Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 9248 (since 2010-02-28 20:54:05)



Showing comments 9248 - 9201

  • Palestinians can have an embassy in Jerusalem, but God forbid not a capital -- Israeli mayor
    • 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
    • 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?'
    • Miller’s rants are the most extensive, unedited anti-Zionist viewpoint most mainstream media readers will get.

      The Klan are anti-Semites, not anti-Zionists. They are perfectly happy to see Jews emigrate. This one envies the so-called "Jewish state" and wants one just like it for White Christian racists.

    • 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

    • How nice. A believers-only sign.

      I think you missed the point of the hypothetical exercise, where he said that the State of Israel should not have been established on the basis that it actually was, according to his believers-only criteria.

      I'm an anti-Zionist. But I've always had to acknowledge that the Jewish communities in the four holy cities of Palestine were effectively recognized as autonomous legal entities by mutual consent, even during the Ottoman era. The Jewish and Christian communities there had been the subject of legal protections contained in international treaties and the public international law of Europe, ever since the era of the Crimean war and the inclusion of Sublime Porte in the Concert of Europe. They undoubtedly were included in the "Certain communities" mentioned in Article 22(4) of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which recognized their existence as independent nations. In any event, they could not be deprived of their former status and autonomy under the guise being "liberated" by the Allied Powers. There's ample precedent for other city states, even today, which have been admitted as full UN member states.

      The local Arab Jews and communities throughout Africa and Asia had assimilated the Sephardi Jews during a crisis without destroying relations with their Muslim and Christian neighbors. They could probably have saved many more of their beleaguered Ashkenazi brethren during the Holocaust, if they hadn't already spoiled relations by exploiting the British military occupation, colonialism, and forced eviction of the fellaheen to pursue their goal of independent statehood. We can discuss anti-Zionist true-believer hypotheticals that might have resulted in a Jewish majority, with equal rights and protections for all, but that isn't the way it happened.

    • Your answer was that even if one accepts the 1947 lines that created a 5 to 4 Jewish majority, this majority was not large enough, as a 80-20 ratio was required.

      Clarification: The figures in the September 1947 UNSCOP report noted erroneously that there were only 7,000 residents of the Beersheba district who were settled on the land and about 90,000 Beersheba Bedouins that it claimed were nomads, who would seek grazing further afield in dry seasons. They were deliberately excluded from the population totals of the Jewish state on that erroneous basis. The Jewish state would have only contained a 1,000 person Jewish majority if the 90,000 additional, estimated persons had been factored-in to the projected population.

      The UNSCOP report also noted that they posed a unique statistical problem. Unlike the rest of the population, the British government had not maintained a record of births and deaths for the Bedouins after the last official census in the 1930s. So they could not estimate the size of the Bedouin population growth with the same degree of confidence as the other communities. The mandatory government commissioned an RAF aerial survey and submitted revised population estimates to both of the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committees explaining that the Bedouins had been settled on the land for generations and had millions of dunams under cultivation. Subcommittee 2 worked on the one state solution and noted that the Jewish state would have an Arab majority from the outset.

      Subcommittee 1 worked on the partition plan. It did not include the revised population figures in its report:
      link to

      It convened a meeting and published a press release which noted the disparity between the updated figures and those employed by the UNSCOP Commission in its report. The Chairman explained the were not included because the Committee was anxious to conclude its work:
      link to

      As I noted the Negev was added and the borders were not adjusted to exclude Arabs. In fact, the Subcommittee working group on boundaries subsequently modified them at the request of the Jewish Agency to include a few thousand more Arabs in predominately Arab areas near Safed and the Lydda airport.
      * link to
      * link to

    • In any case, they still could have drawn boundaries in a way that would create a Jewish majority without expelling people.

      Obviously, since neither the majority nor minority proposals of the UNSCOP or General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee permitted any involuntary population transfers at all. The Nuremberg Charter had established deportation or forceable population transfer as a crime against humanity.

      I am also seeing if I can get J.Slater to reconsider his views about transferring the native population out of their homeland if I can solve his “demographic” dilemma.

      The officials of the Provisional Government of Israel had demanded that the Ad Hoc Committee add the territory of the Negev between Beersheba and Eilat to the territory allocated to the Jewish State by the UNSCOP recommendation. So, 60 percent of the territory of the Jewish state was in that largely uninhabited area that Ben Gurion had been planning on colonizing since at least 1937. See the Letter to his son Amos on that subject. link to

      What happened instead, was that the government of Israel waged a war of conquest and displaced the bulk of its Arab population, and then claimed that "their space" was needed for Jewish immigrants - and that in any event, Israel reserved the right "to replace them" with Jews from Arab countries who had expressed a desire to come to Palestine. link to

    • Since your last major article here, one of the commentors pointed out that there was a Jewish majority within the U.N.’s 1947 lines before the Nakba occurred.

      Previously, your view was that a “transfer” of Palestinians would have been needed to create a Jewish majority. I understand that there are always new facts like these coming up and that you prefer to write on your website.

      Keep in mind that there had not been a real census in Palestine since 1932, so the idea of a state there with a Jewish majority was just that, not a fact based upon empirical evidence.

      A few days before the vote on the partition plan, the UN Ad Hoc Committee report, A/AC.14/32, dated 11 November 1947 noted the updated population figures supplied by the British mandatory government. They indicated that, from the outset, Arabs would constitute a majority of the population of the proposed “Jewish” state – 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews. See pdf file page 42 of 69.

  • 'There's a lot of anti-Semitism out there' -- Johansson reviews her role as 'new face of apartheid'
    • There is no intrusion into our politics by Israel.

      You must live in a cave cut-off from civilization. The press were all over the story about the participation of Netanyahu in Romney's campaign against Obama. See:
      *What Netanyahu's meddling in US election means for Obama, Romney, and diplomacy link to
      * Netanyahu Appears in Pro-Romney Ad link to

    • Israel, which is what you meant isn’t in the top 10 unless you use very weird ways of counting designed to make sure Israel comes in 1st.

      Israel and the DRC are in a dead heat, no matter how you count it and China is nowhere near those two.

      The rest of your post is shopworn propaganda and the usual trolling.

    • “There’s a lot of anti-Semitism out there,” Johansson told Vanity Fair, in an interview for the cover of their May edition.

      Johansson is the new face of the racist money grubbers. She's trying to distract attention away from a blatant example of Jewish war profiteering, and she's singing for her supper.

  • State Dep't tries to clean up Kerry's 'Poof'
    • Of course it has. It has offered to trade territory in pre-1967 Israel for territory in the West Bank. It has also offered money.

      No they really have not. Other than Lieberman's proposal to rob Peter in order to pay Paul, can you cite an example of an "actual", documented offer of unoccupied territory that Israel has made in exchange for the land it has stolen for its Jewish settlements?

    • Once a SC power comes forward with a credible claim of being willing to war for Palestine then Article 7 becomes more meaningful. For now it would just further erode the credibility of the Security Council.

      That's nonsense, the UN Security Council brought the economies of Iraq and Iran to the brink of collapse without going to war and they can easily do the same to Israel.

      Meanwhile, the press and government of Israel do not share your supercilious attitude about the threat of sanctions. They are already convening meetings of the cabinet and security agencies behind closed doors to come up with a plan to deal with the fallout from grassroots BDS. Even they admit that is has cost them dearly in recent cases involving divestment from their major banks, partnerships with the national water carrier, withdrawal of bids on major rail and port projects, and agricultural exports from the occupied territories. They are also shreying about delegitimization, but they have no one to blame for that, other than themselves.

      Secretary of State Marshall and Under-Secretary Lovett told Moshe Shertok that “We shall not allow the Jews to conduct a war that we do not want with our dollars.” The US threatened to shutdown the United Jewish Appeal and publish the incriminating evidence the US government had obtained on the organization. Shertok acknowledged that they could back-up their threats. See Shertok’s remarks from the verbatim minutes of the People’s Council.

      The fact remains that major sectors of the Israeli economy rely on foreign investments, foreign markets, and subsidies from foreign charitable organizations. That definitely includes the settlement enterprise. Israel has been extremely worried by efforts, like the request from J-Street, to get the Justice Department and law enforcement agencies in other countries, to take action against organizations and businesses that either financially support or profit from the illegal settlements in Palestine. It was only after J-Street abandoned that effort and started acting like a mini-AIPAC, that the government of Israel stopped shunning it altogether.

    • Page: 92
    • @ Hostage . . . So what in your opinion follows next?

      I'm no prophet, but the latest round of talks began as an exercise to get some prisoners released. Israel uses Palestinian prisoners as bargaining chips and takes great pride in announcing the reprisals it intends to take against them on the flimsiest of excuses. It is violating the prohibitions contained in article 49(6) of the Geneva Conventions by transferring so many thousands of the enemy's civilians out of the occupied territories in the first place. It has never treated members of the uniformed Palestinian militias as POWs either.

      If you are old enough to remember the public concern here in the USA regarding treatment of POWs and their release from North Vietnam, then you'll know that Abbas has to keep any prisoner sitting in jail in Israel as one of his top priorities. Remember his constituents are numbered among the most highly incarcerated populations on the planet and all politics are local.

      Frankly, the US and Israel have made it abundantly clear that peaceful resistance and negotiations is going nowhere and will not be as effective as the methods Hamas employed to obtain the release of significantly more prisoners than Abbas and the PLO have been able to liberate. So one avenue that is available to Abbas is enforcement of the Geneva Conventions.

      Immediately after the UNESCO and UN votes the Quartet intervened to keep Abbas from pursuing legal remedies and to convince him to wait until after negotiations on Israel's border proposals, & etc. But Abbas only agreed to the Quartet and US demands in exchange for these unfulfilled, incremental prisoner releases e.g.
      * Abbas asks Blair to intervene on prisoners
      link to

      Here's another example from:

      RAMALLAH, April 17, 2012 (WAFA) – President Mahmoud Abbas Tuesday said the Palestinian Authority will seek high contracting parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to demand implementing the convention in the Palestinian territory, especially regarding Palestinian prisoners.

      Abbas said on the occasion of the Palestinian Prisoner Day that PA will call for implementing the Geneva Convention on Palestinian prisoners so as to be treated as war prisoners with the entailing basic human rights, in accordance to the international law and resolutions.

      He stressed that the issue of the prisoners is on the top of the Palestinian leadership’s priority, and called on Palestinians in general and Palestinian prisoners in specific to maintain unity, affirming that the only side making use of division is Israel.

      -- link to

      Like the illegal settlements, the prisoner issue is a clear violation of Article 8 of the Rome Statute too, and it's obviously ripe for action, since other, non-legal remedies have been exhausted.

    • Vienna is now heading towards becoming a farce with non-countries signing treaties. I guess next to sign are Blefuscu and Westeros.

      On the contrary, the government of Israel and its supporters have created a farcical situation, where they constantly argue that Palestine has all of the duties, liabilities, and Charter obligations that are reserved only for states, while denying that it can exercise any of the corresponding rights or even become a member. That sort of absurdity is precisely the reason the international community developed the Vienna formula in the first place. For example:
      1) Israeli officials told the US government that Israel would be “happy” if Hamas took over Gaza, because the IDF could then deal with Gaza as a hostile state. link to
      2) The U.S. State Department has a web page which explains that blockades have historically resulted in belligerent recognition, because they are “a weapon of war between sovereign states.” link to
      3) According to the Washington Post and many other sources, Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev cited the San Remo Manual and maintained that Israel was clearly within its rights to stop the aid flotilla, saying “any state has the right to blockade ANOTHER STATE in the midst of an armed conflict.” [emphasis added] link to

      The Reconvened Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions already declared the Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories illegal more than a decade ago. So, I have no idea what you are blabbering about. There is no difficult decision pending on the applicability of the Geneva Conventions, because the Security Council, General Assembly, ICJ, ICRC, and Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions all agree on that subject. If you can't fit that fact into your legal theories, you need to discard them and adopt some that have predictable results.

      I've pointed out to you in the past that Israel is gaming the system. So you are definitely a slow learner. link to

      FYI, Palestine has a government that engages in foreign relations with other states and belongs to a half dozen international inter-governmental organizations, a population, and well defined frontiers. So it has all of the qualifications that a country should possess in order to be considered a person of international law in accordance with Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States.

      The ICJ and the parties to its statute already made that clear, when Palestine was invited to participate in oral arguments in the 2003 Wall case. Article 34(1) stipulates that only states may be parties in cases before the Court. Israel's supporters argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction because the case was really a dispute between two states, and that it could not grant relief in a contentious case without Israel's consent.
      * ICJ Statute link to;.#CHAPTER_II
      * See Crawford's oral argument at the heading "(5) This is a dispute between two States: the principle of consent" on pdf page 34 of 64 link to

      Judge Higgins also commented about Palestine's legal personality and its legal obligations, i.e.

      "Further, Palestine cannot be sufficiently an international entity to be invited to these proceedings, and to benefit from humanitarian law, but not sufficiently an international entity for the prohibition of armed attack on others to be applicable" (paragraph 34).

      * See Higgins opinion link to

    • “The best course of action would be for the USA to give Israel 1 year to either officially annex whatever territories in the West Bank they are taking and everything else formally repudiate claim to, including bases.”

      When Israel "accepted" resolution 181(II) it already repudiated claims to the remainder of Palestine forever:

      Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations

      1. Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State, providing that no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State. The exercise of this right of option will be taken to include the wives and children under eighteen years of age of persons so opting.

