF probes top officers on Gaza war strike that killed 21 family members” *** ), alleges senior officers authorized the bombing despite being warned by more junior officers that civilians were likely located at or nearby the target site.

        One officer involved in approving the attack is then-Givati Brigade commander Col. Ilan Malka. To date it has not yet been determined whether he will stand trial as an officer involved in the affair.

        also, conveniently, you cut off your quote right after this segment:

        On Monday morning, 5 January 2009, four men left the house to gather firewood for cooking. Next to the house was a small wooden structure, and the men had reportedly begun climbing on this to take the boards apart. This activity was seen in aerial drone photographs, and the poles that the men were carrying were mistakenly identified as rocket-propelled grenades by an Israeli Givati Brigade commander operating from a remote location.

        maybe they should have tried confirming that before bombing the house they ordered all these civilians into. and what lame excuse do you have for not allowing ambulances for 3 days? please! it begs the conscience how you could defend this slaughter of innocents.

        If the soldiers intentionally targeted the civilians without a legitimate military target then it’s a war crime.

        there was NO LEGITIMATE MILITARY TARGET… that’s why it’s a war crime.

        *** it was not 21, Palestinian family mourns 48 dead http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/4290553/Gaza-Palestinian-family-mourns-48-dead.html

        either way, you didn’t answer my question jon, which went to my point:

        if you tortured Col. Ilan Malka for a few weeks, like they’ve tortured palestinian suspects for decades to get confessions, do you think he might “admit” he knew he was targeting civilians?

      • Talkback
        January 6, 2018, 3:21 pm

        Jon66: “If a soldier kills civilians accidentally that is not terrorism. How do we know the intent?”

        Define “accidentally” and then you have your answer. Shooting teens in the upper part of their body or head is not an accident, it’s a policy. Flattening a whole street in 60 seconds is not “accidentally” either, but a policy:
        https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article3929474.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Chilling-images-show-how-Israeli-airstrikes-flatten-entire-Gaza-street-in-just-one-hour.jpg

        jon66: “It’s a war crime to target civilians. It is not necessarily a crime if civilians die during a legitimate military attack.”

        Not necesseraly. But if someone shoots with artillery, rockets,. tank guns into a densely populated area or drops white phospherous or cluster bomns on it one can be sure that the killing of civilians has been taken into account.

        And since the Apartheid Junta applies its Dahiya Doctrine it’s definetly state terrorism.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine

        That is a strategy “designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population” (United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict”)

        “Richard Falk wrote that under the doctrine, “the civilian infrastructure of adversaries such as Hamas or Hezbollah are treated as permissible military targets, which is not only an overt violation of the most elementary norms of the law of war and of universal morality, but an avowal of a doctrine of violence that needs to be called by its proper name: state terrorism.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine

        Btw. You once wrote: “Persons who fulfill a “continuous combat function.” Such persons are legitimate objects of attack even if they are not participating directly in hostilities at the moment of attack.”

        Does that mean that every Israeli soldier is a legitimate object of attack?

      • Jon66
        January 6, 2018, 11:37 pm

        Annie,
        “if you tortured Col. Ilan Malka for a few weeks, like they’ve tortured palestinian suspects for decades to get confessions, do you think he might “admit” he knew he was targeting civilians”
        I thought this was rhetorical.
        I have no idea.

        I am not defending the Samouni attack. You asked if it was terrorism and I said it depends upon the details and intentions. In order to classify it as a war crime you have to make assumptions. I don’t know enough about it.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 7, 2018, 1:53 am

        in order to classify it as a war crime you have to make assumptions.

        no, in order claim is was not a war crime you have to make assumptions. there’s no evidence produced thus far the Samouni’s were legitimate targets.

        you thought this was rhetorical, whether Col. Ilan Malka might “admit” he knew he was targeting civilians if he was tortured for a few weeks, like they’ve tortured palestinian suspects for decades to get confessions.interesting.

        and you have “no idea”. well let me ask this then, if Col.Ilan Malka signed a document in arabic admitting he targeted those civilians would you be more or less likely to think he signed under duress. would you be more or less likely to believe it to be true. and if he was tried in a palestinian court of justice with a 99.9 percentage of convictions for jewish defendants would you be more or less likely to believe justice had been served vs an israeli court sentencing palestinians w/a 99.9 conviction rate.

        and hey, i totally get you’re not defending Col.Ilan Malka’s order to slaughter of the Samouni family. not you jon.

      • Jon66
        January 6, 2018, 11:44 pm

        Talk,
        “Does that mean that every Israeli soldier is a legitimate object of attack?”
        Of course not. The ones with continuous combat functions. And anyone who attacks them is also a combatant who may be killed in defense. A photographer on the beach is not a legit target. Nor a roomful of men praying at a mosque.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 7, 2018, 1:24 am

        A photographer on the beach is not a legit target.

        it’s irrelevant jon. when israel maims and/or kills photographers, which they’ve done repeatedly, they are not prosecuted. they just say it was some kind of an accident, unintentional – mistake. so what difference does it make if it is legal or illegal if there’s no one there to torture a confession out of the killer, or a team of professionals; pr, spokespeople, lawyers, etc, ready to create whatever narrative regardless of the circumstances to get killer off hook.

        please link to a jewish iof who’s ever been prosecuted for killing or maiming a journo or photographer. so after decades we’re to believe none were ever targets just because israel says so.

      • Talkback
        January 7, 2018, 4:38 am

        jon66: “Of course not. The ones with continuous combat functions.”

        Really? There are soldiers that do not have a a “continuous combat function”. Your quote, August 2016:
        “Persons who fulfill a “continuous combat function.” Such persons are legitimate objects of attack even if they are not participating directly in hostilities at the moment of attack. This category INCLUDES persons whose ongoing function involves the preparation, execution, or command of combat acts or operations. An individual recruited, trained, and equipped by such a group to continuously and directly participate in hostilities can be considered to assume a continuous combat function even before the person carries out a hostile act”
        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/israeli-soldier-palestinian-mistake/#comment-850925

        So it is legitimate to attack Israeli soldiers.

        On the same day you wrote: “If BT [B’Tselem] on the ground is not sure if the [Gazan] police officers status I don’t know how I could be.”

        So you are not sure if Israel’s police and border police, too, can be seen as an illegimitate target.

        But here’s another quote from you from the same comment:
        “Wherever there is a DOUBT regarding the actions of a person, the DOUBT works in the individual’s favor, and it is forbidden to target the person for attack.

        So what is it, jon66? Killing is the last method of defense. It seems that in the IDF it is the first.

        jon66: “And anyone who attacks them is also a combatant who may be killed in defense.”

        You just quoted a week ago: “Civilians who take a direct part in hostilities against the occupying power may be prosecuted.”
        http://mondoweiss.net/2018/01/israeli-prosecutors-terrorist/#comment-903150

        Do you want to claim that Israel kills as a method of prosecution? And what about settlers attacking Palestinians. Can they be killed in defense, too?

        jon66: “I am not defending the Samouni attack. You asked if it was terrorism and I said it depends upon the details and intentions. In order to classify it as a war crime you have to make assumptions. I don’t know enough about it.”

        Again: “”Wherever there is a DOUBT regarding the actions of a person, the DOUBT works in the individual’s favor, and it is forbidden to target the person for attack.”

