Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 1777 (since 2010-08-12 20:08:39)

To help resolve the Palestinian / Israeli problem within International Law.

Showing comments 1777 - 1701

  • Neoconservatives may finally get their war with Iran, from Donald Trump
    • In my opinion the US will neither attack North Korea [NK] or Iran. In the case of NK a conventional attack would put the lives of 12 million people in Seoul in grave danger from the NK massed artillery all along armistice line. Steve Bannon got it right when he said Top White House official Steve Bannon said Wednesday that there is “no military solution” to North Korea.

      “Forget it,” he told American Prospect magazine in an August 16 interview. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.”
      The same thing applies to Iran, the US has its fleet in Bahrain and many ships and bases in the area, you will know war is imminent when those vulnerable ships all move out of the area, out of range of the formidable missile systems Iran has. If Iran is attacked Israel would also come under threat, Hezbollah alone has 100,000 missiles ready to rain down on all vital infrastructure in the Tel Aviv area. In theory approx 1000 missiles per square mile. Iron dome cannot stop them Professor Postol of MIT calculated that iron dome intercepted just 5% of Hamas rockets
      So using the above figures Israel could intercept approx 5,000 of the 100,000 missiles at a cost of 10 billion dollars [each iron dome interceptor missile costs 100,000 dollars] Remember this is just Hezbollah, Iran and Syria have far deadlier arsenals. Israel knows it would be in ruins if the 'arc of resistance' is attacked, and the arc is growing stronger by the day.

  • Trump just 'pushed the two-state solution over the cliff'
    • Sorry I left out Israel's Golan Heights annexation "The Golan Heights will forever remain part of Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared Sunday during the first-ever cabinet meeting held on the Golan". Next the Litani, possibly a buffer zone between the Golan and Damascus, where will it end?

    • Talkback, If Israel only wanted 80% of the land, there might not be a problem since the Palestinians have already conceded approx that much and settled on 22% of Palestine. The problem is Israel wants it all look at the the Likud charter...
      The Likud Party Platform states:

      a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”

      b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”

      c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”

      d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.”
      Naftali Bennett spelt it out in a New York Times article recently, Israel will have sovereignty over all the 'Land of Israel' Palestinians will have self governing enclaves within the sovereign state of Israel with no Knesset representation, if they refuse this "generous" offer, they will be compelled to accept it. Israel only wants a one state solution based on discrimination and South African style Bantustans. They want the land, but not the people.

    • Boomer, You must be one of the very few who did not know why the "peace process" has lasted so long.
      TEL AVIV, June 26— Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was quoted in a published interview today as saying he wanted to drag out peace talks with the Palestinians for a decade while vastly increasing the number of Jewish settlers in Israeli-occupied territories.

      Had he held on to his office instead of being defeated this week in Israel's national election, Mr. Shamir reportedly said, "I would have conducted negotiations on autonomy for 10 years and in the meantime we would have reached half a million people" in the West Bank.
      This is Israeli policy, the PA have gone along with it.
      Netanyahu did better, he dragged it out for over 20 years.

    • When Professor N Finkelstein spoke in Dublin last year he said this of some the Paletinian solidarity movement "If you can't get half a loaf, why not ask for the whole loaf, if it seems as if the two states is not within reach, well why not ask for one state? I can understand that reasoning , the logic of it, but you would have to convince me of two things, number one, that two states is not within reach, and you would have to convince me that one state is more within reach than two states. I think neither propositions is true, I think the second proposition is positively insane. If Israel will not abandon/give up the West Bank, if that's true do you think it would be easier for Israel to give up a Jewish State? Does that make any sense? If two states is remote, one state is another time warp". He also said can you name one country in the world that supports a one state solution? None, so you think you are going to win a cause against the whole world, these are flights of fancy, fantasy as well, they are nothing to do with the real world?
      Israeli Minister Bennett wants Palestinian areas of the West Bank to be administered by Palestinians [with no represenation in the Knesset] those areas would be under Israeli sovereignty ["the Land of Israel"] he said if the Palestinians refused, they would be compelled to accept it. The Palestinians must unite and come up with a plan of action together with their true freinds in the region otherwise Bennetts proposals will be implemented by default.

    • Of course recognizing Jerusalem as Israels capital is contrary to International Law, but International Law has been a dead letter in Israel/Palestinian affairs for decades. The Palestinians must share some of the blame, most observers could see the "peace process" for what it was, a deliberately drawn out con designed to buy time for Israel to build and consolidate more settlements. When the Oslo accords were signed over 20 years ago it was envisaged that Israel would give up more of the West Bank ending in Palestinian self determination. From day one the Oslo accords were a failure, why, because the Israeli settlement enterprise went into high gear, and has continued ever since. These settlements are of course, like the recognition of Jerusalem, grave war crimes contrary to International Law [Geneva conventions Article 49.6] but so what, they did nothing over the settlement enterprise, what are they going to do now? Probaby run to Saudi Arabia and the other GCCvassels of US/Israel, who, in my opinion are anxious to throw them under the bus [at least their leaders are] I hope the Palestinians realize who their true friends are, the 'arc of resistance' Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah I will not hold my breath. One of the first acts of resistance....RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - Palestinians switched off Christmas lights at Jesus’ traditional birthplace in Bethlehem on Wednesday night in protest at U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. He said it was unclear whether the illuminations would be turned on again before the main Christmas festivities. That will show them.

  • A majority of one is pushing for embassy move -- Sheldon Adelson
    • Maybe Trump can see the disarray in the Arab world and with MbS trying to force Abbas to agree with almost any US peace plan including Abu Dis as the putative capital of a non sovereign Palestinian entity. Trump is a chancer and maybe he thinks [not unreasonably] that Mbs will throw the Palestinians under the bus, we shall see.

      Phil Weiss, "And P.S. Trump tried to block the UN Security Council resolution against settlements a year ago, while he and Mike Flynn and Jared Kushner were civilians, and maybe just maybe that’s a problem". Sure is, Trumps team did collude with Egypt and Israel to subvert official US policy over UNSC Resolution 2334, that has not been denied. ['collusion'.. agreement between people to act together secretly or illegally in order to deceive or cheat someone. Cambridge dictionary.] As far as we know Russia did not collude with anyone since they rejected US requests on that resolution. Professors Daniel Hemel and Eric Posner writing in the NYT say "Why the Trump team should fear the Logan Act"] here...
      Kushner and others should also have registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act [FARA].

  • US embassy move to Jerusalem would spark 'fanaticism and violence' and end US status as negotiator -- Arab leaders
    • According to Palestinian, Arab and European officials who have heard Mr. Abbas’s version of the conversation, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman presented a plan that would be more tilted toward the Israelis than any ever embraced by the American government, one that presumably no Palestinian leader could ever accept.

      The Palestinians would get a state of their own but only noncontiguous parts of the West Bank and only limited sovereignty over their own territory. The vast majority of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which most of the world considers illegal, would remain. The Palestinians would not be given East Jerusalem as their capital and there would be no right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants.

      At least the Saudis did not kidnap Abbas, although they apparently did try to bribe him.

      One Lebanese government official who received a call was most surprised by what he said was a Saudi suggestion that the Palestinians could have Abu Dis, a suburb of East Jerusalem, as their capital.

      Abu Dis is separated from the city by a wall built as part of Israel’s separation barrier.

    • Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced his plan to control “all of the territory” and “live forever by the sword.” Can't be plainer than that. Although, He who lives by the sword....

  • Netanyahu has been interfering in U.S. politics for a long, long time
    • The scope of this act is....

