Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 69 (since 2010-10-07 14:52:05)

Emma

Showing comments 69 - 1
Page:

  • Cooper Union's bizarre 'Jewish values' panel: Accused war criminal and pro-occupation billionaires speak about the 'strong protecting the weak'
    • I agree. To state as fact that the Syrian government launched the chemical attack on Ghouta is wrong. This has only been alleged by those long working to break Syria apart.

  • Seymour Hersh says official story of bin Laden killing is 'one big lie, not one word is true'
    • " ... back in 1975; he visited my college newspaper and when I asked him what to investigate said that Harvard had likely cooked its admissions standards to exclude radical troublemakers. I couldn’t confirm this."

      I heard this from a friend who went to Harvard at the time. I though he was joking. He said they stopped admitting student leaders and gave preference to jocks, which he claimed was how he got in.

  • The Russia-Syria deal: What it means and what now?
    • This Letter to Congress about the absence of evidence of a sarin attack in these videos is excellent. Others have raised these very basic and obvious points, and I don't know why they aren't raised more often.

      Where are women? Why aren't the victims in their pajamas? Where's the vomit, poop, and pee? Why aren't they blue?

      Apparently some people were killed. But by what and by whom?

  • 'Girls on Fire' tell Alicia Keys -- Don't play Apartheid Israel
  • Penny Pritzker's support for Israel played crucial role in Obama's rise
  • Diaspora Jews must speak out against the Israeli Law of Return
  • 'Arabs, I hate Arabs!'--Independence Day and just another day in Jerusalem
  • Not an empty sand dune: A Palestinian mansion in downtown Tel Aviv
  • Following weeks of controversy, Barghouti and Butler deliver sharp response to critics of BDS movement at Brooklyn College event
    • I don't think I agree with this statement by Butler:

      "Only if we accept the proposition that the state of Israel is the exclusive and legitimate representative of the Jewish people would a movement calling for divestment, sanctions and boycott against that state be understood as directed against the Jewish people as a whole."

      Even in that case, assuming the BDS movement targeted the racist policies and criminal actions of such a state, it still could not be considered antisemitic. Only if the state were being targeted merely because all its people were Jewish and there was no identifiable harmful behavior by the state could BDS be considered antisemitic in Butler's example. Being a state "representing all the Jewish people" would not grant any special immunity from criticism or punishment for wrongdoing.

  • Israel holds Palestinian activist in solitary confinement to interrogate him about Facebook activity following 'Real Democracy' election campaign
  • 'You have to demolish them while they're small' -- Israel's chief justice approves destruction of mosque
    • Excellent report. Thank you. I especially like the phrasing "to escalate efforts to remove Palestine from the map," and I hope people use these important words often. Zionists have been "pushing the non-Jews of Palestine into the sea" and "wiping Palestine off the map" for far too long.

  • In Honor of Titans
  • Makdisi: E1 sets the stage for one state
    • Agreed. As Annie points out, he calls one democratic secular state, with equal rights for all, "really all along the preferable alternative," and he's right.

  • It's time for the media to talk about Zionism
  • UN approves Palestinian status upgrade with 138-9 vote (and US Senators threaten to cut aid)
    • Rice -- "Nor does passing any resolution create a state where none indeed exists or change the reality on the ground."

      Ha ha ha ha.

  • Video: What if you built a refuge for a persecuted people in a place where another people already lived?
    • "The British troops who were obligated to “maintain order” during the partition process ..."

      Are you referring to the ethnic cleansing of non-Jews that began in 1947 as a "partition process"?

      There was no legal "partition" of Palestine.

  • 'NYT' predictably comes under attack for reporting Israel targeted journalists in Gaza
    • ".... Revisionist Zionism might very well be an “existential threat” to the values of The Enlightenment ! ! !"

      Totally agree. Support for Israel perverts moral and ethical thinking, as in: ethnic cleansing is sad but unfortunately necessary, not everyone has a right to self-determination (whatever that is), there is no right or wrong, people sometimes just willingly leave their homes, all their personal possessions, businesses, farms, etc. behind and when they do they should never be allowed to return; a change in government (say from Jordan to Israel or Britain to Israel or Republican to Democrat) means that the new government owns everything belonging to anyone who opposed it -- the title to people's houses, furniture, land, and so on. Oh, and reporters should be killed.

