Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 9321 (since 2010-02-28 20:54:05)



Showing comments 9321 - 9301

  • 'Al Jazeera' examines Jewish constellation of lobby elites, and marginalized 'universalists'
    • Off topic breaking news: Despite the fact that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are joining the PLO (you know, the organization that has formally recognized the state of Israel for more than 20 years) Israel and the US have the chutzpah to put a negative spin on the Palestinian reconciliation agreement. Most of these are never destined to be implemented anyway.

      FYI, the Netanyahu regime itself has concluded two agreements with Hamas since 2007, but won't allow the PLO/Fatah to conclude one. It isn't as if Israel hasn't already proven that it wants settlements, instead of peace.
      link to
      link to

  • Registration of Jews and other human beings
    • Nonsense. The registry, which notes religion, includes Druze and many, many other appellations.

      @ Hophmi, you're being deliberately dishonest. There is no such thing as an "Arab" or "Circassian" religion, the Ministry of Interior registry employs more than 128 "nationalities".

      The ID cards themselves include no mention of ethnicity.

      Sure they do. The date of birth on Jewish identity cards use the Hebrew calendar.

    • It would be a better world if the Israeli registration was condemned as strongly.

      Certainly not by Secretary Kerry. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution was employed by the Congress to establish trading and treaty relations with the Indian tribes. The fact that the members were subsequently granted US citizenship did not alter the legal standing of the tribes:

      To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

      link to

      Not too far away from the scene of the recent Overland Park shootings, the federal records and tribal trust records of the National Archives and Records Administration and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are maintained by the American Indian Records Repository at Lenexa, Kansas.

      No matter how many DNA tests establish your native American descent or entitlement to share in the settlements from extensive trust litigation, in most cases you won't be "federally recognized" or able to collect, unless you are descended from someone on the federal government's Dawes Act registration rolls or have been legally adopted by someone who is.
      link to
      link to

  • John Judis's Truman book is a landmark in anti-Zionism
    • “The Arabs of the former British Mandate failed to declare independence and found an Arab state”

      Well you can't have it both ways. King Abdullah was an Arab and Jordan was an Arab state formed by the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan.

      When the plans were announced for the independence of Transjordan the Jewish Agency complained that it was a indivisible part of the Palestine mandate and that the Jewish people still had a secured legal right to it. See “Mandate is Indivisible Jewish Agency Objects to Severance of T.-J.”, Palestine Post Apr 9, 1946, page 3 link to

      The Zionists played the same "recognition of statehood game" back then to block Transjordan's application for membership in the UN, that they are playing today to block Palestine's membership:

      In view of application of Trans-Jordan for membership in UN received July 5, we have to establish our attitude without delay and I am sending memorandum to President requesting his views. I should appreciate knowing your thoughts in advance of beginning of SC Committee discussion on membership on July 15.

      As you are aware, we have had correspondence with Senator Myers regarding Trans-Jordan and he has introduced resolution containing request that executive take no action in any way recognizing Trans-Jordan as separate or independent state and that US representative on UN be instructed to seek postponement of international determination of status of Trans-Jordan area until future status of Palestine as a whole will be determined.

      We also have received a long detailed legal argument from Rabbis Wise and Silver [on behalf of the Jewish Agency for Palestine] objecting to independence of Trans-Jordan.

      –See Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. General; the United Nations Volume I, Page 411 link to

      Sure enough, when Abdullah tried to join the UN in 1946, he was turned down. The President of the Security Council cited advice from the US Secretary State that Transjordan was considered an integral part of the joint Palestine mandate, which had not yet been legally terminated. He recommended that no action should be taken, until the question of "Palestine as a whole" could be addressed by the UN. See The Minutes of the 57th Session of the Security Council, S/PV.57 pages 100-101 (pdf file pgs 3-4 of 52) link to

      Now we're all supposed to play dumb, rollover, and pretend none of that ever happened.

    • puppies, Jews immigrating to the Jewish historic homeland are not invaders.

      First of all, ancient Judaism converted members of the indigenous populations of Northern Africa, Europe, and Asia "in-place". The majority of the members of those communities never stepped foot in Palestine, much less considered it a homeland. Even during the Second Commonwealth, the majority of the Jews chose to live elsewhere in enormous centers of Jewish life, like Alexandria, Babylon, and Yemen.

      People born and raised in other countries by parents whose Jewish ancestors either departed Palestine a 100 generations ago or who never lived there at all were considered invaders by the proper legal authorities. The Ottoman Sultan had issued a firman that encouraged the establishment of large Jewish settlements in Syria, but it prohibited Oriental and European Jews from settling in Palestine. Palestine was marked on the maps of the era. The first Jewish Aliya was carried-out in violation of that prohibition on mass Jewish immigration. In 1882, the American Consul summed up an immigration request from a group of Romanian Jews living in the Ottoman Empire this way:

      In conclusion, there is nothing to prevent all the Israelites on the earth from settling in Asiatic Turkey. They shall not settle in Palestine-’that is the only prohibition.

    • talknic- I would prefer some details rather than an assertion on the basis of your expertise.

      Nahum Sokolow has a full discussion of the efforts of various Jewish leaders and British officials to restore Palestine to the Jews, beginning almost from the moment that the ban against Jews living in England was lifted. See History of Zionism (1600-1918) Volume 1 and 2:
      * link to
      * link to

    • Did Truman have that opinion before he became President and got strong armed by the zionist?

      Yes, he had spent 10 years, from 1935-45, in the US Senate getting pressure from the American Zionist Lobby. link to

      FYI, he led the "Truman Committee" on corruption and fraud in war production at a time when Zionists were busy looting stockpiles in North Africa and Middle East to arm their underground Palestinian militias.

      Rabbis Wise and Silver always worked hand-in-hand with a coterie of congressional leaders, e.g. link to

      U.S. Congressmen blackmailed and threatened other countries during the UN vote on partition, not the US State Department delegation to the UN, who had strict instructions from Secretary Marshall not to intervene in any way.

      And it would seem very odd for him to have had a Jew as a business partner and a close friend if that was his opinion.

      Truman was commanding officer of Sgt. Eddie Jacobson's unit, Battery D, during WW-I. Jacobson was never a member of any Zionist organization. They were only briefly business partners, until 1922, when their haberdasher's shop in Kansas City went tits-up. Truman like everyone one else talked about "the Jews" and meant the Zionists in this country and abroad who were operating the Jewish Agency for Palestine and their constituents. If you try to discuss historical events and especially the contents of the official verbatim records, you'll end up doing the same thing too.

    • When the European Zionists started talking about seizing Palestine for themselves, the interests and rights of the land’s sole rightful owners, the Palestinians, did not even rate a blip on the radar screen, let alone the condemnation it deserved. That’s domination.

      The Western powers openly admitted that they intended to facilitate the so-called "restoration" of the Palestine to the Jews. Long before the Balfour declaration, they operated their own Consular jurisdictions as "states within the state" on behalf of their Jewish citizens or foreign Jewish protégés. We've discussed that situation here at length in the past.

      In the UNESCO series "International law: achievements and prospects", editor Mohammed Bedjaoui noted that Turkey was obliged to accept a very clear relinquishment of sovereignty by acquiescing in the regime of Capitulations. Between 1832 and 1925 the United States government established an extraterritorial jurisdiction - called "Palestine", which had its own US laws, US magistrates, and US Marshalls. It was aligned under the US State Department and submitted annual and daily country reports to the Department and the US Bureau of Foreign Commerce. See for example the annual report for 1884 starting at mid-page here. See also Gabriel Bie Ravndal, "The Origin of the Capitulations and of the Consular Institution", US Govt. Print. Off., 1921; and Ruth Kark, American consuls in the Holy Land, 1832-1914, Wayne State University Press, 1994 Kark documents the fact that the majority of Jews in the District of Jerusalem were not Ottoman subjects. It was common practice during the 19th century for them to retain their citizenship elsewhere or for the various consulates in the Levant and in Palestine to extend consular protection to them by designating them as either citizens or protégés. So, there was definitely a legal jurisdiction called Palestine. It did not include the territory of the Vilayet of Damascus east of the Jordan river and a considerable number of the Jews living there were not Ottoman subjects.
      When the Ottoman "Governor of Jerusalem and Palestine" ordered the deportation of resident alien Jews from Palestine, the US government was the only one of the ten western countries concerned that refused to carry out the decree. Our representative advised the Governor of Palestine, Raouf Pasha, that it absolutely would not discriminate against American citizens on the basis of their race or religion. See Index to the executive documents of the House of Representatives for the second session of the fiftieth Congress, 1888-'90, page 1560

      In "The Turkish American Controversy over Nationality", Leland J. Gordon said

      The capitulatory regime in Turkey and the American doctrine of protecting naturalized citizens upon return to their native land, created a situation whereby Ottoman Armenians and "Syrians" could go to the United States, acquire wealth and citizenship, return to Turkey and live in their native land exempt from all Ottoman laws. It was possible, therefore, to escape from tyranny and poverty and still live in their home land by the simple expedient of a voyage to America. In the first twenty-four years of the twentieth century, it is estimated that 70,000 naturalized Americans returned to Ottoman Asia, and questions regarding their rights have caused endless controversy between the Ottoman and American Governments. See - The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Oct., 1931), pp. 658-669

      Pending the ratification of a treaty of peace with Turkey (see the case below), the United States continued to demand that its citizens living in Mandate Palestine be immune from taxes and that they be turned over to it for trial in the American Consular Courts in accordance with the Capitulations. It insisted that, under existing treaties, the US had the right to operate consular courts separate from those of Great Britain. See for example the unauthorized firearms case involving Abraham Chaikin in the Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1921, pages 122 & 123

    • phil refers to [Palestinians] have never gotten a fair break in more than a century of Zionist domination. What Zionist domination until Balfour? The movement of immigration and Jewish self definition? That’s not domination. Until Balfour.

      No, throughout the 19th century, European and American Jews were already settling in Palestine and purchasing property illegally through local Jewish Ottoman subjects. They enjoyed near legal impunity and freedom from taxes as so-called "Protégés" of the Western Consulates in Jerusalem under the regime of Capitulations. In most cases Ottoman officials couldn't even make an official visit to an American Jew's residence, unless they were accompanied by a member of the US Consulate. Ottoman officials had to pursue most routine legal actions through the Consular Courts, which exercised personal jurisdiction over their citizens and protégés. See for example Ruth Kark, American Consuls in the Holy Land, 1832-1914 link to

      Jews liked the practice so much that they forced the British to pretend to inherit the Ottoman millet system. They in-turn pretended to inherit it from the British. They also mimicked the way individuals carried their own national laws with them into other jurisdictions under the Capitulations, when they began to settle in the occupied Palestinian territories. If a Palestinian wants to pursue a legal remedy against a Jewish immigrant, they can't resort to their own courts - and it's been that way since at least the 1830's.

    • This is not an automatic (even if perhaps logical) consequence of having visibly exhausted all possibilities of negotiation, because it does in real life require an asset to negotiate with, in addition to his admirable patience.

      People tend to forget that the PA was just a creature of the Oslo Accords and that the General Assembly just adopted a resolution in November of 2012 which recognized the November 1988 Algiers Declaration of the State of Palestine and the fact that the PLO Executive Committee has always functioned as the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine ever since then. link to

      The Palestinians do not need to have a "PA" to file an Article 12(3) declaration or join the ICC as an occupied, apartheid victim state. In fact it would be an odd result if a Bantustan could not file a victim state self-referral for the crime of apartheid or persecution. After all, the first international convention which called for the creation of a permanent international criminal tribunal was the Apartheid convention. See the UN Rapporteur's "Final Report on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court for the Implementation of the Apartheid Convention and
      Other Relevant International Instruments" available from Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center link to

      The answer he’ll get is “whaddyagonnadoboutit” and some bellyaching in the Europarliament.

      He might get the slow roll, but the fact that Afghanistan is occupied has not stopped it from joining the ICC or kept the ICC Prosecutor from conducting an investigation. The Palestinians have already started the ball rolling on legal efforts to go after transnational businesses in Europe that aid and abet Israel in plundering their public and private property.

    • A “religious” state was not founded “in Palestine”; a Jewish nation-state declared its independence, with a largely secular/atheistic/agnostic leadership, upon the termination of the British Mandate whence “Palestine” ceased to legally exist.

      @Misinformed The British mandate was always intended to be terminated when the former Ottoman communities could "stand alone" with their own self-governing institutions. The Jericho Congress of Arab Palestine declared Abduallah the "King of Arab Palestine" and requested the establishment of a joint kingdom composed of all the remaining Arab territories that had been subjected to the lapsed mandate, including Transjordan. You can read all about that on page 1 of the Palestine Post, 14 December 1948, link to

      FYI, a confederation or incorporation of one state or kingdom into another existing one (a union), or its emergence as an independent state are all valid modes of exercising the right of self-determination according to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations link to

      So the Congress provided the legal foundation for the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan. The new joint entity was admitted as a full member of the United Nations. During a conference in 1949 Israel pointed out that it was not the legal successor of the former government of Palestine's debts and treaties. But it also noted that there had not been an orderly replacement of one state by the other and that Israel did not occupy all of the former state's territory. So Palestine did not cease to exist on account of Israel's act of secession. See D.P. O'Connell (author) "The Law of State Succession", Volume V of the Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, 1956, Hersh Lauterpacht editor, pages 10-11, and 178; and CApp 41/49 Simshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory LTD. v. Attorney-General (1950) link to

      "Judaism", as defined by the State Rabbinate, is the official public religion of Israel and it determines the personal status and the scope of individual human rights in Israel. The Knesset has adopted a plethora of laws that discriminate against the non-Jewish citizens of Israel. link to

      The members of the governing coalition and the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee have refused for decades to adopt a Constitution that legally entrenches the right of equality under the law and explain that democracy and equality are incompatible with "Judaism". That is the epitome of a religious state, which is both a theocracy and an ethnocracy.
      * MKs debate protection of ‘equality’ in future constitution: Religious MKs reject inclusion of ensurance of equality, saying it would contradict Judaism. link to
      * Lapid: Israel’s definition as Jewish and democratic is an unsolvable contradiction: “Judaism is a whole line of values that have existed for thousands of years, but the democratic idea is a new idea, and significant parts of it stand in contradiction to Judaism” link to

      Hannah Arendt described the situation during the Eichmann trial:

      Like almost everybody else in Israel, he believed that only a Jewish court could render justice to Jews, and that it was the business of Jews to sit in judgment on their enemies. Hence the almost universal hostility in Israel to the mere mention of an international court which would have indicted Eichmann, not for crimes “against the Jewish people,” but for crimes against mankind committed on the body of the Jewish people. Hence the strange boast: “We make no ethnic distinctions,” which sounded less strange in Israel, where rab­binical law rules the personal status of Jewish citizens, with the result that no Jew can marry a non-Jew; marriages concluded abroad are recognized, but children of mixed marriages are legally bastards (children of Jewish parentage born out of wed­lock are legitimate), and if one happens to have a non-Jewish mother he can neither be married nor buried. The outrage in this state of affairs has become more acute since 1953, when a sizable portion of jurisdiction in matters of family law was handed over to the secular courts. Women can now inherit property and in general enjoy equal status with men. Hence it is hardly respect for the faith or the power of the fanatically religious minority that prevents the government of Israel from substituting secular jurisdiction for rabbinical law in matters of marriage and divorce. Israeli citizens, religious and nonreligious, seem agreed upon the desirability of having a law which pro­hibits intermarriage, and it is chiefly for this reason—as Israeli officials outside the courtroom were willing to admit—that they are also agreed upon the undesirability of a written constitution in which such a law would embarrassingly have to be spelled out. (‘The argument against civil marriage is that it would split the House of Israel, and would also separate Jews of this country from Jews of the Diaspora,” as Philip Gillon recently put it in Jewish Frontier.) Whatever the reasons, there certainly was something breathtaking in the naivete with which the prosecution denounced the infamous Nuremberg Laws of 1935, which had prohibited intermarriage and sexual intercourse between Jews and Germans. The better informed among the correspondents were well aware of the irony, but they did not mention it in their reports. — Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil, Google ebook, page 7

    • Lord Balfour did not promise the creation of an Israel carved out of Greater Syria.