      The Act requires periodic disclosure of all ACTIVITIES and finances by:

      PEOPLE and organizations that are under control of
      a foreign government, OR
      of organizations OR OF PERSONS outside of the United States ("FOREIGN PRINCIPAL"),
      if they act "at the order, REQUEST, or under the direction or control" (i.e. as "AGENTS")
      of this principal
      of persons who are "controlled or subsidized in major part" by this principal.

    • Did Kushner register as a foreign agent before advocating for Israel in either the deletion or postponement of UNSC Resolution 2334. If not , why not?

      The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is a United States law passed in 1938 requiring that agents representing the interests of foreign powers in a "political or quasi-political capacity" disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances. The purpose is to facilitate "evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons." The law is administered by the FARA Registration Unit of the Counterespionage Section (CES) in the National Security Division (NSD) of the United States Department of Justice.[1] As of 2007 the Justice Department reported there were approximately 1,700 lobbyists representing more than 100 countries before Congress, the White House and the federal government.
      See also Who has already registered as a foreign agent.

    • I think a distinction has to be made between a foreign country trying to influence US policy by lobbying US representatives, sometimes aggressively, after all most countries try to do that, [think Israel and deep pockets Saudi Arabia] that is only to be expected, it would be a very naive US representative who did not expect such pressure.
      The distinction I refer to is when that foreign country tries to influence US policy by persuading various US citizens [who you know will do your bidding], and to conspire with them to defeat the policies of the US. This is clearly what Kushner and Flynn tried to do in relation to UNSC Resolution 2334. In another thread I tried to think of a crime which was similar to the hardly ever used Logan Act. In my opinion it is ...
      ​(the crime of) showing no loyalty to your country, especially by helping its enemies or trying to defeat its government:“;

  • War rumblings continue, as Netanhayu says Iran is another Nazi Germany
  • Flynn's plea on Russian influence reveals... Israel's influence!
    • Keith, My reference to Flynn having registered with FARA only accounts for his work for the Turkish government, he will not of course have told the US government [Obama] about his work for the Israeli government before Trumps inauguration.

    • Keith, I, like you know that Russia did not interfere with the US elections and that the whole Mccarthyite propaganda exercise was drummed up by Clinton losing the election. Craig Murray ex Ambassador said it was a leak from inside the DNC. I think this was confirmed by Bill Binney [he should know]. My interest with these latest relevations concern Kushner and Flynns trying to block or pospone that UNSC Resolution at the behest of a foreign power, Israel, that is not disputable. What can be done to stop this abuse.? In the Phil Weiss post "Netanyahu has been interfering in US politics for a long, long time" 3-12-17. I argue in my second comment, that Kushner unlike Flynn has not registered as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act [FARA legislation 1938], [are you happier with that date?] Here is that Act...
      The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is a United States law passed in 1938 requiring that agents representing the interests of foreign powers in a "political or quasi-political capacity" disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances. The purpose is to facilitate "evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons." The law is administered by the FARA Registration Unit of the Counterespionage Section (CES) in the National Security Division (NSD) of the United States Department of Justice.[1] As of 2007 the Justice Department reported there were approximately 1,700 lobbyists representing more than 100 countries before Congress, the White House and the federal government.

    • In an earlier comment I thought the Logan Act fitted the bill as to what Kushner and Flynn were up to, I may be wrong but treason might be more appropriate;
      ​(the crime of) showing no loyalty to your country, especially by helping its enemies or trying to defeat its government:";
      Israel requests Kushner and Flynn both private citizens to defeat a UNSC Resolution which the US Government were going to allow to pass, both agree to try and defeat that US government action on behalf of a foreign entity [Israel] thats treason.

    • Mooser, I don't think you are being entirely fair about Madam Clinton, she was unaware her server was acid washed and 33,000 e mail were deleted.
      Hillary Clinton joked to reporters Tuesday in Las Vegas about whether she "wiped" her email server clean before giving it to the FBI.

      “What? Like with a cloth or something?” she asked, then laughed. “I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”

    • Catalan, The chinese have agreed to buy a majority share in Ahava which of course has its manufacturing business in the West Bank.
      A Chinese business conglomerate has agreed to become the majority shareholder of the Israeli Ahava Dead Sea minerals cosmetics company for close to $76.5 million.
      Of course thats the way the Chinese do business, they care not whether they deal with dictators in Africa or anywhere. Just like the good old USA.

    • Keith, This is no fixation on the Logan Act, there is no other legislation on the statute books, the Logan Act just happens to fit perfectly the situation created by Kushner and Flynn. What other piece of legislation would be appropriate for this crime? Or is it alright for an incoming administration to nobble an important UNSC Resolution put forward by the incumbent government on behalf of an alien power, Israel, this goes to the heart of the democratic process. Had Kushner and Flynn suceeded, that Resolution might never have seen the light of day again, and given the green light to massive settlement building and ethnic cleansing.

    • Sibiriak, Here is just one situation the special Prosecutor might have the goods on Flynn. In August 2016, Flynn’s consulting firm was hired by something called Inovo BV — a Dutch company that turned out to be a shell corporation for a wealthy member of the Turkish government. Flynn appears to have continued working for Turkey until November at the earliest, and was paid at least $530,000 by Ankara. During this time, he was also serving as a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign.

      US citizens, even retired military officers, can legally work on behalf of foreign powers and take money from them. That’s not, in and of itself, problematic.

      But in order to do so legally, Flynn needed to be exceptionally honest to the US government about it — and cease his work as soon he reentered a position in the US government. And it’s not clear that he actually did all of the required steps.

      For one thing, he was late filing the paperwork for the Foreign Agent Registration Act — which isn’t that big a deal. But it’s not clear if he was entirely truthful on the paperwork he did file, and it’s also possible that he omitted the $45,000 payment on a form to renew his security clearance (called an SF-86), which requires such payments to be disclosed. Either would constitute lying to federal investigators, which (as we’ve discussed) is very illegal.

      Two bodies, the Department of Defense and the House Oversight Committee, are known to be investigating these issues. Who knows if the FBI has uncovered anything relevant to it as well. Regardless, Flynn could be in trouble.

    • Keith, Flynn was given a sweetheart deal so that the Prosecutors could go after bigger fish, Kushner and Trump. The Prosecutor had a whole raft of possible charges against Flynn which will remain on file to ensure Flynn cooperates with the investigation. I thought Clinton was an awful candidate and we could have had perpetual war. I gave Trump the benefit of the doubt hoping he would make good on his promises not to spend 6/7 trillion dollars on more futile wars like in Afghanistan/Iraq, instead he promised to spend money saved on wars on US infrastructure [more fool I] I think Trump is mentally ill and his foreign policies including Israel/Palestine and Iran are foolish, but I certainly would not have voted for the warmonger Clinton. On this issue I don't think I am biased, my reading of the Logan Act and members of the Trump teams disgraceful attempted blocking of that important UNSC Resolution is my honest opinion based on facts and logic.

    • Kathleen, I would think it normal for the Trump team to have relations and meet with any country and their Ambassadors, including Israeli agents, those relations could be regarded as preparing for an easy transition, the problems arise when the Trump team go beyond normal transition arrangements and attempt to subvert the incumbent Presidents foreign polices. Foreign Ambassadors and Israeli agents may well try to influence that foreign policy [that is to be expected and should be turned down] what is not right is for an incoming administration [the Trump team] to subvert US foreign policy by asking those foreign entities to vote a certain way on an important UNSC Resolution, in my opinion, a clear breach of the Logan Act.