        So it was a war crime until proven otherwise.

        Make up your mind, jon66. It makes no difference, if anyone is Jewish or not.

      • Mooser
        January 7, 2018, 1:29 pm

        I feel bad for “Jon66”. He was so sure he could explain away all Zionist terrorism with two words: “(picnic; lightening)”.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 8, 2018, 1:30 pm

        he was in a box he could not get out of on this sub thread mooser. he’s either off duty or he gave up, and he’s not been back since.

      • Mooser
        January 8, 2018, 3:21 pm

        .” he’s either off duty or he gave up”

        I still cannot understand what “Jon 66” thinks he is trying to do (besides distracting), and it’s a little frightening to see how supremely unaware he is of his effect.

      • Jon66
        January 8, 2018, 9:31 pm

        Talk,
        “It makes no difference, if anyone is Jewish or not.”
        I agree
        Prosecution does not equal execution. Was Ms. Tamimi executed? Are there significantly more killings than arrests?
        Suspects who are not or are no longer a threat should be arrested. They should be treated humanely.
        I don’t make excuses for the bad things Israelis do. They should change their behavior when it’s incorrect
        If your looking for someone to justify all of Israel’s actions it’s not me. We approach these incidents with different assumptions. You assume that the IDF is criminal and therefore all actions taken were intentional and not sincere mistakes. That is not my perspective.

      • Talkback
        January 9, 2018, 8:29 am

        Jon66: “Was Ms. Tamimi executed?”

        Not yet. Who knows what the psychopath sadist and child abusers of the Apartheid Junta’s sick society have allready don to her. But another of her relatives was executed by shooting him into the neck:
        Palestinian teen first to be killed by Israel in 2018
        http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/01/palestinian-teen-killed-israel-2018-180103154409357.html

        That was pure coincidence, wasn’t it?

        Jon66: “Are there significantly more killings than arrests?”

        A question that represents the standards of he self declared most moral army of the world. The real question in a true democracy would be: Are there any killings?

        Jon66: “You assume that the IDF is criminal and therefore all actions taken were intentional and not sincere mistakes. That is not my perspective.”

        Of course it isn’t. It would be only yours, too, if the IDF would treat Jews the same way. Until then this high professional army is only a bunch of idiots and Breaking the Silence are liars.

  2. Ossinev
    January 3, 2018, 1:52 pm

    As the saying goes in the case of Ahed the poor old eternally victimised,eternally threatened,eternally incited Israeli Zionists are up shit creek without a paddle. Even their Monty Pythonesque attempts to portray her as a “terrorist” will just serve to further publicise her case to the civilised world and they can`t be seen to be giving in by quietly releasing her as that would further incense the howling baying Fascist jackals which the majority of Zionist Israelis have become. Besides which if released she would soon be out again existentially threatening the IOF through life threatening slaps , chucking life threatening pebbles etc all under the eye of a very interested foreign media.

    Great to see the Ziothugs stewing in their own excretia.

    • amigo
      January 8, 2018, 4:14 pm

      “There are schools etc named after Mughrabi, you can’t even name the people you identify as “heroes”.”Jon 66

      Speaking of heroes .

      “Lehi Ribbon of honor.”

      In 1980, Israel instituted the Lehi ribbon, red, black, grey, pale blue and white, which is awarded to former members of the Lehi underground who wished to carry it, “for military service towards the establishment of the State of Israel”.

      Who was Lehi.

      “Although Lehi had stopped operating nationally after May 1948, the group continued to function in Jerusalem. On 17 September 1948, Lehi assassinated UN mediator Count Folke Bernadotte. The assassination was directed by Yehoshua Zettler and carried out by a four-man team led by Meshulam Makover. The fatal shots were fired by Yehoshua Cohen. The Security Council described the assassination as a “cowardly act which appears to have been committed by a criminal group of terrorists”.[81]

      Three days after the assassination, the Israeli government passed the Ordinance to Prevent Terrorism and declared Lehi to be a terrorist organization.[82][83] Many Lehi members were arrested, including leaders Nathan Yellin-Mor and Matitiahu Schmulevitz who were arrested on 29 September.[82] Eldad and Shamir managed to escape arrest.[82] Yellin-Mor and Schmulevitz were charged with leadership of a terrorist organization and on 10 February 1949 were sentenced to 8 years and 5 years imprisonment, respectively.[84][85][86] However the State (Temporary) Council soon announced a general amnesty for Lehi members and they were released.[84][87]”

      Jon S , if you refer back to the list , I posted a few days ago , of crimes carried out by Jewish terrorists , you will find Lehi Heroes prominently featured.Their forte was throwing bombs into Arab Markets and cinemas sometimes killing fellow Jews.

      Are they your heroes and do you know their names.Have you even heard of them.

  3. eljay
    January 3, 2018, 3:34 pm

    … The five counts, as reported by Haaretz, include: “Threatening a soldier, attacking a soldier under aggravated circumstances, interfering with a soldier carrying out his duties, incitement, and throwing objects at individuals or property”. …

    Much like Zionists, defenders of the rapist are extremely upset that any one of the women chained in his basement would dare to:
    – threaten the rapist;
    – attack the rapist under aggravated circumstances;
    – interfere with the rapist carrying out his duties;
    – undertake incitement; or
    – throw objects at individuals or property.

    Why, wonder the defenders, can’t these women just lie back and enjoy the ride?

    Why, wonder Zionists, can’t non-Jews in geographic Palestine just lie back and let Jewish supremacists (Zionists) breed with them?

  4. Maghlawatan
    January 3, 2018, 4:41 pm

    Israeli society is out of sync with humanity. Whatever Ms. Tamimi is accused of is bullshit.

    • Citizen
      January 3, 2018, 7:08 pm

      But humanity does not control the lone superpower’s foreign policy. As Bibi told his peeps, “American is easily moved.” I’m reminded of the orange term, “Goyischekopf” BTW, anybody hear the latest about Mueller’s probing re Jared Kushner’s attempted barter with the Russkies?

      • Mooser
        January 5, 2018, 12:43 pm

        I noticed that during the coverage of Trump and his North Korea Tweets that not one news source pointed to Israel’s illegal and fully developed nuclear program, as a way to point out the hypocrisy.

      • Maghlawatan
        January 6, 2018, 7:14 pm

        Mooser
        We don’t talk about that kind of stuff. Israel is an ally.
        Iran and NK are EVIL

        It is interesting to correlate nuke capability with social trauma . NK and Israel are both nuts because of war trauma.

      • Mooser
        January 6, 2018, 9:38 pm

        “NK and Israel are both nuts because of war trauma.”

        North Korea was bombed until almost nothing was left standing by US forces in the Korean War.

      • eljay
        January 6, 2018, 9:54 pm

        || Mooser: “NK and Israel are both nuts because of war trauma.”

        North Korea was bombed until almost nothing was left standing by US forces in the Korean War. ||

        Sure, the U.S. bombed the f*ck out of North Korea – the world’s only North Korean state – but Israel is being singled out!

      • Talkback
        January 7, 2018, 4:49 am

        eljay: “Sure, the U.S. bombed the f*ck out of North Korea – the world’s only North Korean state – but Israel is being singled out!”