      In fact he had to promise that would not happen in order to gain approval of the declaration. Declassified documents show that there were War Cabinet sponsors of the Balfour Declaration who interpreted the national home clause as meaning nothing more than assistance in establishing a shrine in one of the main Jewish communities. A week before the cabinet met a number of its members wrote memos pointing out that the term "national home" had no definite or agreed upon meaning. See CAB 24/30, “The Future of Palestine” (Former Reference: GT 2406), 26 October 1917; CAB 24/4, “The Zionist Movement”(Former Reference: G 164), 17 October 1917; and CAB 24/28 (Former Reference: GT 2263) “Zionism, 9 October 1917.

      On October 31, 1917, when the Balfour Declaration finally came before the War Cabinet, Balfour summarized the arguments for and against it. He specifically addressed Curzon’s objections to the use of the vague term “national home” maintaining that it did not mean the establishment of an independent Jewish state. See Karl Ernest Meyer, Shareen Blair Brysac, "Kingmakers: the invention of the modern Middle East", W. W. Norton & Company, 2008, link to

    • Are you (I mean you) willing to fight for the “palestians”? It means pick up arms, not just writing pearly words on this website? I didn’t think so.

      I think you are out of touch with reality. I spent 21 years in the US military and see very little difference between an order to assist the civilian authorities of Kuwait in ending the illegal occupation of their territory and doing the same thing for Palestinian authorities one day. If you think there aren't coalitions of a half million people who are willing to do that sort of thing to a delegitimized regime on a moment's notice, you must have been living in a cave during the First Gulf War. BTW, anything that can be accomplished by one army in six days of war can be always be undone by another one in that same amount of time.

    • @Hostage – I wouldn’t agree about their doing something right (even with all the sympathy I have for Abbas’ smart strategic sense, except for threatening to walk out from a post that cost an entire Oslo conference (and a major war) to build up.

      I think Abbas has deliberately gone out of his way in order "to be seen" to have been the best long-suffering partner for peace that Washington and Tel Aviv will ever have. He has patiently jumped through every hoop they have demanded despite the fact that they have broken every agreement they have ever concluded with him or the PLO. He is in a perfect position to "hoist them by their own petards" and either obtain the concessions that were originally promised, or to pivot and take up the demand for one state, one person, one vote because the US and Israel have exhausted the possibility of any other remedy.

      Netanyahu publicly admitted that the Oslo Accords created a de facto Palestinian state:

      The Declaration of Principles, Netanyahu pointed out, recited that the Government of Israel and the Palestinian team recognized each other’s legitimate and political rights. Addressing Rabin directly, Netanyahu asked:
      [W]hat are the legitimate and political rights of any nation? A state. What are the legitimate political rights of the Israeli nation? A state. What are the mutual legitimate political rights with the Palestinians? A state for them too. And you gave this away not as a beginning of an agreement, but even before the negotiations on the permanent arrangements have started.

      Netanyahu said that the Declaration of Principles presumed Palestine’s statehood. Using a colorful analogy, Netanyahu explained:
      When you walk into the zoo and see an animal that looks like a horse and has black and white stripes, you do not need a sign to tell you this is a zebra. It is a zebra. When you read this agreement, even if the words a Palestinian state are not mentioned there, you do not need a sign; this is a Palestinian state.

      – Opposition Leader Netanyahu Criticizes Agreement with PLO During Knesset
      Debate, BBC SUMMARY OF WORLD BROADCASTs, Sept. 23, 1993, ME/1801/MED, at 6, available at LEXIS, News Library, BBCMIR File. Cited in John Quigley, Palestine is a State: A Horse with Black and White Stripes is a Zebra, 32Michigan Journal of International Law 749-764 (2011). Available at: link to

      Netanyahu just as publicly proved that he is a duplicitous liar: See
      1) "Netanyahu admits on video he deceived US to destroy Oslo accord" link to
      2) When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initially suggested the possibility of Jewish settlers remaining as citizens of the Palestinian state, it was not clear whether this was a bluff or a serious proposal. While Palestinian negotiators were quick to reject the idea, it was members of the Israeli cabinet themselves who revealed the true intention of Netanyahu’s proposal.

      Israel’s right-wing Minister of Economy and Trade Naftali Bennett described Netanyahu’s statement as “very dangerous.” Israeli newspapers said that a trap intended for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas exploded in the face of Netanyahu’s own government.
      link to

    • But the book misses the point that the Israel that was promised by the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations, and the San Remo Conference was not the Israel that was accepted in the partition plan.

      @ Delusional Zionist, the Israeli High Court of Justice held in its 10-1 decision in the Gaza Coast Council v Knesset case, that the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations, and the San Remo Conference were completely silent about the territorial extent of "Israel" and that the settlers living in Gaza were only allowed to live there through the forbearance of the military commander, i.e. by sufferance and not by right.

    • Foreign policy has been the exclusive purview of the executive branch I thought, per the Constitution.

      Not when it comes to recognition. That is entirely a 20th Century development, for which the Supreme court is entirely responsible.

      In the good old days, it held that it was a "political question" and of no concern to the judicial branch, i.e. if the President doesn't follow orders, then the Congress is the proper court, and they should impeach him from their cells at Guantanamo;-)

      But seriously, the Supreme Court has been all over the map:

      The conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative-'the political'- departments of the government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision. United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 610; Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 307, 309; Garcia v. Lee, 12 Pet. 511, 517, 520; Williams v. Suffolk Ins. Co., 13 Pet. 415, 420; In re Cooper, 143 U.S. 472, 499 , 12 S. Sup. Ct. 453. It has been specifically decided that:

      'Who is the sovereign, de jure or de facto, of a territory is not a judicial, but is a political question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges, as well as all other officers, citizens and subjects of that government. This principle has always been upheld by this court, and has been affirmed under a great variety of circumstances.' Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202, 212 , 11 S. Sup. Ct. 80, 83 (34 L. Ed. 691).

      -- OETJEN v. CENTRAL LEATHER CO. , 246 U.S. 297 (1918) link to

      But in a series of cases, the Supreme Court said that the President exercised sole authority to recognize other governments using executive agreements and that he didn't need permission from the Senate to do it. So, when the Supreme Court ruled that MBZ v Clinton didn't involve a political question and sent it back on remand, the lower court cited three or four pages of Supreme Court cases, including Belmont, which held that the President has exclusive power to recognize governments and sovereignty over territory:

      The Supreme Court has more than once declared that the recognition power lies exclusively with the President. See Williams v. Suffolk Ins. Co., 38 U.S. 415, 420 (1839) (“[If] the executive branch . . . assume[s] a fact in regard to the sovereignty of any island or country, it is conclusive on the judicial department[.]”); United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 330 (1937) (“[T]he Executive had authority to speak as the sole organ of th[e] government” in matters of “recognition, establishment of diplomatic relations, the assignment, and agreements with respect thereto . . . .”);
      Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126, 138 (1938) (“We accept as conclusive here the determination of our own State Department that the Russian State was represented by the Provisional Government . . . .”); United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 229 (1942) (“The powers of the President in the conduct of foreign relations included the power, without consent of the Senate, to determine the public policy of the United States with respect to the Russian nationalization decrees. . . . [including t]h[e] authority . . . [to determine] the government to be recognized.”); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 213 (1962) (“[I]t is the executive that determines a person’s status as representative of a foreign government.”); Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 410 (1964) (“Political recognition is exclusively a function of the Executive.”). To be sure, the Court has not held that the President exclusively holds the power. But, for us—an inferior court—“carefully considered language of the Supreme Court, even if technically dictum, generally must be treated as authoritative,” United States v. Dorcely, 454 F.3d 366, 375 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted); see also Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 399 (1821) (Marshall, C.J.), especially if the Supreme Court has repeated the dictum, see Overby v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, 595 F.3d 1290, 1295 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (Supreme Court dictum is “especially” authoritative if “the Supreme Court has reiterated the same teaching”).
      In Williams v. Suffolk Insurance Company, the issue before the Court was whether “the Falkland islands . . . constitute any part of the dominions within the sovereignty of the government of Buenos Ayres.” 38 U.S. at 419. The Court decided that the President’s action in the matter was “conclusive on the judicial department.” Id. at 420. And can there be any doubt, that when the executive branch of the government, which is charged with our foreign relations, shall in its correspondence with a foreign nation assume a fact in regard to the sovereignty of any island or country, it is conclusive on the judicial department? And in this view it is not material to inquire, nor is it the province of the Court to determine, whether the executive be right or wrong. It is enough to know, that in the exercise of his constitutional functions, he has decided the question. Having done this under the responsibilities which belong to him, it is obligatory on the people and government of the Union. Id.

      Similarly, in Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, without determining whether the United States had derecognized Cuba’s government under Fidel Castro, the Court explained that “[p]olitical recognition is exclusively a function of the Executive.” 376 U.S. at 410. The Court emphasized that were it to decide for itself whether Cuba had been de-recognized, there would be a real “possibility of embarrassment to the Executive Branch in handling foreign relations.” Id. at 412.

      President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1933 recognition of the Soviet Union led to three cases supporting the conclusion that the President exclusively holds the recognition power. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324; Guaranty Trust, 304 U.S. 126; Pink, 315 U.S. 203.

      link to

      The fact that the Robert's Court didn't just let the lower court decision stand, indicates that it may be willing to contradict all of those Supreme Court statements on the subject. But I don't think it can ignore the fact that the Security Council, General Assembly, and ICJ have advised that Israel's attempts to alter the status of the City of Jerusalem are illegal, without inviting those same bodies to weigh-in on the international legitimacy of its decisions.

    • As if this issue hasn’t done enough damage to our system, now the separation of powers is under fire. Great.

      It'll be interesting, since
      1) the US recognized the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan;
      2) the UN Security Council adopted resolutions on the strength of the USA's "Yes" vote, which recognized the West Bank as "Jordanian territory" and censured Israel for attempting to alter the status of the City of Jerusalem; e.g.
      * link to
      * link to
      3) The US Code required the State Department to put "Jerusalem, Palestine" on passports of individuals born during the Mandate era. But the US stopped using "Palestine" after Israel objected. See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XVIII, Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1964–67, Document 30, footnote 2 link to ; Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Vol. Xviii, Near East, United States. Dept. of State, G.P.O., 1995, page 341; and US immigration law, U.S. TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, § 1101. Definitions, “foreign state”.
      4) Article 3 and 9 of the Peace Treaty between between Israel and Jordan preserved the legal status and role of Jordan with regard to the territories captured in 1967, including the Washington Agreement regarding the Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem signed by President Clinton;
      link to
      5) the recent treaty between Palestine and Jordan says that Jordan still exercises territorial jurisdiction over over 144 dunums of mosques, buildings, walls, courtyards, attached areas over and beneath the ground and the Waqf properties tied-up to “Al Haram Al Sharif”. See Jordan: Israel's actions on Temple Mount violate peace treaty link to

    • On June 30,1922, the US Congress unanimously adopted the language of the Balfour Declaration and supported the British Mandate in a Joint Resolution.

      We did more than that. The President and the Senate adopted the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention, 44 Stat.2184; Treaty Series 728, which codified the Balfour Declaration and the LoN Mandate in US law. The declaration was recited in the mandate, which served as the preamble of the Anglo-American Convention that annexed eight additional articles. While the exact legal status of the LoN mandate instruments (which were merely resolutions of the League Council) was always hotly debated, there was never any doubt that the terms of the Class A mandates had never lapsed as a result of the collapse of the League. They were each the subject of a separate treaty with the USA. That's why the USA participated in the Anglo-American Inquiry, the development of the Grady-Morrison Plan, and Truman's demand that 100,000 Jewish refugees be admitted to Palestine was not treated as a mere suggestion. Ironically enough, although the USA had refused to join the League, it ended up being the only other state party with the necessary legal standing to hold Great Britain accountable for the administration of the Mandate.

    • Breaking news. File this under "Ya gotta be kidding, you should have thought about that a long time ago":

      When the US Congress isn't busy threatening to cut-off funding to the "Palestinian Authority" for behaving like a state, the US Administration is busy bragging about the aid money it supplies to build-up Palestinian state institutions, that must never be allowed to function as such without permission. Now they are singing for their supper, because the Netanyahu government can't afford to step-in and take over for the PA. They are warning Abbas that shutting down the PA will harm relations with the USA. I guess he must be doing something right. See:
      * U.S. warns Abbas: Dissolving PA would jeopardize our relationship link to
      * US to Abbas: Shuttering PA 'would have grave implications': State Department spokeswoman warns 'dissolving the PA is not in interest of Palestinians' as Abbas proposal would have implications for US relations, aid. link to

    • Truman’s prejudice against Jews as selfish was obviously exacerbated by the pressure of the lobby. Still, it was prejudice: it was surely unfair to call a group selfish who had just seen 2/3 of its European population annihilated.

      At some point Phil we have to suspend our sense of disbelief and anachronistic appeals to the Holocaust and accept the fact that the Zionist agenda in Palestine was based upon unabashed selfishness and militarism from day one. Truman and everyone in his generation had been warned about that fact when the long-suppressed King-Crane Commission report was finally published:

      —it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist Program must be greatly modified. For a "national home for the Jewish people" is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor ran the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the "civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine"

      -- link to

      Dr. M. D. Eder, the acting Chairman of the Zionist Commission, testified to the Haycroft Inquiry that

      "In his opinion there can only be one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish predominance as soon as the numbers of that race are sufficiently increased."

      -- -- Palestine. Disturbances in May, 1921. Reports of the Commission of Inquiry with correspondence relating thereto .. (1921) page 57 link to

      Over British government objections, Eder went on to serve two terms on the Zionist Organization Executive that was designated the Jewish Agency for Palestine. Fellow Executive Committee member Ze'ev Jabotinsky was even more bellicose in his demands to arm the Jews against the Arabs and employ an "Iron Wall" of bayonets to keep them at bay until all hope of resistance could be extinguished.

      Likewise the Holocaust had nothing to do with the fact that Ben Gurion's 1919 Ahdut Ha'avodah party platform contained a manifesto which demanded the establishment of "a Jewish Socialist Republic in all of Palestine, and the transfer of Palestine's land, water, and natural resources to the people of Israel as their eternal possession." See Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, Shabtai Teveth, page 99.