    • Ronald Johnson, "As a nominee for a Cabinet position, he was more than a private citizen. His entrappers would hold that a nominee must do nothing in preparation for the job until he is sworn in. Ridiculous". Can't agree, he was still a private citizen untill he takes up his position.
      also the Logan Act is plain.. Any citizen of the US "with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both".
      Flynn and others clearly attempted to subvert official US policy at the UNSC with various countries in flagrant breach of that Act.

    • In my opinion it does not matter whether the collusion was with Russia or Israel, what matters is top individuals in President elect Trumps team attempted to change important US foreign policy as determined by the still in power Obama administration, this is not a legitimate way for an incoming administration to behave. It was not a traditional way to smooth that transition. It was a criminal offence under the Logan Act....

      Logan Act 1799

      § 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

      Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

      This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

      Although the Act is old and nobody has been prosecuted under it, it was introduced specifically to stop the activity Kushner and others are alleged to have been involved in.
      Is Trump also involved? In view of his pressuring of El-Sisi over their UNSC vote the day before, it is inconceivable that he did not know and/or direct Kushner to do as he did.

  • Dangerous signs that Trump, Netanyahu and the Saudi Crown Prince are planning wider Mideast war
    • General Flynn has recieved a sweetheart deal from the Prosecutors because they think the investigation will go to the top of this administration. One of Flynns lies concerned UNSC Resolution 2334 to be voted on 23 December 2016.
      a. On or about December 21, 2016, Egypt submitted a resolution to the United Nations Security Council on the issue of Israeli settlements ("resolution"). The United Nations Security Council was scheduled to vote on the resolution the following day.

      b. On or about December 22, 2016, a very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team directed FLYNN to contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia, to learn where each government stood on the resolution and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution.

      c. On or about December 22, 2016, FLYNN contacted the Russian Ambassador about the pending vote. FLYNN informed the Russian Ambassador about the incoming administration's opposition to the resolution, and requested that Russia vote against or delay the resolution

      d. On or about December 23, 2016, FLYNN again spoke with the Russian Ambassador, who informed FLYNN that if it came to a vote Russia would not vote against the resolution.
      A senior Trump transition team member said Kushner instructed Flynn to try and nobble the Resolution, did Trump instruct Kushner or did Kushner do it alone? Either way both are in trouble, this was not the act of an incoming administration ensuring a smooth transition, this was a blatant act to kill an important OBama initiative on Israeli settlement building and a clear breach of the Logan Act...
      (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. It was intended to prevent the undermining of the government's position.[2] The Act was passed following George Logan's unauthorized negotiations with France in 1798, and was signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799. The Act was last amended in 1994, and violation of the Logan Act is a felony.

    • I think it will be a big deal for Trump since it would appear he or a very senior member of his team tried to change Obama's policy at the UNSC by negotiating with other countries voting at the UN before Trump came to office.
      "According to the Bloomberg report, "one of Flynn’s lies to the FBI was when he said that he never asked Russia's ambassador to Washington, Sergey Kislyak, to delay the vote for the U.N. Security Council resolution. The indictment released today from the office of special prosecutor Robert Mueller describes this lie: "On or about December 22, 2016, Flynn did not ask the Russian Ambassador to delay the vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution." At the time, the U.N. Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements was a big deal. Even though the Obama administration had less than a month left in office, the president instructed his ambassador to the United Nations to abstain from a resolution, breaking a precedent that went back to 1980 when it came to one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N".

      "This was the context of Kushner's instruction to Flynn last December. One transition official at the time said Kushner called Flynn to tell him he needed to get every foreign minister or ambassador from a country on the U.N. Security Council to delay or vote against the resolution. Much of this appeared to be coordinated also with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose envoys shared their own intelligence about the Obama administration's lobbying efforts to get member states to support the resolution with the Trump transition team"

    • That one lie possibly involved Flynn trying to influence a vital UN vote on 23 December 2016 Resolution 2334 on Israeli settlements, the Israeli Government went apoplectic with OBama because he refused to withdraw it. If Flynn did try to influence other UN members into changing their votes, that would be a clear breach of the never used [until possibly now] Logan Act.

    • I don't see a war on Hezbollah in the immediate future, it would have to be a huge false flag or pure aggression on Israel's part, in such a case the Russians with their s400's just to the north in Syria would have a big say on the outcome, maybe even Syria would be involved. It must be noted that Hezbollah have over 100,000 missiles and other surprises which Nasralla said can reach all areas in Israel, including Dimona and the Israeli gas fields, such destruction of vital infrastructure in Israel and the massive loss of life is not something Israel will contemplate especially when Lebanon is destroyed but Iran is still standing. As for the Saudis they may have billions of dollars of military equipment but their army is a joke, I doubt they can wipe their own behinds, who will fly their aircraft? The Israelis know and respect Hezbollah they know it will be no walk in the park, Israels problem is that every day that goes by, Iran and Hezbollah grow stronger, what a conundrum.

  • Wichita teacher sues Kansas for denying her work because she boycotts Israel
    • That law covers Israel and all occupied territory, so any refusal to buy settlement products on the grounds that those settlements are, [in the opinion of the US government as stated by John Kerry late last year] illigitimate is a good reason not to buy. Also as the International Court of Justice found [in its opinion] by a 15 Judges to 0, including the US Judge Blumenthal] that the settlements, all of them, are in breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions Article 49 paragraph 6. Described as grave war crime. Anyone opposing these war crimes by refusing to buy settlement products, will be severely punished by the state of Kansas. This legislation is unbelievable and will surely be overturned.

  • In Ireland, a Palestinian is understood
    • Sorry about the spelling mistakes, no time to proof read, in a rush, on my way out.

    • One of the largest democratic deficits in Northern Ireland is the fact that the political parties that govern the Province Labour, Conservative and LibDem will not challenge the local sectarian parties, all 18 seats are up for grabs, if Corbyn's Labour Party contested those 18 seats Prime Minister T May might not have needed the help of the sectarian DUP to prop up her minority government. On another note, Opinion polls over the years have indicated that at least half the Catholic population do not want a united Ireland.
      A 2011 survey by Northern Ireland Life and Times found that 52% of Northern Irish Catholic respondents favoured union with Great Britain over a united Ireland. This is despite the fact that most Catholics who vote do so for political parties that are Nationalist.
      According to a 2015 opinion poll, 70% expressed a long-term preference of the maintenance of Northern Ireland’s membership of the United Kingdom (either directly ruled or with devolved government), while 14% express a preference for membership of a united Ireland. This discrepancy can be explained by the overwhelming preference among Protestants to remain a part of the UK (93%), while Catholic preferences are spread across a number of solutions to the constitutional question including remaining a part of the UK (47%), a united Ireland (32%), Northern Ireland becoming an independent state (4%), and those who “don’t know” (16%).
      All that is now required is for Jeremy Corbyn to give all the people of Northern Ireland Catholic and Protestant alike the elementary right to vote for the party that aspires to govern them, otherwise 1.8 million people in NI effectively have no vote.