        We have to stop singling Israel out!!! Therefore:

        No more UN veto of Security Council Resolutions against Israel. Something has to be done regarding their weapons of mass descructions. No more BDS, but a whole international embargo has to be put on them and in the long run it has to be invaded to liberate Palestine.

  5. JosephA
    January 3, 2018, 6:57 pm

    Mr. Ofir,

    As usual, your logic is convincing and I hope your articles and arguments can be circulated to a wider audience.

  6. JLewisDickerson
    January 3, 2018, 10:31 pm

    RE: for example by Uri Avnery in his piece titled “Joan of Arc in a West Bank Village” (Haaretz), subtitled “The Israeli army wants to punish Ahed Tamimi ‘so all should see and fear.’ Instead, Palestinian teenagers see the photos and think: I want to be like her.” ~ Ofir

    ■ ANIMATION: Ahed Tamimi shorn of her hair

  7. Marnie
    January 4, 2018, 12:07 am

    They are going to paint her with the ‘terrorist’ brush regardless. She doesn’t pose any threat whatsoever, unless you consider telling your people to resist, as Ms. Tartour did in her poem, and she’s still under house arrest. I think the zisraelis are looking into the future and, considering the formidable following the Tamimi’s have, especially Ahed, and her father’s hope for her to be a leader someday, which watching her and listening to her is the logical conclusion, the zisraelis are thinking the best thing to do would be to keep her in a box forever. By calling her a terrorist and an inciter of terrorism. the world is so incredibly fucked up from the doubletalk and ‘newspeak’, it could work. My point is Dareen Tartour is STILL not free, and her “weapons” was pen and pad. #BDS, #FREEAHED, #[email protected]#&ISRAEL

    • chocopie
      January 4, 2018, 6:01 pm

      Israel tries to depict every resisting Palestinian as a terrorist–the poets, the schoolgirls, the little boys throwing rocks, the college kids promoting BDS, all are smeared with the terrorist label or called terrorist sympathizers. It’s the new blood libel.

  8. amigo
    January 4, 2018, 10:40 am

    For Jack Green who asked for proof that Israel runs an Apartheid Regime .

    What happens when a Jewish Settler , (is there any other kind ) throws rocks and slaps a soldier.

    “This slap didn’t lead the nightly news. This slap, which landed on the cheek of a Nahal soldier in Hebron, did not lead to an indictment. The assailant, who slapped a soldier who was trying to stop her from throwing stones, was taken in for questioning but released on bail the same day and allowed to return home.

    Prior to this incident, she had been convicted five times — for throwing rocks, for assaulting a police officer and for disorderly conduct, but was not jailed even once.

    In one instance, she was sentenced to probation, and in the rest to a month of community service and practically a token fine, as compensation to the injured parties. The accused systematically failed to heed summonses for questioning or for legal proceedings, but soldiers did not come to drag her out of bed in the middle of the night, nor were any of her relatives arrested. Aside from a brief report by Chaim Levinson about the incident, on July 2, 2010, there were hardly any repercussions to the slap and scratches inflicted by Yifat Alkobi on the face of a soldier who caught her hurling rocks a Palestinians.

    The Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson’s Unit said at the time that the army “takes a grave view of any incidence of violence toward security forces,” and yet the assailant goes on living peacefully at home. The education minister didn’t demand that she sit in prison, social media have not exploded with calls for her to be raped or murdered, and columnist Ben Caspit didn’t recommend that she punished to the full extent of the law “in a dark place, without cameras.”

    Like Ahed Tamimi, Alkobi has been known for years to the military and police forces that surround her place of residence, and both are considered a nuisance and even a danger. The main difference between them is that Tamimi assaulted a soldier who was sent by a hostile government that does not recognize her existence, steals her land and kills and wounds her relatives, while Alkobi, a serial criminal, assaulted a soldier from her own people and her religion, who was sent by her nation to protect her, a nation in which she is a citizen with special privileges.
    read more: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.832939

  9. Mahmoud El-Yousseph
    January 4, 2018, 11:21 am

    Thank you Jonathan Ofir ! You truly represent the Jewish conscious with your writing. This is by no means the first peace of your I read in defense of the Palestinians. I wish to nominate for Israeli Man of the Year – 2017. Once again, thanks for standing up for peace, freedom and justice for Palestinians.

  10. Maghlawatan
    January 4, 2018, 1:09 pm

    The Warsaw ghetto uprising Jews were also called terrorists. They became the inspirational lode of Zionism.

    Such a mess

  11. Kaisa of Finland
    January 4, 2018, 1:31 pm

    Haaretz Jan 04, 2018 10:15 AM

    “What Happened When a Jewish Settler Slapped an Israeli Soldier”

    “Both Ahed Tamimi and Yifat Alkobi were questioned for slapping a soldier in the West Bank, but little else about their cases are similar — simply because one is Jewish, the other Palestinian”

    “This slap didn’t lead the nightly news. This slap, which landed on the cheek of a Nahal soldier in Hebron, did not lead to an indictment. The assailant, who slapped a soldier who was trying to stop her from throwing stones, was taken in for questioning but released on bail the same day and allowed to return home.

    Prior to this incident, she had been convicted five times — for throwing rocks, for assaulting a police officer and for disorderly conduct, but was not jailed even once.”

    “Jewish violence against soldiers in the territories has been a matter of routine for years. But even when it seems like there’s no point asking that soldiers in the territories protect Palestinians from physical harassment and vandalism of their property by settlers, it’s hard to understand why the authorities continue to turn a blind eye, to cover up and close cases or not even open them, when the violators are Jews. There is plenty of evidence, some of it recorded on camera. And yet the offenders still sleep at home in their beds, emboldened by divine command and amply funded by organizations that receive state support.”

    “In the winter it’s nice to get warm and cozy under these double standards, but there’s one question that every Israeli should be asking himself: Tamimi and Alkobi committed the same offense. The punishment (or lack thereof) should be the same. If the choice is between freeing Tamimi or jailing Alkobi, which would you choose? Tamimi is to remain in custody for the duration of the proceedings — trial in a hostile military court — and is expected to receive a prison sentence. Alkobi, who was not prosecuted for this offense, and was tried in a civilian court for much more serious offenses, lived at home for the duration of the proceedings. She was represented by a lawyer who did not have to wait at a checkpoint in order to serve his client and her only punishment was community service.”

    More in: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.832939?=&ts=_1515089781581

  12. Ossinev
    January 4, 2018, 2:20 pm

    Meanwhile the Jerusalem Post reports:
    http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Billboards-backing-Ahed-Tamimi-removed-from-London-bus-stops-532833

    It appears that JCDecaux may have some sort of exclusive contract for the advertising material on these bus shelters and the company in all likelihood has some sort of Zionist finance linking and / or a fear of being threatened by the Zio community in France and the UK. with loss of business.

    To those who designed , produced and affixed the posters I say excellent work and keep it up. Even if the bus shelters are out of the question ( and that would be a tough enforcement scenario as in no sooner we take one down then overnight another one appears) there are lots of other public places such as temporary building hoardings where they can be displayed. Perhaps consider a smaller leaflet version to be displayed in phone booths and / or handed out to commuters in London? I am also certain that there would be plenty of volunteers in local Palestinian Solidarity groups in the UK willing to take on the task if provided with posters/leaflets.