  • The war in the West Bank
  • UK's Owen Jones: 'What people on earth would tolerate...'
  • Thanksgiving fodder: 'You should fight about Israel'
    • "But it has refused to talk to Hamas until it recognizes Israel, even though the United States talks to plenty of countries—take Saudi Arabia, to begin with—that have never done so."

      Could be wrong, but I believe the issue is recognizing Israel's "right to exist" not merely the "existence of Israel." They are not the same thing. The latter has a basis in international law, the former does not. The "right to exist" is some special new right made up by the US and Israel in the 70s which no country has recognized and no state has, other than Israel, apparently. Recognizing Israel's "right to exist" would mean recognizing the legitimacy of Palestinians' expulsion from their own land.

      link to crikey.com.au

  • Note to Rudoren: Palestinians love their children and want them to live just like the rest of us
    • Lifting the body of a dead child towards the sky strikes me as a spectacularly dramatic expression of emotion.

      And for what it's worth -- no doubt most here know this: Palestinians refer to anyone who is killed by the Israelis in the struggle for justice, anyone of any age, nationality, or religion, as a martyr.

  • Breaking: Protester in West Bank dies of injuries inflicted by Israeli soldiers
  • On the Jewish Israeli street, there's no solution to Palestinian issue but more violence
  • On '60,' Stahl says Spielberg experienced 'serious anti-Semitic attacks'
  • Free Gaza's Col. Ann Wright disinvited from Swedish Boat to Gaza
  • No room for racism in a movement working for equality and freedom
    • "The important battle of explaining to people that opposing Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism was dealt a terrible blow this past week ... "

      Isn't that what you have just done?

      I am very disappointed in your stance, and in your continuing to fuel and promote this baseless attack against someone whose long history demonstrates a courageous commitment to justice and equality.

  • Yousef Munayyer asks Aaron David Miller, 'how many Arabs are too many?'
    • Dickerson -- "I fear that Revisionist Zionism and Likudnik Israel (specifically by virtue of their inordinate sway over the U.S.) might very well be an “existential threat” to the values of The Enlightenment ! ! !"

      Absolutely!

  • Can you pass the Hezbollah quiz?
  • Susan Abulhawa demolishes Itamar Marcus
    • I think hoping to break into the US broadcast market after their popular coverage of the Egyptian revolution and then having that blocked by racists in the US government may have had something to do with realizing how to make sure the bread was buttered, or oiled up, or whatever.

  • Homage to Alex Cockburn
  • 'Israelis are helping write US laws, fund US campaigns, craft US war policy'
    • Wow, that's really interesting. I'd heard about the pressure the U.S. applied to get countries to change their votes in favor of the Partition Plan (which was in the end, as you well know, dropped by the Security Council and never passed into law). But this is the first I'd heard about that sort of fraudulent activity. Not so surprising really.

  • VP's daughter ties knot with a Jewish guy
    • " ...this ceremony could not have taken place in Israel unless Ashley had converted to Judaism."

      Joemowrey has made the most important point of all. But would just any sort of conversion to Judaism been sufficient?

      "When it comes to weddings performed in-country, the government recognizes only religious marriages. And for Jews, this means weddings officiated by Orthodox rabbis between individuals the government recognizes as Jews."

      link to forward.com

  • Fear, the African refugees and the cost of maintaining Israel as a Jewish state
  • Khader Adnan will continue to work at a bakery and sell zaatar to remind Palestinians of their roots
  • A Palestinian mayor issues desperate appeal to the world to restore his village's lifeline
    • I did, though I don't watch American television so I have no idea about that show.

      This is the horror of what the Zionists are doing in Palestine. Diabolical, patient, long-term crushing.

      Using the village as a "training ground" for decades, wantonly killing and shooting the residents.

      They are not just a dark menace to the Middle East, but to the world.