      Arabs residing in the area of the proposed Jewish State and Jews residing in the area of the proposed Arab State who have signed a notice of intention to opt for citizenship of the other State shall be eligible to vote in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of that State, but not in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of the State in which they reside.

      link to

    • Breaking news: The USA and other contracting parties to the 15 UN Conventions have received notices from the depositary regarding the fact that there is a new contracting state party to the Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties, Maintenance of Diplomatic Relations, Consular Relations, & etc. effective one month from the date of requested accession. The UN has reported there will be no delays for political purposes. -- UN chief: Palestinians to join international conventions by May 2 Ban begins processing request to join UN auspice, procedure to end exactly one month after submitting official request. link to

      These notices are intended to advise all of the parties that their treaty obligations to the new state party have been formally engaged:

      In the documents, which were distributed to all of the countries that are signatory to the particular conventions in question, the UN chief wrote that the State of Palestine would be added to the conventions on May 2 – 30 days after the official request was submitted by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

      Western diplomats said that a similar announcement would be released in the near future by the Swiss government, sponsor of the Fourth Geneva convention, which the Palestinians have also requested to join. It is still not clear whether the government of Holland, which sponsors The Hague convention, will follow suit in publishing a statement.

      FYI, the Palestinians deposited an accession to the 1954 Hague Convention on the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict after the UNESCO vote in 2011 that has never been questioned or challenged.

  • 66 years ago today 42 members of my family were slaughtered in Deir Yassin
    • So let me get this straight. You want to ban and boycott people who disagree with you on the issue of Israel

      There are prohibitions in the site comment policy about trolling threads with off topic messages and about Holocaust and Nakba denial. The fact that there are numerous examples of those type comments under an article about Deir Yassin or that readers suggest that those responsible ought to be banned, should come as no surprise.

    • There is nothing to talk about

      In your case, that's a guarded understatement. If you are going to extend the current round of fruitless talks, you might pick-up a point or two on how to be more effective from a reading of "Ran Greenstein: How to fight the Israel-Apartheid analogy in four easy steps – a guide for useful Hasbara idiots" link to

    • “As for not talking to enemies during war, if the war is still on then don’t complain about civil rights violations”

      Small matter of the Laws of war and subsequent conventions.

      “Your arguments runs both ways, you can’t have it both ways either “

      This is nothing but the usual Zionist bullshit. The ICJ devoted considerable space in its 2004 advisory opinion to debunking the myth that fundamental human rights and human rights conventions do not apply during armed conflicts and that certain rights are never subject to any derogation.

      If you want them to be hostiles than the Israelis are fully within their rights to repel them, survival is an imperative.

      On a fundamental level, Israel never had any right to go to war in order to repel indigenous people and there was no Israeli state in 1947 when the ethnic cleansing mentioned in this article began, other than a state of illegality or criminality.

    • You make peace with enemies not friends. Dialogue comes first.

      P.S. After Arafat had given up 78 percent of Palestine, recognized Israel and talked until he was blue in the face for 5 years, the crime of apartheid only became more deeply entrenched and widespread. The Netanyahu regime didn't encircle the Muqata with tanks because of any terror attacks, it did so in order to dominate and oppress the Palestinians and prevent them from exercising their right to statehood. The war crimes related to Israel transferring portions of its population to Palestine have multiplied dramatically during this latest round of talks. You don't normalize criminality, you prosecute it.

    • You make peace with enemies not friends. Dialogue comes first.

      No, the recognition of the need to end armed hostilities and criminal wrongdoing comes first. Nobody is going to be neighborly while the IDF and Jewish settlers are literally stealing the land out from under their feet and driving them into impoverished Bantustans, while occasionally turning their streets into rivers of blood and hauling their kids off to prison in the middle of the night. To argue otherwise only demonstrates that you are a sociopath who is detached from reality.

    • I find BDS’ constant criticism of apartheid while attacking “normalization”. Denormalization is just an extreme form of apartheid an unwillingness to engage in even neighborly relations.

      Apartheid consists of a laundry list of inhuman acts, that are considered a crime against humanity, when perpetrated systematically for the purpose of dominating members of a racial, national, or ethnic group. The notion that relations can be "normalized" and "neighborly", while the state and its citizens are still systematically violating fundamental human rights, and committing a crime against humanity in the process, is far-fetched and extremely convoluted logic. Around these parts, attempts to reframe the debate using "odd", "strange", or "illogical" lines of argumentation that blame the victim are pretty quickly denounced as misguided pilpul.

    • What a bunch of BS & horse kaflooey. If the Israelis plan was a ‘genocide’ of the Arabs living amongst them after ’48 then they are perhaps the worst practitioners of genocide that ever walked the hills of Edom.

      Article III: The following acts shall be punishable: . . . (d) Attempt to commit genocide; link to

      There is no requirement for a criminal regime to succeed in its efforts.

      In the recent debate between scholars, published in the Journal of Genocide Research, regarding the crimes committed in connection with the founding of the State of Israel, it was agreed by both sides that Israel had engaged in illegal, forceable population transfer or "ethnic cleansing". The only real question was whether it also constituted attempted genocide or the crime of genocide. link to

      The FRUS records the fact that Israeli officials demonstrated the necessary means rea, when they refused to allow the victims to return to their homes, even after they were advised that many of the refugees would die by winter if they remained in the camps where only inadequate supplies of food and shelter were available.

      A report on international criminal law and the defense of the rights of indigenous peoples issued by the UN Special Rapporteur discusses “cultural genocide” (aka politicide & etc.) consisting of acts that are included in the definition of the crime of genocide in the international convention. He discusses the fact that the use of the term “ethnic cleansing” has been a tactic to avoid responsibility for genocide in some past cases:

      The recent tendency to define as “ethnic cleansing” policies that could prove to be genocidal under the definition of “genocide” established in international law has been a way of escaping responsibility, and even of fostering impunity. “Ethnic cleansing” may be the ideal term for journalistic and even scientific purposes because of its emotional content, but its ineffectiveness makes it a poor choice in the field of law. The same may be said of “ethnocide” and “cultural genocide” as fully separate terms distinct from “genocide” as defined in criminal law. Use of one or both of these expressions is frequently a way of circumventing the legal effects of use of the word “genocide” even in the face of the evidence.

      Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term genocide, specifically included reduced caloric rations, starvation, and brutal acts that resulted in mass flights and emigration to neighboring states in his definition of life threatening acts that constitute Genocide. The International Criminal Court guidelines on "Elements of Crimes", "Genocide by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction" explains that:

      The term “conditions of life” may include, but is not necessarily restricted to, deliberate deprivation of resources indispensable for survival, such as food or medical services, or systematic expulsion from homes.

      See page 9 footnote 4 link to
      Those descriptions match the conditions from U.S. State Department reports regarding the hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees:

      They are destitute of any belongings, are without adequate shelter, medical supplies, sanitation and food. Their average daily ration, made up exclusively of bread, is only 600 calories. Once the rainy season commences and winter sets in, tragedy on the largest scale will be inevitable unless relief is forthcoming.
      Thus far the Provisional Government of Israel has refused to admit the Arab refugees to their former homes, which have in some cases been destroyed by fighting, and in others preempted by Jewish immigrants.

      link to

      Plan Dalet reveals that the destruction of homes was premeditated and that the crime of wanton destruction was aggravated by plans to plant anti-personnel mines in the debris.

      From the very outset, officials realized that relief efforts would not be able to provide all the refugees with adequate supplies of protective clothing, food, water, or shelter in time and that many would sucumb if they weren't allowed to quickly return to their homes and the properties that provided their normal sources of shelter and sustenance. One US official remarked:

      Meanwhile, winter approaches and plight refugees grows worse not better. If aid does not come soonest and in liberal quantities, nature will solve problem which man apparently cannot.

      link to
      Other US officials reported that the Jewish Foreign Minister, Shertok, showed evidence of a "swelled-head" when he advised the UN Mediator that Israel would not admit the refugees. He changed his tune after the UNSCOP hearing and now said there was no room for Arabs since their space was needed for Jewish immigrants. Shertork also said that in any event, the government reserved right to replace them with Jews from Arab countries who had expressed a desire to come to Palestine. link to

      There is no doubt at all that the General Assembly, which authored the Genocide Convention in the first place, also condemned the Sabra and Shatila camp massacres of Palestinian refugees and declared them to be an example of the crime of genocide. See the text of Resolution 37/123 Part D “The Situation in the Middle East”.

      The Secretary General's and Special Rapporteur's report contained in the 1,000 page UN dossier prepared for the ICJ Wall case noted that walled-off enclaves had been denied adequate supplies of food and water, while their crops withered and died unharvested in their fields. The written statements from several of the interested state parties, including Lebanon, noted that Israel had committed all of the constituent acts of apartheid, including those that the preamble of the Apartheid Convention associate with the crime of genocide:

      “The construction of the wall and the resulting situation correspond to a number of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, as enumerated in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the General Assembly on 30 November 1973: that is to say, the denial of the liberty and dignity of a group, the deliberate imposition on a group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part, measures calculated to deprive a group of the right to work, the right to education and the right to freedom of movement and residence, the creation of ghettos, the expropriation of property, etc. Such actions constitute measures of collective punishment.”

      -- link to

      Likewise the Goldstone report noted the blockade and the deliberate destruction of the Gaza community's sources of sustenance and stated that a competent court could reasonably conclude it was an example of collective punishment and the crime of persecution. The ICRC and UN treaty monitoring bodies have declared that the Gaza blockade is an illegal form of collective punishment. There have been reliable reports, including one from The Lancet, which illustrate that one direct result of the blockade is that a statistically significant proportion of the population exhibited signs of malnutrition, including stunted growth of children; permanent developmental disabilities; and shortened life expectancy. See:
      Gaza’s Stunted Growth Problem link to
      ICRC – Gaza closure: not another year! link to

    • Because the main subject of this blog is Israel not Syria.

      Oh I think that Syria is part of the War of Ideas on the Middle East, these individuals are just trolling this thread to change the subject from the Nakba and Deir Yassin.

      I've commented elsewhere about the real double standard. @Anti-BDS, see Larry Derfner, “The world’s blatant double standard – in Israel’s favor”, and stop acting so clueless: link to

      Some of those Syrian casualties were the result of Israel's on-going war of aggression against Syria. Netanyahu has the bizarre idea that it's legal to launch air strikes against neighboring states to prevent them from obtaining conventional anti-aircraft defense systems. See: Israel says will act to prevent S-300 missile systems from becoming operational: Netanyahu tells European foreign ministers that if the Russian missile systems get into Syria, Israel's 'entire airspace will become a no-fly zone' and therefore it 'cannot stand idly by.'
      link to

      That obviously violates the UN Charter and Netanyahu should be prepared to defend those actions in a criminal court.

      Using the same logic, neighboring countries would have the right to launch attacks against Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. warehouse and manufacturing facilities and the deployed elements of the Iron Dome System.

    • Hostage. Why are you focusing on 250 people many of whom were armed being killed in a war 66 years ago but not focus on 200,000 people being killed in Syria including many Palestinians???? #DoubleStandard

      You are engaging in dishonest whataboutery. I've always advocated that any party to an armed conflict should be prosecuted for any alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity and be ready to defend their actions. I've complained here about crimes committed by heads of state including Blair, Bush, Obama and offers of amnesty or exile for other guilty heads of state, including Assad, al-Bashir, Taylor, Gaddafi, et al. See for example:
      * link to
      * link to
      * link to
      * link to

      I happen to support Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, and the Center for Constitutional Rights. FYI, I've commented on all of these issues in the past, as well as the subjects of the criminality of transferring prisoners outside the occupied territories for internment at Guantanamo Bay; the criminality of signature drone strikes and targeted assassinations; and a host of other issues that would probably go over your head.

    • I think many people draw a distinction between driving people out and massacring them. And I would agree that the offence against individuals is somewhat less. But we still have a genocide,

      I've commented on that, because it can be a misconception. The ICC lists the act of systematically driving a population from their homes as one of the elements of the crime of genocide. The FRUS documents the fact that Israeli officials deliberately refused to allow refugees to return to their homes and sources of sustenance, even after it became clear that many would otherwise become weakened and die of exposure during the winter.

      Plan Dalet envisioned destruction of hundreds of thousands of homes and planting booby traps in the debris. General Jodl was hanged for destroying 30,000 homes. So I think there is ample evidence of genocidal intent.

    • As is always the case…thank you Hostage

      Thank you. I'd pay MW for the privilege of hanging out here with all of you, even if the articles weren't included in the bargain;-)

    • Thousands of Arabs are dying in Syria and South Sudan. Where’s the outrage on behalf of those truly[sic] suffering? - - By Norman Podhoretz

      Sometimes the system just works without any outrage:
      * Time- The International Criminal Court is compiling evidence of possible recent war crimes in southern Sudan, allegedly directed by Sudanese Defense Minister Abdelrahim Mohamed Hussein, the same man whom a prosecutor at the court wants to apprehend for alleged crimes eight years ago in Darfur. An internal ICC memo outlines the Darfur crimes and says Hussein is "currently central to the commission of similar crimes," now along the border between the North and South, including the killings of thousands of civilians. -- link to
      * The UNHRC Commission of Inquiry on Syria recommended a referral of the situation in Syria to the ICC (A/HRC/25/65). It has also heard from many States, from all regions, including: Austria, Botswana, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Honduras, Ireland, Lithuania, Maldives, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA who are adamant that the situation in Syria should be referred to the ICC. Many of them have expressed a willingness to conduct their own criminal proceedings at the national level if they can obtain custody of the suspects. President Obama has asked for an AUMF and Netanyahu has carried out several bombing missions in Syria.

    • Maybe because nothing with regards to Palestine resembles genocide.

      The conduct and public statements made by Israeli officials during the 1948 war and during Cast Lead more than satisfy the required mens rea and the elements of the offense of incitement to commit genocide and the crime of genocide itself. German courts and the ECHR have upheld convictions for the crime of genocide in cases involving as few as 11 murder victims, e.g. Joric v German link to

    • No serious Zionist whitewashes the events at Deir Yassin.

      Except for the ignoramuses here who try to deny that Plan Dalet contained explicitly step-by-step instructions to encircle, attack, and ethnically cleanse Arab population centers and who deny IDF accounts which say that the inhabitants scrupulously observed the terms of a non-aggression pact with their Jewish neighbors.

    • It isn’t Nakba denial to state accurately that Deir Yassin, overlooking the main road into Western Jerusalem, was occupied by irregulars and participated in belligerency, partly condoned by inhabitants.