      These people got off the boat in Palestine spouting selfish, bellicose nonsense. Despite the conventional wisdom that Balfour was trying to keep the Russians in the war, the fact is that didn't happen. The British Cabinet had been told that the American Zionists wanted Palestine as the price for their support for America entry into the war - and that did happen. Armenian, James A. Malcolm proposed a scheme to secure autonomous Armenian and Jewish states through the intervention of the government of Great Britain in the late 19th century, acting in its role as “the policeman of the Ottoman Empire”. Christopher Sykes recorded the fact that years later it was Malcolm again who had rekindled interest in the negotiations between the Zionists and the British government on that subject. One day he advised Mark Sykes:

      “The question is, do you want the help of the Jews in the United States? The only way you can get that help is by offering Palestine to the Zionists.”

      – Two Studies in Virtue, by Christopher Sykes (London, 1953), cited in Lucien Wolf and Theodor Herzl, by Josef Fraenkel, Transactions (Jewish Historical Society of England), Vol. 20, (1959-61), pp. 161-188. link to

      The State Department memos to Truman from the Director of Near East and African Affairs, Loy Henderson, and George Kennan's State Department Policy Planning Staff on the subject of Palestine always predicted disaster and stressed that the biggest hurdle would be appeasing American Zionists who were impossible to please and who would not hesitate to enlist Congressional support to interfere in foreign policy regarding Palestine, e.g.
      * link to
      * link to

  • Obama and Kerry are spurred by 'vainglory' in pursuing talks -- Finkelstein
    • But we have seen Israel get away with so much for so long that I have doubts.

      I don't think that the Israelis can pull that off on their own and the US is signaling that it can't help Israel in the event that these last-chance talks are a failure. Poof! Netanyahu dropped the fig leaf.

      The transnational banks and companies that aid and abet the illegal settlement enterprise are attuned to the attitude of the governments where they are headquartered. Now the UN is actively pointing out their culpability to their host governments. They don't enjoy that exposure or risk. Like the miner's canary, they are sending an unmistakable signal. There have been a series of divestments, because Israel is no longer a responsible investment risk and there are safer havens and ventures for their capital elsewhere. Netanyahu's coalition will have a harder and harder time delivering on their economic promises. That's why they are already having high level discussions within the ranks of the right wing and with the intelligence agencies about BDS counter-measures. If things continue on the present course, they won't be able to remain in power. So I remain hopeful.

    • Page: 93
    • Finkelstein and Chomsky are “liberal Zionists” in the sense that they advocate a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders that would preserve Israel as a Jewish state within those borders.

      Chomsky actually is in favor of bi-nationalism and federalism in Cis-Jordan, but is willing to settle for a compromise, since he doesn't believe that will happen anytime soon. He actually objects to the idea of trying to establish democracy in a "Jewish State", because it will be undemocratic to its non-Jewish citizens to whatever degree it happens to be "Jewish". link to

    • Hostage, 1. Is the Israel lobby the most powerful foreign lobby in American history?

      Nobody, least of all Finkelstein and Chomsky, has ever denied that the Lobby is powerful, they simply say that they are not the sole determining factor in US foreign policy decisions on the Middle East. You are wasting your time ignoring their published views and asking rhetorical questions that avoid what they've said on the subject.

      4. Did pro-Israel activists play the lead role in driving the United States into the Iraq War?

      Sure, if by pro-Israel activists you mean Tony Blair and George Bush. But the idea that they were leading from the rear of the pack is ludicrous. Their policies were patently evident, but their motives for adopting those policies are still classified. link to

    • A foreign lobby is an organization run by foreigners designed to lobby the USA government for policy changes.

      That's not exactly what 22 U.S. Code § 611 - Definitions has to say on the subject. It includes any persons, organizations and businesses run by US citizens, who act on requests from a foreign principle, whether for pay or on a voluntary basis. An "agent" of a foreign principle is:

      any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal, and who directly or through any other person—
      (i) engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal;
      (ii) acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant for or in the interests of such foreign principal;
      (iii) within the United States solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of such foreign principal; or
      (iv) within the United States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States; and
      (2) any person who agrees, consents, assumes or purports to act as, or who is or holds himself out to be, whether or not pursuant to contractual relationship, an agent of a foreign principal as defined in clause (1) of this subsection.

      link to

    • Putin thinks Crimea is a Russian asset. AIPAC sells Israel as a strategic asset to USA.
      Let’s compare the two notions. Result?

      Current events look like somebody wants to do a reenactment of the Siege of Sevastopol (1854–55). There's been a Russian port and strategic interest in the region for a very long time.

    • Hostage, Because the Clean Break was a platform written by American interlopers for Netanyahu to implement, not vice versa.

      Seanmcbride: Would it be fair to describe Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Meyrav Wurmser as Jewish nationalists and Likud Zionists who have been operating inside the American government

      No, that would be hyperbole, since Meyrav Wurmser was not working inside the US government and the endless coterie of American Zionist chicken hawks and militants predates the existence of the Likud or even the Bergsen group. The rise of militant Zionism and bellicose neoconservatism is as American as mom's apple pie and did not originate in Palestine or Israel. In Yoav Shamir's film "Defamation" Norman Finkelstein said:

      "It's the best thing that will ever happen to Israel if they get rid of these American Jews who are warmongers from Martha's Vinyard; and the warmongers from the Hamptons; and the warmongers from Beverly Hills; and the warmongers from Miami. It's been a disaster for Israel. It's the best thing if it can ever get rid of this [warmongering] American Jewry. It's a curse."

      In any event, the article you cited says that the paper was prepared for Likud party leader and then incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, not our own government. It required no action on the part of the government of the USA at all.

    • What is a “strategic asset”?

      Only those things that can be relied upon to advance U.S. national interests. We are not a Jewish nation, and have no national interest in protecting the existence of a Jewish state. The USA needs Israel like the proverbial fish needs a bicycle.

    • I see no change in their powerless status quo unless as unintended fall out from America attacking Iran and/or demise of the American dollar–and there’s logical linkage there.

      Well I think there is a decade long initiative by the UN that might have an impact. In many cases corporations and corrupt government officials exploit armed conflicts to pillage public and private resources. There are on-going efforts to hold corporations culpable for the role they play in war crimes, in particular pillage, by going after their officers under the criminal codes and obtaining forfeiture of their profits or proceeds by using the right of private or government action in the laws of their home countries. Many of them have adopted laws that are designed to address racketeering and corrupt organizations. The UNHRC and all of its mandate holders are beginning to apply that program to the companies doing business in the occupied State of Palestine.
      link to
      link to

      There are parallel efforts to hold responsible Israeli officials and settlers accountable for wrongful acts of state, crimes against humanity, and for pillaging, colonizing, and persecuting Palestinians in the ICC and ICJ. Those efforts began with the 2003 ICJ Wall case and the 2009 complaint that Abbas filed with the ICC after Operation Cast Lead. The Obama and Kerry talks are aimed at delaying the inevitable next steps in that legal battle from unfolding.

    • They have also tried to protect the Israel lobby from full scrutiny and have opposed BDS.

      Now you are engaging in hyperbole. Neither Chomsky nor Finkelstein has ever tried to act as some kind of information gatekeeper. They usually appear in symposiums or panel discussions where anyone else can speak their mind or publish to the Internet where you can just Google for the people they criticize to see the opposing views.

      They simply point out the fact that the Lobby, while very powerful and successful in influencing I/P policy, is not the only factor or even the deciding factor in other US Middle East policy decisions. If you are going to propose an alternate theory, it has to be able to accurately predict the failure of the Lobby to get America to attack Iran after 20 years of constant attempts; and the failure of 300 AIPAC lobbyists to obtain the authorization to use military force (AUMF) from their thralls in Congress against the Assad regime in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

      I'm no prophet, but like Chomsky and Finkelstein, I can read a congressional news letter or press release without asking for anyone's permission. So I know for certain that the Lobby is not all powerful. When Obama punted and left the decision up to the Congress and the Lobbyists, I knew all along that they would opt for getting re-elected and ignore the dumbshits @ AIPAC who advised them to piss-off masses of disgruntled voters that constitute their power base and get the US bogged down in yet another unpopular war in the Middle East. That's magical cult-like thinking on the Lobby's part and it ain't ever gonna happen. So I was predicting as much. I'm not a genius, I just don't believe AIPAC's self-promoting propaganda that portrays the Lobby as an 800 pound gorilla in the room and haven't found a better theory to explain their successes and failures yet:
      * link to
      * link to
      * link to
      * link to

    • Exactly. Israel screws the Palestinians. Any reason they would not continue, only more so?

      I'm no prophet, but the Palestinians have announced plans to turn the conflict into a legal issue, where they will pursue criminal charges against transnational companies that pillage or profiteer in the EU, Asia, and Latin America. The Israeli's will also face arrest and prosecution for the crimes of illegal colonization, apartheid, and persecution.

      The reason they would stop, is because the resulting fear of global government sanctions would trigger capital flight that would crater their economy. Their public officials, together with those who aid and abet them, would face the life-long prospect of being arrested at any moment over the disaster they had create by overplaying their hand. It's not that the US won't protect them from all of that, it's that the US can't.

    • Surely as deep into this as he has been most of his life he knows thats been debunked over and over by heads of the military and intelligence.

      The volume of the FRUS that I cited was just published in 2013. The testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and his successors in the military and CIA said that the I/P conflict had unfavorable repercussions for the US armed forces and harmed relations with other allies. But that criticism did not really debunk the legend that Israel is nonetheless a valuable strategic asset. This report was prepared by an intergovernmental working group commissioned to examine that question after the Six Day War. The fact that there wasn't even a dissenting minority opinion was one of the things that struck me as unusual. Apparently none of the members held an unqualified expert opinion that Israel is somehow vital to our national interests.

      Even the portions of the report that say Israel might be a possible exception are pretty watered-down by the overall judgment that:

      "It is difficult to prove that this area is vital to our security, in the sense that our own survival would be threatened by the extinction of any state in the area."

      Believe me that is not how the government usually describes real strategic allies or assets.

    • Like Chomsky: can someone ask the guy a pointed question about the office of special plans or the Clean Break report?

      How guys very concerned with the issue can argue more or less that Iraq is all about American imperialism without any Israeli angle? LIARS…

      Because the Clean Break was a platform written by American interlopers for Netanyahu to implement, not vice versa. Finklestein does not deny that the Israel Lobby calls the shots on I/P, he just denies that it rules over other aspects of US foreign policy in the Middle East. Obama and 300 AIPAC lobbyists got their asses handed to them over their request for the use of military force against Syria. They also lost the fight over adopting further sanctions against Iran, while the Geneva negotiations were being conducted. The Israel lobby has been unsuccessfully trying to get the US to attack Iran longer than some of the people commenting here have been alive. If you had adopted the view that the Israel Lobby is all powerful, then you would have not been able to accurately predict any of the defeats that I just mentioned. Contrary to popular belief, the actual differences between the positions of Mearsheimer and Walt versus Chomsky and Finkelstein on the applicable issues of political science and their treatments of the Lobby are narrow and very nuanced.

    • What’s to stop Israel from saying “if you won’t do it for yourselves, do without?”

      Israel has prevented self-rule and the World Bank has reported that the occupation has bankrupted the Palestinian economy and deprived them of billions of dollars in annual income and resources that Israel siphons off to subsidize its own economy.

    • “won’t be able to stop” vs. “can’t stop” Difference in meaning?

      The correction implies the task is simply impossible. The former statement had been criticized as evidence of a veiled threat of reprisal from the US, or a lack of willingness and cooperation owing to hostility.

    • And I strongly disagree with Donald and LeaNder that it is “paranoid” to suspect that many promoters of the two-state solution, like Ross, Miller and Indyk, have been duplicitous about their real game plan, which was to stall, stall, stall for as long as possible until the “peace process” petered out and while Israel created facts on the ground that would be impossible to undo.

      But you were way off-base when you tried to include Finkelstein or Chomsky in that group of hair-brained co-conspirators.

      If you're just looking for people who have done everything humanly possible to keep the "non-existent" (yet occupied) State of Palestine out of the UN and the ICC, then Abunimah and Barghouti couldn't have run a more effective campaign to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the PA bid if Sheldon Adelson had put them on his payroll. That doesn't make them part of a Zionist conspiracy or mean they are being evil, any more than the positions that Finkelstein and Chomsky have staked out make them supporters of the idea that Israel is the state or homeland of the Jewish people.

    • What they are angling for has to be post-POTUS afterlife. . . . They will do books, they will do speeches, and thus they will bring in cash and prestige to their post-POTUS careers.

      Kerry and his wife already have more money than they can possibly spend before they cash in their chips. These guys are trying to keep the ball in play and preserve the status quo until the end of their terms. They are doing that for their Zionist political patrons, allies, and the party faithful. The Palestinians themselves are planning on walking away from their bankrupt government and predict it will collapse by the end of the year. Obama and Kerry need to figure out a way to keep that from happening, while preventing Abbas from taking action in the UN, the ICJ, and the ICC. The only option left is more nonsensical talks about the framework for the talks. So they are stalling.

    • Finkelstein appears to be that rare thing, an honest liberal Zionist who believes Israel must make sacrifices to secure ‘the Jewish State’.

      Short answer: Oh hell no, you haven't been listening at all. Try, try, again.

    • Israel constitutes a “strategic asset” of the US and can count on the clout of a powerful domestic lobby.

      A declassified US intergovernmental working group report said that view isn't an accurate description of reality. Israel is not a valuable asset. It is the US policy to protect the existence of the state of Israel, but not because it serves any vital US interest. link to

    • P.S. See US officials: We can't stop Palestinian UN statehood bid if talks fail and note this: "Correction: A previous version of this story mistakenly quoted American officials as saying they "won't be able to" stop the Palestinian UN bid should talks fail. The headline was now corrected to "can't stop." link to

    • Why has Kerry embarked on this mission now, and why has Obama lent his prestige to it? The Israel-Palestine conflict is hardly a pressing concern . . . Except for the clinical diagnosis of Israel’s defence minister (“misplaced obsession and messianic fervour”), the only plausible explanation for the US administration’s interest is the mundane one of legacy.

      Not at all. The Obama administration lost the ability to shield Israel from international sanctions, when Abbas won the UNESCO bid and started talking about converting the conflict into a legal battle in the international courts. At the same time, Obama lost the ability to protect the PA from Congressional reprisals aimed at collapsing the PA, because of decades-old statutes from the 1980s that contradict the subsequent UN and Middle East Quartet Road Map. So it was imperative to take immediate action to prevent Abbas from joining the UN, ICC, and other treaty bodies as a member state, triggering funding sanctions.

      That's when the Quartet started floating the scam that they could get Israel to provide a map with proposed borders within 90 days. Israel insisted that the clock couldn't start until Palestine agreed to restart negotiations. In the meantime, Abbas went back to the UN and got the upgraded status from the General Assembly needed to overcome objections raised by the ICC Prosecutor. None of this had anything to do with Obama or Kerry's legacy, It was all aimed at desperately preserving the status quo. The fact is that things may have already spiraled beyond the control of any of the parties to prevent the financial collapse of the Palestinian government.