    • The similarity between Israel and Ireland until 1999 is significant, the Israeli government 'claim ' sovereignty over the whole Land of Israel, including the West Bank [they call it Judea and Samaria] similarly the Republic of Ireland claimed sovereignty over the whole Island of Ireland and its territorial waters in their 1937 constitution [articles 2 and 3] The Good Friday Agreement [GRA] between the UK and Irish governments [including SinnFein] recognised that the people of Northern Ireland have the right to self determunation when the Republic changed its constitution from a 'claim' to an 'aspiration', and that there can be no constitututional change in NI without the majority agreeing to it.
      The result of the Irish referendum in 1999 was 94.39 for change to 5.6% no change. This complemented the 1973 border poll in Northern Ireland which was 98.8% to remain part of the UK to 1.2% for a united Ireland. on a 58% turnout [Sinn Fein told their supporters to boycott the poll]. The GFA could not have happened without the Republic and Sinn Fein recognising the people of Northern Ireland have the right to self determination. When a majority in NI vote for a united Ireland negotiations between all parties concerned can take place to bring it about in an amicable way. All perfectly democratic with no need for violence.
      The Israeli government do not recognise that the Palestinians have the right of self determination, therein lies the problem, for any peace agreement the Israelis will need to do as the Irish did when they renounced their claim to the whole Island. I suspect the Israelis will double down and try to either transfer the Palestinians or put them in Bantustans, neither will work of course, unfortunately we will have much more bloodshed. Watch Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness pay tribute to Ian Paisley..

  • In decertifying Iran deal, Trump caves to Israel. But who will say so?
    • On Friday the Financial Times reported that Donald Trump is expected to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist group, as part of a new hardline strategy against the Islamic republic.
      "The Americans should know that the Trump government’s stupid behavior with the nuclear deal will be used by the Islamic Republic as an opportunity to move ahead with its missile, regional and conventional defense program," Guards’ commander Mohammad Ali Jafari said, quoted by Reuters. He then explicitly threatened US presence in the region, warning that “if America’s new law for sanctions is passed, this country will have to move their regional bases outside the 2,000 km range of Iran’s missiles."

  • A plea to Israel: Don't start the third Lebanon War
    • Most of the Israeli population and industry [and economic existance] are within the Tel Aviv Metropolitan area, lets say for arguments sake that area is 100 square miles. It is theoretically possible for Hezbollah to rain 1000 missles per sqaure mile on that area, reducing it to rubble, no doubt Israel could do more damage to its enemies, but is that something Israel wants to learn from experience?

    • "But if you look at the tremendous and growing imbalance of power between the two sides"
      Not so sure about this, Hamas unguided rockets [7,000?] only managed to blow up the desert. One or two succeeded in causing some damage. Hezbollah's arsenal has over 100,000 rockets many supplied by Iran and have the all important guidance systems capable of targeting any site in Israel, including Dimona and Ben Gurion Airport, Nazralla has promised to stop Israeli shipping and can destroy the Israeli gas rigs and storage facilities "The Russian anti-ship Yakhont missile is considered to be the best of its kind in the world. Even the most advanced missile interception systems are unable to effectively intercept and destroy it. Israeli analysts believe that, with Yakhont missiles, Hezbollah could threaten Israeli military and civilian shipping as well as Israeli oil and gas rigs in the Mediterranean Sea and even the American Sixth Fleet"
      The reason the US/Israel want the Iran nuclear deal scrapped has nothing to do with the nuclear issue at all, rather Irans growing conventional powers, which they share with Hezbollah and which Israel fears so much. The 'arc of resistance' Iran, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon backed by Russia is indeed growing day by day.

  • Critics of U.S. 'Israel Anti-Boycott Act' say even requests for information could expose citizens to penalties
    • For information. The 1943 Resolution above is quoted in full in Von Glahn, "The occupation of enemy territory" [1957] pp 194-195. It was used in the "Quarries case" a few years ago in the Israeli High Court, that case was brought by Yesh Din [an Israeli human rights group] against the Military Commander of the IDF in control of the occupied territories.

    • This proposed Bill which makes it illegal to Boycott Israeli businesses located in Occupied Palestinian Territory has not taken into consideration International Law and the limits of the occupying Authority whose only mandate is to 'administer' the area, under the rules of usufruct he is not, for instance, allowed to sell immovable property, certainly not natural resources like water or minerals [Ahava].
      The Israeli occupying authority under the Military Commander must act only within the Occupied Palestinian Territories [OPT] according to the narrow parameters of customary International Law. Under The Hague regulations 1907 and the Geneva Conventions 1949, the Occupant is allowed to sell, [under the rules of usufruct the 'fruit' of the property not the 'capital' i.e, he can sell the apple but not the tree, or he can rent a building, but not sell it]. He can (using local labour) administer the area for two reasons only:
      (1) Military needs and/or
      (2) To benefit the local protected population.

      Not the settlers obviously, their illegal presence does not cover the legal definition of protected persons under International Law as defined by Geneva Convention Article 4 (below).
      Geneva Conventions 1949. Article 4
      Persons protected by the convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of conflict or occupation, in the hands of a party to the conflict or occupying power of which they are not nationals [cited fourth Geneva Conventions 1949. Article 4]
      The following agreement is what the US administration signed up to and is still in place..

      In July 1943 an International conference was held in London, its mandate was to upgrade the Hague regulations since they were not specific enough on property transfers, particularly because of the Nazi depredations in much of occupied Europe, these resolutions were put together by the leading jurists of their time and represent the latest and definitive word on the transfer of property rights and interests both within and outside occupied territory The USA, USSR, China and the United Kingdom and Dominions amongst others adopted them, here are the first four resolutions:-

      (1) The rules governing the validity in third countries of the acts of belligerent occupants and of transfers of, or dealings with, property, rights and interests of any description whatsoever derived from such acts, are rules of international law the non observation of which entails international responsibility.
      Note: In courts of third States cases may be decided according to a variety of legal considerations, but the result must be in harmony with the rules of international law, the main contents of which are set out below. The Conference has not discussed the conditions under which a third State that does not give effect to the said rules is liable to pay damages to the injured party and/or his State.
      (2) The occupant does not succeed, even provisionally, to the status or rights of the sovereign whom he displaces. The occupant has at most, under international law, only limited rights or jurisdiction and administration; acts in excess of these limited rights are null and void in law and are not entitled to legal recognition in any country.
      (3) The rights of the occupant do not include any right to dispose of property, rights or interests for purposes other than the maintenance of public order and safety in the occupied territory. In particular, the occupant is not, in international law, vested with any power to transfer a title which will be valid outside that territory to any property, rights or interests which he purports to acquire or create or dispose of; this applies whether such property, rights or interests are those of the State or of private persons or bodies. This status of the occupant is not changed by the fact that the annexes by unilateral action the territory occupied by him.
      (4) The civil administration established in a country subject to belligerent occupation has no status in international law. Any rule of international law establishing the invalidity of transfers of, or dealings with, property, rights and interests effected by the occupant applies also to similar transfers and dealings carried out by any associate or agent of the occupant acting for him or in his interest.

      The issue of exploitation of natural resources of occupied territory arose following the occupation of Iraq by the forces of the USA and the UK, the two countries made a commitment to the UN security council that all the receipts from the Iraqi oil sector would be used for the Iraqi people, and would be kept in a separate fund from which only a recognised representative of the Iraqi people could draw (see UN resolution 1483 May 22nd 2003). The International court of justice at the Hague ruled that it was absolutely forbidden to utilise the natural resources of the occupied territory for the need of the occupying country and that by doing so breached article 43 (republic of Congo V Uganda. 19th December 2005).
      Of course we are aware of what the United States thinks of International Law so I will not hold my breath waiting for them to adhere to the above.