      In 1986, the ‘Maarachot’, a publication of the Israel Defense Army Press in Tel Aviv, said that didn't happen. The contemporary accounts of the Lehi Journal ‘Ma’as’ in 1948 also claimed the inhabitants had not violated their non-aggression agreement with their Jewish neighbors, e.g. link to

    • “Plan Dalit” (sic) was in no way an ethnic cleansing program. Read it.

      I have. I take it you have no military training or formal education on the subject of the laws and customs of land warfare. The plan explicitly called for terror operations in cities and probes or unprovoked attacks against Arab population centers, and in the cases of those which defended themselves, it required that the inhabitants be driven beyond the borders of the Hebrew State.

      It also amounts to a plan for a war of aggression against the Arab state by a fifth column working in tandem with the militias of the Jewish state. The explicit objectives were to gain control of the territory in and around the Jewish settlements in the Arab state, in order to allow the settlements freedom of military activity. That was to be accomplished by destroying or occupying legitimate Arab defense installations located inside the Arab state through the use of unprovoked attacks. At the time this was all happening the Jewish militias were under an obligation contained in resolution 181(II) to only use military force for internal security and to prevent border clashes. The resolution recited the prohibition against the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of "any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations".

      This portion of Plan Dalet can only be described as an operational plan for premeditated ethnic cleansing:

      4. Mounting operations against enemy population centers located inside or near our defensive system in order to prevent them from being used as bases by an active armed force. These operations can be divided into the following categories:

      Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.

      Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state.

      The villages which are emptied in the manner described above must be included in the fixed defensive system and must be fortified as necessary.

      -- link to

    • And will the Arabs ever admit there were Arab combatants and soldiers in Dier Y that were firing on the Jewish fighters, killing several, and putting a slightly different spin on this supposedly totally unprovoked attack?

      It really shouldn't matter, since everyone has a right to self defense once they are attacked and Deir Yassin, where the Jewish forces were operating illegally, wasn't even located in the territory allocated to the Jewish State. But your version of events has even been refuted by historical IDF sources. So this claim is rubbish and Nakba denial.

      Lets look at what the 1986 account in the ‘Maarachot’, a publication of the Israel Defense Army Press in Tel Aviv, and the contemporary Lehi Journal ‘Ma’as’, that appeared three weeks before the attack on the village, and see what both had to say about the nature of the village. They both documented the fact that the village had driven off several groups of Arab belligerents and scrupulously observed the terms of a non-aggression pact with their Jewish neighbors. There was no reason at all to attack it, other than the desire for conquest and a request for revenge from someone's father on account of an old score that he wanted settled:

      At the beginning of April, the Haganah carried out Operation Nachshon, with the participation of about 1,500 troops. The Lehi and Etzel (Irgun) commanders in Jerusalem, Mordehai Raanan and Joshua Zettler, whose units had not been active for several weeks, met and decided to attack Deir Yassin.41 Operation Nachshon had created a precedent because Haganah units had begun conquering territories and taking them over. The Etzel and Lehi were unable to carry out a large scale operation. The commanders in Jerusalem were afraid that the two organizations would become isolated and inactive in the light of the Haganah activities, so they decided to join forces in a relatively large operation that would keep them in the picture.

      Zettler proposed to attack and conquer the village of Shuaffat and Sheikh Jerach. Yehoshua Goldshmidt (Gal) the Etzel operations officer who lived in Givat Shaul next to Deir Yassin, proposed to attack Deir Yassin. Ophir* gives these reasons for the proposal, " Gal’s father, Reb Joseph Tzvi Goldshmidt, a Jewish ritual slaughterer (shochet) in Givat Shaul, was famous in his youth as a brave warrior against the Arab rioters from adjacent Deir Yassin...Goldshmidt learned from his father to be a soldier and also got his inspiration to fight the Arab village from him. This village had frequently endangered the lives of the inhabitants of the neighborhood in which he grew up. When he returned to Jerusalem in 1948, the old shochet reminded his son to "remember what Deir Yassin did to us. "

      Deir Yassin was situated on a hill overlooking the Motza-Kastel area and the Roman road from lower Motza to Jerusalem. Its location gave it a certain importance in ensuring security to the north and west or as a base for attacks in Givat Shaul and Beit Hakerem, as well as a link connecting the Arab villages in the south of the city with those to the north and west.

      However, the people of Deir Yassin were interested in keeping out of the battles, and reached an agreement with their neighbors in Givat Shaul to maintain neighborly relations and to prevent infiltration of the members of the gangs {Palestinian irregulars} into Deir Yassin. The agreement was passed to district headquarters by the Hagana intelligence Service on Jan 20th {1948} for approval. Communications arrangements were made whereby the people of Deir Yassin would inform the Hagana about movements of outsiders in the area, and likewise arrangements were made to allow vehicles from the village to pass through Givat Shaul.

      The situation of Deir Yassin following the agreement was similar to that of Abu Ghosh, which was not taken by our forces during the War of Independence. The inhabitants of Deir Yassin fulfilled the agreement scrupulously.

      On the night of January 11th an Arab gang tried to set up a base in the village mill. The people of Deir Yassin opposed this entry with force. In the exchange of fire the son of the miller was killed. The inhabitants called the police and in the end the attempt of the gang to hold the place was frustrated.45 On the 27th of the January a force {belonging to} Abdel-Khader {Abdel Khader El-Husseini Suleiman} tried to enter the village. Again the village people resisted the encampment of the force in their twon, and the gang left in the direction of Beth Jallah.46 On March 30th there was a report that 150 troops, mostly Iraqi and Syrian, had entered Deir Yassin, and that the villagers were leaving. The Arab command pressured the villagers to agree to the presence of the troops, but gave up in the face of the determined resistance of the inhabitants. {A.I. - This must be compared with the text of the ZOA report, and Uri Milstein, which mentions only the fact that the troops entered - not that they left} On the 7th of April, two days before Deir Yassin was attacked by Etzel and Lehi, the Haganah Intelligence Service announced that three days previously there had been a meeting in Ein Kerem {Arab village} between the elders of both villages, in which Kemal Erikat, Abdel-Khader’s deputy, participated. He proposed to bring foreign troops into the villages to strengthen them. The elders of Deir Yassin rejected the proposal and said that peaceful relations were in effect with their Jewish neighbors, and they did not want to break the peace .

      The revisionist organization were well acquainted with the existence of the agreement. In the Lehi Journal ‘Ma’as’ that appeared three weeks before the attack on the village, we find "The elders of the Arab village of Deir Yassin approached the leaders of Givat Shaul and asked to conclude a non-aggression pact. The agreement has been kept to date." Contrarily, the Lehi people claimed afterwards that the village was an active nest of terrorists, that Deir Yassin served as a base for attacks on Jewish neighborhoods in the city,

      and that among the dead there were also Syrians and Iraqis who were encamped in the village. All of these claims had no factual basis whatever.

      -- link to

  • 'Poof' -- Kerry blames Israel for breakdown of talks (Updated)
    • Citing Palestinian figures, Israel estimates this is the sum of annual Palestinian aid provided to their prisoners in Israeli jails convicted of violence, including lethal attacks.

      John McCain and the other American POWs were certainly given back pay and promotions by our government for carrying out lethal attacks. The same principle applied to Gilad Shalit, who was captured in 2006, while serving as a member of tank crew. Those units fired thousands of rounds per month into Gaza during his period of service, e.g. Amos Harel, May 14, 2006 "IDF has fired more than 5,100 shells at Gaza in six weeks" link to

    • Please list the EU members who have recognized Palestine as a state.

      All of the EU countries that either voted for Palestine's full membership in UNESCO or to upgrade its status to that of a UN member state dummy. Remember that some of these same countries and the US have spent years quibbling over which particular rule of procedure they employ to invite Palestine to participate in Security Council discussions, in order to avoid inadvertently extending official recognition of its statehood.

      § 204 of the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States explains that, under customary law, the fact the United States is a member of an international organization to which another state that it does not recognize is also member, doesn't imply any recognition. But if the United States votes to admit an entity to membership in an organization open only to states or as a state party, then that does constitute official recognition.

      Unless you were living in a cave, the online press were all over that story at the time.

    • I thought it was obvious I was referring to Livni’s contention that Uri Ariel derailed the peace talks but apparently not.

      The tag line of the article you cited says that she thinks Abbas is not a partner for peace. Let's face it, Livni is the chief negotiator. So she agreed to kick the can down the road another ten years on ending the occupation, by demanding a continued IDF presence in the Jordan Valley, with the sole option to renew reserved by the Israeli side. These talks have merely been talks about talks, with no substance.

    • Anybody who reads between the lines can see that the unwillingness of the Arabs to accept Israel as a Jewish state is the fundamental blocker and these other ‘poof’ issues are mere sideshows.

      No one has to read between the lines to know that is a racist demand, when 1 in 5 citizens of Israel are non-Jews. Right on cue, the dimwitted bigots advanced their racist and xenophobic education bill and the Basic Law: The National Home, which denies non-Jews the right of self-determination and equality under the law - smack in the middle of Kerry's talks:
      * A Jewish and undemocratic bill: A new bill wants to direct schools to strengthen the concept of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.
      link to
      * Basic Law: National Home link to
      * Jewish and then democratic: The appointment of Prof. Ruth Gavison to oversee Israel's Jewish element becoming more important than its democratic nature is a classic Tzipi Livni move link to

      That's when Kerry testified to Congress that it had been a mistake to endorse that demand. The so-called Palestine Papers highlighted the fact that demanding recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is considered a form of incitement by the Palestinians, who feel it is prohibited under the terms of the Quartet Road Map:

      …Then Obama brought up incitement. . . .We should prepare for them a file on who is actually inciting. The demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is incitement. [To the NSU] Look very carefully at incitement. Bring as much evidence as possible on Israeli incitement against us, including legislation, speeches, books …

      See “Meeting Minutes: Saeb Erekat with (PLO) Negotiations Support Unit on US Meetings” link to June 2, 2009
      See also:
      * Coalition pact calls for bill making Israel Jewish first, democratic second
      link to and
      * Scrap the so-called Jewish state law: Israel must set borders within which it has a Jewish majority and move to integrate its Arab citizens.
      link to

    • I am saying that betting all the farm on the lawyerly side (PA, state, puppets and their acrobatics, Abbas, etc.) only goes that far and the breaking point is at the door, to mix metaphors like a Friedman.

      But I think that's the plan Abbas has envisioned all along. If the PA and UN bids do not serve their ultimate purpose and end the occupation and establish the state, he will turn the reigns of government back over to Israel as the occupying power and demand citizenship and the vote. At his age, he's not going to get another shot at this, and has said the Israelis will have to deal with his successor if the plan fails. If there is no court for the Palestinians, and sanctions are applied to punish them for exercising their rights, then the PLO will endorse a South African-style BDS movement that targets Israel proper for equal rights.

    • Palestine is a state? OK. It still doesn’t have a vote at the UN, still is corrupt, still is divided with one half run by a terrorist organization, and still isn’t recognized by the West.

      If you need directions to "the West" just ask the 14 EU countries that voted to adopt the resolution to upgrade Palestine's observer status to that of a non-member state. See EU divided in UN vote on Palestine's status link to

      Israel's previous President and Prime Minister have been found guilty of serious crimes and the current Foreign Minister was investigated for money laundering and corrupt appointments. There have been plenty of others jailed, like Aryeh Deri and Omri Sharon. Does that mean Israel isn't a state yet?

      I see that you didn't get the updated hasbara CliffsNotes about what that upgraded status entailed:

      Delegates at the U.N. General Assembly applauded enthusiastically on Monday as the Palestinian representative to the world body for the first time cast a vote on behalf of the “State of Palestine.”

      The vote itself – for a judge to serve on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) – was a relatively minor one . . .

      -- link to

      UNESCO is "at the UN", so Palestine does have a vote in at least one agency where the USA and Israel DO NOT: U.S., Israel lose UNESCO voting right in dispute over Palestinians link to

      FYI, The Cook Islands is a member state of the ICC, but still doesn't have observer status or a vote in the UN General Assembly.

      I can acknowledge that 134 countries recognize the State. The reality on the ground is that it is not a state yet.

      A/RES/67/19 Status of Palestine in the United Nations was adopted on 29 November 2012 by 138 votes to 9 with 41 abstentions. link to

    • would you consider doing an overview of what universal jurisdiction (if that’s the right phrase) means and where it’s applicable?

      See Amnesty International's "Universal Jurisdiction: A Preliminary Survey Of Legislation Around The World – 2012, Update" link to

    • In this case the biggie is Israel’s renege on the prisoner exchange deal that got this round of process going in the first place. EVERYONE understands what that means. It’s not subtle. Not subtle at all.

      Let's not forget the statements from Cabinet ministers that there will never be a Palestinian state; the vote of approval on the first reading of the bill to unilaterally annex the Jordan Valley; the passage of the bill requiring a super majority in the Knesset/national referendum on transfer and withdrawal from so-called Israeli territory; and the threat from Bennett that he would leave the coalition if Kerry's framework was merely placed on the Knesset agenda for discussion.

    • Abbas is as stupid as netanyahu.

      Well then, since he isn't playing tri-dimensional chess against a grand master, he only has to engage in a simple battle of tit for tat. Abbas and the PLO have repeatedly stated, that if the stalemate and settlement construction continues, and they are denied independence, they will give Israel the keys to the Muqata and demand citizenship in Israel and the right to vote. Things may even be going according to plan.

    • We do at least have some visible strength in the slightly unreal worlds of academic and student politics. But that is enough to worry people.