      -- See Palestinian threat to dissolve PA could have serious repercussions: Should Palestinian self-rule end, hundreds of Palestinians would lose their job, and Israel would have to enter the vacuum created as a result, offering Palestinians security, education and welfare services at a cost Israel cannot afford. link to

  • 'Israel is the home of all Jews,' declares a right-wing official
    • This morning, the deputy foreign minister of Israel, Danny Ayalon,

      No, Ze'ev Elkin took his place after the last elections. He fell from grace in Yisrael Beiteinu, when he testified against his former party boss, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, in connection with the appointment of Zeev Ben-Aryeh as ambassador to Latvia.

  • 'NYT' abided by Israeli gag order even as 'EI' scooped it repeatedly
    • For whatever reason I seem to have this vague memory, that all correspondence for foreign media on the ground are somewhat restricted by rules in their reporting.

      Correct, but that originates from the use of military censors, not from gag orders issued by the Courts.

      While this is of course highly interesting, it would also be interesting to know more about the larger context.

      It's pretty pervasive. I remember during the 2006 war the foreign press was staying on kibbutzes that also served as military operations and staging areas. The press couldn't even turn their cameras around and show viewers the locations of the artillery batteries that were directing out-going fire at Lebanon from the hotel parking lot. Viewers were frequently left with the false impression that the kibbutzes were under attack. The same sort of thing applied to press reports about Hezbollah rockets that were purportedly aimed at the inhabitants of Haifa and falling harmlessly into the harbor. The press didn't report that they were barely missing an enormous Israeli naval base, that happened to a valid military objective. I was surprised that the military censors even allowed those scenes of the harbor to be broadcast at all, since they could have provided very useful targeting information to the Lebanese crews who were firing the missiles that would have allowed them to make corrections and strike their intended targets instead.

    • Am I sponsoring slave work if I do order there?

      No, Jeff Bezos is still trying to figure out a way to implement slavery. He may slip it in as part of the structure for the new Amazon "drone" program;-) In the meantime, I have a prime account and order enough discounted used books from vendors (fulfiled by Amazon) to give all of the Amazon warehouse pickers carpel tunnel syndrome and a hernia to boot. So I'll have to recuse myself from sitting in judgment of this case and let others decide.

      I've always enjoyed the late Musa E. Mazzawi's Palestine and the Law: Guidelines for the Resolution of the Arab-Israel Conflict. It's full of little bits of the puzzle and key details needed to unravel some of the age-old arguments. He points out that none of the parties concerned, including the AHC, the British government, the Jewish Agency, or the UN member states, ever questioned the General Assembly's legal competence to convene a special session and adopt a legally binding solution on the question of Palestine. The problems arose when it tried to adopt one that wasn't near and dear to everyone's own heart. He explains why international law doesn't work like that. He also noted that the Israelis and the Arabs constantly refer to the other party's "violations" of the UN resolution, which undermines the basis they employ to excuse their own violations - that it was only a non-binding recommendation. He uses the historical record and the applicable law to deconstruct a plethora of supposed loopholes and falsehoods that obscure the real underlying issues.

    • New York, New York. Are you alluding to Sullivan’s timing or are you pleased to be there?

      Yes, I was alluding to the proverbial SNL "fellate-a-donkey for Israel" skit and commenting that the list of volunteers who would line-up to be gagged would almost certainly include the staff and editors of the NYTimes: link to

    • “The New York Times agrees to be gagged by Israel.”

      Of course they did . . . Live from New York, it's Saturday Night!

  • Palestinian youth say the talks with Israel are futile
    • If the ICC is objective, then Israel has nothing to worry – its statutes are clear that ICC will only intervene when the relevant party doesn’t have the ability or doesn’t want to prosecute crimes by its own judiciary.

      No, we've long-since reached the point where Israel's judiciary became part of the joint criminal enterprise and began citing Knesset statutes to overturn the laws and customs of war and justify grave breaches of the Geneva and Hague Conventions to wrongfully expropriate land for illegal settlements, instead of land for peace, and to deliberately persecute Palestinians.

    • Therefore, logically, you shud agree to reverse those “futile” talks, i.e., what happened until today and neutralize Oslo agreements, after all, Israel got everything and the poor Palestinians – nothing (“futile”).

      So you agree then that it is better to send PLO back to Tunis,

      To complete the mental exercise, the PLO would have to go back to Lebanon from Tunis, and then back to Israel and Palestine from Lebanon. Then, according to the evil designs of Israel's cut-throat, implacable enemies here at MW and in the BDS movement, all of the Jews from Arab and European counties would be welcome to stay-on and enjoy equal human rights under the generous terms of either a 1ss or the 2ss.

    • They should initiate negotiations directly with the US at every opportunity, appealing for the same subsidies Israel receives

      The US has already received notifications from the UN Secretary General, acting as the treaty depositary, that there is a new State party to the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations and Consular Affairs. Whether the President or State Department chooses to upgrade the status of the PLO mission to the US, or not, it still has a treaty obligation to deal with Palestine, as another State, as of 2 May 2014.

      I'd suggest that they condition extension of the talks on the release of the political prisoners in the Holy Land Charities case.

    • Has the ICC ever got as far as opening an international tribunal to look into the complaints from Palestine?

      No, the former prosecutor wasted 3 years evaluating the statehood of Palestine, then admitted he wasn't even empowered to do that, after the UNESCO vote had legally settled the matter. Then he played dumb and claimed that Palestine's observer status at the UN, made it's status unclear and that it was up to the Secretary General or the Assembly of State Parties to decide the question. That was incorrect, since the Secretary General is required to accept accessions to multilateral treaties from any member of a UN specialized agency, like UNESCO under the terms of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. For example, the Secretary General accepted the accession of the Cook Islands to join the ICC on the strength of its membership in specialized agencies alone, since it has never been a UN observer state. After the General Assembly upgraded Palestine's status, the new Prosecutor finally admitted she could use the 2009 Article 12(3) declaration of Palestine to exercise jurisdiction, but said that she wouldn't, unless Palestine joins the court. That defeats the purpose of Article 12(3), which is intended to allow non-member states to grant jurisdiction over crimes without the need to become a permanent dues-paying member of the ICC.

      The thing to keep in mind is that there's no guarantee that the Prosecutor will take any action at all, even if Palestine joins the Court. See The OTP’s [Office of the Prosecutor's] Remarkable Slow-Walking of the Afghanistan Examination link to

      The article you are talking about is propaganda. The ICC is a criminal tribunal and there is no such thing as a counterclaim lawsuit. Palestine already accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC for any crimes listed in Article 5 of the Rome Statute that have been committed on its territory by any party since July of 2002. The Prosecutor does not need to wait for Palestine to file complaints against Israelis in order to investigate or prosecute Abbas or other Palestinians, this is incorrect:

      Last year, Mordechai Zivin filed a complaint against Abbas and senior members of Hamas at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. In a formal response, The Hague told Zivin that his complaint could only be discussed when the courts had the authority to discuss it – in other words, if and when Abbas submitted a complaint against Israelis.

      In any event, he is talking as if Palestinian officials can be held civilly liable in the ICC, which is not the case:

      Zivin argues that Abbas is personally responsible for terror attacks resulting in the murder of innocent civilians, and he should therefore be tried in an international court.

      He found legal grounds for naming Abbas personally responsible after the Palestinian Authority was granted the status of "Observer State" in the UN, and Abbas registered himself as that nation's leader.

      As the head of that Observer State, Zivin argues that Abbas is therefore responsible for what occurs under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority – including terror attacks emanating from the West Bank or Gaza.

      -- link to

      In the past the ambulance chasers have filed suits in civil courts against the PLO for terror attacks committed by Hamas, by arguing that it exercised jurisdiction and could be held liable, because it wasn't a "state" entitled to foreign sovereign immunity. That won't work anymore, and the ICC doesn't handle civil tort cases anyway. The ICC is a criminal court where the Prosecutor has to present evidence at trial to establish an individual's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    • “The International Criminal Court (ICC) has said an international tribunal is authorised to look into Israeli lawyer Mordechai Tzivin’s complaint against the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

      That's true enough, but if Mordechai Tzivin isn't an official of a state, his complaint is only considered a communication under Article 15. The Prosecutor already has over 400 of those regarding the Situation in Gaza alone. FYI the ICC Prosecutor has never yet initiated an investigation "proprio motu" under the terms of Article 15. All of the cases investigated so far, have either been initiated by the UN Security Council or through an official state referral.

      The Office of the Prosecutor can only exercise jurisdiction if it agrees that the State of Palestine's 2009 Article 12(3) declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC is valid. Even then, it can't accept referrals of specific cases, only situations and all of the pre-conditions in Article 12 and 13 would still apply:

      Article 12
      Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction

      1. A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5.

      2. In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3:

      (a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred or, if the crime was committed on board a vessel or aircraft, the State of registration of that vessel or aircraft;

      (b) The State of which the person accused of the crime is a national.

      3. If the acceptance of a State which is not a Party to this Statute is required under paragraph 2, that State may, by declaration lodged with the Registrar, accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crime in question. The accepting State shall cooperate with the Court without any delay or exception in accordance with Part 9.

      Article 13
      Exercise of jurisdiction

      The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with the provisions of this Statute if:

      (a) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by a State Party in accordance with article 14;

      (b) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations; or

      (c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with article 15.

      Article 14
      Referral of a situation by a State Party

      1. A State Party may refer to the Prosecutor a situation in which one or more crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court appear to have been committed requesting the Prosecutor to investigate the situation for the purpose of determining whether one or more specific persons should be charged with the commission of such crimes.

      2. As far as possible, a referral shall specify the relevant circumstances and be accompanied by such supporting documentation as is available to the State referring the situation.

      -- link to

      It’s way past time that some Palestinian lawyer got off his hindquarters and filed multiple charges against multiple Israelis.

      That has already been done. The materials Palestine turned over to the court are being held under seal. That is normally done to protect the officials and any witnesses from reprisals. Everyone seems to forget that Palestine and four other ICC member states are represented in the Arab League, which commissioned its own independent international fact finding mission to Gaza. It was headed-up by John Dugard, who has served as a Judge of the International Court of Justice, as a Special Rapporteur for the International Law Commission, and as UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.

      He and the other members of the mission turned over a 254 page "Report of the Independent Fact Finding Committee On Gaza: No Safe Place" to the ICC Prosecutor before the UN Goldstone investigation was completed. link to

    • Palestine has signed-on to all of the major international humanitarian law (IHL) and UN human rights conventions. So it will have to periodically answer or account for its behavior to the UN human rights treaty monitoring bodies and respond to the ICRC in its role as the IHL watchdog. Like Israel, equal rights for religious & minority groups and women in Palestine are under UN guarantees contained in resolution 181(II) and its framework for international legitimacy that was acknowledged in Palestine's 1988 UDI.

      The Oslo Accords reaffirmed the territorial unity of the West Bank and Gaza. It required the parties to treat them as one area for political, economic, legal and other purposes. It also called for Israel to eventually turn over Areas A, B, and C to the Palestinians in incremental phases that were supposed to last only 5 years. What Allison describes above as the results of Oslo, are actually the predictable result of the Netanyahu, Sharon, and Olmert regimes deliberately violating and undermining the agreements.

      Many commentators have noted that the Oslo Accords recognized the PLO's competence to negotiate borders and assigned tasks to the PA that are likewise reserved exclusively for the government of a state. Even Netanhyahu agreed that the Oslo Accords, if faithfully carried-out, would have resulted in a Palestinian state. John Quigley wrote:

      The Declaration of Principles, Netanyahu pointed out, recited that the Government of Israel and the Palestinian team recognized each other's legitimate and political rights. Addressing Rabin directly, Netanyahu asked:
      [W]hat are the legitimate and political rights of any nation? A state. What are the legitimate political rights of the Israeli nation? A state. What are the mutual legitimate political rights with the Palestinians? A state for them too. And you gave this away not as a beginning of an agreement, but even before the negotiations on the permanent arrangements have started.
      Netanyahu said that the Declaration of Principles presumed Palestine's statehood. Using a colorful analogy, Netanyahu explained:
      When you walk into the zoo and see an animal that looks like a horse and has black and white stripes, you do not need a sign to tell you this is a zebra. It is a zebra. When you read this agreement, even if the words a Palestinian state are not mentioned there, you do not need a sign; this is a Palestinian state.

      -- Opposition Leader Netanyahu Criticizes Agreement with PLO During Knesset
      Debate, BBC SUMMARY OF WORLD BROADCASTs, Sept. 23, 1993, ME/1801/MED, at 6, available at LEXIS, News Library, BBCMIR File. Cited in John Quigley, Palestine is a State: A Horse with Black and White Stripes is a Zebra, 32Michigan Journal of International Law 749-764 (2011). Available at: link to

  • Haaretz joins Rush Limbaugh and company in trying to link Max Blumenthal to KC shooter suspect
    • Look it up in tractate Gittin, a book which was compiled before the Arab conquest and it was called Acco before Arabic reached Palestine

      FYI, We've all seen Hebrew words written with the letters of the English alphabet. Archaeologists have found Arabic and Arab language inscriptions, written phonetically in scripts borrowed from other languages too. They date back to the 1st century of the current era, like the one written by an Arab speaking person in the Nabataean alphabet at Ein Avdat canyon near Sde Boker, Israel (i.e. Palestine). link to

    • Arab town that used to be Jewish towns?

      You mean the Palestinian Arabs that are descended from Jews who never left? After all, the Jewish DNA studies use them and their neighbors to illustrate that Askenazi and Sephardi Jews are of Middle Eastern origin and that a significant number of the members of all these communities had a common ancestor in the current era.

    • The Druze are certainly quite involved, in government, in the army. They don’t seem to mind that Israel defines itself as a Jewish state.

      Entire volumes have been devoted to the subject of the Zionist's use of the Druze in their propaganda as the "good" Arabs and the fact that they have been dispossessed like other non-Jews and share the same feelings about the Nakba as other groups of Palestinians. Here's the synopsis of Kais M. Firro, "The Druzes in the Jewish State: A Brief History":

      Following the war of 1948 Palestine's Druzes became part of the state of Israel. Overwhelmingly rural, they sought to safeguard their community's age-old ethnic independence by holding on to their traditional ethno-religious particularism. Ethnicity and ethnic issues, however, were ready tools for the Zionists in the pursuit of their policy aims vis-a-vis the state's Arab population. Central among these was the cooptation of part of the Druze elite in an obvious effort to alienate the Druzes from the other Arabs - creating "good" Arabs and "bad" Arabs served the Jewish state as a foil for its ongoing policy of dispossession and control. The author painstakingly documents the political, social and economic factors that ensured the "success" of these Zionist policies, but concludes that the fissured identity of Israel's Druzes today bespeaks a feeling of "musiba," tragedy, within the community itself.
      -- link to

    • Israel is not in any way an ethnically exclusive state.

      That's a mistatement of fact. Israel is still excluding the bulk of the Arab population that was originally entrusted to its jurisdiction by the United Nations and all of their descendants, who would have otherwise been citizens, if not for the adoption of a racist ex-post facto nationality law.