    • This Bill seems to ignore the fact that the West Bank including East Jerusalem is Occupied Palestinian Territory [OPT] and the settlements in them are classed as Grave war crimes in breach of Article 49 paragraph 6 of the Geneva Conventions. A few years ago the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office in conjunction with the Department of Trade published a paper on Overseas Business risks- The Occupied Palestinian Territories, here is part of the paper....

      "There are therefore clear risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements, and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities (including in services like tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory. This may result in disputed titles to the land, water, mineral or other natural resources which might be the subject of purchase or investment. EU citizens and businesses should also be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements, as well as possible abuses of the rights of individuals. Those contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice".

      This is very sound advice, any business investing hundreds of thousands of pounds in companies like Ahava or Golan Heights Winery could easily lose that money, since if a settlement was arrived at in the next few years, both the the Syrian and Palestinian governments could seize all settlement factories and claim reparations for the illegal use of natural resources and propery without compensation. Most countries occupied by Germany during WW2 declared that any trade or transactions with the occupier was null and void under International law, and would not be recognized. A PLO Negotiating committee paper several years ago also warned of such trade and its consequences. All good reasons why consumers should not invest in settlement products. Maybe US citizens should ask their representatives if they will guarantee out of their own pockets any reparations having to be made to the returning legitimate governments?

  • Bill making it a federal crime to support BDS sends shockwaves through progressive community
    • The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has argued that the bill would “impose civil and criminal punishment on individuals solely because of their political beliefs about Israel and its policies”, in a letter sent to members of the Senate.

      “In short, the bill would punish businesses and individuals solely based on their point of view,” it wrote. “Such a penalty is in direct violation of the First Amendment.”
      Any person who does not do business with Israeli citizens or buy Israeli goods, should be interrogated by the authorities as to their state of mind, and if they 'believe' Israel should be Boycotted, a 20 year jail sentence will be neccessary. A lie detector test may be needed and/or enhanced interrogation techniques on, for instance, civil liberterians and people who read Mondoweiss.

    • The BDS movement have been accused of changing its goals, my comment above reflects its first change, it has subsequently been changed again ..
      "the BDS campaign has now decided to change its first goal once again. It now reads:

      “Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall” (

      The 2010 embarrassing reference to the 1967 Israeli occupation is now removed. However once you read the small letters, you grasp that BDS is more of a JVP (Jewish Voice for Peace) rather than a Palestinian voice. Though the goal does refer, once again, to Israeli “colonization of all Arab land,” the statement now makes it clear that it limits its demands to territories occupied in 1967:

      “International law recognises the West Bank including East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the Syrian Golan Heights as occupied by Israel. As part of its military occupation,
      I support the two state solution and the implementation of International law, so I can only go along with the goals change of BDS, but still think that BDS should be applied to the Israeli state as recognised in International law within the green line, until it complies with International Law.

    • Here is the change in the BDS movements goals.... In 2005, the BDS’s first goal demanded that Israel“End[ing] its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantl[ing] the Wall” (

      This represented a clear and brave challenge to the legitimacy of the Jewish State,

      At some point BDS’s primary goal was changed significantly, it now reads: “Ending [its] occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall.” (

    • GregMozart, you say Professor Norman Finkelstein, openly derides BDS since it goes against the international consensus and everything they’ve fought for. Professor Finkelstein supports BDS in relation to property and investments in Occupied Palestinian Territory [OPT] If it is the case that the Professor does not support BDS of the state of Israel within the green line because of some International consensus about the legitimacy of Israels existence, then in my opinion he would be wrong since the settlement enterprise and claims of Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank are claims made by the Israeli government on behalf of the Israeli state, therefore BDS should be applied to the instigators of the settlements and claims, at least until that government complies with International law. As far as I am aware the BDS movement simply want Israel to comply with International law, and officially do not have hard and fast views on one or two states. In fact BDS have been accused of changing its constitution some years ago to Israel leaving Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, in effect recognising Israel's existance within the green line.

    • This Bill also targets boycotting Occupied Palestinian Territory [OPT]... "While the measure is aimed at the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, it also targets efforts by the United Nations and the European Union to distinguish products manufactured in Israel from those manufactured in West Bank settlements". [Jewish Telegraphic Agency] Think about that, by advocating for Boycott of products made by illegal settlers in OPT which are well documented war crimes.. $1 million dollar fines and 20 years in prison, talk about overeach. They should have really overeached themselves by inserting in the Bill those found guilty of opposing war crimes, will be tortured and then put to death, I have no doubt some would support that also.

  • The Palestinian Authority is on the verge of collapse, and collapse it should
    • Abbas reluctantly made a complaint to the ICC in early 2015, it is possible, on past experience that the office of the Prosecutor could take 10 years to come up with something, this is disgraceful, surely the Palestinian leadership could put pressure on the court to expedite this case urgently, if only on the issue of settlements? A slam dunk.

  • Ontario caves to Israel on falsely-labeled wines-- for now, anyway
    • The difficulty of trying to enforce labelling legislation is the reluctance of the courts, presumably under political pressure not to upset the Israelis. Here is one example concerning AHAVA [Dead Sea Industries] a case from the Supreme Court involving several issues and labelling.
      "1. Without prejudice to other provisions in this Article, cosmetic
      products shall be made available on the market only where the
      container and packaging of cosmetic products bear the following
      information in indelible, easily legible and visible lettering:
      (a) the name or registered name and the address of the responsible
      person. Such information may be abbreviated in so far as the
      abbreviation makes it possible to identify that person and his
      address. If several addresses are indicated, the one where the
      responsible person makes readily available the product information
      file shall be highlighted. The country of origin shall be specified for
      imported cosmetic products;

      Here is part of the Supreme Court case and its unusual decisions.
      "There was no basis for saying that the
      average consumer would be misled into making a transactional decision (ie into
      buying the product) when otherwise she would not have done, simply because the
      source was described as being constitutionally or politically Israel when actually it was the OPT: the source was after all correctly labelled as the Dead Sea. The district judge found that:
      “Whether or not the information given is false...I consider that the number of people whose decision whether or not to buy a supposedly Israeli product would be influenced by knowledge of its true provenance would fall far below the number required for them to be considered as the ‘average consumer’. If a potential purchaser is someone who is willing to buy Israeli goods at all, he or she would be
      in a very small category if that decision were different because the goods came from illegally occupied territory.”
      That finding was clearly open to the district judge on the evidence and is fatal to the
      contention that the offence was committed.23.
      The Cosmetic Products (Safety)Regulations 2008 were made to transpose a different EU Directive (76/768/EEC as amended). Regulation 12(1)(a) provides that no person shall supply a cosmetic product unless the following information is displayed inindelible and legible lettering: “the name or style and the address or registered office of the
      manufacturer or the person responsible for marketing the cosmetic product who is established within the EEA. ....Where the cosmetic product is manufactured outside the EEA, the country of origin must
      also be specified.” As the district judge found, the objective of these Regulations is clearly safety of the consumer. They require the provision of information about the manufacturer, so that the consumer knows whom to pursue in the event of complaint. Within the EEA the name of the manufacturer is enough. If the manufacturer is outside the EEA, then the country must also be identified. These products were accurately labelled as coming from the Dead Sea and it is not suggested that the manufacturer was not identified. The alleged inaccuracy relates to the political status of the Dead
      Sea area from which they are identified as coming. As the district judge rightly said,
      the Regulations are not directed at disputed issues of territoriality, however
      important those may be in other contexts. It is doubtful that any offence under these
      Regulations was shown, but if it was, there can be no doubt that it was not integral
      to the activity of the shop in selling the products, but at most collateral to it".
      See full verdict here
      Notice how the Judges say the product is accurately labelled "the Dead Sea" without mentioning the false country of origin [which 'SHALL' be indicated in the EU Regulation.Also contrary to the final EU Interpretive notice on the origin of goods from OPT mentioned in my other comments on this issue.