      I don't think the 15 treaties are academic at this point. Palestine either has the legal and customary right to provide assistance to its citizens in Israeli and other foreign prisons under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations or the Third Geneva Convention on POWs. See for example:
      * UK Supreme Court Rejects Jack Goldsmith’s Interpretation of GC IV. link to
      * Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) link to

      It was academic back in 1989. Prof L.C. Green noted then, that Israel had refused to recognize the Palestinian militias as privileged combatants, because the government of Jordan had declared them illegal. But he noted that that decision would no longer apply once the Declaration Establishing the State of Palestine had been issued and the PLO had acceded to the Geneva Conventions. During Cast Lead, Israeli war planners claimed they targeted the Gaza Police force because they were a uniformed militia. When you invade an urban area, the laws of war allow the local militia to defend the place. The Goldstone report noted that Hamas fighters wore camouflage uniforms and headbands. At some point in the near future the other High Contracting parties and the ICC will have to deal with the status of the 7,000 Palestinians that have been illegally deported out of the occupied territories to prisons in Israel. link to

      That is a widespread and systematic violation of both the 3rd Geneva Convention and the 4th Geneva Convention and it is also a war crime according to the Rome Statute. The responsible Israeli authorities include the members of the Knesset and the Supreme Court. The Israeli High Court of Justice (HCJ) rejected a petition to order the State to refrain from holding Palestinian prisoners and detainees in facilities located in Israeli territory within the Green Line. See HCJ Rejects Petition against Holding Detained Palestinians in Israeli Territory [HCJ 2690/09] [28.3.2010] link to

      Reports say that Abbas is reaffirming the signature or ratifying Palestine's accession to the Civilian and POW Conventions with the ICRC. For its own part, the ICRC had already taken notice of the UNESCO vote granting Palestine the status of a full member state and the fact that Palestine had deposited an accession to The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 1954.
      link to

      Around that same time, it updated the map showing the state parties to the four Geneva conventions and the two additional protocols, which indicated that Palestine as already a party to those Conventions, before Abbas signed anything last week. link to

    • @Hostage – The lawyerly part of it notwithstanding, to have a Palestinian state you need independence and an army.

      Propaganda aside, statehood is simply a legal status conferred on one country by another. The Palestinians already have a state that 138 UN member countries recognize, despite the Israeli occupation and illegal colonization.

      Hungary and the Baltic states didn't cease to exist, as states, simply because they were invaded or occupied. There have always been armies and militias without states; states without armies or militias; and a long list of occupied states with their own armies.

    • Mondoweiss commenters call me a hasbarist, but I’m actually pleased with Kerry’s comment b/c he’s proven Tzipi Livni right

      Livni is spouting hasbara, about Abbas not being a partner for peace. She's just angry that the other ministers have spoiled her efforts to drag out the talks about the talks for another year. If Abbas keeps it up, and gets the ICC to investigate, she may have to cancel her travel plans.

    • If UN support were enough to get the Palestinians a state, they would have had it already (besides the one they’ll have in Jordan when and if the monarchy falls). And of course, the Americans bankroll both sides.

      The big hurdle is getting into the treaty bodies, trade organizations, and the international courts, not the UN political organs. Article 2 of the UN Charter protects member and non-member states alike. But treaty bodies, trade organizations, and international courts can put sanctions in place.

    • Yeah. Much worse than today. It didn’t dilute the support Israel has in Congress or with the American public.

      It obviously did, because Congress went along with the President on the question of loan guarantees, not Shamir.

    • James Baker and President Bush I were just as harsh in their criticism, and nothing came of it in the end.

      You're all wet as usual. Bush forced Shamir to choose between loan guarantees for absorption of Russian immigrants or illegal settlement expansion.

  • Because Rep. Jones voted 'present' on Israel aid, lobby group runs attack ad with burning flag
    • Jones has been a profile in courage with respect to neoconservatism. Heturned against the Iraq war because he had to write letters to the families of fallen soldiers, and had lost the ability to try and justify the loss as a gain for national security.

      I've commented in the past, that sadly, Iraqi deaths didn’t seem to bother Jones too much. The President signed Walter Jones’ “War Crimes Act” into law on August 21, 1996 which finally provided enabling legislation for the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

      Ironically, Jones subsequently came to the defense of his constituent Lt. Pantano who had shot two prisoners to death after ordering them to search their own car. They began speaking Arabic to one another, supposedly arousing Pantano’s suspicion. Tellingly, Pantano left a sign on the car above the corpses that said, “No better friend, No worse enemy”.

      Jones introduced House Resolution 167 which expressed the support of the House of Representatives for Pantano and called on President Bush to support Pantano’s actions.

  • In Ramallah, Palestinian Authority cracks down on Salafi anti-negotiation protests
    • But to the PA stability is sacrosanct, and these marches too were brutally repressed.

      The General Assembly has adopted resolutions that required the PA to arrest those who plan armed attacks, not peaceful demonstrators. The State of Palestine just signed on to all of the major human rights conventions and will have to explain what steps it is taking to implement their provisions and end abuses, like this. State responsibility for wrongful acts comes along with the exercise of state's rights.

  • Friedman says Iran's friends include BDS and Jews in Open Hillel movement
    • oh please this is a bunch of garbage.

      Yeah, it's yet another installment from JeffB's Fractured Fairy Tales/Peabody's Improbable History series. As usual, it doesn't come with citations to any third-party verifiable sources, e.g. :

      David Kimche, the director general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, meets secretly with National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane to advise him that Israel may be able to use its influence with Iran to engineer the release of American hostages currently held by Hezbollah. Kimche’s outreach is the final piece in the complex arms-for-hostage deal between the US, Israel, and Iran. ['Murray Waas and Craig Unger, “In the Loop: Bush's Secret Mission,”New Yorker, 2 November 1992.)"] Israel is a logical conduit for arms to Iran, as it has been selling arms to Iran periodically since 1979, originally as part of its efforts to get Iran to allow Iranian Jews to emigrate to Israel. Like the US, Israel hopes to gain influence with Iranian moderates who will presumably take power after the aged, ailing Islamist radical Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini dies. (Earlier attempts to sell US-made arms to Iran had been blocked by the Carter administration.) According to Israeli sources, this Israeli offer began with a group of Israeli businessmen informing Prime Minister Shimon Peres in early July that they had been in contact with Iranian officials, and thought they could facilitate an arrangement to swap US arms for American hostages. The Israelis say that the US point man for the deal is John Poindexter, the deputy national security adviser, and Poindexter tapped National Security Council aide Oliver North to be the US liaison to Israel. Peres quickly authorized the Israeli businessmen to resume their contacts with the Iranians, and the businessmen contacted Saudi arms merchant Adnan Khashoggi. Khashoggi obtained a long list of desired military equipment from the Iranians, including Hawk antiaircraft missiles and radar-guidance equipment for them, antitank missiles, and spare parts for jet fighters. ['George Church, “The US and Iran,” Time, 17 November 1986.']

      -- Profile on Shimon Peres link to

  • US is 'absolutely adamant' that Palestine not go to ICC and wreck the peace process -- Power
    • What was the insurrection in Jerusalem that you are referring to? Was it a revolt against the British in 1947?

      It was a terror campaign perpetrated jointly by the Jewish Agency, Irgun, and Lehi that began before the UNSCOP hearings. There was a brief intermission, and after the UN decision on the question, it was resumed again. None of the participants ever accepted the internationalization of Jerusalem. It included the bombings of the King David Hotel, the Semiramis Hotel, movie theaters, market places, attacks on the Arab quarter, Deir Yassin, and other targets in Jerusalem or the Jerusalem district (Corpus Separatum).

    • He then says Deir Yassin was a needed event to achieve a majority, but avoids the issue of whether they could have just kept their normal majority in the 1947 lines without the Deir Yassin incident. But why does he condemn Deir Yassin then n p. 514?

      That's an example of pilpul, using "odd" or "strange" arguments that come "out of left field" in order to turn the tables on others. By the time he finished re-framing the debate, he had segued into blaming the Arabs and the victims for the state of necessity and assigning a share of the blame on his political adversaries in the Revisionist wing of the Zionist movement for unwisely trying to "bite-off more than they could chew".

      He was being deceitful, of course, since the Haganah had assisted the Irgun's attack on Deir Yassin. It was located in the Corpus Seperatum and Ben Gurion himself had instructed Moshe Sneh not to interfere with the Irgun or Lehi when the Jerusalem revolt originally started. The Haganah was up to their eyeballs in acts of terror, like the bombing of the Semiramis Hotel.

      During an earlier debate on the subject, Ben Gurion was berating Begin and claiming credit for averting the danger to the State of Israel presented by the Altalena Affair and for putting an end to the armed insurrection in Jerusalem. The former Haganah Commander, Moshe Sneh, interrupted Ben Gurion and reminded him he was complicit in the insurrection in Jerusalem: “You sent me the cable not to harm the IZL!”. MK G. Meyer responded by threatening him (ala Anat Kam/Uri Blau) : “Moshe Sneh, don’t threaten us with publication!” — See the Minutes of the 8th Sitting of the First Knesset, 8 March 1949, in Netanel Lorach, “Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981″ Volume 2, JCPA/University Press, 1993, page 445. link to

    • I read just fine, thank you very much. The comment was about Ms. Power being the voice of “Jewish money”. N’est pa?
      Your knee-jerking again looks rather silly.

      Apparently you can't read in either English or French. All of those "charities" and major tax-exempt organizations that are spending $28 billion on Israel and lining up the big bundlers for Ms. Power's boss, identify themselves using the term "Jewish" in the names of their organizations, not "Zionist". It's perfectly okay to discuss that fact and it brings nothing but discredit upon you to suggest that it's an anti-semitic trope.

    • There is a recent empirical by an Italian scholar, which actually looks interesting:

      Danilo di Mauro, The UN and the Arab-Israeli Conflict American Hegemony and UN Intervention since 1947

      Thanks, I'll take a look. I ran into Lorenzo Kamel recently at Opinio Juris. He is another Italian, who is a visiting fellow at Harvard University's Center for Middle Eastern Studies. We have been busy filing one another's inboxes with research on various aspects of the subject ever since. I highly recommend anything he's written. Google is your friend until I can assemble a list of links.

    • Start with the PA’s simulacrum statehood status, continue with Israel’s non-membership, and proceed to the ICC’s own jurisdictional issues (limitations, intervening in the affairs of a state that has a competent judiciary, etc.). Suppose all these are cleared away and both principals are aboard.

      Just to straighten you out:
      1) Israel didn't even enjoy simulacrum statehood status during WW-II and Eichmann didn't commit any crimes in its territorial jurisdiction. The Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law that was employed to prosecute him wasn't even adopted until 1950. Comparatively speaking, Palestine faces fewer legal hurdles or objections. The bottom line is that any state government can grant its own courts universal jurisdiction, but Palestine has both universal and territorial jurisdiction.

      2) The Assembly of State Parties that drafted and ratified the Rome Statute, incorporated customary international law by references to: a) "the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict" in Article 8, "War Crimes"; and b) the customary "Definition of Aggression" contained in the annex to General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) in the new consensus amendments to Article 8 bis. The resolution has always contained an explanatory note which stipulates that the term "State" can be employed by any entity without regard to recognition by others or UN membership.

      3) 138 members of the UN General Assembly, including a majority of the ICC member states, formally recognized the statehood of Palestine after President Abbas announced that he wanted upgraded states in order to pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter in order to pursue claims against Israel in the Courts and treaty bodies.

      4) There is no problem regarding an intervention in the affairs of the State or courts of Israel, since the international court would only be prosecuting crimes that are subject to the ICC statute in cases where they have been committed on the territory of Palestine or another member state, since July of 2002. Israel has long-since admitted in writing that the occupied territories are not subject to its sovereign territorial jurisdiction. See for example:
      *Paragraph 8: CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, 4 December 2001 link to
      * State undecided on whether Basic Law applies to settlers
      link to
      * IDF panel rules West Bank settlers not protected by Basic Law link to

      5) The fact that Israel has prevented the Courts of Palestine from functioning properly or kept its authorities from investigating and obtaining custody of the suspects, actually triggers the complementary jurisdiction of the ICC under the terms of Article 17 of the Rome Statute:

      Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:

      (a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
      In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.
      link to

    • I think you meant “Zionist” money- because “Jewish money” would be antisemitic trope, right?

      Nope, where did you learn to read? Those are "Jewish charities", "Jewish Federations" and self-proclaimed "Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations" that are lobbying Congress, funneling billions to Israel, offset by US taxpayer-supported subsidies and grants to their so-called "communities" (Oriental fiefdoms). Hell, I'm a taxpaying Semite who is sick and tired of illiterate, illogical, deadbeat Jewish racists picking our pockets and draining the treasury. See:
      * 26 Billion Bucks: The Jewish Charity Industry Uncovered
      Part I — Donors Give More to Israel Than to Education link to
      *Uncovering U.S. Jewish charities: Subsidies free up cash for Israel, Jewish charities swell on cash from U.S. government; donors give to Israel. Part two in a three-part series. link to
      * 26 Billion Bucks: Those Jewish Charity Parties? Pricey.
      $95 Million a Year on Fundraising Events link to

    • Ben Gurion opposed the take over of the West bank, but i am having trouble finding much on this except a brief mention that he worried it would lead to binationalism.

      No, he knew perfectly well that it would lead to an Arab majority that would abolish the statutes on Law of Return and Nationality and keep the millions of Jewish immigrants he needed out of the country See “The Armistice Agreements with the Arab States”, in Netanel Lorch (ed), Major Knesset Debates 1948-1981, Vol. 2, JCPA/University of America Press, 1993, and especially his remarks starting on printed page 512 (pdf file page 93 of 186) link to

      That remained the policy or maximalist position of the governing Labor party and it's coalitions regarding the Arab demographic problem. The current US peace talks reflect very little difference between the plans outlined by Abba Eban in 1967 to keep Palestine politically isolated, demilitarized, economically integrated with Israel, and out of the UN, except for a token representative without portfolio. This would all be justified on the basis of Israel's security psychosis:

      442. Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State

      New York, September 23, 1967, 1711Z.

      950. Re: Israeli Views on Middle East.

      In dinner conversation with me Sept 19 Eban outlined current Israeli policy flowing from internal debate during summer and recent series of cabinet meetings. Essential points he made are set out below. Rafael and Harman present on Israeli side, and Sisco, Buffum and Pedersen on US side.