    BTW please note the comment on the video screen – it is so F…ing hilarious. “This is what Israeli soldiers have to go through”. Poor little existentially threatened , eternally victimised darlings. They must be losing sleep , losing their appetite and living in constant fear of being slapped by tiny 16 year old girls. And their mommies and daddies back in the main colony must be so so so worried about them 24/7.

    • inbound39
      January 4, 2018, 6:14 pm

      And what did mommies big tough IOF soldier do during the war against nasty Palestinians…….er….um….well mom…..I….er……I got bitch slapped by a sixteen year old girl……um……but it really hurt mom.

  13. oldgeezer
    January 5, 2018, 3:47 pm

    @annie

    Apologies for being out of thread. Couldnt find the darn reply link on my phone and for butting in

    But…

    Let’s not overlook that Israel/idf have hosted two conferences seeking to change the laws of war as they think too much protection is afforded to civilians.

    There really isn’t a bottom to the cesspit Israel has become.

  14. Nathan
    January 5, 2018, 6:07 pm

    Annie Robbins – The last time we exchanged comments, you wouldn’t answer my simple question (“Isn’t it true that there is no vision of ending the conflict with Israel?”). Instead, you told me that I should find someone else to chat with. So, I’m quite surprised that you have sent me a comment again.

    I’d like to answer your comment, but I’m still curious if there is a Palestinian vision of ending the conflict with Israel. Well, actually, it would be even more interesting to hear from you if you have a idealistic / dreamy / theoretical scenario in which it would be possible to reach an end-of-conflict with Israel to your satisfaction.

    I suppose you understand why I’m asking these questions, but I’ll state my intention bluntly: If there is no vision of ending the conflict with Israel no matter what, then the real position of Mondoweiss is that Israel should not exist. If this is so, then this real position should be stated in clear terms. To present grievances and grievances and grievances is just manipulative propaganda. It sounds like you wish to fix problems when in reality you don’t believe that anything could be fixed as long as Israel exists.

    I understand that you won’t deny or confirm anything. Your answer will be either that something is wrong with me (“go chat with someone else”) or you’ll bring up yet another grievance about Israel. In my experience with intellectuals, they all seem quite eager to state their mind and to present their case. Only in the propaganda war against Israel do we have this silly and pointless game of ambiguity.

    Anyway, if there is a vision of peace with Israel, let’s hear it and debate about it. If you believe that Israel must cease to exist, then say so and suggest the ways of pursuing that goal. However, raising grievances without defining an end of conflict with Israel that would satisfy you is obviously very unconvincing propaganda.

    • Mooser
      January 5, 2018, 8:29 pm

      ” The last time we exchanged comments, you wouldn’t…/… you is obviously very unconvincing propaganda.”

      “Nathan”, under the circumstances, don’t you think it is your obligation as a Zionist to immediately cease and desist from any further correspondence with Mondoweiss?
      Why validate the site with your august presence? You have judged Mondo and found it wanting, now make your judgement evident.

      Do not allow Mondo to abrogate your rights in this matter. They cannot force you to go on posting.

    • RoHa
      January 6, 2018, 4:17 am

      Nathan, I’m going to pretend you are trying to make a serious point, and I’m going to answer for myself. Annie and MW need not share my views.

      “a Palestinian vision of ending the conflict with Israel”

      The Palestinians put forward two-state proposals that would have led to the official Palestinian organisations acting as a state making a peace treaty. You complain that there would still have been people claiming right of return, as an individual right, but that would be an issue to be dealt with after peace has been established. It is not a continuation of the conflict. In general, even after peace has been established between warring parties, there are claims and problems to be sorted out. (Think of the irredentist claims for bits of territory misplaced during WW2, or the WJC demanding money from Swiss banks.)

      Now that the two-state idea is completely lost, I think the only just solution left is that of a single state in Palestine that gives equal rights to all Palestinians. If this means that Israel, as a “Jewish State”, ceases to exist (and I think it does mean that)then that is the result of justice. And Israelis who don’t like being ordinary citizens sharing the cuntry with Palestinians have only themselves to blame.

      “If there is no vision of ending the conflict with Israel no matter what, then the real position of Mondoweiss is that Israel should not exist.”

      Why does MW as a whole have to have a firm position on either? If you look at the “about’ page (which Mooser and I have actually read) you will see it says “We do not have a single editorial position on specific issues…”

      So you are likely to find a variety of views among both the editors and contributors. Some may still cling to the hope of some sort of two-state solution. Some may think that a single state is the way to go.

      But there is nothing wrong with presenting the various grievances, even if the MW people do not agree on how to resolve them all, or even if MW people have no idea on how to resolve them all. If the grievances are never presented, no-one will ever have any idea of how to resolve them.

      • Mooser
        January 6, 2018, 12:51 pm

        ” If you look at the “about’ page (which Mooser and I have actually read)”

        I click on it several times a day, just to make it feel better. I mean, how would you like to be ‘the most disbelieved page on the web’?

      • Nathan
        January 6, 2018, 3:37 pm

        RoHa – It’s really quite unusual to receive a polite response in the comments section (well, your opening comment – “I’m going to pretend you are trying to make a serious point” – was meant to be somewhat belittling, but in general you gave a normal debate-like comment). I’d like to bring to your attention some aspects of the one-state solution that you may find surprising. First of all, it will have to be negotiated. The one-state idea is not going to happen by default. The two sides will have to work out the details and reach an agreement on living together. Neither side wants such an agreement, so it’s hard to believe that the idea will be realized.

        Most importantly, it’s important to point out, that a one-state solution (just like the two-state solution) is a SOLUTION; i.e. it’s about an end of conflict. The Palestinians will not commit themselves to an end of conflict, so they won’t even sign the agreement. The Palestinian grievance is not about equal rights in a single state, so the founding of a single state with equal rights for all will not resolve the conflict from their point of view. They would agree to a single state only if the conflict (“resistance” or “muqawama”) continues within the framework of this new state – but, obviously, the Jewish side is not going to agree to end the existence of their state in order to have a continuation of the conflict.

        Israel is a very successful state, and life is good therein (even in conflict). The Jews are not likely to agree to end its existence. All the slogans of “justice” or “international law” are not going to convince its public to surrender the state in order to live in conflict in a new state. They seem to be handling the present conflict quite fine.

        The Palestinians understand the “end-of-conflict” as surrender. It means that they have to accept as legitimate the Jewish presence in the country. This would mean in their dictionary that they have accepted the Zionist ideology which claims that the country is the homeland of the Jewish people. It’s not going to happen. Moreover, the Palestinians see the Jewish population as a VERY strong population, so they would fear that a single state with the Jews will be a state in which the Jews will set the tone in business, industry, culture, academics, etc, etc. The Palestinians are not interested in a one-state solution – and the call for a one-state solution is just a political ploy.

        Whenever one wishes to find a solution for a conflict, the first step is to define (correctly) the very reason of conflict. Once you have established the reason of conflict, then you have to propose a solution that rectifies that reason of conflict. So, what is the reason of conflict? I can promise you that this conflict did not start because the Palestinians were interested in sharing a state with the Jews, and so it’s not going to end by establishing a single state with the Jews.