    • For information..
      A first attempt to summons 'The Wine Cellar' London for falsely labelling wine made in Syria as Israeli wine was turned down by the District Judge Abeleson [of Jewish origin]. The Judge unbelievably asked me what made me think Katzrin was not in Israel, I replied "Its not me that asserts that fact it is the UNSC"
      Here is part of the summons

      (Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, s 1)

      Magistrates’ Court (Code )
      Accused: Mr Avi Roth
      Address: 198 Stamford Hill, London N16 6RA. [Proprietor of ‘The Wine Cellar’]
      Alleged offence (short particulars and statute): Information Number 1
      Supplying falsely labelled wine contrary to European Union [EU] Regulation 607/2009 Article 55 1[a][i]. As Created by EU Regulation.1308/2013, formally 1234/2007. And the ‘Wine Regulations 2011’ section 14.2[b]

      I allege that Mr Avi Roth trading at the above address has failed, and continues to fail to comply with the compulsory particulars provisions of EU Regulation 607/2009 Article 55 1[a] [i], ‘Indication of the Provenance’, by retailing wine imported into the UK from a third country Syria [outside EU] with inter alia, false Country of Origin representations on the labels i.e. ‘Wine of Israel’ and Produced and Bottled by Golan Heights Winery POB 183 Katzrin I2900 Israel. In breach of the above EU Regulation. According to the United Nations Security Council Resolution number 497 [December 1981], the Golan Heights is Internationally recognised as part of sovereign Syrian territory, Israel is merely the illegal occupying power, and cannot legally claim that goods with an originating status in the Golan Heights, are produced in Israel [see initial details].
      He has ignored two warning letters dated 26th November 2014 and 10th March 2015 [sent recorded delivery]. Please find attached as evidence, two photographs of offending wine bottle labels, together with detailed prosecution case with evidence. The wine described as ‘Muscat’ was supplied to me on November 8th 2014 by Mr Roth via the internet. Both labels falsely indicate as facts, ‘Israel’ as the Country of origin, in breach of the legislation above, and contrary to ‘Country of Origin’ rules as set out in European Union [Regulation 2913/92 Articles 23,24 and 25] and UK Trade Descriptions Act 1968 [section 36].

      See attached, for initial details of prosecution case.

      The information of Harry Law address .............................

      Who (upon oath) states that the accused committed the offence of which particulars are given above

      More details of this case are available if required, other cases are being prepared.

    • Here is the information referred to in my comment above...
      Guidance from UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
      Overseas Business Risk The Occupied
      Palestinian Territories

      Inter alia..."Potential buyers and investors should be aware that a future peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, or between Israel and Syria, could have consequences for property they purchase or economic activities they promote in these settlements. In case of disputes, it could be very difficult for Member States to ensure national protection of their interests.
      EU citizens and businesses should also be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements.
      EU citizens and businesses contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice before proceeding".

    • Well done David, here in the UK I am experiencing the same frustrations as you. Golan Heights Winery sell wine all over the world as two examples Yarden, one of their brand names, sell a muscat white wine, and a red wine, Sauvignon Blanc, both wine labels make at least two false representations:
      1. ‘WINE OF ISRAEL’ and
      These are false facts in breach of EU legislation, they are not misleading, in my opinion misleading means there is doubt as to whether something is true or false, in this case there is no doubt about the falsity of the representations.
      The label on the “Sauvignon Blanc”’ bottle indicates that the grapes were grown and harvested entirely in the Golan Heights. Under country of origin rules, originating products are determined, (in this case, grapes) by being wholly grown, harvested and turned into wine in that territory, therefore the wine is of Syrian origin.
      The geographical territory, together with all the metrics by which country of origin is arrived at is the determinative factor, not the nationality of the exporter, if this was not the case the world trade system would collapse.
      As an added factor, both labels when viewed as a whole show at least five other indicators which tend to confirm the false facts in 1 and 2 above
      1. Golan Heights Winery with Galilee underneath, ‘Galilee’ is a region of Northern Israel.
      2. The wine is Kosher for Passover; and is authenticated for the Jewish religious holiday of Passover by a Rabbi from the Northern Israeli City of Tiberias.
      3. The web page indicates an Israeli country code [il]
      4. Barcode first three digits 729 indicates Israeli origin, although not conclusive proof of origin.
      5. Hebrew text.
      As misterioso helpfully pointed out on the Kate article. "Canada order stores to deshelve settler wines with ‘made in Israel’ label "13th july 2017. "On 17 December 1981, the UNSC unanimously passed Resolution 497, which declared Israel’s 14 December 1981 annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights “null and void.”
      Several years ago the UK Foreign Office in conjunction with the Dept of Trade warned consumers about the dangers of buying goods from occupied territory and that before doing so should seek legal advice
      Then on 11.11.2015 the European Commission put out an Interpretive Notice which said at paragraph (10)
      For products from the West Bank or the Golan Heights that originate from settlements, an indication limited to 'product from the Golan Heights'or'product from the West Bank' would not be acceptable. Even if they would designate the wider area or territory from which the product originates, the omission of the additional geographical information
      that the product comes from Israeli settlements would mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product. In such cases the expression 'Israeli settlement' or equivalent needs to be added, in brackets, for example. Therefore, expressions such as 'product from the Golan Heights (Israeli settlement)'or'product from the West Bank (Israeli settlement)'
      could be used.
      As you can see from my comments in the Kate article these wines are in breach of all the labelling legislation at European Union level and also still on the statute book,section 16 and 36 Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
      Prohibition of importation of certain goods
      16 Prohibition of importation of goods bearing false indication of origin.

      “Where a false trade description is applied to any goods outside the United Kingdom and the false indication, or one of the false indications, given, or likely to be taken as given, thereby is an indication of the place of manufacture, production, processing or reconditioning of the goods or any part thereof, the goods shall not be imported into the United Kingdom”.
      36 Country of origin.
      (1)For the purposes of this Act goods shall be deemed to have been manufactured or produced in the country in which they last underwent a treatment or process resulting in a substantial change.
      Court cases are being prepared on these matters.

  • Canada order stores to deshelve settler wines with 'made in Israel' label
    • In the opinion of the International Court of Justice [ICJ] the Wall case, all 15 Judges declared all the settlements to be illegal in the West Bank including East Jerusalem, they are occupied territories. Before the ECJ made its judgement in my comment above, the advocate General gave his opinion on the territorial extent of the Israel/EU Association Agreement.
      108. I would point out, first of all, that Article 83 of the EC-Israel Agreement provides that ‘[it] shall apply … to the territory of the State of Israel’.
      109. The borders of the State of Israel were defined by the Plan for the Partition of Palestine, drawn up by UNSCOP (48) and approved on 29 November 1947 by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181. On 14 May 1948, the Head of the Provisional Government of the State of Israel proclaimed the birth of that State on the basis of the borders which had been defined by the Plan for the Partition of Palestine. (49)
      112. In the light of the foregoing, the Court cannot but conclude, in my view, that the territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip do not form part of the territory of the State of Israel.