      Eban said most important thing was that they had decided to take current stands on position of security principle rather than on territorial basis and to keep their options open for future negotiations. Implications that their position had hardened since last June was not true, he said. However, if Israel were compelled to state its specific policy publicly at this time they would have to be stated in a maximalist position. Israel's general position was that in the absence of a situation of peace Israel would have to maintain its positions on basis of considerations of national security but in a peace agreement with Arabs they could be in a flexible negotiating position.

      With respect to Egypt, Eban said their idea was that border would follow the international frontier. There would be an international presence in Straits of Tiran to assure freedom of navigation, possibly of major maritime powers in Gulf or something on the shore. There would be a demilitarization of the Sinai. Suez Canal would be open to ships of all nations on basis of “declaratory” assurances (i.e., without some external presence). Demilitarization of Sinai would be assured by some sort of international presence, possibly an enlarged UNTSO type of operation, and possibly including UAR and Israeli troops. Idea of demilitarization of Sinai was difficult to achieve if UAR stayed in Gaza Strip.

      Gaza territory was also security problem for Israel. Israel would like have the territory without the population but did not see how that could come about. He intimated there may even be an exchange of territory along the international frontier in favor of Egypt in return for Gaza Strip going to Israel. He thought Egypt might even be glad to be rid of Gaza Strip. Another possibility apparently under consideration was some form of international authority of Gaza Strip. (Eban noted this had been discussed in 1956 with US and that he had memcon with Dulles in his files about it.)

      On Syria, he said it was hard to contemplate an early peace agreement as long as Syrian Govt retained its present complexion. There had been a discussion of a demilitarization arrangement on Syrian Heights similar to idea re Sinai. Conclusion, however, which he shared, was that this would not be safe and that some territorial adjustments would have to be made.

      Re Jerusalem, the Holy Moslem quarter would create perpetual emotional religious problems as long as it under Israeli control. GOI therefore had in mind arrangement which would put it under Moslem control and sovereignty. Rest of city was now united, and Arab inhabitants were free to travel throughout Israel. There could be some arrangement which would insure free Jordanian access to and participation in economic life of city.

      West Bank presented particularly difficult problems. Incorporation of West Bank into Israel, with its large Arab population, would completely transform Israel's national existence and reason for being. An Israeli demographic expert had estimated that at present rate of population growth this would produce an Arab majority in Israel within 15 years. In any case it would cause a total reshaping of Israeli politics, as Arab votes were sought, and thus produce alterations in structure of Israel that they did not desire. Neither could Arabs be incorporated into Israel without granting them Israeli citizenship. This would not be permitted by international community nor would it be acceptable to Israeli people themselves.

      Eban said they had also given thought to establishment of separate, autonomous Palestinian state on West Bank. This also has serious drawbacks. Days of autonomous dependent regions had really passed. Creation of Palestinian state might simply increase irredentist desires. There would be yet another Arab state on Arab scene. In a year or two it would ask for UN membership, and it would be admitted. Such prospects did not look attractive. On the other hand, now that Israelis for first time had opportunity to visit areas of historic significance to them, it would be difficult for their citizens to understand govt simply turning the area back. Sort of thinking they were therefore thinking of would include two elements: (a) demilitarization of West Bank, with a UN inspection system; and (b) some form of economic, customs or travel arrangements which would permit access to and larger cooperation with the area. He referred to possibility of a free port on Mediterranean for Jordan as a move in same direction. I believe he also had in mind some border adjustments for security purposes, as he referred to Israeli security psychosis resulting from fact entire population was in range of Arab guns but he was not precise about what they might be.

      link to

      Netanyahu, also plays the border adjustments game and recites the security psychosis bullshit about Auschwitz borders, but like Eban, he refuses to be precise about what the map would look like.

    • Power says if the Palestinians go to the ICC they won’t succeed. Surely that isn’t credible.

      If she really believed that they have no chance of success, then the US regime wouldn't be "absolutely adamant" about making it "very, very clear to the Palestinians" that "this is something that really poses a profound threat to Israel."

      I'm pretty certain that Abbas views it as an "all or nothing", last ditch proposition anyway. If the ICC fails to act, the Palestinians can demand Israeli citizenship and the vote with a great deal justification. They will have shown the absolute bankruptcy of the proposition of pursuing negotiations with the UN, the US, and Israel or pursuing legal remedies through either of the international courts.

    • The US is asking the Palestinians to hold off on bringing the war criminals to the ICC in the name of the peace process RIP.

      Of course it is. Israel's raison d'être is to violate international law to bring about the changes it desires or maintain the status quo. An encounter between Israel and the ICC would be like a train wreck.

      See for example, "Israel Pushes To Change International Laws Of War After Damning Gaza Report". At the time, experts agreed that when Netanyahu said he wanted to change the laws of war, it was a tacit admission that Israel had violated them. But there is a general principle of international law of very ancient origin, ex injuria jus non oritur (law does not arise from injustice), which prevents unlawful conduct from leading to any such change in the law.

    • Abbas can only accept jurisdiction for ICC crimes committed on the territory of Palestine. It will be a national Palestinian holiday when Israel joins the ICC, so that he can request prosecution of the crimes committed against Palestine from Israel's territory too.

  • 'NYT' stamps Jimmy Carter 'radioactive' and not 'a force for good'
    • I argued that Camp David was an Israeli / Egyptian accord about Sinai it wasn’t about the Palestinians. You aren’t disagreeing in the above.

      Okay, I'm disagreeing and so are the State Department's Historians:

      Israel rejected Egypt’s insistence on withdrawal, especially from the West Bank and Gaza. It argued instead for some form of Palestinian autonomy during a five-year interim period followed by the possibility of sovereignty after the interim period expired. The impasse over the West Bank and Gaza led Carter to intercede directly in an attempt to resolve the deadlock.
      The talks ranged over a number of issues, including the future of Israeli settlements and airbases in the Sinai Peninsula, but it was Gaza and the West Bank that continued to pose the most difficulty. Specifically, the delegations were divided over the applicability of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 to a long-term agreement in the territories, as well as the status of Israel’s settlements during projected negotiations on Palestinian autonomy that would follow a peace treaty. In the end, while the Summit did not produce a formal peace agreement, it successfully produced the basis for an Egyptian-Israeli peace, in the form of two “Framework” documents, which laid out the principles of a bilateral peace agreement as well as a formula for Palestinian self-government in Gaza and the West Bank.

      -- link to

    • Egypt understood the core of the treaty to be return of the Sinai in exchange for peace.

      Correction: Sadat and Mubarak understood it to mainly be about Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai and negotiating in good faith over Palestinian autonomy. Sadat insisted on the inclusion of those terms of reference. Both men wrote lengthy letters on the subject to Israeli officials too:

      The letter begins by reiterating Egypt’s commitment to peace which Mubarak describes as a “strategic, not merely tactical goal.” There then follows lengthy quotations, mainly in indirect speech, from the March 1979 letter from Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Begin to President Carter pledging to negotiate “in good faith” over Palestinian autonomy. Israeli officials were particularly pleased that Mubarak referred to Camp David as “the only document binding on both our countries,” and affirmed that this was Egypt’s policy “now and it would remain unchanged in the future.”

      Read more: link to

    • "Carter’s sensibilities on negotiating and the Arab-Israeli peace process have basically run off the highway,”

      No he ran off the highway a long time ago when he sent Secretary Muskie to the UN Security Council during his re-election campaign to prevent the adoption of sanctions against Israel over its Basic Law: Jerusalem.

      So I tend to agree. See Carter: Boycott of Israel "too much" link to

      Despite obvious examples of domestic apartheid policies, like the Prawer Plan and discriminatory laws affecting the rights of all non-Jews to equal treatment in the education, housing, and employment sectors, and the fact that the Israeli government headquartered illegally in Jerusalem is responsible for all of the apartheid conditions in the occupied Arab territories, Carter gives Israel a pass and refuses to endorse boycotts aimed at Israel itself. What a wuss.

  • Ultra-Zionists push back as Jewish establishment tacks toward center
    • His description is of his time as an Israeli soldier. What evidence do you have that it’s inaccurate?

      So you have been living in a cave and didn't read about the homes demolished in the Jordan Valley and the Palestinian kids in military custody being left outside in cages during the life threatening winter storm, wherein Netanyahu credited the IDF for its efforts to save Jewish lives? How about the reports of the ICRC and British lawyers about systematic human rights abuses, including torture of children in IDF custody?

      I'm pretty sure you heard about that evidence, and plenty more stories like it, because Kate has a daily collection of them. You are always hanging out here bitching and trolling the threads in the articles written by other contributors wherein the evidence is presented on a daily basis.

    • Well, Phil, regardless of who Hen Mazzig works with, he is a former IDF soldier, and what he says matter, no?

      Troll alert. The claim that it is the IDF's job to protect the Palestinians’ human rights, coordinate humanitarian aid, and tend to the needs of civilians living in the West Bank is perfectly true. The fact that they don't even try and frustrate the efforts of those that do has been the subject of complaints from Comoros with the International Criminal Court, Criminal Courts in Turkey, UN Security Council resolutions, US State Department reports on human rights, the World Bank reports, HRW, AI, and wire service reports about attacks and arrests of EU diplomats attempting to provide tents to families whose homes were demolished, & etc.

  • Oren says Pollard 'sacrificed himself for the Jewish people'
    • Murder has a capital punishment in the US but all states and for that matters countries have murders. Having a big penalty if caught means the state wants to discourage the activity strongly. Frequency is a different question entirely.

      Attempts to rationalize your illogical (and irrational) propositions are underwhelming as usual. Other than a handful of states which either want to remain or become one of the so-called "great powers", most countries do not engage in illegal espionage.

    • I’m not complaining about the treatment Pollard has received. I was saying that Israel’s use of a people like Pollard was normative nothing unusual on Israel’s part.

      You are losing the narrative when you argue that crimes, like espionage, which still carry the risk of capital punishment are normative.

    • And Abbas could not have selected a better group of UN Agencies to rock the boat while not overturning it.

      Israel is simply trying to eat its cake and still have it too. It's also violating its legal obligations, by adopting punitive sanctions against Palestine for the exercise of functions it had transferred to the PA. The ICJ advised that it is NOT allowed to do that (more below).

      The four resolutions adopted by the UNHRC during the recent session referred to "the occupied State of Palestine". All that Abbas did was sign-on to accessions to the UN Human Rights and ICRC International Humanitarian Law Conventions.

      Israel has reported for years that Palestine, not Israel, has legal responsibility for the human rights of the population, whether or not it is a state. It claims that the occupied Palestinian territories are NOT part of Israel's sovereign territory or jurisdiction.

      That's a nonsensical proposition, since only states are bound by the terms of some of the applicable conventions that simply do not apply to non-state actors. The International Law Commission has noted that the only tangible manifestation of sovereignty is the exercise of territorial jurisdiction, as Israel itself has asserted in its reports. It claims that it is NOT responsible for the human rights of the inhabitants and that the PA has the jurisdiction and responsibilities. Its own Oslo Accords explicitly stipulated that the Palestinian Council exercises territorial jurisdiction. In addition, there is no longer any doubt that the PA represented a State. The majority of UN member states and the General Assembly have long-since recognized Palestine's 1988 Declaration of Independence. Here is how Israel described the situation:

      Applicability of the ICCPR to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip

      8. In its Concluding Observations on Israel’s Initial Report, the Committee questioned Israel’s position regarding the applicability of the Covenant to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Israel has consistently maintained that the Covenant does not apply to areas that are not subject to its sovereign territory and jurisdiction. This position is based on the well-established distinction between human rights and humanitarian law under international law. Accordingly, in Israel’s view, the Committee’s mandate cannot relate to events in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, inasmuch as they are part and parcel of the context of armed conflict as distinct from a relationship of human rights.

      Furthermore, pursuant to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement of 1995, and the consequent documentation and undertakings of the Palestine Liberation Organization (P.L.O), the overwhelming majority of powers and responsibilities in all civil spheres (including civil and political rights, as well as a variety of security issues, have been transferred to the Palestinian Council, which in any event is directly responsible and accountable vis-a-vis the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with regard to such issues. In light of this changing reality, and the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Council in these areas, Israel cannot be internationally responsible for ensuring the rights under the ICCPR in these areas.

      The fact that the Palestinian Council does not represent a State, does not, in itself, preclude its responsibility in the sphere of human rights protection. In fact, this is also evident under Article XIX of the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, according to which the Palestinians have taken it upon themselves to exercise their powers and responsibilities “with due regard to internationally accepted norms and principles of human rights and the rule of law”. Similarly, under Article II(C)(4) of the Wye River Memorandum, the Palestinian Police is obliged “to exercise its powers and responsibilities with due regard to internationally accepted norms of human rights and the rule of law, and be guided by the need to protect the public, respect human dignity and avoid harassment”.

      -- CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, 4 December 2001 link to

      The ICJ advised that the ICCPR, ICESCR, UNCRC do apply to armed conflicts and occupying powers, and that:

      Furthermore, it [Israel] is under an obligation not to raise any obstacle to the exercise of such rights in those fields where competence has been transferred to Palestinian authorities.

      -- See paragraphs 77 and 112. link to

    • OK great well when the rest of the world stops doing it I’ll be sure to condemn Israel if they keep it up.

      The rest of the world expels ambassadors when they are caught violating the law and detain or sentence others prison. If they are lucky, they get exchanged in a swap.

      In the meanwhile the USA spends more than the rest of the world combined and most certainly runs it through embassies so any American has a true hypocrisy problem on this issue.

      People identified as CIA personnel working in US embassies have been abducted and killed. So, there's no room for complaints about the treatment that Pollard has received.

    • “He is the embodiment of a national narrative of the Jew who sacrificed himself for his people,” said Michael B. Oren

      The guy is the embodiment of the greedy, disloyal Jewish sayanim who are paid handsomely by the Israeli government. Oren is a paid professional propagandist who would lie about that situation, even if the truth would serve him better, just to stay in practice. Was Pollard also serving his Jewish "nation" when he offered to sell US secrets to countries other than Israel?