      The laws in effect in Palestine on the 5th Iyar, 5708 (14th May, 1948), were specifically retained under Chapter 4 of the Transition Act on Law and Administration. That included the 1925 Palestine Citizenship Order in Council. Individuals born abroad to a Palestinian father were automatically citizens of Palestine by operation of subsection 3(b) of that ordinance. The Law that replaced it was the epitome of ethnic exclusion.

    • Are you seriously arguing here that the Palestinian objection to a Jewish state (and the Arab objection to a Jewish state) is based on the 1st and 14th Amendments or anything like them?

      Are you seriously trying to use a rhetorical question to misstate and distort what I said in plain English? You aren't half smart enough to pull that off.

      I'm seriously arguing that the Palestinians had the very same right to adopt a constitution, just like our own, that prohibits the establishment of a Jewish religious or ethnic state anywhere in their country.

      The Palestinians always objected to the establishment of the Jewish National Home through alien Jewish immigration on the grounds that no constitution which permitted such a thing would ever be acceptable to the Palestinian people. See : CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION, Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty, JUNE, 1922.
      LONDON: - See more at: link to

    • Blumenthal also compared the latter’s desire to create what he termed “an ethnically-exclusive white state in the Deep South” to the modern state of Israel.

      The last remark by Blumenthal is bound to incite every potential latent Israel-hater to new inspired heights of Israel abuse.

      I've pointed out time and again, we reserve the right under our Constitution to prohibit the establishment of either a Jewish or White Christian state anywhere in the territory that is subject to our own government's jurisdiction. The establishment clause of the first amendment prevents it on religious grounds and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents it on grounds of ethnic differences.

      There is nothing illegal or immoral about Palestinians objecting to a Jewish state in their territory on those same grounds. That's why Great Britain and the Zionists have always refused to adopt a Constitution that safeguarded the existing rights of the communities under Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin (1878) as required by the explicit terms of the San Remo resolution, and Articles 13, 14, and 28 of the Mandate.

  • Updated: Remote-control gun installed atop wall near Bethlehem -- Ma'an
    • Hostage, you an example of how difficult it is to hold a discussion/debate here. Besides the anti-semitism, the anti-Zionism and other hurdles, the ignorance or prevarications are just too much.

      No you've just encountered a person of Jewish descent who knows all of your rotten tricks. I had a great uncle who worked in the Political Department of the Jewish Agency for Palestine churning out some of the same propaganda you are trying to pass-off as the unvarnished truth here at MW. The reason it's so hard to get away with that, is because your material is more than a little shopworn and dogeared.

      All of the Jewish prophecies inn the Bible indicate a return, a reflowering and a revitalization of Jewish political, social and religious life in the Land of Israel.

      And for thousands of years those passages about the Land of Israel have been interpreted as being completely allegorical references or something subject to The Three Oaths which are incapable of fulfillment by atheists, like Weizmann, Ben Gurion, et al. and their legions of followers. There is nothing about political Zionism or living in Israel that is essential to Judaism or Jewish culture. The majority of Jews didn't opt to live there during the Second Commonwealth and half of the Jews today still choose to live in communities elsewhere.

    • what type of “rights” did non-Jewish and mainly Arab emmigrants from the Arabian peninsula possess while they illegally occupied the Land of Israel as a result of military conquest over the centuries during which they never established any specific “Palestinian” administration or even a nationalism while denying the same to the Jews who continued to reside in their country – as the aborigines, so to say – while subjugated by foreign rule of many types

      FYI, I've commented many times that it was a matter of public record in the Ottoman era that the courts had to handle cases involving the estates of rich and middle class Jewish dhimmis, including those in Palestine, who were slave owners who had children with their concubines. They frequently owned Christian and even Muslim slaves. In fact, many earned their living as slave traders. So it's ironic that you are shreying about their lack of rights and calling them aborigines subjugated by foreign rule. You'd have to make that "troglodyte slave masters" to accurately portray the actual situation. See for example Yaron Ben-Naeh, "Blond, tall, with honey-colored eyes: Jewish ownership of slaves in the Ottoman Empire." Jewish History 20.3-4 (2006): 315-332 link to

      Re: what type of “rights” did non-Jewish and mainly Arab emmigrants from the Arabian peninsula possess . . ?

      The Palestinians had enjoyed full representation in the Ottoman Parliament, which among other things, had established suitable legal conditions for Jewish immigration. Here is a link to a debate on the subject that took place in 1911. Two lawmakers from Jerusalem whose ancestors had lived there for centuries, al Khalidi and al Husayni, argued with Jewish lawmakers, that “the district of Palestine” had reached the limit of its capacity of Jewish immigrants, and that they should be settled elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire. See Yuval Ben-Bassat and Eyal Ginio, Late Ottoman Palestine: The Period of Young Turk Rule (Library of Ottoman Studies), 2011, page 111 et seq link to

      So the British were legally obliged by the terms of the San Remo resolution to establish similar self-governing institutions, like the Ottoman Parliament, where those Jewish and Arab lawmakers, had hitherto exercised equal political and civil rights under the terms of Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin. They had also been able to debate and adopted laws regarding the subject of foreign Jewish immigration to the Empire which established suitable terms and conditions.

      Now compare the actual historical record of canned and insincere responses from the representative of the British mandatory administration to petitions received by the Permanent Mandates Commission in 1926 from Arabs regarding the rights of representation previously enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities. The British representative simply dismissed the idea that there was any such right and told the Commission when pressed, that they should use the same written non-response that Great Britain had provided in the past:

      Arab Complaints with Respect to their Political Freedom.
      M. PALACIOS thought that the development of local government was beginning to follow a satisfactory course. He would refer, however, to the complaint made in the last Arab petition to the following effect:
      The Palestinian under the Turk elected his village representative called "Mukhtar", his mayor and municipal council in town, the members of the administrative Council, who administered the district under the presidency of the governor, the members of the Common Council, who legislated for all questions relating to local affairs of the district, and, finally, his member of Parliament at Constantinople, where the general affairs of the Empire were freely discussed. Under the British mandate, the village representative is in practice appointed by the district governor, the mayor and the municipal council are appointed by the High Commissioner, the administrative and common councils do not exist, and the Parliament is out of the question."
      Colonel SYMES said the complaint was more accurate in theory than in fact. The conception of the Turkish administration had been totally different from that of the British, for the former knew perfectly well that their district officers had, in practice, complete control over all local governing bodies, which, if they ran counter to the Government, found themselves dissolved. It was quite true that in many instances the Mukhtar had been appointed by the mandatory Power and not elected, but the Commission should remember that the Mukhtar was the Government agent in the village with whom the Government had all its dealings. Whenever it proved possible for villages to elect them they were allowed to do so, but in cases where animosity was very strong it had been necessary in the interests of peace and good work to appoint a Mukhtar. In theory, municipalities had held wide powers under Turkish rule. In actual fact, however, those powers had been but a shadow, for they had been unable to run counter to the desires of the Turkish district officers.
      The municipal bodies would gradually be re-established on a popular basis, but it should not be forgotten that the nominated municipalities had rendered good public service in the past five years. Had the members been elected instead of nominated it is doubtful if they would have been equally efficient.
      With regard to the complaint to the effect that the Arabs had been deprived of their deputies in the Ottoman Parliament, Colonel Symes did not think that such deputies had ever exercised much influence in the direction of the Ottoman Empire.
      M. VAN REES thought that the explanations of Colonel Symes, which were of great interest, ought to have been furnished in writing by the British Government when replying to the petition. In general, the British Government should endeavour to answer petitions in greater detail.
      The CHAIRMAN agreed. What the Commission required was a clear and definite reply in writing in answer to all petitions.
      Colonel SYMES pointed out that all his observations had already been made to the Commission and would be found in the record of its Seventh Session.
      The CHAIRMAN expressed the hope that the mandatory Power would take account of the Commission's desires in this respect in future. -

      link to

      FYI, the Chairman of the Permanent Mandates Commission advised the representative of Great Britain in 1932 that Article 2 of the Mandate required the development of self-governing institutions for all the inhabitants and that the "national home" had long-since been established. link to

      If you need any more history lessons, feel free to ask again.

    • all our cultural, historical and religious memories, customs, practices and ritual all revolve around this land.

      Not really. The Torah contained "prophesies" about the Diaspora and predicted that Israel would be scattered among the nations. Rabbinic Judaism is perfectly suited to life in homogeneous religious minority communities outside the Land of Israel (where many of the commandments don't strictly apply), but hasn't worked so hot when it comes to running mixed ethnic national communities of religious and secular Jews in Eretz Israel.

    • The right of Jews to return to their historic homeland is the right granted by the State of Israel. Israel, like any other country, is entitled to its own immigration criteria.

      The United Nations required Israel to accept a treaty on minority rights that obliged it to give equal rights to everyone under the law, in exchange for termination of the international mandate. If anything, Israel has subsequently demonstrated in both words and deeds that Zionists are completely unfit for either self-government or the government of others.

      The UN did intend to help facilitate the establishment of a state with a Jewish majority, but it never intended for the Jews to drive off the bulk of the Arab population of that state or prevent them from returning to their homes and taking-up their former livelihoods. The notion that Jews have an exclusive right to squander all of the region's natural resources, or the right to expropriate Arab property, keep Arab inhabitants exiled, and grant alien Jews the right to immigrate and settle on lands owned by Arabs is nothing but propaganda.

  • Palestinians can have an embassy in Jerusalem, but God forbid not a capital -- Israeli mayor
    • “Let me take you back 3,000 years. Jerusalem is the capital of the world"

      There is quite a bit of evidence that the Beverly Hillbillies of Jerusalem could barely keep their alleged cousins in Samaria under control 3,000 years ago.

    • @ Hostage claro .. shall adjust

      No you were perfectly correct that Israel ended-up claiming it had been established by its own act of secession. That happened during a conference in 1949 on public debts, enemy bank accounts, & etc that I've cited elsewhere. I was just pointing out that the General Assembly and UN Trusteeship Council had subsequently adopted a statute on the City of Jerusalem anyway and that you'd need a ruling from the ICJ at this point to settle all of the conflicting claims. In the post-Oslo era, the EU member states took the position that, in their view, the whole city was still a Corpus Separatum. The acknowledgement in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State Israel that the General Assembly required the People of Eretz Israel to take steps to implement the resolution can't be reconciled with secession.

    • corpus separatum was never instituted. Jerusalem has never been legally separated from what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine.

      The UN resolution was named "The Plan for the Future Government of Palestine". It partitioned "Palestine" into two states and a Corpus Separatum. All three remain part of Palestine under the terms of the plan and were part of an Economic Union, with a common currency, transportation system, & etc. The UN did adopt a statute for the City of Jerusalem and reserved its right to appointed a Governor of Jerusalem. link to

      The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel acknowledged that the General Assembly required the people of Eretz Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. It was only later that Israel claimed that it had been formed by an act of secession.

      Even Israeli historians, like David Tal, have noted the schizophrenic arguments employed by Zionist officials, like Moshe Shertok. The Arab States accepted the map attached to resolution 181(II) as the basis of negations at the Lausanne Conference on the very same day the UN accepted Israel's application for membership in the United Nations. Israel had repeatedly acknowledged an obligation to help implement the terms of the resolution. Shertok would take turns arguing with the UN Mediator that Israel accepted the plan of partition as the only binding adjudication when that supported his territorial claims, but dismissed it altogether as being in need of major revisions, in light of facts created on the ground, when the Arabs claimed territory on the basis of the same binding adjudication.

    • The cause and effect implied by the word “thus” is false. Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem in 67 was considered illegal because it was not part of Israel according to the armistice agreement of 1949.

      The Security Council could impose a final settlement, but it never has done that yet. The armistice agreements were merely provisional measures adopted under the auspices of Article 40 of the UN Charter, which are without prejudice to the rights of the parties concerned. link to

      Article 28 of the LoN Mandate required the establishment of a perpetual regime of international safeguards for the rights of the various religious communities, their holy sites, and their right of transit to access them. link to The General Assembly included a protection plan for religious and minority groups and a plan for a Corpus Separatum - all under direct UN guarantee or administration.

      Two thirds of the concerned states that were present and voting adopted a legally binding decision on that international question of sacred trust or special trusteeship regime (Article 18) regarding the direct administration of the entire City of Jerusalem by the UN organization itself in accordance with the explicit terms regarding the functions and powers of the General Assembly contained in Articles 81 and 85 of the UN Charter. So, the General Assembly is one of the concerned parties. link to

      The US State Department's Legal Advisor, Ernest Gross, wrote several memos explaining that situation, e.g.:

      (4) The Security Council is not empowered to alter the November 29, 1947 resolution of the General Assembly. While that resolution stands, groups in Palestine are authorized, and the Palestine Commission is required, unless the Security Council has taken action pursuant to Chapter VI or Chapter VII of the Charter recommending a political settlement other than that recommended by the General Assembly, to take the steps contemplated in the resolution for implementing the partition plan, Great Britain having stated its acceptance of the plan and acquiescing in its implementation.

      (5) If, for any reason, in particular because of developments not anticipated when the General Assembly made its recommendation - such as violent opposition in Palestine, frustration by the Mandatory, inaction of the Security Council - the recommended plan appears unworkable, the General Assembly may repeal or alter its recommendation.

      link to

      The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was a signed legal instrument which acknowledged not only the undertaking regarding the protection of religious and minority rights, but also acknowledged that "the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution." - which included the provisions regarding the Corpus Seprartum.

      In 1999, the EU reaffirmed that it still considered all of Jerusalem a Corpus Separatum:

      But the EU reply stated that all of Jerusalem, including the Jewish sector, is a "corpus separatum" or separate body. This term is a direct reference to the 1947 UN resolution 181, designating Jerusalem an international zone.

      Observers say this is the first time the EU has referred so explicitly to the 1947 resolution and does set a precedent.

      -- link to

      The General Assembly has never repealed or altered the resolution. It even reaffirmed it and cited it in the 2003 request for an ICJ advisory opinion:

      Recalling relevant General Assembly resolutions, including resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which partitioned mandated Palestine into two States, one Arab and one Jewish, . . . What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?

      -- link to

    • The arabs rejected the U.N. plan and then attacked the Jews in 1967 which resulted in the annexation of Jerusalem. (In case you forgot…)

      Correction: You are forgetting quite a few details. Israel signed the armistice agreements in 1949 and those permanent armistice lines of demarcation were implemented under the auspices of a series of chapter 7 UN Security Council resolutions, including 62 and 73.

      The declassified Minutes of the People's Council and Israeli historians have long since revealed that Jewish officials never accepted the internationalization of Jerusalem, the plan for Economic Union, or the boundaries of the Jewish state as stipulated in the UN plan. See for example David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948: strategy and diplomacy, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 071465275X, page 471.

      The relevant Zionist representatives testified on the record that they rejected both the UNSCOP majority and minority plans. The spokesmen said that they would only recommend adoption of either (by Vaad Leumi), subject to reservations that have never been withdrawn. They conditioned acceptance on being granted immediate control over immigration and on further discussions involving the constitutional and territorial details of the UN plan. In particular, the spokesmen said that no plan that failed to incorporate Western Jerusalem into the Jewish State would be acceptable. So the Jews rejected the terms of the resolution regarding the internationalization of Jerusalem too. See:
      *Yearbook of the United Nations for 1947-48
      * The FRUS link to

    • Hostage, I’m always very happy for your correction

      @ FreddyV and bintbiba thank you both.