    • Yes oldgeezer, it has been rescinded on the basis of the Canadian/Israel free trade agreement which stipulates that "According to the agreement, Israel refers to any territory in which its custom laws apply." Of course Israels custom laws should not apply, Under the EU/Israel Association Agreement for instance the European Court decided at...
      52 Accordingly, to interpret Article 83 of the EC-Israel Association Agreement as meaning that the Israeli customs authorities enjoy competence in respect of products originating in the West Bank would be tantamount to imposing on the Palestinian customs authorities an obligation to refrain from exercising the competence conferred upon them by virtue of the abovementioned provisions of the EC-PLO Protocol. Such an interpretation, the effect of which would be to create an obligation for a third party without its consent, would thus be contrary to the principle of general international law, ‘pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt’, as consolidated in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention. Full judgement of the court..;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d52d7aff3fbe804e2ca3f8e19a079b3ed9.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4PaxyLe0?text=&docid=72406&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=318551

    • A bit more information on my comment above, the false or misleading statement must be false or misleading to a material degree. I would think a different country to the one claimed is material. Could a Frenchman buying and operating an English vineyard sell his product as French wine? He would be a candidate for Madame Guillotine.
      Here are two further parts of that Act
      3. False trade description.

      (1)A false trade description is a trade description which is false to a material degree.
      (2)A trade description which, though not false, is misleading, that is to say, likely to be taken for such an indication of any of the matters specified in section 2 of this Act as would be false to a material degree, shall be deemed to be a false trade description.
      (3)Anything which, though not a trade description, is likely to be taken for an indication of any of those matters and, as such an indication, would be false to a material degree, shall be deemed to be a false trade description.
      (4)A false indication, or anything likely to be taken as an indication which would be false, that any goods comply with a standard specified or recognised by any person or implied by the approval of any person shall be deemed to be a false trade description, if there is no such person or no standard so specified, recognised or implied.

      36 Country of origin.
      (1)For the purposes of this Act goods shall be deemed to have been manufactured or produced in the country in which they last underwent a treatment or process resulting in a substantial change.
      (2)The Board of Trade may by order specify—
      (a)in relation to any description of goods, what treatment or process is to be regarded for the purposes of this section as resulting or not resulting in a substantial change;
      (b)in relation to any description of goods different parts of which were manufactured or produced in different countries, or of goods assembled in a country different from that in which their parts were manufactured or produced, in which of those countries the goods are to be regarded for the purposes of this Act as having been manufactured or produced.

    • Labelling for products from the West Bank and Golan Heights is already in UK and EU Law, here is just one example from the 1968 Trade Descriptions Act. Most of this Act has been repealed and replaced by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, but section 16 TDA is still on the statute book. Here is section 16
      Prohibition of importation of certain goods
      16 Prohibition of importation of goods bearing false indication of origin.

      "Where a false trade description is applied to any goods outside the United Kingdom and the false indication, or one of the false indications, given, or likely to be taken as given, thereby is an indication of the place of manufacture, production, processing or reconditioning of the goods or any part thereof, the goods shall not be imported into the United Kingdom".
      There is nothing misleading in wine grown in, harvested and bottled in the Golan Heights Syria and sold in the UK as from Israel, it is FALSE and should not be imported into the UK.

      Unfortunately the Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights refuse all my requests for assistance to take these issues to the relevent court. In my opinion the LPHR although masquerading as a legitimate charity are in fact operating as a business, who only take cases where lawyers can earn big bucks, for instance through Judicial Review etc.

  • Nadia Hijab on Palestinian options, Jewish allies, and the Zionist crisis
    • Nadia Hijab is a thoughtful and intelligent person, she is right about BDS and the primacy of getting the EU on board for action on these issues. It must not be forgotten that President Abbas does not support BDS, also the Palestinians need unity above all else, how can outsiders fight for Palestinian rights when their leadership are advocating war crimes against Gazans for purely political advantage [Abbas calls on Israel to cut electricity to Gaza]. Professor Finkelstein said the end of Apartheid in South Africa could not have happened without the backing of the African front line states, indeed the whole of Africa. Compare that with the lack of support from Arab states in the middle east, Saudi Arabia and other GCC states are allying with Israel in their religious and ideological battle with Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, the very combination who have promised to confront Israel on behalf of Palestinian rights and self determination. The crucial issue which Zionists must realize is that self determination for the Palestinians involves Palestinian sovereignty over the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Jordan valley. In a recent interview with the NYTimes Naftali Bennett addressed this issue honestly, he said Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank is not negotiable and that areas A and B should be 'administered' by the PLO in what I can only describe as Bantustans, they would not be allowed to send representatives to the Knesset . "The Palestinians will have political independence, hold their own elections, select their own leadership, run their own schools, maintain their own social services and issue their own building permits. They should govern themselves and run their day-to-day lives. Israel should not interfere. Much of this already exists, but we can do better.

      This Palestinian entity will be short of a state. It will not control its own borders and will not be allowed to have a military". then he adds Lastly, I propose applying Israeli law in Area C, which is the part of the West Bank controlled by Israel under the Oslo agreement. The Palestinians who live there would be offered full Israeli citizenship. We can start with the known settlement blocs that everyone agrees will remain part of Israel even under a final status agreement. By applying Israeli law and asserting national sovereignty in those blocs, while upgrading Palestinian autonomy in Areas A and B, we will reduce the scope of territory in dispute, making it easier to reach a long-term agreement in the future". There we have it, no Palestinian sovereignty for any part of the West Bank, and Israeli rule in area C [60% of West Bank] means annexation. Palestinians need unity first and foremost, then they need the backing of Middle Eastern front line states, unfortunately the 'West' does not have the political will to confront Israel, they may be forced to when the 'arc of resistance', Iran, Syria, Hezbollah backed by Russia prevail in their war against those proxy forces in Syria [backed by Saudi Arabia and other GCC states and much of the West] are defeated. Netanyahu said Israel will live by the sword, those are fighting words, other states in the region may not be so easily pushed around and have too much self respect to be cowed by Israel or its backers in the West.

  • Clinton lost because PA, WI, and MI have high casualty rates and saw her as pro-war, study says
    • Here is Hilary [the warmonger] Clinton threatening Russia and China.

    • Sorry forgot about Iran, the US/Israel and Saudi Arabia are threatening Iran daily, any war on Iran could bring in Russia and make the $6 trillion Afghan/Iraq wars seem like chump change.

    • It is true the human cost of these Middle East wars is reflected in death and injury to mostly working class citizens, these loses are reflected in the up to $6 trillion dollar projected costs of these wars of choice as explained in the study by Harvard University Kennedy Law School Senior Lecturer Linda Bilmes Unfortunately Trump lied before he was elected when he said that the crazy expenditure of those wars could have rebuilt the infrastructure of the US twice over. Thats true, now he is doubling down on US belligerence by not only threatening North Korea and Syria but China and Russia as well. It is depressing to learn the high point so far of the Trump Presidency as far as the mainstream media is concerned is when Trump bombed that Syrian airbase contrary to International law and the UN Charter, the MSM were ecstatic.
      This unlawful aggression was based on pure propaganda put about by the usual suspects, and firmly refuted by Seymour Hersh Only when the US complies with International Law will peace be given a chance.

  • Sober anniversaries for Gaza fuel movement building
    • This spat between Abbas and Hamas is nothing new in inter Arab emnity thats why
      Gaddafi's speech to the Arab League in Syria 2008 was so prescient..
      "We [the Arabs] are the enemies of one another I'm sad to say, we deceive one another, we gloat at the misfortune of one another, and we conspire against one another, and an Arab's enemy is another Arab's friend.
      Along comes a foreign power, occupies an Arab country [Iraq] and hangs its President,and we all sit on the sidelines laughing. Any one of you might be next, yes.