      • RoHa
        January 7, 2018, 1:31 am

        “First of all, it will have to be negotiated. The one-state idea is not going to happen by default. The two sides will have to work out the details and reach an agreement on living together.”

        Gee!

        “Neither side wants such an agreement, so it’s hard to believe that the idea will be realized.”

        The Israeli Jews don’t want it. It has never been offered to the Palestinians, so we don’t know how they would respond to the idea.

        “The Palestinians understand the “end-of-conflict” as surrender. It means that they have to accept as legitimate the Jewish presence in the country. This would mean in their dictionary that they have accepted the Zionist ideology which claims that the country is the homeland of the Jewish people.”

        No, they could say “OK, we’ll accept that the Jews who live here now have a right to be here, but not this garbage about “homeland of the Jewish people”.

        Your view of Palestinian attitudes is based on the current position. If I were a Gazan or a WB Palestinian, my attitude would probably be pretty hostile.

        But suppose that the Israeli Jews apologized, admitted they were wrong, and started working towards reconciliation. I suspect that the Palestinians would be prepared to find a modus vivendi, and an end to the conflict.

        “Moreover, the Palestinians … would fear that a single state with the Jews will be a state in which the Jews will set the tone in business, industry, culture, academics, etc, etc.”

        A legitimate fear. The modus vivendi would have to address that.

        “this conflict did not start because the Palestinians were interested in sharing a state with the Jews,”

        But in the London talks in 1946/7 they did accept the idea of a shared state. The conflict started because Jews did not want to share a state with the Palestinians.

        “and so it’s not going to end by establishing a single state with the Jews.”

        Try it and see.

        “All the slogans of “justice” or “international law” are not going to convince its public to surrender the state in order to live in conflict in a new state.”

        If the prospect is, as I suggest it is, one of the end of the conflict, perhaps even Israeli Jews might feel a few stirrings of morality and human decency. Stranger things have happened. I think.

        I have no idea of the requisite procedure for the moral reform of the Israeli Jews and thus the resolution of the conflict. (And I note that you have offered no alternatives at all.) I can only give a hint of what I see as a route to justice in Palestine.

        In the meantime, it is worthwhile publicizing the grievances.

    • Talkback
      January 6, 2018, 4:40 am

      Nathan: “Anyway, if there is a vision of peace with Israel, let’s hear it and debate about it.”

      How about this one. Restoring all rights under international and human rights law.

      Simple, isn’t it? That’s called a “universal value”. Can you make example of an universal values and without refering to Jews or Nonjews? I dare you, Zionist.

      • Mooser
        January 6, 2018, 12:59 pm

        ” Can you make example of an universal values and without refering to Jews or Nonjews”

        “Talkback Are you opposed to America’s Affirmative Action program? The USA has Affirmative Action which gives preference to African-Americans, Asians, Latinos, Native Americans & women. Do you oppose Affirmative Action?” “Jack Green”

        So why shouldn’t us Jews get in on some of that Affirmative Action? The entire world owes us reparations!

        (And when we say “Affirmative Action” we mean Affirmative Action as it is conceived of by RWNJs*. Not the actual program.)

        *Right Wing Nut Jobs

      • Talkback
        January 6, 2018, 3:38 pm

        @ Mooser.

        Did Jack Green really ask me the question, if I oppose administrative practices that are “intended to end and correct the effects of a specific form of discrimination.” (Wikipedia)?

        And is he really this stupid to call a correction of discrimination a “preference”?

        The usual Zionist supremacist perversion.

      • Nathan
        January 6, 2018, 4:33 pm

        Talkback – Perhaps I could bring to your attention that there is a conflict in the Middle East. This means that there are grievances that motivate people to maintain a state of conflict. These are not grievances about “universal values” or “international law”. So, no, it’s not so simple.

        Actually, I would be curious to know if you are able to define the grievance from the Palestinian point of view (i.e. not from your outsider’s point of view). A little hint: The Palestinian grievance is not about international law or about universal values.

        Anyway, let’s assume that this is a conflict about “restoring all rights”. Well, obviously, there would have to be a discussion in which the rights you have in mind are defined and agreed upon. It’s not clear at all what “restoring all rights” might mean. Moreover, one would have to debate the means by which the rights will be restored to the satisfaction of all. Although you don’t mention politics in your comment, there is nevertheless a very important political aspect to this conflict. It’s hard to believe that it would be possible to agree on “rights” and on the means of “restoring” them.

        You, Talkback, are anti-Israel. You can claim that you are busy with universal values and international law, but it’s not very convincing. You have your political slant (which is fine, of course), but you can’t possibly be “universal” when dealing with this conflict. Also the understanding of international law is political and debatable.

        So, do you have a vision of peace with Israel? I imagine that your call for “restoring all rights” means for you that there is no vision of peace with Israel. It’s a codeword for the demise of Israel. I’d be very happy (and surprised) to hear your denial. Your ending of the comment with “I dare you, Zionist” (instead of “I dare you, Nathan”) was an expression of hostility. I wouldn’t know why you are hostile to someone whom you don’t even know – but it surely means that you are not expressing universal values. You have a political ax to grind.

      • Talkback
        January 7, 2018, 6:14 am

        Nathan: “Talkback – Perhaps I could bring to your attention that there is a conflict in the Middle East.”

        You don’t have, too. Zionist settler colonialism didn’t start yesterday.

        Nathan: “This means that there are grievances that motivate people to maintain a state of conflict. ”

        Sure, especially settler colonialist who want to colonialize more and are pretty much frustrated that not all Nonjews were expelled from Palestine.

        Nathan: “These are not grievances about “universal values” or “international law”. ”

        Of course they are not the grieveances of the settler colonialists. Maybe their interpretation of “Jewish values”?

        Nathan: “So, no, it’s not so simple.”

        It’s never simple to justify supremacism, Nathan. You have to try harder.

        Nathan: “Actually, I would be curious to know if you are able to define the grievance from the Palestinian point of view (i.e. not from your outsider’s point of view). A little hint: The Palestinian grievance is not about international law or about universal values.”

        Who says it isn’t? You? Again, nobody needs to takes sides when it comes to universal values. Neither the Jewish nor the Palestinian side. That’s your supremacist shtick, not mine.

        Here’s a definition from a universal point of view. A country has no right to enforce immigration upon another contry, not during a mandate nor de facto or de jure occupation. A country’s population has a right to a unitary, independent state and the right to defend it against seperation by terrorists and foreigners whose immigration was either enforced or who entered the country as illegal immigrants or refugees. People who legally and habitually reside in a country have a right to citizenship of the hosting country. They don’t loose that right when they flee or get expelled. They do have a right to return. A country that differentiates between nationals and citizens is a country in which racism has been institutionalized.

        Yes or no, Nathan? It’s very simple.

        Nathan: “It’s not clear at all what “restoring all rights” might mean.”

        Read the rest of the sentence: “Restoring all rights under international and human rights law.”

        You probably don’t know what I’m talking about, do you?

        Nathan: “You, Talkback, are anti-Israel. ”

        I am anti-Nazi Germany and anti-Apartheid-South Africa, too. It comes with the crimes regimes commit whose racism is institutionalized. Especially if they removed an explicite right to equality from a constitutional or quasi-constitutional document. I hope you share the same view, but something tells me that you inherently support institutionalized racim. And even a seperation between nationals and citizens (not only talking about Nazi Germany).