      Thank you, Phil.

  • Report: Israel to give US only 12-hour warning before attacking Iran because Netanyahu doesn't trust Obama
    • Ron Paul is also the only candidate to oppose war with Iran, who states that Iran is not a threat to us, that Islam is not our enemy, that we were attacked on 9-11 because of our foreign policy, and that we should stop bombing, invading, and occupying Muslim countries.

      link to blog.chron.com

      On military spending and reasons for 911 attack during Tea Party debate:

  • Ron Paul's foreign policy should be embraced
    • Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
      United States House of Representatives

      Statement on H Res 34, “Recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, Reaffirming the United States strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process”

      January 9, 2008

      Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or US interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers. What will adopting this resolution do to the perception of the United States in the Muslim and Arab world? What kind of blowback might we see from this? What moral responsibility do we have for the violence in Israel and Gaza after having provided so much military support to one side?

      As an opponent of all violence, I am appalled by the practice of lobbing homemade rockets into Israel from Gaza. I am only grateful that, because of the primitive nature of these weapons, there have been so few casualties among innocent Israelis. But I am also appalled by the longstanding Israeli blockade of Gaza — a cruel act of war — and the tremendous loss of life that has resulted from the latest Israeli attack that started last month.

      There are now an estimated 700 dead Palestinians, most of whom are civilians. Many innocent children are among the dead. While the shooting of rockets into Israel is inexcusable, the violent actions of some people in Gaza does not justify killing Palestinians on this scale. Such collective punishment is immoral. At the very least, the US Congress should not be loudly proclaiming its support for the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza.

      Madame Speaker, this resolution will do nothing to reduce the fighting and bloodshed in the Middle East. The resolution in fact will lead the US to become further involved in this conflict, promising “vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.” Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country? I believe it would be better to focus on the security and survival of the United States, the Constitution of which my colleagues and I swore to defend just this week at the beginning of the 111th Congress. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.

      link to antiwar.com

  • Dubious Charlie Rose asks Ehud Barak why not one state?
  • What do a Jewish state and a Catholic table have in common?
    • "On the other hand, one cannot be a Jewish Muslim a Jewish Arab (unless a Jew by religion) or a Jewish Muslim Arab --- "

      I get part of your point but not this. Perhaps you are joking. There are a great many Jewish Arabs. Perhaps you are saying there are no secular Jewish Arabs? But that's clearly not true either. Arab people with a Jewish upbringing cannot consider themselves Jewish if they feel like it just like the many other non-practicing Jewish people all over the world?

      What do you mean "unless a Jew by religion?" What other kind of Jew is there?

      link to bintjbeil.com --- "Reflections by an Arab Jew"

  • Ron Paul for Palestinian statehood: 'I believe in self-determination of peoples'
    • I may have posted this before, but this is Ron Paul's statement in voting against the idiotic 2008 House resolution expressing the representatives' love and awe of Israel's massacring the people of Gaza.

      "Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or US interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers. What will adopting this resolution do to the perception of the United States in the Muslim and Arab world? What kind of blowback might we see from this? What moral responsibility do we have for the violence in Israel and Gaza after having provided so much military support to one side?"

      link to antiwar.com

    • Totally agree. That's why I'm voting for Ron Paul in the Republican primary in my state. I'm glad to have a chance to vote for someone who takes a stand on at least some of the highest priority issues we need to get resolved: war, militarism, murder, imperialism, lawless federal government, loss of individual rights, pointless, destructive drug wars, etc. I hope he wins the nomination. I don't agree with him on everything and I don't give a damn. He has a point of view, he stands by it, and he doesn't mince words in order to get elected or raise money. On these sorts of urgent issues he stands for what the majority of Americans want. They are ignored and I think Ron Paul doing well could change the political dialogue.

  • Who would be considered a citizen in a new state of Palestine?
  • Two Israelis try to help Brooklyn's Jews cross the Red Sea
    • Not pro-Israel. The very concept of Israel is morally offensive.

      And I might as well take this opportunity to say that so is the use of the term "disapora Jews," which assumes that all the Jews not in Israel somehow came from/belong there.