    • Every single ambassador from every single country with an embassy in the United States if approached by a CIA official who wanted to hand over valuable information would bend over backwards and crawl over glass to get it.

      And that would still be illegal under the terms applicable US law and a gross violation of the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic and consular relations.

  • 'A Painful Price': The escalating war on Palestine solidarity at U of Michigan and beyond
    • The Keene court upheld the definition of political propaganda because it reasoned that Keene could simply explain to his audience that the Canadian films he wanted to show were accurate, even if they were distributed by the National Film Board of Canada.

      You seem to be having trouble making your argument (whatever it is). I have no heartburn with Oren speaking in public or in private, so long as his remarks aimed at influencing our government's policies or muzzling critics of Israel are clearly labeled as political propaganda - and his hate speech is not subsidized or shielded from criticism by the state itself, in flagrant violation of our laws and human rights treaty obligations.

    • You got sick and tired because you disagree with him, and like many people who disagree viscerally with a speaker, you’d like to prohibit his speech.

      No that's Oren's tactic: Michael Oren to Congress: Boycott the boycotters
      In op-ed in Washington political magazine, former ambassador suggests US lawmakers could help ‘fight back’ against BDS movement

      Former ambassador to the United States Michael Oren has asked the US Congress to consider withholding government funding for academic institutions that participate in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. link to

      You are fairly stupid troll who likes to misstate the comments made by others here. I could care less if Oren wants to speak in a private venue. I only object to state officials who give him a federally subsidized forum to promulgate racist political propaganda for another country in violation US federal budget laws and UN treaty obligations. Make no mistake, Oren has spilled oceans of ink on propaganda that denies, condones, and trivializes war crimes committed by Zionists against the Palestinian people. He can defend eviction by armed attack and occupation, and policies of apartheid and colonization on his own damn dime.

      There have been countless Supreme Court cases which say that aliens do not have a 1st amendment right to participate in our American polity in order to influence our government's policies, e.g. Bluman v FEC link to So using a state public meeting law to shield him from critics - while silencing them - was, and is preposterous.

    • I’ve read a few peer-reviewed articles arguing that right of return is mandated by international law, but I don’t recall seeing anything about the Res 181 minority protection plan or Eban’s “unqualified acceptance” of Res 194 during the hearings regarding Israel’s membership in the UN. Do you know of any that discuss this? I may try contacting a couple legal scholars to see what they think about this.

      Surely, Prof W. Tom Mallison, of GWU Law School and the US Naval War College co-authored "An International Law Analysis Of The Major United Nations Resolutions Concerning The Palestine Question", with his wife Sallie, a Research Associate, of the International and Comparative Law Program, George Washington University. It has a chapter devoted to "The Plan of Partition with Economic Union", containing a subsection on the Human Rights Provisions which states:

      The legal significance of the human rights provisions is that they do not concede the Zionist claims to establish an exclusivist State.

      -- link to

      Prof. Mallison also testified about Israel's failure to fulfill its constitutional obligations under the minority protection plan in his testimony to the US Senate:

      The problem stems from the refusal of the state of Israel to comply with its obligations under the minority rights agreement to guarantee equal rights and protection under the law in the areas under its jurisdiction. Among these legal obligations, section 10(d) of part IB is particularly important and provides that each of the states to be set up in Palestine shall have a constitution which includes provisions:
      Guaranteeing to all persons equal and nondiscriminatory rights in civil, political, economic, and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly, and association. In most civilized legal systems it is recognized that legal rights may only be exercised conditioned upon compliance with legal duties. The refusal of the State of Israel to comply with the nondiscriminatory requirements of the Palestine partition resolution - its main claim to title - puts in serious jeopardy its claim to legal title to the limited territory allocated to it by the resolution.

      -- See Mallison’s testimony during the Senate hearings on “The Colonization Of The West Bank Territories By Israel”, page 50 link to

      The principle of equality of peoples and self-determination, without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion outlined in Article 1 of the UN Charter does not permit one ethnic group to exclude another indigenous group from the territory in order to establish an ethnically homogeneous State. link to

      The representative of China explained that during the 48th session on Israel's membership application:

      The attitude of the Israeli Government on the repatriation of Arab refugees was far more disturbing. The theory of national homogeneity could not be supported by the United Nations. One of the basic objectives of the United Nations was to create harmony among peoples of different races and cultures so that they could live together in peace.

      - page 9 link to

      I've already cited and quoted a dozen other references, including an ASIL journal article about the LoN criteria for terminating a mandate regime and the report of a UN expert panel with a legal mandate to make determinations about both the sources and the content of the "inalienable rights of the Palestinian people". All of those sources explain that the international community required new states created by the Concert of Europe, the Versailles Peace Conference, the League of Nations, or the UN to accept a minority treaty which dictated the terms of cessions of territory, internal governance, and recognition of statehood. If you had read the verbatim record of the Ad Hoc Political Committee you already heard from a number of legal experts who cited the fact that the minority protection plan did not allow for Israel to drive its Arab inhabitants into exile.

      There isn't a shadow of a doubt that Israel's nationality laws and the uncompensated expropriations of homes for the private use of European Jews violated the explicit terms of the declaration regarding non-discrimination and equal protection under the law.

      For example, during the very first session mention in the footnote of General Assembly resolution 273(III), Mr. Malik spoke first. He cited the fact that the Palestinians had been driven into exile in violation of the guarantees contained in the minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II) :

      The United Nations had certainly not intended that the Jewish State should rid itself of its Arab citizens. On the contrary, section C of part I of the Assembly's 1947 resolution had explicitly provided guarantees of minority rights in each of the two States. For example, it had prohibited the expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State except for public purposes, and then only upon payment of full compensation. Yet the fact was that 90 per cent of the Arab population of Israel had been driven outside its boundaries by military operations, had been forced to seek refuge in neighbouring Arab territories, had been reduced to misery and destitution, and had been prevented by Israel from returning to their homes. Their homes and property had been seized and were being used by thousands of European Jewish immigrants.

      -- link to

      When the representatives of the Jewish Agency said that they "accepted" resolution 181(II), what do you think they understood the sections on "citizenship"; the section on regional economic integration and "right of transit"; the section on "equal rights under the law" for religious groups and minorities; or the sections on succession to existing treaties on boundaries open to grazing, fishing, cultivation, and navigation by members of other ethnic groups to mean?

    • I already said that even if Res 181 were binding on Israel, that doesn’t necessarily imply it mandates right of return, as Res 181 only requires compensation for expropriating Arab land.

      I feel like you are repeating nonsense. Of course the minority treaty is a legal instrument that Eban explicitly accepted. It was included in the 1950 report of the Secretary General on minority legal instruments concluded after WW-II. The ICJ included a reference in its advisory opinion about the chapter from the partition plan among the international guarantees of freedom of movement that safeguarded "existing rights" of the Palestinian people in line with Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin. So it was definitely not limited to the subject of compensation.

      The Penn State Article is pretty unconvincing. The author is trying to make the lame arguement that the Hague rules did not apply to Israel in 1948, because Israel wasn't a party to the convention. But the author admits the United Nations rejected that defense in the Case of the Major War Criminals, in which the Nuremberg tribunal held that by 1939 the rules laid down in the Hague Convention were recognized by all civilized nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war.” Having achieved customary status, they were held to be binding on all states irrespective of whether they were parties to the Convention. The author's attempt to question that precedent, despite the fact that every subsequent international criminal tribunal has upheld it - including the Supreme Court of the State of Israel in its rulings on the 1962 Eichmann case - are simply risible. So are his assertions that the subject matter of the rules are inapplicable.

      An occupying power is prohibited from changing any laws in effect regarding the application of the principles of jus soli and/or jus sanguinis as the relate to family rights. Many countries, including the United States and Mandate Palestine, had laws that were based upon both principles. For example, persons born in Palestine and those born to a Palestinian father traveling or living abroad were automatically considered citizens of Palestine by operation of law. The laws that were in effect during the Mandate were specifically retained by both the governments of Israel and Jordan. That means the Palestinian citizenship of Jewish or Arab refugees was only revoked "retroactively". Neither of the new states occupied all of the territory of the former mandated state of Palestine, so in theory, neither could make a determination that rendered a person "stateless", pending a final territorial settlement.
      In 1832, the US Supreme Court cited the law of nations and addressed the question of whether or not a change in sovereignty alters 1) the legal relationships between the people (e.g. a guardian, an heir, or an assignee; or 2) the ownership of their private property:

      The modern usage of nations, which has become law, would be violated; that sense of justice and of right which is acknowledged and felt by the whole civilized world would be outraged if private property should be generally confiscated and private rights annulled on a change in the sovereignty of the country. The people change their allegiance, their relation to their ancient sovereign is dissolved, but their relations to each other and their rights of property remain undisturbed.

      – United States v. Percheman – 32 U.S. 51 (1832) link to
      The 1914 US Army commentary on the Rules of Land Warfare cited Article 46 of the Hague Convention and a British legal expert who had hailed it as the Magna Carta of international law when it was first adopted (para 314 on pdf page 111). link to
      That expert said it would eventually put an end to ethnic cleansing, while maintaining the personal property and residency rights of individuals and the legal relationship of their family members to one another and to their property in the event of a change of sovereignty or belligerent occupation:

      The Article XLVI secures for the citizen of an occupied territory immunity from material or moral damage at the hands of the
      enemy. It is the bond which war law gives him for the security of his person, property, and religious belief. Perhaps some day in the dim future it will be quoted by those who uninterested in the constitutional law of nations as lovingly and proudly as we quote Magna Charta, with its ringing promise "We will not go against any man, we will not send against any man, save by legal judgment of his peers and the law of the land." To-day, indeed, the Article is "dead from the waist down." So was Magna Charta at first; it was many a weary year before princes and their councillors could be forced to perform what they had promised therein. So, to-day, the provisions of Article XLVI are rather an ideal, a theoretical standard of conduct, than an actual living rule to which the practice of war conforms. Reading the Article, and remembering what does actually happen in war, one is inclined to doubt the utility of a provision which seems to have such little practical effect. Yet, most assuredly, it is a valuable provision. It is valuable to-day and it will be more valuable still in the hands of those who "have got to keep the ferment of the future astir," to use Ibsen's striking phrase. There is yeast in it, as there was in Magna Charta. One is disheartened when one thinks of requisitions, of contributions, of fines, of reprisals, of houses levelled as a measure of tactics, of a whole town emptied as a military precaution (as Sherman emptied Atlanta and Burrows' brigade emptied Kandahar in 1880), of wide provinces cleared of their habitations and crops, of a thousand instances in which the provisions of Article XLVI have conspicuously not been adhered to, in later-day wars.

      -- See J.M. Spaight, "War Rights on Land", MacMillan, 1911, page 374
      link to
      As noted above, the Nuremberg tribunal and the Israeli Supreme Court held that the Hague rules were a deliberate codification of customary laws that were binding on non-signatories - and that all civilized nations had accepted them as such by no later than 1939.

      Furthermore, the Jewish Agency, and the Peoples Council had helped draft resolution 181(II) which stipulated that the Jewish and Arab states could not use threats or force against the territorial integrity of any state and that:

      Any dispute about the applicability and continued validity of international conventions or treaties signed or adhered to by the mandatory Power on behalf of Palestine shall be referred to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.

      link to

      The explicit terms of the boundary treaties of 1920, 1923, and 1926 preserved the existing rights of the inhabitants of Syria Lebanon, and Palestine to continue engaging in fishing, navigation, commerce, and grazing on their ancestral lands on both sides of the new frontiers and the waters of Lakes Huleh, Tiberias and River Jordan. All of that entailed right of transit, freedom of movement, respect for family rights and honor, and property rights. See for example:
      *Exchange Of Notes Constituting An Agreement Between The British And French Governments Respecting The Boundary Line Between Syria And Palestine From The Mediterranean To El Hammé. Paris March 7, 1923, pdf page 7; and
      *Agreement between His Majesty's Government and the French Government respecting the Boundary Line between Syria and Palestine from the Mediterranean to El Hámmé, Treaty Series No. 13 (1923), Cmd. 1910" link to

    • But Muslim citizens of Israel are not being stripped of their voting rights, are they? Some are being walled off, clearly.

      Of course. Israel annexed East Jerusalem, but does not give the inhabitants there the right to vote. Half the Jewish population holds dual citizenship, and Lieberman admits he's aware that the same thing could theoretically apply to Arabs too, if they'll just turn off the lights when they leave and take their demographic bomb and go live in Palestine.

      Meanwhile any political party that denies the territorial integrity and Jewish nature of the State of Israel is illegal. Syrians and Palestinians annexed to Israel can't vote for lists of candidates, unless the Central Election Commission permits them to. The little money that Arab towns and villages do receive is used as blackmail or political patronage.

      The CERD reports provide an excellent overview of the separate Jewish and Arab public sectors and funding, right down to the hundreds of separate rural communal settlements for Jews and non-Jewish minorities. Concluding observations about Article 3 are based upon evidence of apartheid or prohibited forms of racial discrimination and segregation. link to

    • Judge Sher’s decision stated that based on legal precedent, the list of “protected classes” in the relevant law was not meant to be exhaustive and that “any incident where equals receive different treatment is defined as illegal discrimination.”

      That's an example of a Judge-made law issued for the occasion from the bench. In the past, I've cited the Israel Yearbook on Human Rights (edited by Yoram Dinstein), the CERD reports, and the Religious and secular MKs participating in a meeting of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee who have all explained that equality is not entrenched in any Israeli Basic Laws or statutes and that Israel systematically discriminates against its non-Jewish citizens on the basis of their "nationality".

      Many of the claims you make about Zionist/Israeli leaders could just as well apply to Palestinian nationalists/Palestinian leaders, and surely analogous generalizations about Palestinian nationalists would be regarded as bigoted.

      That's something I've pointed out myself if you'd care to check the archives. I've noted that the core fundamental human rights are not subject to any derogation and that even an anti-semite is still unconditionally entitled to them. But you haven't cited a corresponding case where a Palestinian judge has discriminated against an Israeli owner over public accommodations.