        Nathan: “You have your political slant (which is fine, of course), but you can’t possibly be “universal” when dealing with this conflict.”

        It’s you who can’t.

        Nathan: “Also the understanding of international law is political and debatable.”

        No it isn’t. It is very clearly definied. It is you who needs to debate it, not me. It is you who has to “dispute” anything that is obvious to the rest of the international community.

        Nathan: “So, do you have a vision of peace with Israel?”

        I have peace with those who follow and implement universal values. I do not have a vision of peace for racists and their regimes. So it depends on what vision Israel has of itself.

        Nathan: “Your ending of the comment with “I dare you, Zionist” (instead of “I dare you, Nathan”) was an expression of hostility”

        It was. Who want’s to be called a Zionist and support settler colonialism, institutionalized racism and Apartheid? I surely don’t. I’d rather prefer to be called antisemite by Zionists.

        Nathan: ” I wouldn’t know why you are hostile to someone whom you don’t even know – but it surely means that you are not expressing universal values. ”

        What a Zionst perversion. I’m only hostile to those who can’t or won’t express universal values. That’s all I need to know about them.

        Still waiting for an expression of a universal value from you, Zionist.

      • Mooser
        January 8, 2018, 6:45 pm

        “Did Jack Green really ask me the question…”

        Quoted, and linked. Several times.

        “And is he really this stupid to call a correction of discrimination a “preference”?

        See my parentheses at 12:59pm, above.

  15. Ossinev
    January 6, 2018, 8:05 am

    @Nathan
    “I’d like to answer your comment, but I’m still curious if there is a Palestinian vision of ending the conflict with Israel”
    Guess what ? Even the New York Times is speaking about the one state solution as now being seen by the Palestinians as being the only way”of ending the conflict”.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/world/middleeast/israel-palestinians-state.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

    Tick tick

  16. Maghlawatan
    January 7, 2018, 7:58 am

    Israel is afraid of BDS. Members of the following orgs will be denied entry to the Jewish disneyland:
    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.833502

    The list from Europe includes:

    ■ The France Association Palestine Solidarity

    ■ BDS France 

    ■ BDS Italy

    ■ The European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine

    ■ Friends of Al-Aqsa

    ■ Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign

    ■ The Palestine Committee of Norway

    ■ Palestine Solidarity Association of Sweden

    ■ Palestine Solidarity Campaign

    ■ War on Want

    ■ BDS Kampagne

    American organizations:

    ■ American Friends Service Committee

    ■ American Muslims for Palestine

    ■ Code Pink

    ■ Jewish Voice for Peace

    ■ National Students for Justice in Palestine

    ■ US Campaign for Palestinian Rights

    Other groups:

    ■ BDS Chile

    ■ BDS South Africa

    ■ BDS National Committee

  17. Nathan
    January 7, 2018, 9:12 pm

    Talkback – I read your “definition from a universal point of view”, and I wasn’t really too impressed. You define the Jewish immigration to Palestine during the Mandate period as illegitimate, and you define the partition of Palestine as illegitimate as well – and, then your conclusion is that there is a justification for the acts of war or resistance by the Palestinians. (In your words: “the right to defend it against separation by terrorists and foreigners whose immigration was either enforced or who entered the country as illegal immigrants or refugees). Well, as I pointed out to you before, you have a political position, so obviously your “universal” point of view is under the impact of your political position.

    Reading between the lines, I understand that you are arguing that the presence of the Israeli Jewish population in the country today is illegitimate, and you are calling for a single Palestinian state in the country. If my understanding is correct, then obviously you do not really hold a position based on international law or universal values. The Israeli Jews are citizens of the State of Israel, and so their presence in the country is self-evident. If you are imagining that they will have to leave the country, then indeed you have a very strange perception of universal values. Moreover, since both sides have agreed (in Oslo) to negotiate a two-state arrangement, the issue of partition and its legitimacy is really irrelevant. Whatever the two sides will agree upon will be international law.

    But let’s regard your “definition from a universal point of view” as absolutely correct: (1) The immigration was illegitimate, (2) the Partition Plan was illegitimate and (3) the Palestinians had the right to resist. What does this mean for the “foreigners” whose presence in the country is “illegal”? Did they have the right to defend their lives? Does an “illegal foreigner” have the right to use force in the face of the resistance against him? In the Palestinian world, the answer is clear: The Jews had no right to be in the country, and so they had no right to fight. However, you claim to believe in universal values – so I’m curious if you understand that a person (or a collective) that is 100% in the wrong (by your view) has the right to use force in the face of a life-and-death situation wherein the adversary is 100% in the right (by your view). I know it’s a tough one for you to imagine that universal values also include the right of people whom you despise to fight for their human rights/lives (and even to be victorious).

    I’d be curious to read the international law regarding the right of return. Please give me the link. I understand that the Sudeten Germans (for example) were expelled from their homes. There were no compensations, no right to demand their property back, and surely no right to return. Perhaps the case of the Sudeten Germans is ancient history (1945), whereas the case of the Palestinians is recent history (1948) – but I understand that even in Cyprus (1974) the issue of return and property has gone to the European court – and the “right” was rejected. Anyway, it doesn’t really matter. In the case of the Palestinians, there is an agreement (the Oslo Accords) that has determined that the refugee issue is an end-of-conflict topic. In other words, it has to be negotiated and agreed upon – and only in the framework of ending the conflict. Since there is such an agreement witnessed by the international community, it is now international law.

    • Annie Robbins
      January 7, 2018, 10:05 pm

      nathan, you asked for talkback’s to define the grievance from the Palestinian point of view and then told him (“not from your outsider’s point of view“) it wasn’t about international law or about universal values, basically asking him to respond to your boxed in question which you then discarded based on what you determined was his perceived bias. you didn’t really address what he wrote you decided to “Read[ing] between the lines” and make declarations about that instead. so:

      A country has no right to enforce immigration upon another country.

      do you recognize this as being universal or not? or do you think this concept demonstrates bias? let’s get that out of the way can we?

      • Nathan
        January 8, 2018, 12:22 am

        Annie Robbins – I don’t really understand what a “boxed-in question” might be. I had asked Talkback what is the Palestinian grievance, and I think it’s a simple, straight-forward question about the conflict. Indeed, the Palestinian grievance is not about universal values and international law. It is a very particularistic grievance, and I am sincerely curious if an outsider (someone who can’t read a poem or a book in Arabic) could possibly have a clue.

        It’s puzzling that you have a question for me. You don’t answer questions that I ask. I really wanted to know if you have a vision for an end of conflict with Israel. I think it’s an important question – and it’s quite easy to answer. You also told me to go chat with someone else, so it’s really puzzling that you wish to hear my ideas.

        I assume that you define the immigration policy of the British Mandatory Government as “a country enforcing immigration on another country”. In the strict legal sense, obviously, it was within the right of the government to allow such immigration. The British ruled the country with a mandate from the League of Nations. Was it the right policy? Well, that’s an ideological question. There are two very different answers.

        Anyway, the Palestinian grievance which is at the root of this conflict pre-dates the Mandate. However, this little chat raises yet another question which you won’t answer: Are you of the opinion that the presence of the Jewish population in Israel today is illegitimate? Should I now chat with someone else?