      I was just answering the two rhetorical questions and passing along some arcane details in the process. It wasn't intended to be a correction.

    • Jerusalem was annexed in 1967?

      Yes, the State of Israel took immediate steps to alter the legal status of East Jerusalem. That was the subject of the 5th Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly (17 June - 18 September 1967) and resolutions 2253 & 2254 (ES-V) "Measures taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem" link to

      Annexation took place in 1980 didn’t it?

      No that really only changed the operation of the applicable law from a Knesset ordinance to a fundamental or "Basic Law" with constitutional implications. But it had long since been included by the application of the Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance, 5708-1948. link to

      FYI, applying all Israeli state laws by proclamation to selected territories occupied by the IDF violates the Hague and the Geneva Conventions and amounts to an act of annexation.

  • Alterman says BDS is helping Netanyahu
    • But West Bank?! No way!

      The ancient Hebrews, like many others, described lands by references to the rivers that flowed through them using appropriate terms for the left and right hand for north and south banks and the sunrise and sunset for the east and west banks. The Torah indicates that Moses used the latter method to distinguish between the two banks of the Jordan when he gave the instructions for establishing the cities of refuge, long before Judea and Samaria ever existed. References to the terms east and west bank in rabbinical literature have nothing to do with the claims of the Hashemite Kingdom:

      The Talmud teaches that the three cities of refuge on the east bank of the Jordan River [i.e. literally the side of the Jordan river toward the sunrise] only became functional after the three on the west bank were established. Although Moshe knew that the latter three would only be established fourteen years after his passing, he insisted on establishing the three on the east bank. The Talmud uses this as an example of Moshe's alacrity in the performance of mitzvos.
      Hashem commanded Moshe to designate six cities of refuge. Three of the cities were located on the east bank of the Jordan River, and three were on the west bank. The Talmud questions this designation, for only two-and-a-half tribes were located on the east bank, while the remaining nine-and-a-half tribes were located on the west bank. Our Sages explain that the disproportionate allocation was due to the high incidence of murder which took place on the east bank of the Jordan. The Baalei HaTosfos question this explanation. . . .

      link to

      I do not believe the Jews are usurpers.

      In many circles, the patriarch Jacob's name is synonymous with the term usurper. Our entire religious/historical myth is one long account of our unsuccessful attempts to usurp the Land of Canaan from the seven nations who inhabited it before the Israelites ever arrived. The Maccabees and Herodian kings added the lands of Edom and Moab to the list, despite an explicit Torah prohibition against claiming so much as a footstep, much less annexing them permanently to "The Promised Land". For that matter, the Land of the Philistines on the coastal plain was never part of the land of promise. Twenty cities in the malaria-ridden marshy region of the Galilee were ceded-away to King Hiram of Tyre. Nonetheless, modern Zionists have claimed all of those lands as part of their own "national home". If you don't consider them usupers after all of that, you must be quite a tool.

      Palestinian identity can be traced back to around 1900.

      Nope, even the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs acknowledges that Palestine and Palestinian identity can be traced back at least as far as the Arab Golden Age. “Ramla – Arab Capital of the Province of Palestine” says:

      According to historical sources, Ramla was founded at the beginning of the 8th century by the Umayyad Calif Suleiman ibn Abd el-Malik. It served as the Umayyad and Abbasid capital of the Province of Palestine (Jund Filistin), and the seat of Arab governors of the province in the 8th and 9th centuries.

      link to
      Jerusalem eventually became the capital of Jund Filistin, after the Fatimids conquered the district from the Abbasids. Its principal towns spanned the two banks of Jordan and were: Ashkelon, Ramla, Gaza, Arsuf, Caesarea, Jaffa, Jericho, Nablus, Bayt Jibrin, and Amman.

      In Baruch Kimmerling and Joel Migdal, The Palestinian People: A History, Harvard University Press, 2003 the authors wrote that Palestinian nationality was definitely evident during the Egyptian-Ottoman war (1831-1833). Israeli Historian Butros Abu Manneh noted that in 1830, on the eve of Muhammad Ali's invasion the Sanjaks of Jerusalem and Nablus were transferred to the control of Abdullah Pasha the Governor of Acre and that the move had united the whole of Palestine in one administrative unit. See The Israel/Palestine Question: A Reader (Rewriting Histories), Ilan Pappé (Editor) Routledge (April 2, 1999), page 38.

      Open up any map before 1948, and it will say Judea and Samaria.

      I've already given you a link to a map of the 8th-9th century military districts that doesn't use either of those terms. Neville J. Mandel said that throughout the 19th century the Ottoman Government employed the term “Arz-i Filistin” (the “Land of Palestine” ) in official correspondence, and that it meant, for all intents and purposes, the area to the west of the River Jordan which became “Palestine” under the British in 1922. Likewise the Zionist Congress employed the term Palaestina in the Basel Program. Johann Büssow, "Hamidian Palestine" notes that after more than half a century of regular usage, the Ottoman's added Palestine (Filistin) to legends of the maps in their official 1907 Atlas. See pages 57 & 58. link to

      FYI, it's just as likely that "Palestine" and the Hebrew Plistim were mis-transliterations of "Philistine" and "Filastin", which have been preserved in regular usage by the inhabitants.

    • Is there anything else which is more point on regarding taxes and international law? I read that cash, etc. can be confiscated for military reasons. Can the occupying power argue, that it needs money to uphold security and occupation?

      We weren't talking about currency, only tax collection. An occupying power can introduce a new currency control regulations and issue new currency at par, but it cannot inflate the supply or deliberately allow its value to depreciate so badly that it isn't an adequate substitute for payment of public or private debts due under contracts and wills in the former currency. It generally falls under the obligation in Article 43 of the Hague IV regulations for the occupying power to maintain the public life of the occupied territory. There is a brief discussion of the subject starting at paragraph 215 on page 93 of Yoram Dinstein, The International Law of Belligerent Occupation link to

      There are a few landmark cases on the subject in Hersh Lauterpact's Oppenhiem's Digest and International Law Reports, e.g. link to and a brief discussion of the subject under the heading of the international legality test in Eyal Benvenisti, The International Law of Occupation, link to

    • The Gaza withdrawal only involved about 8,000 Jews, and the country of Israel nearly had a mental collapse over it.

      Why? They were paid $1.1 billion in compensation for land that was stolen in the first place. If they'd really been homeless for 2,000 years, they'd have still been able to wrap their head around living out of a suitcase and cardboard boxes in exchange for half that much gelt.

    • apart from being a collaborator now threatened with execution as soon as he gets replaced

      Then again, maybe not:

      To get past this deadlock, a quid pro quo was suggested: 104 Palestinians imprisoned since before the Oslo Accords — and whose release had already been agreed to in the 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum — would be released in return for the Palestinian leadership suspending following up on Palestine's recognition at the United Nations as a non-member observer state and ascending to various international bodies and treaties.

      Instead, Israeli pundits argued, almost in unison, that the Palestinian president’s decision was the result of Abbas being afraid to make decisions for peace, his waning popularity, his fear of Mohammed Dahlan taking his position and Palestinians being drunk with power.
      As to the claim that Abbas’ decision stems from his “waning popularity,” two independent polls showed Abbas polling quite well less than a month before the April 1 letter signings. An AWRAD Poll conducted March 10–11 put Abbas’ approval rating at 58%. Another poll, conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey, indicated that if national elections were held that day, Abbas would win 53% of the vote.

      -- Abbas catches Israel off guard link to

    • Hostage, could you provide a link to or a legal explanation, if withholding Pal. Taxes is a violation of international/humanitarian law?

      Israel doesn't have any agreements with the state of Palestine. The 1994 Paris Protocol was part of the now-lapsed Oslo 1 Interim Agreements. It only established a joint external border for the five year interim period. The authority for Israel collect the import taxes on the goods intended for the Occupied Territories has long since expired. There was never any authority for Israel to withhold transfers under that agreement. The two parties signed another agreement in July of 2012 on taxation and transfer of goods between Israel and the PA. The terms were not disclosed, but it's unlikely that the Palestinians signed an agreement that allowed Israel to unilaterally resolve disputes. link to

      Israel has claimed that the money will be applied to the Palestinian's debts for utilities, & etc. But that overlooks Palestinian claims that would more than offset any of Israel's claims. As an occupying power, Israel is "regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied territory. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct". Briefly that means they can't be expropriated or simply pillaged for the use of others. The UN and the ICJ have both cited the illegality of the use of Palestine's land and resources and affirmed the right of Palestinians to compensation. Israel is fond of claiming that its settlements on illegally expropriated state lands will be part of its territory under any final settlement, but it hasn't explained how the Palestinians would be compensated for the land in question or all of the stolen natural resources.
      * link to
      * link to

    • actually the protests had very little to do with ending the War

      Derner didn't say that the factors ended the war, i.e. "It’s like how the Vietnam War protests began with radicals in Berkeley, but later was taken up by liberals, and finally by the mainstream."

      I think that public protests and lack of mainstream support for the war caused Johnson to bow out of the Presidential race and forced Nixon to run on a platform in 1968 that disingenuously promised to bring peace and end the war. See Republican Party Platform of August 5, 1968: link to

      The US couldn't have kept a force of half a million people in Vietnam without the draft. So draft resisters and the establishment call for an all volunteer force helped to narrow Nixon's options in his second term.

    • The “West Bank” refers only to the brief period: 1948-67 when Jordan held the area, calling it the West Bank of Jordan’s sovereignty.

      Nope, during the Arab Golden Age, Tiberias was the administrative capital of the military district of Jordan, Jund of Al-Urdunn. Its jurisdiction covered the territory on both sides of the river, e.g. link to

      The terms Cisjordan and Transjordan also reflect the notion of Jordan "on this side" and Jordan "on the other side" of the river, i.e. Jordan on both sides.

    • It is how all movements of social change start — on the fringes, among the “radicals.” It is radical because it is not (yet) conventional thought.

      This case is a bit different. All of the ex-officio political and judicial intergovernmental organs of the UN have condemned Israel's actions in the occupied territories. But they could not agree to take joint or individual action on the issues outlined in the ICJ advisory opinion. The grass roots movement began as a "name and shame" effort to alter that status quo. The greatest threat to Israel that has materialized recently came from the mainstream, establishment institutions of government, banking, and businesses.

    • I would be highly interested in such a mission.

      There was an initial fact-finding mission to investigate the human rights implications of the Israeli settlements (A/HRC/22/63). It referred the matter to a special Working Group on human rights and transnational corporations that hasn't issued its report yet. They are scheduled to meet again in Geneva, on 5-9 May 2014.
      * A/HRC/22/63 link to
      * link to

      The original fact finding mission reported on the possible culpability of transnational corporations and other businesses in human rights violations regarding the settlements. The UNHRC accepted those findings and asked all UN mandate holders to address the issue in their own reports.

      Prof Falk reported twice on examples of possible criminal liability in his mandated area, as the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.
      link to

      In his final report he described the situation in about the same way we are today, i.e. grass roots efforts along side a growing list of official ones from the EU and others that are starting to have effects. In addition, two of his final recommendations dealt with the issue:

      (d) The international community comprehensively investigate the business activities of companies and financial institutions registered in their own respective countries, which profit from the settlements of Israel and other unlawful Israeli activities, and take appropriate action to end such practices and ensure appropriate reparation for affected Palestinians. Member States should consider imposing a ban on imports of settlement produce;
      (e) Future investigations consider whether other foreign corporate connections with unlawful occupation policies additional to settlements (e.g. separation wall, Gaza blockade, house demolitions, excessive use of force) should not be also deemed “problematic” under international law, and treated in a manner analogous to the recommendations pertaining to settlements;

      link to

    • The Israeli government decided nothing. . . . From the year of 1968 when they rented a hotel for a short stay in Hebron; and then decided not to leave.

      Well that's not strictly the case. Under customary international law, and even US law, it is considered treason to carry-on any form of communications with an enemy or give them aid and comfort during a war.

      The laws of Jordan and the successor State of Palestine have always established that providing aid and comfort to the enemy, including land or home sales to enemy civilians, is an act of treason subject to capital punishment.

      Under the explicit terms of the 1949 Armistice Agreements and the Geneva Conventions, enemy civilians aren't even supposed to be in Hebron in the first place. It has been the government of Israel and its Courts that have overruled Palestinian and international law in order to declare the land sales were legally consummated somehow, despite all of those legal prohibitions, and to grant titles and the right of residency to all of the illegal settlers. See:
      * PA affirms death penalty for land sales to Israelis link to
      * Settlers win lengthy Hebron house dispute: Supreme Court rules that Palestinian’s claim of sale document forgery is unfounded.
      link to

    • It’s like how the Vietnam War protests began with radicals in Berkeley, but later was taken up by liberals, and finally by the mainstream. Alterman is plain wrong.

      I agree. Legal risks from the possibility of asset freezes and forfeitures had more to do with triggering the recent divestments by banks and the large state-run pension funds, than grass roots activism. I think the risk of Palestine joining the ICC, where the majority of cases involve some form of pillaging charges, and the findings of the UNHRC fact finding mission about the role of transnational corporations and businesses in the illegal settlement enterprise, combined with de facto recognition from the 14 EU governments that voted in favor of Palestine's statehood bids in the General Assembly and UNESCO was the "writing on the wall" for anyone exercising fiduciary responsibilities or contractual due diligence.

    • (This is undoubtedly why Mahmoud Abbas opposes BDS as well.)

      Correction: Abbas has an official policy in place to boycott the illegal settlements in Palestine, and a Palestinian law carrying the death penalty for selling land to the enemy, pending a final peace treaty. Palestine is a member of the Arab League and can't endorse a boycott of Israel proper without triggering the provisions of the US anti-boycott statutes. So it would be smart for the civil society movement to avoid his official endorsement.

      He can't effectively boycott Israel proper in any event, since Israel is an occupying power that controls the captive Palestinian economy. In the past, Israel has adopted curfews, closures, and other forms of reprisal, like those that have been in place against Gaza since the 1990s.

  • Alleged K.C. killer: 'If Jews can have a state of their own, why can't we have a White Christian state?'
    • You’re talking as if he’s said that his goal was to kill Jews

      No kidding, its not as if the news reports haven't been saying that from the get go, i.e. "Frazier Glenn Cross, 73", is "someone who has repeatedly expressed hatred for Jewish people. None of the people he is accused of killing were Jewish." So, I'm pretty confident that this is a failed attempt to murder Jews and a botched hate crime. link to
      See also "Suspect in killings at Jewish facilities in Kansas to face hate charges, officials say", 1 day ago
      link to

      The U.S. Attorney for Kansas, Barry Grissom, and the local authorities have been saying this as an anti-semitic hate crime and that it is the bias and belief of the suspect, not the identities of the victims, that determines whether or not federal or state hate-crime laws apply. White Methodists, as opposed to the AME, are not targets of Klan hatred.