    • I forgot to add that there’s disagreement about how to properly interpret article 11 of Res 194. . . . and, secondly, there is the question of the extent to which the return of the refugees is practicable. This aspect of the problem is acknowledged by the resolution of the General Assembly itself.”

      The UN General Assembly cannot adopt resolutions that sanction crimes against humanity or circumvent the legally binding protections of family honor and rights contained in the Hague Convention of 1907.

      Ben Gurion's remarks can only be interpreted to mean that Israel could not restore the actual homes or villages that had been destroyed during the intervening war, not that the individuals could be permanently stripped of the remaining contents and lands included in their family estates or have their nationality revoked and be exiled.

      There was nothing Ben Gurion could have said to the PCC that would have altered the terms of resolution 181(II):

      The provisions of chapters 1 and 2 of the declaration shall be under the guarantee of the United Nations, and no modifications shall be made in them without the assent of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Any Member of the United Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the General Assembly any infraction or danger of infraction of any of these stipulations, and the General Assembly may thereupon make such recommendations as it may deem proper in the circumstances.

      Any dispute relating to the application or interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.

      link to

      So it doesn't matter how many different ways you'd like to interpret it, only the ICJ has possessed the general jurisdiction to settle the matter, since the moment during the 51st hearings when Eban affirmed Israel's acceptance of the minority protection plan in resolution 181(II) and cited the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, signed by the People's Council, and promulgated as the fundamental law of the State in the official gazette.

      The notion that the ICJ can endorse an interpretation of article 11 of Resolution 194(III) that sanctions serious crimes against humanity is doubtful in the extreme, unless that can also be reconciled with Eban's statement that "I can give an unqualified affirmative answer to the second question as to whether we shall cooperate with the organs of the United Nations with all the means at our disposal in the fulfilment of the part of the resolution concerning refugees. The organs of the United Nations are certainly not keeping the refugees from returning to their country of origin or visiting their holy sites.

    • Hostage, you are correct that Abba Eban affirmed an unqualified acceptance of UNGA Res 194 . . . It does not state that Israel has agreed to implement the resolutions

      No, Israel's representative affirmed Israel's unqualified acceptance for the official record and you are trying to create a loophole, where none are allowed in the first place.

      The resolution cites the verbatim minutes of the 45th meeting where:
      1) Mr Malik of Lebanon explicitly cited the violations of the minority protection plan in resolution 181(II);

      2) the minutes of the 47th meeting where Eban affirmed Israel's unqualified acceptance of the portion of 194(II) regarding refugees;

      3) the follow-up questions to the exchange between Eban and the representative of Denmark during the 48th and 51st meeting where the representative of Cuba demanded proof that Israel had submitted the required declaration indicating Israeli's acceptance and implementation of the fundamental and constitutional minority rights contained in resolution 181(II). On both of those occasions Eban answered in the affirmative.

      All you've done is advance a theory that Israel was being dishonest and intended to avoid its obligations all along. That would have to be decided by the ICJ based upon the facts and the applicable law. The fact that Israel rejected the UNSCOP recommendations and subsequently helped draft the terms of the Ad Hoc Committee majority plan that Vaad Leumi and the Jewish Agency publicly accepted, had already created an unfulfilled legal obligation for its implementation on the part of the Jewish authorities from the day it was adopted by the General Assembly and the transition period officially began. Other countries took note of the applicability of those resolution 181(II) assurances and protections to the refugees, e.g.:

      A significant portion of Arab refugees fled from their homes owing to Jewish occupation of Haifa on April 21-22 and to Jewish armed attack against Jaffa April 25. You will recall statements made by Jewish authorities in Palestine promising safeguards for Arab minority in areas under Jewish control.

      link to

      You haven't said a thing which alters the fact, that those rights are still under an explicit UN guarantee and that Israel has treaty obligations under both the Charter and the minority plan to give the organization every assistance in their fulfillment.

    • You may have realized that my translation was guided by the larger EU frame, which obviously also forms the basis of the respective national European laws. Via the UN too?

      Yep, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination:

      Article 4

      States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:

      (a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;

      (b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;

      (c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.

      -- link to

      Well prepared case. No doubt. I’ll leave out all my associative meanderings. ;)

      Okay, I'll take a shot. The Supreme Court has long since upheld the definition of “political propaganda” contained in the Foreign Agents Registration Act, as “any communication intended to influence the United States’ foreign policies”. See Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (1987) Diplomats that present their credentials to the US government do not have to register, but that does not entitle them to use appropriated funds or alter the fact that their communications can be considered political propaganda.

      The prohibitions in the ICERD and Omnibus Budget Act against the use of appropriated funds for public propaganda should prevent States from providing public forums or turning over the floor during a state public meeting to a person, like Michael Oren, who has written Op-Eds that advocate or reserve Israel's right to commit war crimes against Palestinians. I frankly got sick and tired of hearing him pontificate during the event at Irvine in front of Palestinian students and others about the historical duty of Christians to assist Zionist Jews redeem the Holy Land (from you know who).

    • Maybe from the perspective of freedom of speech as freedom to incite hatred against minorities.

      You are correct. The EU Framework on Racism and Xenophobia is not limited in scope to the Jewish genocide. It applies to all of the ethnic groups that were affected then and prospectively to any future instance of incitement.

      The United States has cited the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution in reservations to human rights treaties regarding absolute prohibitions against propaganda. But even the USA has denied that it protects a right to incite hatred against minorities. In its periodic reports to the UN CERD treaty monitoring body, it has cited criminal restrictions on speech in cases, like Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), when the speech is intended to intimidate (true threats) or intended to cause imminent violence (see page 58 of 124). link to

      Likewise, the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal is a treaty Stat. 1544. 1547. 82 U.N.T.S. 279 which declared "persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds" constitutes crimes against humanity. In the Streicher case the Nuremberg prosecution argued that years of propaganda had served as steady incitement to and justification of murder and that it amounted to the crime of persecution against a number of minority groups. The US Third Circuit Court of Appeals cited the Streicher case in its decision on the "denaturalization" of a newspaper editor, Ferenc Koreh, who had published similar propaganda. link to

    • I grasp the point fine. I just think it is irrelevant. Israel has a de-facto constitution. It doesn’t have provisions you like but it is a constitution.

      No it isn't a constitution, despite the attempts by the former Chief Justice to style it "as if" it were one. David Kretzmer, Yoram Dinstein, and a host of other legal scholars have explained that Israel has a system of parliamentary supremacy where the decisions of the Supreme Court on constitutional matters can be nullified or overturned by an ordinary statute. BTW, the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation (1994) explicitly provides the mechanism for that to happen.

    • That’s a fine position. One I don’t object to, and one totally contrary to the UN’s position “international law” that gets brought up constantly.

      If there is a principle of international law mentioned in a UN resolution that the Zionists haven't always been willing to violate on a moment's notice, I've never heard anything about it.

      When the UN invited the PLO, ANC, and SWAPO to become UN observers, that privilege was 1) reserved for states and 2) the PLO Charter claimed all of Palestine for Palestinian Muslims, Christians, and Jews. At the time, more UN member states recognized the PLO than the state of Israel. That situation remained true even after the PLO accepted resolution 181(II) and a formula for a two state solution. So it appears that the UN will accept any solution endorsed by the PLO or the Palestinian people.

      Abbas has adopted an all or nothing strategy. It will inexorably result in the defunding and destruction of the Palestinian government and hand the problem back to Israel, as the occupying power, if his gambits in the ICC and ICJ do not succeed. So it may already be too late for Zionists to stop the demand for one person, one state, and one vote from happening.

      Zionists are so accustomed to lying to themselves and everyone else, that they cannot recognize a "moment of truth" when they are confronted with one.

    • Hostage, you are correct that Abba Eban affirmed an unqualified acceptance of UNGA Res 194, but he subsequently implicitly retracted that unqualified acceptance prior to Israel’s admission to the UN (had he retracted it after, then those court cases you cited might be relevant).

      Turkey was not a member of the League of Nations in 1925 when the Treaty of Lausanne case was decided, based upon its agreement to accept a decision contained in a non-binding resolution of the Council of the League of Nations. That fact that it had changed its mind before it became a member (in 1932) made no difference. It remained bound by the terms of its acceptance.

      Likewise, whether or not Israel was a member of the UN when it accepted the minority protection treaty in resolution 181(II) does not alter the legal consequences. The rights remained under UN guarantee, even after Israel joined the organization, i.e.

      The provisions of chapters 1 and 2 of the declaration shall be under the guarantee of the United Nations, and no modifications shall be made in them without the assent of the General Assembly of the United Nations. . . . Any dispute relating to the application or interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.

      -- Resolution 181(II) C. DECLARATION. Chapter 4: Miscellaneous Provisions link to

      Once again, please read paragraph 129 of the ICJ advisory opinion regarding those international guarantees to right of transit and freedom of movement and the Chapter on minority rights in the partition plan.

      The refugees citizenship, right of transit and freedom of movement to and from their homes, and right to compensation for expropriated property were all subject to the provisions of a minority rights treaty agreement regarding equal protection and non-discrimination under law, which Israel was not empowered to alter without the consent of the General Assembly. While you claim that Eban implicitly retracted, every potential alternative that he suggested was ultimately subject to approval by the Palestine Conciliation Committee and the General Assembly. But it was under no obligation to accept any derogation of fundamental rights.

    • Maybe I missed it, . . . Again, I see no way that one can conclude that Max’s passage is an accurate account.

      I don't see how you can reach an intelligent conclusion, based upon an appeal to your own ignorance or lack of information. That line of argumentation is pretty underwhelming, especially since the law was only amended in 2011 to make the situation described in Max's article a "condition that is irrelevant". Prior to that it was perfectly legal to deny service to everyone wearing any kind of uniform or carrying a weapon, just so long as you did not discriminate based upon race, religion, religious affiliation, nationality, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, views, political affiliation, personal status, and paternity:

      In February 2010, an army sergeant named Raviv Roth stomped into the café in his uniform with a gun slung over his shoulder and demanded service. “I told him we have a policy against uniforms, so if he comes back in civilian clothes I will be happy to serve him and I’ll give him the best service he’s ever had,” Fidaa recalled. Instead of returning without his olive drab, the young man called his father, a well-connected local politician, who promptly called the police, demanding they shut down the café. But when the police arrived, they told the angry young man there was nothing they could do: Azad had the right to refuse service to customers just as other private businesses in Israel did.

    • It’s inappropriate to generalize about a group based on the actions of a few members of said group

      I have no problem generalizing about the dishonest schemes, racketeering, and terrorism that have always been endemic among Zionists. Herzl was a despot who wanted to found a global empire and assume the role of the head of new royal family.
      * link to
      * link to

      Ben Gurion worked as a union organizer in Plosnk, with other young revolutionaries. They extorted money for Palestine from wealthy Jews at gunpoint. link to

      When he and his comrades finally went to Palestine, they helped found a trade union there that operated as "a state within the state" with its own illegal militias and industries that were involved in corruption, protection rackets, assassinations, bombings, and other acts of terror. The only thing that distinguishes him from gangsters like Jimmy Hoffa is that he acquired a degree of sovereignty through his life of crime, conquest, and ethnic cleansing, before he destroyed his own political career as a result of the scandal surrounding the Lavon Affair.

      If you check the comment archives, you'll find we've discussed the fact that Zionists leaders have blown up ships full of Jewish refugees for propaganda purposes, and buildings full of civilians, airports, nuclear reactors - you name it - in places like Palestine, the neighboring states, Tunisia, Iraq, and Iran - all the while denying or covering-up their actual roles for decades and allowing others to take the blame. Zionists have dispatched terrorists who have assassinated friendly government officials and civilians, almost from the moment the movement was established, e.g. Jacob Israël de Haan, Walter Guinness, Manuel Allende Salazar, Folke Bernadotte, Ahmed Bouchiki. & etc. Zionists have also promoted a hateful anti-Gentile doctrine from the moment Pinsker and Herzl picked-up their pens and began to write embarrassing racist claptrap like Judeophobia and Der Judenstaat that rivals anything ever written by Wilhelm Marr.

    • I think the primary issue is Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, within Palestine. Rather than unfairness to Muslims (and Christians) in Israel proper.

      Not if you are a Bedouin facing eviction and resettlement in a cramped enclave reserved for certain persons on the grounds of their non-Jewish ethnicity. A Bantustan is still a Bantustan, and prima facie evidence of apartheid, even in Israel proper.

    • I agree. There isn’t much “under gunpoint” among the Israeli Arabs either. After the violence of the 49 war it was mainly economic encouragement.

      In fact the Brill and other law journals have been filled with articles for decades that explained how Israel used martial law and emergency regulations to internally displace the Arab populations in order to declare them "present but absent" and expropriate their land for the personal use of European Jews. They likewise used lethal force to prevent the refugees in neighboring states from returning to their homes after the armed conflict ended by adopting laws that falsely branded them as infiltrators.

      There have also been entire volumes devoted to the subject, like Shira Robinson's, "Citizen Strangers: Palestinians and the Birth of Israel's Settler State". Do you even try to read and comprehend the articles here before you start trolling and spamming the threads? It doesn't look like it.

    • b) Does the Israeli de-facto constitution have all the provisions you would like?

      I've pointed out time and again that one of the conditions for permitting the termination of the international mandate was acceptance of a treaty on minorities. Israel was required to adopt a number of fundamental constitutional guarantees, including equality under the law, as a condition for UN agreement to establish boundaries for a state with a Jewish majority. Israel's violation of those obligations calls into question its "right to exist" as it is presently constituted.

      The fact that you don't grasp that principle and keep repeatedly missing the point, speaks volumes about your lack of character and intelligence.

    • I do not understand how anyone can read that court decision and conclude that Max’s passage is an accurate account. Judge Shimon Sher found that the defendant had violated the Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law 5761-2000 and compared it to refusing entry to a Muslim woman wearing a veil (רעלה).