  • Ron Paul says our unfairness to Palestinians led to 9/11 attacks
    • Completely agree. And for these reasons I am voting for Ron Paul in the Republican primary in my state. I urge others to do the same. Many states have open primaries. People need to think strategically and tactically and imagine the impact it might have on the political dialogue to voice support for an anti-war candidate, even one with whom we do not completely agree.

      Here is Ron Paul's statement opposing the House of Representatives' grotesque resolution supporting Israel's attack on Gaza in 2008:

      "I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers. What will adopting this resolution do to the perception of the United States in the Muslim and Arab world? What kind of blowback might we see from this? What moral responsibility do we have for the violence in Israel and Gaza after having provided so much military support to one side?"

      link to antiwar.com

  • Israelis uproot trees in occupied Walaja to make room for more Jewish settlers
  • Israel's only hope is that theocracies emerge...
  • Libyan triumph exposes the west's double standard for Palestine
    • You are absolutely right that the UN had no right to partition Palestine. And the UN didn’t partition Palestine. That’s not nitpicking. It’s an important point.

      You are also right that the UN shouldn’t have admitted Israel into the UN in 1949.

      (Sorry, previous comment was meant to be in reply to Exiled at Home.)

      Some further references on that:

      link to trumanlibrary.org

      link to unispal.un.org.

    • Sure. Here are some of the relevant resolutions and documents:

      link to unitednationstrusteeshippalestine1948.blogspot.com

      link to yale.edu

      link to avalon.law.yale.edu

      link to palestinechronicle.com

      Some extra details about the U.S. inner politicking around the recognition of the new Jewish state:

      link to informationclearinghouse.info

      link to mideastweb.org

    • The UN did not give anything to anyone in 1947.

      The Partition Plan failed to pass in the Security Council, in part because the Zionist terrorists had already begun their murderous assault on non-Jews and it was clear that the mere proposal of “partition” was already a disaster. As a result the General Assembly in the spring of 1948 was considering an alternative plan for Palestine – UN trusteeship. But the Zionists, having already seized a great deal of Palestinian territory by murdering or forcing out hundreds of thousands of non-Jews, simply ignored this and in violation of international law, declared the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine. Of course, the Zionists cited and continue to cite the General Assembly’s failed Partition Plan as justification. (It would be nice if supporters of Palestinian rights would learn not to.)

      The unlawful and immoral Partition Plan was rightfully dead at the time of Israel’s self-declared “independence.”

  • Eilat deaths count
    • Excellent information -- except for this bizarre part:

      "We barely saved Great Britain and the Soviet Union."

      The United States saved the Soviet Union? That's laughable. It was the Soviets who defeated the Germans and took Berlin. And in the process, it was the Soviets who liberated most of the concentration camps.

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      link to ushmm.org

    • “And I won’t get into the part about the West going along with the Zionists’ collusion with the Nazis that resulted in the death of countless Jews.”

      Why not? It’s significant.

      “Many German and Austrian Jews tried to go to the United States but could not obtain the visas needed to enter. Even though news of the violent pogroms of November 1938 was widely reported, Americans remained reluctant to welcome Jewish refugees.”

      Could that be because American Zionists opposed admitting more Jewish refugees?

      The Cold-Blooded Stance of the Zionists in the Face of the Holocaust

      link to marxist.com

      “This obsession with colonizing Palestine and overwhelming the Arabs led the Zionist movement to oppose any idea of rescuing the Jews who were facing extermination, because this would have impeded the ability to select and divert manpower to Palestine. From 1933 to 1935, the World Zionist Organization (WZO) turned down two thirds of all the German Jews who applied for immigration certificates. ...

      “As late as 1943, while the Jews of Europe were being exterminated in their millions, the U.S. Congress proposed to set up a commission to "study" the problem. Rabbi Stephen Wise, who was the principal American spokesperson for Zionism, came to Washington to testify against the rescue bill because it would divert attention from the colonization of Palestine.