    • he cites Passover as one of the spring holidays along with Yom Hashoah, Yom Hazikaron and Independence Day and citing the “in each generation they rise up against us to wipe us out” as if that is the sole essence of Passover, considers Passover as part of the indoctrination of militarism (and them against us) implied by the other commemorations. This is highly offensive.

      Please Google: "They Tried To Kill Us, We Survived, Let's Eat" and get over it. That synopsis or commentary didn't originate with the Gentiles.

      but still, I’ve never heard of these tweeters and I do not see them and their argument with Max as newsworthy

      Hmmn, I find it sort unusual that you've never heard of news and opinion makers like Josh Block (head of the Israel Project/former AIPAC flack), John Podhoretz (Editor Commentary Magazine), Ron Kampeas (D.C. bureau chief of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency), Rabbi Steven Burg (Simon Wiesenthal Center/former OU NCSY administrator) or Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs blog/anti-Muslim activist).

    • I haven’t managed one single time to reach a specific comment via the recent comment bar on the right. It immediately shifts to somewhere else.

      I prefer Firefox, but Mondoweiss is forcing me to resort to Google Chrome in order to get things like that to work.

    • Get it?

      Oh yeah, certainly. I wasn't disagreeing with your assumptions, just pointing out that that particular line of thinking on the perpetrator's part would have been irrational and would have made Hitler himself a perfectly valid target.

    • But yes, I guess not only what Max wrote above but also the SPLC profile he links to suggest a possible obsession with “race-mixing” too

      Two of the victims were only there for a talent competition. If that's "race mixing", then so was Hitler's Summer Olympics.

    • How was he completely unsuccessful?

      Well for starters, he just murdered three victims that were members of his own so-called "White Christian" constituency. Speaking objectively, in terms of the actual objects of his attack, and subjectively, in terms of his ideology, I'd have to score this outcome as a completely botched or unsuccessful hate crime.

    • However-based on what and how he writes he will never ever understand what the majority of American and Israeli Jews do. That incidents like these would be ten times as frequent without the existence of Israel.

      Israel was established by a bunch of armed raving lunatics no different than this fellow. Thousands of them died fighting wars of aggression against their non-Jewish neighbors in order to establish a homogeneous Jewish territory and population. The sad part is that we recognize this person as an evil, racist, murderer, but allow bigots like you to treat the founders of Israel like heroes.

    • max seems pretty willing to except that this inciden proves Israel makes Jews less safe rather then more.

      That ought to be obvious, but the headline struck me in an entirely different way. We recognize that this guy is completely unhinged because he is willing to kill others to establish a White Christian State. But none of these Zionist buttheads in the Twitterverse have commented on the sanity or morality of the thousands of Jews who have acted out in the very same way over the years in Palestine. Thousands of unhinged Jewish racists there have killed thousands of their neighbors in an effort to create a homogeneous Jewish state. But they don't question the morality or sanity of that situation for even one moment.

      The ADL audit hadn't registered any harassment, vandalism or acts of violence against Jews or persons who were thought to be Jews in Kansas for years. See for example the zero totals for 2012 and 2013 in the 2013 audit. link to You will find similar totals 2011.

      In those very same years, some of these very same Twitter accounts reported that Jews in Israel were the objects of numerous rocket attacks, bus bombings, shootings, and vehicular assaults.

      There weren't any assaults in the United States in 2013 that required hospitalization, that certainly isn't the case for any year in Israel. link to How on Earth can you argue that Israel makes anyone safer?

    • Two of those killed were Methodists- the doctor and his grandson. The woman was Catholic.

      Yes, the comments, like the one made by Nancy Kobrin are completely asinine. The homicide rate for the Kansas City metro area is ranked around 5th in the nation, yet attacks targeting Jews were unheard of. This one was unexpected, and completely unsuccessful:

      I worked in Kansas with #BAE for the army. The antisemitic attack is not surprising. My heartfelt condolences. This is why we have Israel.

      If she would apply that logic to the West Bank of Palestine, she might actually have a point and save some Jewish lives, e.g. See "Assailant in West Bank kills one Israeli, wounds two" link to

  • Why are two Republican congressmen doing a walkabout on the Temple Mount?
    • The Temple Institute promotes Jewish prophecies of “the reestablishment of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem.”

      They contained the instructions about the first partition of Palestine, "And the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. (Numbers 1:51)" The inscriptions contained in the "stones of warning" in the partition wall of the Temple enclosure were described by Josephus in §5 of Antiquities Of The Jews, Book XV, Chapter XI: "this was encompassed by a stone wall for a partition, with an inscription, which forbade any foreigner to go in under pain of death.". The actual examples discovered by archaeologists so far do not contain any exceptions for US Congressional sightseers.

  • Two desperate anti-Semitism charges, from Foxman and Boteach
    • The term “anti-Semitism” has been so overused that it no longer has any real meaning.

      Sure it does. It used to mean someone who disliked the Jews. Now it means someone the Jews or Zionists do not like.

    • Oddly enough, the online newspapers in Israel have quite of few articles which are indicating or predicting that the prisoner release deal is still on and will be concluded shortly in order to prolong the talks. Naturally they say Pollard will end up in Israel as a result, e.g. 'Pollard won’t be in Israel for Seder, but US taboo on his release has been removed' link to

      Quite a few are suggesting that Labor will replace Bennetts faction in the coalition, while labor's chief says it would be pointless to join it just to obtain Pollard's release. Bennett has written an idiotic letter to the "Israel Arabs" explaining why releasing prisoners will set back (his?) efforts to give them equal rights. See Bennett: Prisoner release undermines Israeli-Arab demand for equality in Israel link to

      So the various opponents are taking last minute steps to ward-off any possibility of that happening. e.g.:

      Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon has given the state the green light to retroactively legalize the Netiv Ha’avot outpost in Gush Etzion, declaring 984 dunams around the outpost state land in what is the largest appropriation of territory in the West Bank in many years.
      “Declarations of state land became rare after the army declared close to a million dunams state land in the 1980s and 1990s, enough to expand the settlements for the coming century,” said Dror Etkes, who monitors settlement policy. “The present declaration is a faithful reflection of the Netanyahu government’s policy and meant to extinguish the last embers of the negotiations with the Palestinians.”

      -- Israel set to legalize West Bank outpost, taking over private Palestinian land link to

  • To reach the 'moveable middle' in Jewish life, you must be inside the tent
    • Hostage blames the Supreme Court for the Bush presidency.

      No I blamed the antiquated electoral system that can reward a candidate, like Bush, with the Presidency, despite the fact that he lost popular election by a half million votes and the fact that the Supreme Court intervened to reverse some, but not all of the lower court decisions in a way that favored Bush.

    • A complete failure to understand how the American system works.

      Well you were doing okay until you made the nonsensical comments about the Florida Supreme Court and the impossibility of constructing a basis for a Gore win. The Court was actually ruling on the interpretation of an existing Florida statute. Gore won the national election by 500,000 votes. A Florida judge ordered a statewide recount of discarded absentee ballots in response to a petition from the Bush campaign. So it wouldn't have been inappropriate to conduct a statewide recount. A group of major U.S. news organizations sponsored a statewide recount by The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. Gore won under every methodology employed.

      So, in order for Bush to win under any circumstances, you have to employ some technicality, limitation, or intervention.

    • As for Hostage’s comment about the antiquated electoral system, I can explain it this way. The US uses an “electoral college” to elect the President rather than a simple majority vote of all US voters.

      My point was that Gore received a total of 50,988,442 votes, and Bush 50,449,494. If the US wasn't using an electoral college, there would been no question at all about the fact that Gore won the national election.

      The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago study that everyone is citing here actually showed that Gore would have won, if there had been a statewide recount:

      In the review of the state's disputed ballots, Gore edged ahead under all the scenarios for counting all undervotes and overvotes statewide:

      • Prevailing standard: County election officials told Florida journalists how they would define votes if required to do a recount, and in this scenario the majority standard was imposed statewide. A notable element of this standard was that, in punch-card counties, ballots with at least one corner of a chad detached counted as votes. Result: Gore ahead by 60 votes.

      • Two-corner standard: At least two corners of a chad had to be detached for a punch-card ballot to count. Bush supporters sometimes argued for this. Result: Gore ahead by 105 votes.

      Gore also went out front by 107 votes when counting by the least restrictive standard, something his supporters advocated, and by 115 votes under the most restrictive.

      He took a 171-vote lead when the consortium tried to recreate how each county said it would handle the court-ordered statewide recount, and a 42-vote lead under what is called the Palm Beach standard. That scenario features counting dimpled chads as valid votes if a pattern of dimpled chads exists elsewhere on the same ballot.

      link to

      In addition, there were 1,700 irregular absentee ballots that were discarded because they were not postmarked, signed, or submitted by registered voters. The Bush campaign challenged the practice in 5 counties and got a statewide court order to have such ballots counted anyway, from a judge who held that there was a fundamental right to vote. link to

      But in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court was unconcerned by the fact that many citizens had been prevented from voting (more below). They actually ruled that there is no Constitutional right to vote for the President of the United States. Nonetheless, they did NOT overturn the lower court ruling that gave Bush the additional 1,700 absentee votes he needed to win.

      Several reports highlighted the way that many ballots were discarded and never counted

      Florida's Gadsden County has the highest percentage of black voters in the state -- and the highest spoilage rate. One in 8 votes cast there in 2000 was never counted. Many voters wrote in "Al Gore." Optical reading machines rejected these because "Al" is a "stray mark."

      By contrast, in neighboring Tallahassee, the capital, vote spoilage was nearly zip; every vote counted. The difference? In Tallahassee's white- majority county, voters placed their ballots directly into optical scanners. If they added a stray mark, they received another ballot with instructions to correct it.

      In other words, in the white county, make a mistake and get another ballot; in the black county, make a mistake, your ballot is tossed.

      1 million black votes didn't count in the 2000 presidential election / It's not too hard to get your vote lost -- if some politicians want it to be lost link to

    • To what extend would a change in the “antiquated electoral system” have changed matters?

      I'm suggesting that we should simply total-up the votes cast for each candidate from all of the 50 states and skip the B.S. about the race for delegates from each state in the electoral college. There have been cases where the candidate with the most votes in the general election lost, because of the winner-take-all nature of the race for a state's votes in the electoral college.

    • Well, they helped to usher George W Bush and the neocon zealots into the White House. I blame the Naderites for the Iraq War as much as I blame Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. They did MUCH more harm than good by fleeing from the tent.

      Nope, the blame ultimately goes to the 5 Justices who were essentially allowed to vote twice: once at the polls; and once again in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). There's no reason to cast blame for the outcome of any US Presidential race, except the antiquated electoral system that precludes direct selection of the President by the citizens in the first place.

  • Amid 'climate of fear' at Vassar, president comes out against 'action and protest' re Israel
    • Clearly, you don’t seem to get that Lori Lowenthal Marcus is not on campus

      You said that no one has accused Vassar’s Hillel of anything, but the Jewish Press obviously did. Why do you presume that none of their Kahanist readers are active on campus?

    • no one has accused Vassar’s Hillel of anything.

      I take it you don't read the Jewish Press or Lori Lowenthal Marcus much. See: Open Hillel at Vassar Because ‘Israel Haters Are People Too’ link to

      If you aren't complaining about these Kahanists creating a climate of fear, or spreading hate and discontent, then I can't imagine who you are talking about.

  • Dershowitz plays McCarthy, and John Dingell is labeled 'anti-Israel'
    • I know…I was being snarky.

      I figured as much;-) I just wanted to point out that there are no popular elections, as such. As this membership process illustrates, these are oriental tribal fiefdoms that are awarded to the thralls from time to time by a group of feudal overlords. The lucky winners benefit from network effects, shared staff functions, and adjacent office space. I think that, unlike J Street, most new members are created or spun-off at the behest of the existing members and have an RSVP invitation to join.

    • So what is J-Street going to do about it?

      They will continue to back the Obama administration party line. What that means is that they talk about a hypothetical solution of 2 states for two people living side by side (Fa la la la la, la la la la) and illegal settlements, but when the rubber meets the road, and tens of thousands of illegal units are built in the occupied territory, they still oppose Palestinian recognition @ the UN and claim that Palestinians have to ask for Israel's consent for their state and statehood.

      Obviously, if Palestine has to ask for the government of Israel's permission, then the Palestinians should have a right to vote on who gets to serve in it and officiate.

    • J Street is fairly crap anyway so who cares ?

      J Street is crap precisely because it is Pro-Israel. The Conference of [self-important] Presidents of Major Jewish Israel Lobby Organizations was organized in 1955 out of a growing awareness that unified action by major American Jewish Pro-Israel organizations was essential to help strengthen American support for the state of Israel. link to

    • ” the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations" Er…..who elects all these Presidents of the Jews?

      Jews, Smews this is the "Israel" Lobby we are talking about. J-Street met all of the tribal requirements:

      The Manhattan meeting, held by the conference’s membership committee in preparation for J Street’s application being brought before the full conference on April 30, found that J Street fulfills the administrative and governance requirements in the conference’s bylaws. But most of the discussion focused on J Street’s views on Israel.

  • 'Not a single person in this room would accept living as Palestinians do, generation after generation'
    • The Israeli Law of Return was enacted so that never again will Jews be faced without a safe haven as they were in WWII when country after country closed their doors to desperate Jewish refugees seeking to escape extermination. (Why not read up on the USS. St.Louis, for some entertainment !!?)

      You need to remember to read about the SS Patria and the SS Struma too. The British evacuated some of the Struma passengers who held expired visas to Palestine. They used an overland route after the ship docked in Turkey. But they refused to admit the others, unless the Jewish agency reduced the number of its 25,000 unused entry permits accordingly. The Jewish Agency murdered hundreds of Jewish refugees when it deliberately blew-up the Patria for propaganda purposes.

      The rank and file membership of the Zionist Organization and the WJC were concerned about the plight of Jewish refugees in Europe, but the members of the Zionist Executive were not. The documentary record shows that, long before Israel became worried about being flooded with millions of Palestinian refugees, it was worried about being flooded with millions of undesirable Jewish refugees.

      The Jewish Agency Executive were not concerned with bringing all of the Jewish people, as such, to Palestine or concerned about their fate:

      A representative of the Jewish Agency has stated that in the event of partition the 400,000 Jews in the Arab states outside Palestine may have to be sacrificed in the interest of the Jewish community as a whole.

      link to

      Weizmann never considered many Jews to be fit material for the Jewish community he was building in Palestine:

      Dr. Weizmann, President of the World Zionist Organization and ex-officio President of the Jewish Agency, stated that he had come to this country, with Palestine as always uppermost in his mind, to raise $4,000,000 outside the United Palestine Appeal for strengthening the Jewish community in Palestine.
      It was to be anticipated, Dr. Weizmann said, that at the end of the war there would be at least 2,500,000 Jews seeking refuge. Of these perhaps 1,000,000 would represent Jews with a future and the others Jews whose lives were behind them-”who were but little more than dust”. He believed that it would be possible to settle in Palestine 1,000,000 of these refugees, so far as possible those with a future, one-fourth on the land, the remainder as an addition to the urban population.

      link to

      Here are a number of cites from Boaz Evron, “Jewish State or Israeli Nation?”, Indiana University Press, 1995, page 260-261 regarding the deliberations and correspondence of the Zionist Executive on the subject of the Evian Conference on Refugees:
      *The Jewish Agency’s Executive met on June 26, 1938 to discuss the Evian Conference goal of raising Allied attention to the need for efforts and funding in order to resettle endangered Jews in other countries. Evron wrote that: “It was summed up in the meeting that the Zionist thing to do ‘is belittle the Conference as far as possible and to cause it to decide nothing’.
      “We are particularly worried that it would move Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for aid to Jewish refugees, and these collections could interfere with our collection effort.” Ben Gurion said “No rationalization can turn the conference from a harmful to a useful one. What can and should be done is to limit the damage as far as possible.”