      • RoHa
        January 8, 2018, 8:23 am

        So tell us what you think the Palestinian grievance is.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 17, 2018, 6:49 am

        you don’t understand what boxed in means? go find a dictionary. oh, and your opinion doesn’t count because you’re an outsider, and biased.

        (A little hint: The Palestinian grievance is about international law and universal values.)

    • RoHa
      January 8, 2018, 12:56 am

      As I have pointed out before, Israel broke the Oslo agreement, so it is now a dead letter.

    • MHughes976
      January 8, 2018, 10:36 am

      I think, in reply to Nathan’s comparisons (which are relevant) with things Czech and Cypriot, that the current situation in the Czech lands is that the organisation representing Sudeten Germans has given up its attempts to gain restoration of property in return for the Czechs’ no longer seeking an opt-out from the Euro Charter of Fundamental Rights – this will probably permit some minor increase in the German presence in Cz. In Cyprus an Immovable Property Commission has been established which is making some progress on Greek Cypriot property in Northern C. The Euro Court of Human Rights has decided that it will not hear any further Greek Cypriot property claims unless they have first been pursued through the IPC. I agree that Courts will tend to nudge contesting parties towards practical compromise and that they will not try to uphold ancient rights in full and for ever., though they will not forget them. Whether a practical compromise will one day be found in Palestine that everyone can live with I don’t know. All this makes me want to remind everyone when opportunity arises how outrageous were the events of 48: that is, I don’t want the Palestinians’ ancient right to come any closer to the near oblivion which Western governments plan for it. Also, if – if – there is to be a restoration of legality through compromise the essential first step is an Israeli statement of what in their view a fair compromise would be.

      • Nathan
        January 8, 2018, 1:59 pm

        MHughes976 – May I summarize your comment by saying that in your understanding there is no right of return, and that everything must be negotiated? It’s not too often that someone agrees with me on this website, so I just wanted to make sure that this is one of those rare moments.

        In the Oslo Agreement, the outline of the future peace was agreed upon. There is no need for either side to make a statement about their view regarding a “fair compromise”. The issue is something else: Are we talking about an end of the conflict? The next step should be a clear declaration that the goal is an end of conflict. I don’t think that the Palestinians will be willing to declare their intention to reach an end of conflict deal with Israel, and so few of their western supporters (if any) can imagine an end of conflict with Israel. No one is going to implement a “fair compromise” that isn’t final. The present conflict is always preferable over the mysterious unknown conflict of the future that will begin with the implementation of a fair compromise that didn’t solve the existing conflict.

      • eljay
        January 8, 2018, 2:32 pm

        || Nathan: … The next step should be a clear declaration that the goal is an end of conflict. I don’t think that the Palestinians will be willing to declare their intention to reach an end of conflict deal with Israel, and so few of their western supporters (if any) can imagine an end of conflict with Israel. No one is going to implement a “fair compromise” that isn’t final. … ||

        I agree that the Palestinians should present an “end of conflict” goal to Israel and to the world. Problem is, no matter how fair or reasonable a goal is presented by the Palestinians, Zionists and their supporters will deem it unfair (and likely also anti-Semitic) if it:
        – does not acknowledge and accept the Zionist-claimed “right” of Jews to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine;
        – does include expectations of justice, accountability and equality.

      • MHughes976
        January 8, 2018, 3:12 pm

        A fair compromise, generally accepted as such, would imply end of conflict, I think. A mere proposal, not yet accepted, would not imply that – but it would be immensely clarifying even if not immediately acceptable.
        End of conflict as an aspiration doesn’t mean much. Specified terms for the end of conflict constitute a step beyond aspiration.
        The right of return arises once someone becomes a refugee, which follows from the fact that no one should be made into a refugee. I think that the right lapses once a refugee or a descendant of refugees accepts citizenship elsewhere – which they do not have to do. It may be that there is, over time. a form of tacit consent that makes a refugee into a citizen of the place where (s)he now lives but on the whole I think that explicit consent is looked for.. Without that relocation by consent the rights of refugees – or of each refugee – are eternal. They don’t cease to exist or become morally null. However it is sometimes necessary for one’s own and the general good to accept in any context rather less than one deserves: the right exists but is not quite absolute. But we should be wary of asking others to accept less than they deserve: that smacks of elevating personal convenience rather too high.

      • Nathan
        January 8, 2018, 7:34 pm

        MHughes976 – You’d be surprised to learn that a “fair compromise” does not imply an end of conflict. Perhaps, in the west, one would assume that the compromise ends the conflict, but this is not so in the Arab world. The agreement or compromise redefines the parameters of conflict, but it doesn’t end it. It’s a different political culture. There is a need to declare that the purpose of the future agreement is to end the conflict.

        In the English language, you could read very carefully the website of the BDS Movement (Barghouthi). There are many, many demands from Israel, yet there is simply no hint or indication that answering these demands and rectifying the many grievances would mean that the conflict is resolved. The conflict is always greater than the sum total of all those grievances.

    • Talkback
      January 8, 2018, 10:53 am

      Nathan: “Talkback – I read your “definition from a universal point of view”, and I wasn’t really too impressed.”

      I don’t have to impress somehow who after even two responses is still not able to formulate one single universal law. It reveals the underlying racism of your personal point of view.

      Nathan: “You define the Jewish immigration …”

      There he goes again: Jewish, Jewish, Jewish and Jewish. What a pathetic obsession. I formulated a universal principle. I neither used the words Jewish or Palestinian.

      Nathan: “Well, as I pointed out to you before, you have a political position, so obviously your “universal” point of view is under the impact of your political position.”

      Nope. It’s just racist political position that prevents you from formulating universal principles that can be applied on all people. You can only present a Zionist position.

      I was just giving examples of international law, the right to self determination and how it can be exercised and examples of universal human rights. You can’t recognize this through your racist lenses.

      Nathan: “Reading between the lines, I understand that you are arguing that the presence of the Israeli Jewish population in the country today is illegitimate …”

      Again, I never spoke about Jews or Nonjews. I wrote about a country’s legal population, whether they are Jewish or not. Your “reading” is as racist as pathetic.

      Nathan: “The Israeli Jews are citizens of the State of Israel, and so their presence in the country is self-evident.”

      Why the focus on “Jews”, again? Absolutely pathetic and totally missing the point. Based on what universal principle was the state of Israel established and by what means?

      Nathan: ” In the Palestinian world, the answer is clear: The Jews had no right to be in the country …”

      You are lying. Even in the PLO’s definition of Palestinian citizenship Jews who were present before mandat times and their paternal descendants are ipso facto citizens of Palestine. “Palestinians” are a constitutive people unlike Jews who are only a fake state nation. Palestinians do not need a racist differentiation between “nationals” and “citizens” like Nazi Germany or Israel does to privilige on people on the expense of another.