      “This is the same Rabbi Wise who, in 1938, in his capacity as leader of the American Jewish Congress, wrote a letter in which he opposed any change in U.S. immigration laws which would enable Jews to find refuge. He stated:

      ‘"It may interest you to know that some weeks ago the representatives of all the leading Jewish organizations met in conference ... It was decided that no Jewish organization would, at this time, sponsor a bill which would in any way alter the immigration laws."

    • Agreeing with Annie.

  • Alice Walker tells 'Foreign Policy' she went from 'mythic' Israeli in '67 to 'terrorist state' in Cast Lead
  • And now for something completely different . . .
    • I think it's a fascinating story. Reminds me of the opening scene of the Cohen Brothers' great movie, "A Serious Man." In a long ago shtetl a husband brings an elderly man into the house because the man has done him a favor. The wife thinks he's a dybbuk and stabs him to prove it. The man gets up bleeding from the chest and staggers out of the house.

      It's not clear whether the man is a dybbuk or not. But either way the couple is cursed: either he was a dybukk, a malicious spirit, invited into the house or he was truly a righteous man, an invited guest, attacked by the wife.

  • 'We will boycott Israel' --a cappella flashmob in Brisbane
  • Wait-- did Israel lay a minefield in Golan in last 3 weeks to kill protesters?
    • Yes, well, where are the videos of the protesters throwing molotov cocktails and mines exploding? This event was filmed extensively with videos all over the internets.

      The IDF are notorious liars. I'd like to hear the testimony of eyewitnesses, of which they were plenty. What sort of injuries did the people receive? Did they go to hospitals? I guess the news agencies can't be bothered with that sort of work.

  • Unarmed protesters scramble to rescue the wounded at fence in the occupied Golan
    • This lousy story in the Guardian is claiming the protesters at Majd al-Shamsa threw molotov cocktails at the poor troops! On the "Syrian border with Israel." No mention of the illegal occupation of the Golan Heights by the Israeli military. The protests were organized by the Syrian regime, propagandizes the Guardian.

      link to guardian.co.uk

  • State Department kicks can down the road on Israel's crippling of Munib Masri
  • Mustafa Barghouthi's 2-state/1-state straddle
    • " .... if [American Jews] accepted the possibility that they might not need a second state to run to when things get hot here ..."

      I've never understood how this safe haven thing was supposed to work. If things "get hot" they are all going to fly to Israel and gather together by the millions in the one small place they are most targeted and threatened with extinction, enemies on all sides, etc?

  • Eliot Spitzer lectures Hanan Ashrawi that Israel has a right to the West Bank but Netanyahu 'wants nothing more' than to give it up
    • The Partition Plan was dead on May 15, 1948.

      Up until the moment when the Zionists unilaterally declared a Jewish state without borders in Palestine, the UN General Assembly was debating a plan not to divide Palestine but to place it under UN trusteeship.

      The partition plan, Resolution 181, passed by the General Assembly in November 1947 and forwarded to the Security Council for approval, was REJECTED by the Security Council on April 1, 1948 with UN Security Council Resolution 44, which requested a special session of the General Assembly “to consider further the question of the future government of Palestine.”

      link to yale.edu

      In light of the violence precipitated by the passage of the controversial partition plan, the United States CHANGED its crucial support in favor of partition and recommended a trusteeship.

      The U.S. Rep. to the Security Council, Ambassador Warren Austin, explained why in a position statement issued on March 19, 1948 during Security Council deliberations on the matter at Lake Success, New York:

      “United States Position on the Palestine Problem
      Statement by Ambassador Warren R. Austin, United States Representative in the Security Council, March 19, 1948

      “The resolution adopted by the Security Council on 5 March 1948 [SC Resolution 42] requested the permanent members of the Security Council ‘to consult and to inform the Security Council regarding the situation with respect to Palestine . . .’

      “The plan proposed by the General Assembly was an integral plan which would not succeed unless each of its parts could be carried out. There seems to be general agreement that the plan cannot now be implemented by peaceful means. From what has been said in the Security Council and in consultations among the several members of the Security Council, it is clear that the Security Council is not prepared to go ahead with efforts to implement this plan in the existing situation. We had a vote on that subject and only five votes could be secured for that purpose.