      *Evron quotes from a letter written by Georg Landauer, the managing director of the Jewish Agency Central Bureau for the Settlement of German Jews, to Rabbi Stephen Wise, the Co-Chair of the American Zionist Emergency Council, dated February 13, 1938: I am writing this letter at the request of Dr. Weizmann because we are extremely concerned lest the problem be presented in a way which would prejudice the activity for Eretz Israel. Even if the conference does not propose immediately after its opening other countries but Eretz Israel as venues for Jewish emigration, it will certainly arouse a public response that could put the importance of Eretz Israel in the shade. . . . We are particularly worried that it would move Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for the aid of Jewish refugees, and these collection efforts would interfere with our collection efforts.

      *There was also the statement made by Menachem Ussishkin head of the Jewish National Fund in the meeting of the Zionist Executive on June 26, 1938 regarding the report of Mr. Greenbaum: “He is also concerned at the Evian Conference. . . . Mr. Greenbaum is right in stating that there is a danger that the Jewish people also will take Eretz Israel off its agenda, and this should be viewed by us as a terrible danger. He hoped to hear in Evian that Eretz Israel remains the main venue for Jewish emigration. All other emigration countries do not interest him. . . . The greatest danger remains that attempts will be made to find other territories for Jewish emigration.”

      The statement by Ben Gurion and the letter to Rabbi Wise were also cited in S. Beit Zvi, Hatzionut Ha-Post-Ugandit Bemashber Ha’shoah (Post-Uganda Zionism and the Holocaust), Tel Aviv: Bronfmann, 1977, page 178, 181, 182

    • I just love fatuous declarations !

      If you check the comment archives here, you'll find that the state parties to the human rights Treaties, like the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, elect the panels of legal experts who serve in the monitoring bodies and review each country's compliance, not the UNHRC.

      You'll also find that the elected representative bodies of experts that Israel and the US helped to appoint, found that Arabs, Druze and Bedouin do not enjoy equal rights and protection under the law in Israel and are subjected to forms of systematic discrimination that are a serious on-going concern under the terms of Article 3 of the convention regarding the prohibition of racial segregation and apartheid.

      FYI, the Freedom House report on Political Rights and Civil Liberties is unofficial and little more than a catalog of systematic discrimination against non-Jews.

    • Apparently The Guardian is just another Zionist stooge and maybe also French President Francois Hollande, who now says the “Vel d’Hiv roundup of Jews to Nazi camps was a ‘Crime committed in France by France’ (not Germany and not due to the German occupation, but the willing collaboration of Vichy officials).

      You are mixing apples and oranges. The Guardian and Obama administration are negotiating a settlement with the French government, not the French railway company. That's a different legal entity. The state legislatures of Maryland and New York have bills pending aimed at a French railway carrier that are jeopardizing US negotiations with the French government and threatening to trigger the involvement of the ICJ.

      In 1972, historian Robert Paxton’s book, Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order, . . .

      It certainly does mention the culpability of the French government, but does not comment directly about the culpability of any French railway companies or workers in any wrongdoing.

      It's important to remember that the French government was one of the parties to the Final Act of the Paris Conference on Reparation with annex (Paris 21st December 1945), which had already paid millions in reparations and/or waived its claims to assets that were turned over to Jewish victims of the war. Under the terms of that agreement, disputes regarding reparations are supposed to be settled by the International Court of Justice. link to

      Here's some background information on the reparations paid so far, which included 90 percent of the plundered non-monetary gold recovered from Germany:

      The Government of Israel, in support of its request for reparation from Germany, alleges that it is the only state which can speak on behalf of the Jewish people and that the claims of the Jewish people were disregarded in the allocation of reparations from Germany. In connection with those allegations, the Government of the United States calls attention to the following considerations:
      (a) Throughout the period of Nazi domination of Germany, the United States and other Countries offered sanctuary to many thousands of persons of Jewish origin fleeing from their Nazi persecutors. At the end of the war it enacted special laws to open its doors to the flood of unfortunate people made homeless, destitute and infirm by the ravages of war and oppression. Furthermore, the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France have made the major contribution to the International Refugee Organization, which has facilitated the resettlement of Jews in Israel. These voluntary acts of assistance demonstrate the concern for and the large measure of responsibility which the Government of the United States has assumed for the welfare of the Jewish victims of Nazi oppression.
      (b) Although they were not represented at the Paris Reparation Conference, the claims of the persecutees were given special consideration. The Paris Reparation Agreement allotted all non-monetary gold found in Germany, a fund of $25,000,000 from German external assets to be liquidated in the countries which remained neutral during the war, and all assets in neutral countries of victims of Nazi action who died without heirs for the relief and rehabilitation of non-repatriable victims of German action. It was recognized at the time that the overwhelming majority of these victims were Jewish, and immediately thereafter the Five Power Agreement of 1946 provided that ninety percent of the $25,000,000 fund and non-monetary gold and ninety-five percent of the heirless properties should be used for such victims. Furthermore, the Government of the United States notes that pursuant to the agreement between the Government of Israel and the Government of the United Kingdom of March 30, 1950, the latter turned over to the Government of Israel the proportion of reparation in respect of the mandate for Palestine which was received by the British Government under the Paris Reparation Agreement.

      In bringing to the attention of the Government of Israel the reparations and indemnities thus far received by the Jewish refugees, the Government of the United States does not imply that it regards them as full compensation for their sufferings. It concurs in the view of the Israeli Government that no material compensation can be sufficient. It would point out, however, that many nations and peoples experienced tremendous losses and sufferings at the hands of the Nazis and that none can expect its reparation receipts to reflect compensation in any substantial measure.

      The Government of the United States must also point out the bearing of certain agreements, to which it is a party, on further reparation demands on Germany. Immediately following the termination of hostilities, the Occupying Powers established the form of reparations to be exacted from Germany; in so doing they agreed that reparations must be of a character which would not impose a financial burden on the Allies, and that policy is unchanged. They then convoked a conference of those nations which made the greatest contribution to winning the war, for the purpose of distributing the share in German reparation allocated to the three Western Powers under the Potsdam Protocol. From that conference emerged the Paris Reparation Agreement, which not only determined the percentage share in reparation of the signatories but also provided that the reparation receipts shall be regarded as covering all their claims against Germany arising out of the war but without prejudice to the final settlement of German reparations. The effect of these decisions is to preclude the assertion by the Government of the United States, on its own behalf or on behalf of other states, of further reparation demands on Germany pending a definitive settlement in the nature of a peace treaty. It is impossible to predict when such a settlement will be possible.

      The Government of the United States therefore regrets that it cannot impose on the Government of the German Federal Republic an obligation to pay reparation to Israel as a condition to implementation of the decision reached by the Foreign Ministers at their conference in Brussels to place Allied-German relations on a new basis.

      The Government of the United States wishes to emphasize, however, that the new relationship will not effect a definitive settlement of all problems arising out of the war and that it will not prejudice the consideration of further claims for reparation in the negotiation of a final settlement with Germany in the nature of a peace treaty.

      – Foreign relations of the United States, 1951. The Near East and Africa, Page 749 link to

    • What’s your estimate of the 800,000 Jews persecuted and butchered in Arab countries between 1940 and 1967 ?

      It was pretty clear to the officials of the Jewish Agency that their plan for the conquest of Palestine would cause a backlash:

      A representative of the Jewish Agency has stated that in the event of partition the 400,000 Jews in the Arab states outside Palestine may have to be sacrificed in the interest of the Jewish community as a whole.

      link to

      There are former Jewish refugees who have opted for citizenship and resettlement in Israel. They are entitled to restitution or compensation. The number 800,000 is a gross exaggeration. Most of the emigres were Zionists making aliya. Declassified documentary evidence establishes that Israel shares responsibility for the refugee problems, because it deliberately triggered the mass exoduses. Here is one example:

      Ingathering of Exiles
      At the close of the interview I asked Kollek to tell me frankly whether Israel planned to start the ingathering of 70,000 Jews from Iran along the lines of the ingathering from Iraq. I said that so far as I knew, the level of anti-semitism in Iran was not abnormally high and I thought the friends of Israel, including the United States, would not favor a deliberately generated exodus there.
      Kollek replied that there was a school of thought in Israel which believes that when a nationalistic government of the Mossadegh type comes into power sooner or later they turn against their minorities and this has caused consideration to be given to the Iranian Jews. He did not believe, however, that efforts would be made to bring them to Israel unless the situation generally deteriorates. There could be no doubt that the need of the Roumanian Jews to come to Israel is far greater than the need of the Iranian Jews.
      I opined that the Iraqi operation had been bad for Iraq. I said that I hoped the Iraqi Government would not disenfranchise the Jews who had elected to remain Iraqi citizens. Kollek argued that short range, Iraq may have lost some skills, but he thought that long range it is “better for a country to be homogeneous” as would be the case if all of the Jews left Iraq. I asserted that homogeneity of population is not always a good thing and pointed with pride to the fact that the United States is in no sense homogeneous. Kollek’s only answer was “The United States is different.”

      – Memorandum of Conversation, by the Director of the Office of Near Eastern Affairs (Jones), Secret [WASHINGTON,] August 2,1951.
      Subject: Israel’s Concern Re Peace With the Arabs and Other Matters.
      Participants: Mr. Theodore Kollek, Embassy of Israel and Mr. G. Lewis Jones, NE, Foreign relations of the United States, 1951. The Near East and Africa, page 815 link to

      For years the government of Israel shamelessly tried to claim that there were 800,000 refugees from Arab lands whose claims offset those of Palestinian refugees, despite the fact that those Jews had no claims against Palestinians at all.

      Now it turns out that Israel never collected more than 14,000 claims from refugees in the first place:

      In 2010, a law was passed stating that compensation for the lost property would be included in any future Arab-Israeli peace agreement. But the report shows that even if peace were to break out tomorrow morning, Israel would be hard-pressed to present a solid claim because the state does not know what property is at issue. The possible reasons for this are many and absurd: Over the years, immigrants from Iran and Arab states were instructed to fill in and submit forms aimed at enabling the coordination of both individual and communal claims. Between 1969-2009, the Justice Ministry collected around 14,000 of these, but they were never processed or entered into a computer database. Some of the records are still in the ministry’s archive, waiting to be scanned digitally, but some have deteriorated so badly as to be worthless. The retirement of a single clerk who was in charge of the material at one point but did not train her successor is thought to have led to the disappearance of still more documents connected to the issue.
      – Comptroller blasts state for neglecting restitution of Jewish property in Arab states link to
      PLO Executive Committee member Hanan Ashrawi reportedly claimed that “if Israel is their [Arab Jews’] homeland, then they are not ‘refugees’; they are emigrants who return either voluntarily or due to a political decision.”
      Ironically, Ashrawi’s sentiment succinctly captures what was once the prevailing view within the Israeli government and among major Zionist advocacy organizations. “I do not regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees,” asserted Iraqi-Israeli former Knesset Speaker Shlomo Hillel. “They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.” His position was and still is shared by many others. Noteworthy, too, is the Law of Return, which ensures that Jews never arrive in Israel as refugees, but as “olim hadashim” − new immigrants.

      – A dubious campaign on behalf of Arab Jewish refugees link to

    • There was never a bid to forge an Arab “Palestinian” identity or country prior to Israel’s establishment.

      You are repeating shopworn Zionist propaganda, so let's refute it with some more. In light of constant Zionist attempts at the negation of Palestine and Palestinians, it's supremely ironic that the Director of Propaganda for Keren Hayesod and the Founding Father of Revisionist Zionism, Ze'ev Jabotinsky wrote:

      If it were possible (and I doubt this) to discuss Palestine with the Arabs of Baghdad and Mecca as if it were some kind of small, immaterial borderland, then Palestine would still remain for the Palestinians not a borderland, but their birthplace, the center and basis of their own national existence. Therefore it would be necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs, which is the same condition that exists now. . . . because they are not a rabble but a nation, perhaps somewhat tattered, but still living." "

      . See The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs), First published in Russian: "O Zheleznoi Stene," Rassvyet, November 4, 1923 from Daniel Pipes website. link to

      In 1914, long before there was a Balfour Declaration, a circular entitled “General Summons to Palestinians – Beware Zionist Danger” was distributed and published in the press. It warned that “Zionists want to settle in our country and expel us from it” and it was signed anonymously by “a Palestinian”. The author attributed the crisis to "history going full circle", resulting in the disintegration of "the Palestinian nation" that had once been blessed by God. See the full description of the article and verbatim extracts at the embedded link above on pages 220-222 of Neville J. Mandel, "The Arabs and Zionism Before World War I"

      For additional sources which debunk this Zionist myth, see the comment here: link to

    • and “just about everything else in society

      You are not married to them, or even buried with them. There has never been an Arab party included in a governing coalition, so there's no danger that a Palestinian Judge or Police Officer will ever enforce a law favoring non-Jews or create a Judge-made law or administrative regulation that won't be overturned by the Jewish Knesset, Land Administration, & etc.

      So the truth is, just about nothing you've mentioned is an accurate description of Zionist society or "democracy".

    • If a miracle occurs and the 2ss becomes a reality, Palestinian citizens of the Jewish State will continue to be relegated to a second-class status and citizenship.

      LOL! I had the same thought about two-tiered citizenship, only in response to Beinart's comment:

      You cannot permanently hold people without a passport, without the right to vote for the government that controls their lives, and the right to live under the same legal system as their neighbors who are of a different religion or ethnic group.

      After all, the Goldstone report explained that Palestine is really only as screwed-up (as it truly is), because the two-tiered system of Israeli municipal law has been exported to Palestine and it treats the indigenous Palestinians as aliens in their own country. Of course its authors in the Knesset intended for it to have that same effect on Palestinians living in Israel too - and no one in the audience would accept living as the "Israeli Arabs" do.

  • Simon Schama's Israel whitewash
    • most countries throughout the course of history have been mono-ethnic, and have lasted not merely centuries but millennia (see China; or India with its endemic deadly Hindu-Islamic clashes)

      Here's your wake-up call Chinese and Indian are not mutually exclusive ethnic groups: The government of China officially recognizes 56 different ethnic subdivisions in its population, including about 100 million people who aren't members of the majority Han Chinese ethnic group. FYI, unlike Zionists, they are not exaggerating when they point to successive Chinese governments and representatives of Han Chinese culture who have maintained a "continual presence" in Tibet for over 2,000 years. link to

      The Indian people include more than two thousand ethnic groups, including the Chinese. link to

Showing comments 9321 - 9301

Comments are closed.