      Well nobody was ever shot and killed because a Muslim veil accidentally discharged. It appears the law was amended so that common sense can no longer be exercised to keep GIs from carrying weapons into places of public entertainment or getting drunk in uniform:

      Israel: Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services, and Entry into Public Places

      (Apr 11, 2011) On March 30, 2011, the Knesset (Israel's parliament) passed a second amendment to the Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services, and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law, 5761-2000. The Law prohibits discrimination in supplying products and public services and giving entry based on the following grounds: race, religion, religious affiliation, nationality, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, views, political affiliation, personal status, and paternity. The March 2011 amendment extends the list of grounds for discrimination to also include "the introduction of conditions that are irrelevant."

      According to explanatory notes for the bill, different treatment that derives from the character or the nature of the place or service in question, or that is made by a non- profit organization in promoting the special needs of a specific group, and the provision of separate arrangements for men and women in a way that does not contradict promoting equality have been recognized by Israeli courts as not constituting discrimination. According to these explanatory notes, the inclusion of "irrelevant conditions" among those grounds that may qualify as discriminatory was intended to address the problem of circumventing the Law by preventing or delaying entry and service based on "irrelevant reasons."

      The Law establishes a presumption based on which the burden of proof in proceedings under the Law's provisions shifts to the defendant when the plaintiff has proven that the defendant had refused to supply products or provide entry or services in public places, after either inquiring about or making a decision based on the above discriminatory grounds.

      The March amendment adds another situation in which the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove his innocence. This will occur in circumstances where the plaintiff has proven that the defendant had delayed supplying a product, the provision of a public service, or the entry into or the provision of a service in a public place, to persons who belong to a group that is identified by any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination and not to persons who do not belong to such a group. (Prohibition on Discrimination in Products, Services, and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law, 5761-2000 [in Hebrew], SEFER HAHUKIM [Book of Laws, the official gazette], No. 1765, p. 58, as amended; Prohibition on Discrimination in Products, Services, and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law (Amendment No. 2), 5771-2011 & bill[both in Hebrew], the Knesset website (both last visited Mar. 8, 2011).)

      Author: Ruth Levush More by this author
      link to

    • He basically says Israel is seeking a negotiated settlement of the refugee problem with Arab states in the context of a peace agreement. It is clear that Israel is implicitly rejecting article 11 of Res 194.

      I know it busts your bubble, but once he affirmed an unqualified acceptance and agreed to cooperate with UN organs in fulfillment of the portion of the resolution on refugees, Israel was "on the hook", and this and his other declarations constitute agreements that must be kept. This is not the only instance where Eban affirmed Israel's unqualified acceptance during the hearings.

    • I’m afraid that the context does not support the claim that Israel agreed to abide by UNGA Resolution 194 when it was admitted to the UN. As you can see from the next sentence, Eban then qualifies his “unqualified affirmative answer.”

      Well you ought to be afraid because that argument is immaterial, even if Eban intended to be clever and evasive or to obscure Israel's intentions. He was only invited to explain Israel's position on resolutions 181(II) and 194(III). The 207th Plenary session of the General Assembly was advised by the Committee that his declarations on that subject were contained in the Report of the Ad Hoc Political Committee, A/AC.24/72. It was up to the Committee as a whole to decide and report back whether or not his declarations and undertakings were legally binding. The General Assembly resolution on the membership application noted that Israel had agreed to help implement the resolutions.

      In the other thread I pointed out that the ICJ advised that it does not exercise judicial review of legal decisions taken by UN organs within their own area of competence and that the expert panel report of the General Assembly's Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People stated that Israel is under a binding obligation to permit the return of all the Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the hostilities of 1948 and 1967, based upon its "unreserved agreement" to honor its commitments under the Charter of the United Nations, and from its specific undertaking, when applying for membership of the United Nations, to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, safeguarding the rights of the Palestinian Arabs inside Israel, and and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, concerning the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or to choose compensation for their property. This undertaking was also clearly reflected in General Assembly resolution 273 (III).
      link to

      The international courts have ruled, time and again, that a state remains bound by the terms of its own acceptance of a resolution. In this case Eban explicitly affirmed that it was unqualified and promised to cooperate with the organs of the United Nations with all the means at its disposal in the fulfilment of the part of the resolution concerning refugees. The fact that he went on to quibble over Israel's limited resources & etc. doesn't change that fact. In any event, Israel has never used any of the considerable means at its disposal in the fulfilment of that obligation.

      In fact, later on in the same session (p. 282), the representative from Denmark states that based on Eban’s remarks, he presumes that Israel will not accept paragraph 11 of Res 194 regarding repatriation of the Palestinian refugees. Eban then gives an evasive answer

      So what? Israel worked with the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine that helped produce the draft of resolution 181(II) and its representatives said at the time that they "accepted" it. Then they turned around and made comments that appeared to indicate that they did not. That's why Eban was invited to testify in the first place. The representative of Cuba followed up Eban's reply to the representative of Denmark by demanding to know if Israel had supplied the required declaration on minority rights which would guarantee: equal treatment under the law, citizenship, right of transit, freedom of movement, prohibited expropriation of Arab property for private use of Jewish refugees, and required compensation in advance, prior to expropriation for public use.

      Jews and Arabs alike had the right to return to their homes after the armed conflict, based upon the right of transit and freedom of movement. Resolution 194(III) simply reaffirmed those rights that were already contained in 181(II), the mandate, and the Treaty of Berlin. See paragraph 129 of the ICJ advisory opinion with regard to the longstanding international guarantees for the indigenous population to right of transit and freedom of movement within Palestine, and the Chapter of the partition plan on minorities which safeguarded those existing rights. link to

      I pointed out two other cases where one of the parties accepted a resolution with the intent of evading the obligation or opting to change its position later on. The Court advised that in such cases states are bound to abide by the terms of their original acceptance. See:
      * Article 3, Paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne (Frontier between Turkey and Iraq). link to
      * Railway Traffic between Lithuania and Poland (Railway Sector Landwarów-Kaisiadorys) link to

    • @Hostage [apartheid example] I don’t agree with you on Israel being apartheid for reasons we’ve discussed before. One could simply state the fact you did that Israel has used land policy in its own country to squeeze the Israeli Arabs into small territory. Full stop. Of course most governments during the same period of time have done the same thing and encouraged a migration from farms to cities thereby increasing the population concentration that the overwhelming majority of their population live in

      Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. State officials are guilty of apartheid, regardless of the motive involved, anytime their laws, policies, and practices include the constituent acts and necessary elements of the crime. The fact is that the US and the other former colonial powers use the lurid "picking on Israel" and "anti-semitism" alibi prophylactically to avoid the Durban Conferences because they don't want to discuss their own liability for compensating the victims of their past injustices. The ICERD observations regarding many countries today still contain article 3 concerns about apartheid and illegal forms of racial discrimination and segregation. The only difference is that the UN didn't create those other states or have the authority to place minority rights in any of them under UN guarantee.

    • The polling doesn’t show any evidence of that delegitimizing going on.
      LOL! You can't even keep your stories straight. The polls show that young Jews are turned-off completely by Israel because of those factors. The Reut Institute and government of Israel have been shreying gevault about delegitimization on college campuses for years and have been using paid agents and hired internet talkback artists to counter the problem. This illustrates just how long Israeli bureaucrats have been employed as shills for that purpose:

      Jewish Telegraphic Agency, August 31, 1970, “Jewish Youth Challenged to Combat Anti-israel Propaganda on Campus”
      An Israeli official challenged American Jewish College youth today to combat anti-Israel propagandas on the campus, “much of it old anti-Semitism in new dress.” Moshe Yegar, Consul General of Israel in Philadelphia, said that such propaganda was being disseminated at colleges and universities across the country “by pro-Arab and certain radical groups.” Mr. Yegar addressed 225 students at the B’nai B’rith Hillel Foundation’s annual summer institute at Camp B’nai B’rith here. He claimed that anti-Israel propaganda had grown in vehemence and scope since the 1967 Six-Day War and that it “constitutes a danger to both the interests of Israel and those of the Jewish people.”

      A week-long Hillel workshop at Camp B’nai B’rith on Israel and American Jewry has been formulating programs to counter anti-Israel propaganda when the students return to their campuses next month.

      link to
      The funding and staffing for agitprop comes straight from the government of Israel in many cases. See for example “58 Jewish Agency Israel Fellows to Hillel serve 67 North American campuses”. It claims that “Hillel’s goal is to inspire every Jewish college student to develop a meaningful and enduring relationship to Israeli culture and society.” link to
      Hillel’s Ellen Goldstein was quoted in an article here which said that she is not concerned about potential objections to pro-Israel programming on campuses in the United States being funded directly by the Israeli government. link to

      Stop spamming the threads until you get some clue.

    • It is a bad analogy.

      Correction: It's the apartheid analogy, not the labor or economy analogy. None of the constituent acts of apartheid depended upon which side is in the majority. The hasbara talking point about Israel not depending on Palestinian labor is irrelevant. It certainly does rely on Palestinian labor in its illegal industrial zones and it simply practices apartheid domestically against the foreign workers it uses in lieu of the Palestinians. It keeps them neutered like house pets, violating their most fundamental human rights to any family life, and deports them if they dare to have children.

    • No they aren’t. Jewish students are fine with cooperative engagement that doesn’t involve demonization. What existed for the last 4 decades on campuses.

      The federal courts have tossed the campus climate lawsuits, so they better get used to the 1st Amendment or skip the intellectual rigors of university life and stay in Hebrew school.

    • There were decades of drawn-out discussions with racist state officials. The use of force was extremely infrequent and was used very late in the process only when meeting total resistance.

      You have a constipation of thoughts and a diarrhea of words. The rest of the world is certainly entitled to use UN Chapter VII enforcement powers against the racist regime in Jerusalem after 65 years of blatant criminality and impunity.

    • Try to imagine if the US Constitution had loopholes like these:

      2. The purpose of this Basic Law if to protect freedom of occupation, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
      4. There shall be no violation of freedom of occupation except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required, or by regulation enacted by virtue of express autorisation in such law.
      8. A provision of a law that violates freedom of occupation shall be of effect, even though not in accordance with section 4, if it has been included in a law passed by a majority of the members of the Knesset, which expressly states that it shall be of effect, notwithstanding the provisions of this Basic Law; such law shall expire four years from its commencement unless a shorter duration has been stated therein.

    • Israel has a structure of basic laws which act as a constitution. The UK doesn’t have a constitution either that doesn’t mean it isn’t a democracy.

      Israel and the UK are just about the only two countries without a written constitution and neither are models of democracy, what with the Queen’s Privy Council empowered to act as a Star Chamber that can overturn Supreme Court decisions and exile lesser peoples, like the poor Chagos Islanders, from their homes. link to

      BBC Radio 4’s Quentin Letts program ‘What is the Point of the Privy Council?’, took a thought-provoking look at the institution. He described the Royal Prerogative as ‘discretionary powers in hands of the crown but exercised by ministers which create laws which do not have to pass through Parliament or comply with human rights legislation.’ -- link to

      Patrick O’Connnor QC described it as a route entirely to evade debate and scrutiny in Parliament whilst making ‘real laws that affect people’s lives in fundamental ways…. Exclusion of the Chagos Islanders from their homeland was one of the worse political scandals of the second half of the last century.’ David Snoxell, UK’s High Commissioner to Mauritius at that time said ‘In June 2004 the Foreign Office decided to get rid of the problem altogether and used the device of Orders in Council – in effect they overturned a court order and bypassed Parliament. It’s inconceivable that it could have gone through Parliament because Parliament would never have accepted the permanent exile of the people from their homeland.’ link to

      Israel's basic laws are riddled with so many ifs, ands, but fors, and maybes that they provide no constitutional protection of equality for non-Jews, women, and etc. See for example the almost useless Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation (1994) link to

    • @ JeffB, Tell me about Jewish students on campus…

      See: Settler sprays 'slaughter Jews' on own car: Young Jewish man admits to police he staged 'Arab price tag' act to 'raise awareness'
      link to

      When Zionists can't find enough real anti-semitism to fuel their movement, they simply invent some.

    • A civil rights struggle doesn’t require the sort of rhetoric one hears here. Israel is a democracy.

      Hannah Arendt pointed out the parallels between Nazi era laws and the laws of Israel that govern the distinct and unequal legal status of Jews and non-Jews. She noted that Israeli officials would rather not have a written Constitution in which those embarrassing details would have to be spelled out. Even Zionist legal experts, like Ruth Gavison, admitted a long time ago that the Jewish part of the "Jewish and democratic" formula trumps the democratic part. She notes that people across the political spectrum claim the two are incompatible and that lawmakers had decided against dealing with the constitutional status of Arabs in the Jewish state as Jobotinsky's son had insisted during the 1st Knesset. That's a very serious situation, since the UN had already dictated the minimum acceptable terms in a minority agreement that Israel accepted in order to obtaine consent for the termination of the mandate and establishment of a state with a Jewish majority inside of its borders. Gavison admits that Israel can only be described as "democratic" if everyone else agrees to redefine the term and make a special exception for Israel.
      *Gavison, Ruth E., Can Israel Be Both Jewish and Democratic? (January 1, 2011). ISRAEL AS A JEWISH AND DEMOCRATIC STATE, p. 115, 2011. Available at SSRN: link to

      She is currently tasked by the Justice Minister of Israel to write the official draft of the Basic Law: The National Home and hasn't been able to produce a written proposal after several months on the job.

      Israel's laws, have stripped the bulk of the indigenous Palestinians of any rights and herded them into a portion of their own territory and denied them statehood or a nationality. That's called apartheid by the way, and isn't really that much different from the laws, policies, and practices that the Third Reich employed to squeeze out minorities and conduct its own "democratic" elections in 1933, 1936, and 1938.

    • I wish that were the case. Then we would be having a conversation about how best to handle a civil rights issue not how best to destroy a country and nation.

      I doubt that, since Eisenhower and Kennedy thought it best to handle the civil rights issues in Arkansas and Alabama through the deployment and use of a military force, rather than have a drawn-out conversation with racist state officials.

Showing comments 9248 - 9201

Comments are closed.