      “The Security Council now has before it clear evidence that the Jews and Arabs of Palestine and the mandatory power cannot agree to implement the General Assembly plan of partition through peaceful means. The announced determination of the mandatory power to terminate the mandate on 15 May 1948, if carried out by the United Kingdom, would result, in the light of information now available, in chaos, heavy fighting and much loss of life in Palestine. The United Nations cannot permit such a result. The loss of life in the Holy Land must be brought to an immediate end. The maintenance of international peace is at stake.

      “The United States fully subscribes to the conclusion reached by the four permanent members that the Security Council should make it clear to the parties and governments concerned that the Security Council is determined not to permit the situation in Palestine to threaten international peace and, further, that the Security Council should take further action by all means available to it to bring about the immediate cessation of violence and the restoration of peace and order in Palestine.

      “Under the Charter, the Security Council has both an inescapable responsibility and full authority to take the steps necessary to bring about a cease-fire in Palestine and a halt to the incursions being made into that country. The powers of articles 39, 40, 41 and 42 are very great, and the Security Council should not hesitate to use them-all of them-if necessary to bring about peace.

      “In addition, my Government believes that a temporary trusteeship for Palestine should be established under the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations to maintain the peace and to afford the Jews and Arabs of Palestine, who must live together, further opportunity to reach an agreement regarding the future government of that country. Such a United Nations trusteeship would, of course, be without prejudice to the character of the eventual political settlement, which we hope can be achieved without long delay. In our opinion, the Security Council should recommend the establishment of such a trusteeship to the General Assembly and to the mandatory power. This would require an immediate special session of the General Assembly, which the Security Council might call under the terms of the Charter. Pending the meeting of the special session of the General Assembly, we believe that the Security Council should instruct the Palestine Commission to suspend its efforts to implement the proposed partition plan.

      “I shall now read three propositions which are being submitted by the United States. I am not making any representation for any other one of the permanent members. The United States propositions are contained in a paper entitled ‘Additional Conclusions and Recommendations Concerning Palestine’, which has been circulated to the members. It reads as follows:

      “‘1 The plan proposed by the General Assembly is an integral plan which cannot succeed unless each of its parts can be carried out. There seems to be general agreement that the plan cannot now be implemented by peaceful means.

      “‘2. We believe that further steps must be taken immediately not only to maintain the peace but also to afford a further opportunity to reach an agreement between the interested parties regarding the future government of Palestine. To this end we believe that a temporary trusteeship for Palestine should be established under the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations. Such a United Nations trusteeship would be without prejudice to the rights, claims or position of the parties concerned or to the character of the eventual political settlement, which we hope can be achieved without long delay. In our opinion, the Security Council should recommend the establishment of such a trusteeship to the, General Assembly and to the mandatory power. This would require an immediate special session of the General Assembly, which the Security Council should request the Secretary-General to convoke under article 20 of the Charter.
      “‘3. Pending the meeting of the proposed special session of the General Assembly, we believe that the Security Council should instruct the Palestine Commission to suspend its efforts to implement the proposed partition plan.’"

      link to avalon.law.yale.edu

      “At midnight on May 14, 1948, the Provisional Government of Israel proclaimed the new State of Israel. On that same date the United States, in the person of President Truman, recognized the provisional Jewish government as de facto authority of the new Jewish state (de jure recognition was extended on January 31). The U.S. delegates to the U.N. and top ranking State Department officials were angered that Truman released his recognition statement to the press without notifying them first.”

      link to trumanlibrary.org

  • Mr Obama, maybe the pogroms have to stop before you talk about a Palestinian state...
  • Settlers fabricate non-existent “eternal rights”
    • “4) The UN took up the Israel matter in 1947 and then produced Resolution 181…that created the state of Israel.”

      Resolution 181 – the so-called Partition Plan – did NOT create the state of Israel. This is maybe the biggest, toughest Zionist myth of all.

      See these words in American’s quoted text of Resolution 181:

      “Requests that” as in “requests” the Security Council.