    • Israeli war crimes have been well documented in Gaza, the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure etc, most Israeli excuses are that they have a right to defend themselves [from Hamas violence] Obama said as much during the last Gaza massacre. There are other war crimes committed by the Palestinian Authority which in many ways are just as bad. Abbas wanted all electricity cut to Gaza, which would mean constant electrical blackouts—up to 20 hours per day which also affect water and sanitation as well as other critical services such as health and education, did the Israeli Authorities advise Abbas that this in itself was a war crime, and explain that when we [the IDF] commit war crimes we give the excuse that we have the right to defend ourselves whereas you want to cut off electricity to Palestinian incubators and water treatment plants merely for political purposes. Disgusting.

  • Palestinian Authority blocks access to news sites linked to Abbas rivals
    • Thank's Citizen, complicated ain't it?

    • Abbas wants to be a Pharaoh, asking Israel to cut electricity to the already desperate Gaza strip amounts to complicity in a war crimes, I feel sure Abbas would like to cut the heads off critics, just like his friend King Salman, who in turn would gladly throw Abbas under the bus at the first opportunity. The Palestinians only hope is to somehow get some unity, and join the 'ark of resistance' Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon backed by Russia, in my opinion, that's the future.

  • The Palestinian minority inside Israel is our last chance for freedom
    • The Author should attempt to get some unity amongst Palestinans in the West Bank and Gaza.
      PLO leader Abbas is calling for war crimes against his own people [calling on the occupying force to restrict electricity to the already dire predicament of Gazans.
      The Author also talks about BDS, is he aware Abbas is against BDS, and has recently banned any pubications critical of his rule,7340,L-4976532,00.html The Palestinian leadership need to get their own house in order first.

  • Israel and P.A. go forward with plan to cut electricity to Gaza by 40 percent
    • Abbas the collaborator should feel ashamed of himself, he is advocating war crimes against his own people, Abbas had originally sought a 100% cut in Gaza’s electricity, but Israel refused, citing humanitarian concerns. Even with this smaller cut, Israeli military advisers are warning a mounting humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip will likely escalate the level of violence along the Israeli border. Doing the PA leaders bidding does not exonerate Israel, the occupying power in Gaza, of its responsibilities. The Fourth Geneva Convention, governing military occupation, requires the occupier to use all means at its disposal to ensure adequate medical services, public health and other basic necessities of life.

  • Interrogating the Qatar rift
    • These are the 10 demands the Qataris must comply with..

      1) Cutting ties with Iran immediately.

      2) Officially apologizing for all GCC governments for the insults, fake news they've tolerated from broadcast network Aljazeera.

      3) Expelling all Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood leaders and members from Qatar.

      4) Stop interfering in Egypt's affairs immediately.

      5) Stop sponsoring or funding any terror groups in any way, shape or form.

      6) Freezing Hamas leaders bank accounts and prohibiting any financial transactions with/by them in that regard.

      7) Vowing not to have any future policies or political roles that contradict the GCC unified polices.

      8) Shutting down Aljazeera TV network immediately and abiding by the pact agreed upon by Doha in 2012 during late King Abdullah rule.

      9) Expelling all the personalities, figures who have known aggressive stances against GCC countries from Qatar.

      10) In case Qatar fully agreed to all above, an urgent meeting of GCC leaders to be held in Jeddah, KSA tomorrow to ink the irrevocable deal.

      This is amusing, the biggest funder of terrorism in the world and in particular in Syria is Saudi Arabia, Joe Biden in a talk at a US University last year and H Clinton in the wikileaks
      e mails confirmed it. Qatar is a terrorist funding source particularly of Muslim brotherhood groups who Turkey also support, hence their agreement to send Turkish troops to Qatar.
      We now know Qatar will not change its foreign policy to suit Saudi Arabia.
      On the other hand Qatar must realize their Syrian war gambit has failed and their proxy forces are being decimated. Could they not see the writing on the wall and team up with Iran to develop the huge South pars field they share with them and pipe the gas through Iran, Iraq and Syria/Turkey to the Med and onto Europe. In my opinion the US/Saudi and UAE have blundered and could have split the GCC permanently. To be honest, I would like to see all these satraps in the GCC swept away.

  • Trump's Jerusalem
    • Sorry did mean praying, but looked up the urban dictionary and came up with this...
      Urban Dictionary: #preying
      #preying. Top Definition. Pussy Sailing. a term that means looking for girls/pussies. looking for wiling girls to have sex. "Man, It's been a rough week." "Yes, we should go pussy sailing."
      #sexing #hunting #preying #fun #party starter #midnight beast
      by De Jay Hemmingston January 17, 2010
      Entirely appropriate for Trump, don't you think?

    • That poster with Abbas with a bagfull of money tells it's own story, then picture Trump sword dancing with the Saudi despots one day then wearing a Yamulke and preying at the Western wall the next. Should the Palestinians prepare to be thrown under the bus? Or is this a prelude to the GCC states and Israel teaming up with the US to [as the Saudis say] cut the head off the snake [Iran].

  • DC and Jerusalem reel over Trump disclosure of ISIS plan to-- hush!-- put laptop bombs on planes
    • Terrorists smuggling bombs in laptops is a serious security concern to all aircraft. That concern becomes farcical when the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee John McCain advocates arming those same terrorists with manpads. And only a few miles from Ben Gurion airport, shameful.
      WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia’s military jets.

      “Absolutely… Absolutely I would,” McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition in Syria.

      “We certainly did that in Afghanistan. After the Russians invaded Afghanistan, we provided them with surface-to-air capability. It’d be nice to give people that we train and equip and send them to fight the ability to defend themselves. That’s one of the fundamental principles of warfare as I understand it,” McCain said.

  • Palestinians cope with Gaza's electricity crisis as Fatah aims to pressure Hamas
    • It is difficult to believe the Palestinians will achieve anything when the Israelis can divide and rule so easily, unfortunately they have the perfect enabler of the occupation in Abbas. Neither can they look to their rich neighbours, Saudi Arabia for instance is to spend 100 billion dollars on arms deals with the US, these deals are just protection money [shake down] as you would give to anyone who promised to protect you from perceived threats from Iran and the other members of the 'arc of resistance'. This is proof positve that the old adage is true, 'follow the money'.

  • Here we go again! Netanyahu disputes Trump administration, urges him to 'shatter Palestinian fantasy' about Jerusalem
    • Not forgetting the other Congress critters "There they were, the members of the highest legislative bodies of the world’s only superpower, flying up and down like so many yo-yos,applauding wildly, every few minutes or seconds, the most outrageous lies and distortions of Binyamin Netanyahu".

    • “Who the fuck does he think he is?” Bill Clinton said. It was the summer of 1996, and the president had just met Benjamin Netanyahu for the first time. Clinton thought they would talk about advancing the Israeli-Palestinian peace accords, but the newly elected Israeli prime minister used the occasion to lecture him about the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
      “Who’s the fucking superpower here?” Clinton fumed".

      Some things never change.

      "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released his harshest statement yet to the Trump administration yesterday, correcting the president on Jerusalem and urging him to shatter “the Palestinian fantasy that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.”
      Time for Netanyahu to tell Trump who the real President of the US is. Netanyahu has 100 Senators on his side, how many has Trump?
      One thing Trump will face on his trip to the Middle East is a united front between Saudi Arabia and other GCC states and Israel on the need to attack Iran. Some in his administration do not need convincing of that imperitive.

Showing comments 1777 - 1701