      Nathan: “I’d be curious to read the international law regarding the right of return. ”

      Read the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Let’s see if you are even able to recognize the article in question. I’ll give you a hint by refering to the Crime of Apartheid as defined in international law:

      “For the purpose of the present Convention, the term ‘the crime of apartheid’, which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhumane acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:

      Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person
      By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
      By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
      By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;
      Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;
      Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognised trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;
      Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;
      Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;
      Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid

      Nathan: “Anyway, it doesn’t really matter. In the case of the Palestinians, there is an agreement (the Oslo Accords) that has determined that the refugee issue is an end-of-conflict topic. In other words, it has to be negotiated and agreed upon – and only in the framework of ending the conflict. Since there is such an agreement witnessed by the international community, it is now international law.”

      Israel has trashed this agreement. I was never implemented. And it is not “international law”. Israel didn’t even consider it to be an international treaty, because it doesn’t recognize the State of Palestine.

      Anyway. That’s real international law and consensus: “the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted” according to multiple General Assembly resolutions. Whether your beloved Apartheid Junta wants to agree to it or not.

      Just replace “Palestinians” with “all people” if it is not universal enough for you. Oh wait. That wouldn’t fit the Zionist narrative, right?

      Nathan: “In the strict legal sense, obviously, it was within the right of the government to allow such immigration. The British ruled the country with a mandate from the League of Nations. Was it the right policy? Well, that’s an ideological question. There are two very different answers.”

      ROFL. In the strict legal sense the mandate violated the mandate system. Even the British and Balfour admitted it. The mandate scam was just colonial politics and you know it.

      But again. You don’t answer Annie’s question, because it doesn’t fit your anti-universal Zionist agenda:
      “A country has no right to enforce immigration upon another country.

      do you recognize this as being universal or not? or do you think this concept demonstrates bias? let’s get that out of the way can we?”

      Nathan: “Anyway, the Palestinian grievance which is at the root of this conflict pre-dates the Mandate. ”

      Of course. Zionism which is the cause of this conflict pre-dates the mandate. Ahad Haam wrote in 1891: “They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, unscrupulously deprive them of their rights, insult them without cause, and even boast of such deeds; and none opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination.”

      Nothing has changed since then.

      Nathan: “Are you of the opinion that the presence of the Jewish population in Israel today is illegitimate?”

      This pathetic obsession with Jews is ridiculous, but explanable. Nathan can’t use the words “natives” or “individuals that immigrated with the consent of the country’s people”. That would be to universal and not “Jewish” enough. ROFL.

      We are still waiting for you to cut your racist “Jews this, Jews that” crap and formulate universal principles for all people.

      • Nathan
        January 8, 2018, 1:12 pm

        Talkback – You tell me again and again that I shouldn’t focus on the Jews. But then, suddenly, you tell me that the Jews are only a fake state nation. It would seem that you, too, are busy with the Jews (and not only with universalistic “individuals that immigrated”).

        You are hiding your hostility behind empty slogans of “universal values” and “international law”. Your agenda is that all the Jews who arrived after 1917 will have to leave the country. That’s not a universal value; rather, it’s the particularistic Palestinian position. You are entitled to identify with the ambitions of the Palestinian national struggle, but don’t pretend that this is universal. And, obviously, the people living in Israel are Israeli citizens – even those who great-grandparents arrived illegally after 1917 without anyone’s consent. That’s international law.

        “Are you of the opinion that the presence of the Jewish population in Israel today is illegitimate?” I think that’s a good question in a debate. People should present their outlook honestly and to the point. You answer by rephrasing the question in your “universal” terminology (“natives” and “individuals that immigrated”). Obviously, the “natives” are Palestinians and “individuals that immigrated” are the Jews. Shakespeare teaches you that “a rose by any other name….” Your “universal” words are exactly the same particularistic topic at hand: the conflict. But more importantly, you don’t answer the question, not in my wording nor in yours. Your answer, nevertheless, is obvious: No, the Jewish population in Israel is illegitimate, and it will have to leave the country. Perhaps, you would prefer to say that the descendants of individuals that immigrated after 1917 to Palestine will have to leave the country – but it’s the same particularistic anti-Israel obsession, obviously.

        The right of return is a political issue. It has to be agreed on. I understand that this is a problem for you, because Israel shouldn’t even exist in the first place, so you can’t imagine negotiating with her. However, reality is that the issue will have to be negotiated in the context of ending the conflict.

      • Mooser
        January 8, 2018, 1:14 pm

        “We are still waiting for you to cut your racist “Jews this, Jews that” crap and formulate universal principles for all people.”

        “Dabakr” will be the recipient of a dozen “Jews sui generis! lapel buttons, and a box of “No trauma ‘long us, boss!” bumper-stickers.

      • Talkback
        January 9, 2018, 9:11 am

        Nathan: “You tell me again and again that I shouldn’t focus on the Jews. But then, suddenly, you tell me that the Jews are only a fake state nation. It would seem that you, too, are busy with the Jews (and not only with universalistic “individuals that immigrated”).”

        Don’t be daft, Nathan: You focused on the Jews and were lying about the Palestinians when you claimed that “in the Palestinian world, the answer is clear: The Jews had no right to be in the country.” I reminded only you of the fact that the Palestinians are a constitutive people and that includes Jews contrary to Jews who are not and who rule out Nonjews to be part of what they call “their nation”.

        This was an example of a universal principle regarding state nations.

        Nathan: “You are hiding your hostility behind empty slogans of “universal values” and “international law”.

        You are hiding your racism behind idiotic accusations without being able to formulate a single universal value/principle. It’s understandable that you have to distract from this simple fact.

        Nathan: “Your agenda is that all the Jews who arrived after 1917 will have to leave the country. That’s not a universal value; rather, it’s the particularistic Palestinian position.”

        You are lying again, Nathan. It’s not my agenda at all and it isn’t even the Palestinan position. They have allready declared that Jews can stay in the state of Palestine as Palestinian citizens, but not as ISRAELI settlers.

        But how does Israel treat illegal immigrants and their descendants?

        Your agenda is to keep Palestinians refugees expelled which is only based on your racist agenda.

        Nathan: “And, obviously, the people living in Israel are Israeli citizens – even those who great-grandparents arrived illegally after 1917 without anyone’s consent. That’s international law.”

        As much as it is international law that people have a right to return to their country and should be Israel’s citizens, too. But that doesn’t suit your racist agenda.

        Nathan: “Obviously, the “natives” are Palestinians and “individuals that immigrated” are the Jews.”

        You are lying again. Natives are the citizens who became iso facto citizens of mandated Palestine, because they had Ottoman citizenship and were habitually residing in Palestine. That includes Jews.

        Nathan: “The right of return is a political issue.”

        The right to return is and inalienable right and based on the UNIVERSAL declaration of human rights. It is only a “political” issue in your racist agenda.

        Fourth chance for you to argue based on universal values. Keep distracting from your failure by distorting my position and distracting form your racist agenda, Zionist.

      • johneill
        January 9, 2018, 10:57 pm

        nathan, judaism is a religion, not a nationality.

      • Talkback
        January 11, 2018, 9:20 am

        @ Nathan

        I’m still waiting and I will remind you that you are not able to formulate a single universal value regardind this issue. Your racism is obvious as much as you want to hide it.

  18. MHughes976
    January 8, 2018, 10:44 am

    Another part of the Palestinian grievance, I would think, is that the area where Israeli sovereignty is exercised is an area of minority rule enforced by disfranchisement. Wouldn’t like that if it was done to me. Can’t believe the Palestinian are that different at this point.

Leave a Reply