      The General Assembly, which has no power to make law, can only “request” or “recommend” to the Security Council, which does have the power to make law.

      The Security Council refused! The Security Council did not adopt Resolution 181. Aside from all the elements of the Partition Plan violated by the self-declared creation of Israel, the Partition Plan itself FAILED. It was never passed into law. The Security Council never even brought it to a vote. The self-creation of Israel had no legal basis whatsoever and was in fact in violation of numerous international laws.

      Jeremy Hammond, an editor at Foreign Policy Journal, has written a book about this: The Rejection of Arab Self-Determination: The Struggle for Palestine and the Roots of the Arab-Israeli Crisis. Here is an excerpt:

      link to palestinechronicle.com

      “One enduring myth about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that “Israel was created by the U.N.” under General Assembly Resolution 181. [15] This claim is absolutely false.

      “While the General Assembly is the more democratic of the two U.N. bodies, only Security Council resolutions are considered legally binding. Resolution 181 was nothing more than a recommendation. Naturally, any such plan would have to be acceptable to both parties, and it was not.”

  • The assault on Netanyahu's heckler, Rae Abileah
  • Obama the racist sectarian
    • I’m sorry if I didn’t make myself clear. I most certainly do not have an idealistic view of Obama. He is a vindictive asshole, a fraud and an evil man. I was only suggesting that maybe the source of the “anger” he apparently showed during this AIPAC speech (which I didn’t watch because aside from the fact that he has nothing to say but lies, I can’t stand seeing or hearing the man) might have come not from some grand passion as Phil suggested but from his own extraordinarily public and personal humiliation in his own office at the White House (which I only read about) by Netanyahu. I’m talking displacement here. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that secretly seething over being lectured and talked down to by Netanyahu in front of the whole world would cause him to do anything other than suck up to the Zionists as he has always done, as he clearly did in his AIPAC speech, and as he will always do, even as he has his nose rubbed in it over and over again, as you correctly point out.

      But – maybe I’m muddying things again – it’s hard to imagine that he actually enjoys having his face smashed in it and held there in front of the world’s media. Or maybe he does.

    • Thank you, Seham.

      As for Obama sounding angry during his AIPAC speech – I’m sure he was angry and I wondered when it would show. Netanyahoo just talked down to him in the White House in front of the national media. It was incredibly insulting. It’s one thing for the Zionists to kick the black president’s ass behind the scenes. It’s another for them to do it to his face on worldwide television. I really can’t imagine Benjy humiliating George Bush like that. Obama is not someone to take that lightly – for all his apparent dispassion. See his treatment of Cornel West.

      “He makes a bee line to me right after the talk, in front of everybody,” West says. “He just lets me have it. He says, ‘You ought to be ashamed of yourself, saying I’m not a progressive. Is that the best you can do? Who do you think you are?’ I smiled. I shook his hand. And a sister hollered in the back, ‘You can’t talk to professor West. That’s Dr. Cornel West. Who do you think you are?’ You can go to jail talking to the president like that. You got to watch yourself. I wanted to slap him on the side of his head.
      “It was so disrespectful,” he went on, “that’s what I didn’t like.”

      link to truthdig.com

      Actually I was hoping that the Nettoo’s arrogant performance would have shocked Americans – blatantly and publicly pushing the American president around in the White House.

  • Picking apart the New York Times Zionist narrative on the Nakba . . . using the New York Times
    • And let us not forget that other great plank in the Zionist myth – that the UN created Israel with the “partition plan,” a General Assembly resolution with no legal power, passed in violation of international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the UN’s own charter, a recommendation to the Security Council which the council refused to pass. In other words, the partition plan failed. The declaration of statehood by the Zionists in 1948 was illegal.

      link to palestinechronicle.com

  • The Arab spring comes to Palestine
    • Agreed.

      "United Nations Security Council Resolution 497, adopted unanimously on December 17, 1981, calls on the State of Israel to rescind its de facto annexation of the Golan Heights. The most important provision is "the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect" (section 1)."

      link to en.wikipedia.org

Showing comments 69 - 1
Page: