Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 9419 (since 2010-02-28 20:54:05)



Showing comments 2600 - 2501

  • Romney visits Western Wall, ignores question, Does Israel have a right to annex West Bank
    • We don’t agree. Whether the UN is just or moral is another matter. But the UN security council can authorize a military force to intervene inside a UN member state.

      As it's name suggests, the functions and powers of the UN Security Council are limited to the maintenance of international peace and security. It is not empowered to impose a political settlement that would favor one internal faction over another inside a member state. That would violate Article 2(7) of the Charter. That's the reason the Security Council refused to place UN General Assembly resolution 181(II) on its agenda and impose it by force. The Security Council could only enforce the terms of the armistice agreement that the parties concluded on their own behalf.

      In the case of Iraq and Kuwait, the Security Council was simply enforcing an existing agreement between the two parties. It authorized coercive measures to enforce the terms of the boundary agreement contained in The Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters, 4 October 1963. The Security Council held that the parties were still bound by the terms of their acceptance.

      The DEA did that for drug related purposes. This does not imply recognizing the Taliban government. The DEA can give money to militias too (which is what the Taliban was 1994-2001.)

      You might want to brush up on law of belligerent recognition of de facto regimes under international law. The grant of foreign assistance to the Taliban to impose a policy on the population subject to its jurisdiction is a classic example. There is an entire chapter devoted to the subject in Ti-chiang Chen, The international law of recognition, with special reference to practice in Great Britain and the United States, Praeger, 1951: link to

      Does this apply even when the US armed forces enter as a guest of the native government?

      Of course, Common Article 3 of the 4th Geneva applies to non-international conflict between the subjects of a High Contracting Party. Intervention by another High Contracting Party at the invitation of one of the factions would only transform the situation into an international armed conflict.

      Whether the US government should have bought some prisoners from the Northern Alliance is an interesting question.

      The prohibition against forced transfer and involuntary deportation contained in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to foreign nationals who find themselves in the hands of the United States while in the territory of one of the co-belligerents. Needless to say, the United States government is a creature of the Constitution and it cannot acquire some sort of legally secured interest in any human being by selling or purchasing them. The laws of nations recognize a general prohibition against any such practice.

      Can an armed militia or organized crime prisoner be considered a “prisoner of war”?

      Yes, in fact it takes a great deal of sophistry and mental gymnastics to ignore the plain meaning of the obligations under the third and fourth Geneva Conventions regarding members of armed militias or combatants who are hors de combat according to common article 3 and other the protocols.

    • Hostage, you are confusing Afghanistan with Iraq.

      No I'm not. The UN Charter allows the organization to maintain international peace and security, but it doesn't permit the organization to intervene in a domestic dispute to impose a political settlement.

      Only three countries (Pakistan, KSA and UAE) recognized the Taliban. Everyone else in the world recognized the Northern Alliance as the sole legitimate sovereign Afghan government, including the UN.

      No, the US government gave the Taliban regime a 40 million dollar grant in May, 2001.

      It also demanded that the regime extradite Osama bin Laden. Extradition is an act of state.

      To say that Afghanistan was invaded is to insult the Northern Alliance.

      No it's a matter of fact and the the applicable law. Whenever American forces advance into the territory of a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions, and the civilians there find themselves in the hands of US armed forces for whatever reason, our international obligations under the laws of armed conflict and the humanitarian laws contained in the Hague and Geneva Conventions are immediately engaged. The Northern Alliance turned wounded and other protected persons over to the US armed forces, who were then illegally transferred across international frontiers to Guantanamo Naval base and a secret network of prisons in violation of the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

    • Hostage, are you saying that the Afghan government is not fully sovereign and legitimate?

      No, I'm saying that the US overthrew the government of a UN member state without any UN mandate. After Kofi Anan declared the US invasion of Iraq illegal, he none the less backed a UN mandate for the US and UK to maintain law and order and restore civilian government. The same sort of thing happened in Afghanistan.

      After the last Afghan elections, the ISAF commander reported that “the credibility of the election results remains an open question.” He subsequently said the effect of the Karzai government's corruption and incompetence was on par with the insurgency, and called it a “crisis of popular confidence”. Under the circumstances, the Taliban would be within their rights to consider the Afghan army a valid military objective.

    • The Palestinians are “subjects” of Israel the same way the people of Afghanistan are subjects of the U.S. Are we not a democracy because we don’t let the Afghans vote in U.S. elections?

      The U.S. didn't establish colonies in Afghanistan; strip the inhabitants of their citizenship; claim it was the new duly constituted government of the territory; or produce blue ribbon committee reports that claim it isn't an occupying power. The U.S. did not claim that the Geneva Conventions had ceased to apply to the civilian population of the territory of Afghanistan. The US has not prevented Afghan elections. Other than that, the two situations are analogous examples of aggression.

    • They could start by giving up terrorism and stop firing missiles into Israel. It isn’t paranoia, the Palestinians, enough of them and in an organized manner, really do dislike Israelis and want to hurt them.

      Of course it's paranoia. Abba Eban called it a "security psychosis". Even Zionists have web pages which illustrate that you were much more likely to be a victim of homicide here in the US than in Israel or the occupied territories during the heyday of wall and fence construction in 2004. In fact, Jewish perpetrators are responsible for most of the Jewish victims of homicide.

    • As long as England is an Anglican state, it pretty much does not. Except you probably consider England secular.

      Thanks I was operating under the mistaken impression that the General Registry Office sanctioned civil marriages and that the Church of England does not control personal status of anyone. I thought that it's legal purview was limited to a few automatic seats for the Bishops in the House of Lords.

      I've never heard of an Anglican claiming that individuals are Anglican if their mothers are Anglican, without regard for their own personal beliefs. I''ve never heard them claim that Episcopalians everywhere are part of an Anglican nation or race, with genetic origins in the British Isles.

      In fact, I'd heard that Brooke Foss Westcott, and his colleague Fenton John Anthony Hort had worked tirelessly to debunk the idea that the Authorized Version of the King James Bible was uncorrupted and authoritative. They were both members of the High Church. Charles Darwin trained to be a clergyman in Cambridge too. He and the likes of Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, et al have a public following as large or larger than that of anyone in the Church hierarchy.

    • How does one Jew’s choice to keep living in the country of his birth prove that Israel is an anachronism?

      Because the Zionists claim you can't lead a normal life here among the Gentiles. If you can, then so can they. The bottom line is: there's no real necessity for us to maintain a Jewish demographic majority by threats or use of force against the Gentile population of Palestine.

    • And if you can’t trust a guy when he tells you his reasons for terrorist actions, darn, who can you trust?

      Bin Laden got tired of answering this line of questions and delegated the job to the Swedes. He suggested that the reporter from Al Quds Al Arabi ask them why they weren't being attacked by al-Qaeda. It still isn't clear if bin Laden actually had the Swedes in mind or Stephen Colbert.

    • Finkelstein has said that “Israel” has a right to exist under international law, as does the Palestinian state.

      Yes, UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/48/158D, 20 December 1993 stipulated that the final settlement had to guarantee arrangements for peace and security of all States in the region, including those named in resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, within secure and internationally recognized boundaries.

      One of the few areas in international law that do not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of a state is the treatment of minorities in a former mandated state or UN trusteeship. Guarantees were a condition imposed by the international community of states in exchange for recognition of the sovereignty of the new government and any session of territory involved. Both Palestine and Israel, as well as the United Nations still have binding legal obligations that flow from resolution 181(II).

      The right of Israel and Palestine to exist as duly constituted states with constitutional safeguards for equality and non-discriminatory treatment of women, religious groups, and ethnic minorities is beyond reproach. It has been endorsed in relevant resolutions, like the ones above and Security Council resolution 242 from the very beginning. In the 2004 Wall Case Judge Rosalyn Cohen Higgins specifically addressed that point:

      This is not difficult – from Security Council resolution 242 (1967) through to Security Council resolution 1515 (2003), the key underlying requirements have remained the same – that Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State.

      -- link to

      It's axiomatic that no state which violates the human rights of its minorities has an inherent right to continue to exist.

    • And the penalty for not supporting it, of course, is being a “bad Jew” and being denied the succor of Zion when the 1938 boxcars roll again. I wonder, will Israel send me a ticket? I can’t afford the plane ticket.

      No if previous experience with Zionist exoduses is an accurate indicator they'll:
      *Form a limited partnership with the boxcar operators;
      *Take a third of the typical refugee's cash when the banks that they own or control exchange their old currency;
      *Create an emotional infomercial to encourage evangelicals to pick-up the costs for the air fare and reception centers for the olim.

    • I think there are no such countries, nor any prospect of an emergence of them, so it’s a moot point. A better question would be whether Palestine has a right to exist as a country. So far, I’d say it’s not ready, since they don’t want a country so much as a springboard to conquer Israel.

      Israel consistently ranks among the top ten military powers in the world. I think you're projecting way too much about the threat from Palestinian conquest. BTW, "they're not ready to be country" was part and parcel of Hitler's modus operandi for excusing the murder of people he had made stateless. What makes Zionists so very different when they try to dispossess and kill Palestinians by making them stateless?

    • re: “secular, democratic, egalitarian”. It pretty much does. There is freedom of religion, though there is a state religion, like many democratic countries (England, for example). And legal equality for all Israelis.

      Okay, the State of Israel's Land Administration controls 93% of the land and develops national land use and planning policy. The Executive Council is comprised of 22 members: 12 represent government ministries and 10 represent the Jewish National Fund.

      The 4/5ths Jewish majority practically guarantees the election of Jewish government ministers, but the 10 members of the Jewish National Fund are not elected. That organization has advised the Supreme Court that it is only chartered to look after the interests of persons of Jewish descendancy. The majority of lands owned by the JNF were obtained by improper means from uprooted Arab citizens. See With all due respect for the 'blue box

      It's difficult see how that legally entrenched system of theft and discrimination can be described as democratic, egalitarian, or secular.

    • Fair enough, since he also forgot to tell the Palestinians that firing rockets at, bombing, and stabbing to death innocent Israelis is a sin. I don’t believe in Hell, but if there is one, there are probably a lot of very surprised Palestinian suicide bombers there.

      Fair enough, but there is no Hell in Jewish theology anyway. Palestinian suicide bombers may end up in the same place with all those murderous Jews, whose names are remembered for a blessing. Many of them killed Gentiles in pursuance with mistaken beliefs about the commandments regarding the Conquest of the Land.

      FYI, if Mormon theologians are correct, the Palestinians could be Gods and Goddesses. The sky would be the limit on the number of celestial wives, because the 72 virgin catch limit was just a myth. If Romney is anything like the Prophet Joseph Smith, he may have just tucked a piece of paper containing some additional commandments into that crack in the Western Wall. To nearly everyone's amazement, Smith revealed quite a few that were purportedly disseminated by the Hebrew patriarch Abraham when he outlined the details about the Gods and Goddesses living on the planets near the star Kolob. See the Pearl of Great Price;-)

  • One apartheid state, with liberty and justice for Jews only
    • Any one will do; something like ‘Love thy neighbour…’ or ‘Do unto others…’

      That sort of begs the question. The Christian scriptures relate that "Love thy neighbor was the 2nd part of the answer to the question "Which is the greatest commandment of the Torah?" (Mark 12:29) The text of the Golden Rule itself mentions two of the three traditional divisions of the Hebrew bible, the Tanakh: "The Law and the Prophets". (Matt 7:12)
      * “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." (Deuteronomy 6:4-5 cited in Mark 12:30)
      *"The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Leviticus 19:18 cited in Mark 12:31)

      *“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (reference to the Torah and Nevi'im in Matthew 7:12)

      *On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, 'Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.' Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand. When he went before Hillel, he said to him, 'What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbour: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.' Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbath, Folio 31a

  • Adelson-backed ad campaign features Jewish Dem claiming Netanyahu represents 'all' Jews
    • What? You support ending sales/gifts of F-35s to Israel? Jeez, you sure had me fooled!

      I believe Dan Crowther asked for an example of the Zionists throwing their Wall Street and defense industry friends under the bus to pursue their own agenda. I cited the example where they would not extend their partial settlement freeze in exchange for an additional 20 free F35s and the instances where they would not delay construction of housing in the occupied territories for four months, until after the Madrid Peace Conference, in exchange for loan guarantees that would protect their investment partners from defaults.

      I obviously don't support arms sales or loan guarantees for the Zionists. They've routinely violated our arms export license restrictions by waging wars of aggression and they've constructed illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories with US-backed loans. I suspect that you're the only person here who's surprised by my anti-war or anti-Zionist positions.

    • Hostage, Chomsky doesn’t understand the degree to which the interplay of special interests and industries dominate global policy and interstate policy.

      Plenty of people share his "anti-globalist" views. I'm no disciple of Chomsky or Finkelstein. But I have read what they actually have to say on a variety of subjects. I notice that many commenters either have not, or that they deliberately misstate their actual positions in order to argue against a straw man.

      It isn't too difficult to track down interviews online in which Chomsky expresses typical anti-globalist views on the insider roles played by transnational corporations and their investors in controlling global policy.

      He discusses transnational corporations and their investors as "de facto governments" or "virtual senates" that tend to destroy democracies through deregulation in order to facilitate capital movement or capital flight that the old post WWII currency fixing schemes were deigned to prevent. He explains that when states don't control capital movement, there's always a huge explosion of currency and commodity speculation (based on price purchase variances) that accrue benefits to transnational corporations and their investors or investment banks. See State and Corp.

    • P.S. He also calls for opposition to similar government and state industry policies elsewhere in the world as a matter of consistency.

    • “Question: I remember someone saying a while back that they have this feeling that Chomsky knows about the Zionist lobby…”

      People waste a lot of time misrepresenting Chomsky's position. He agrees that the Lobby is responsible for US policy on some issues like the settlements and Palestine, but that it does NOT dictate Middle East policy on issues like going to war with Iran. In the latter case it remains a significant, but secondary factor. AIPAC's efforts to start a war with Iran have been unsuccessful for more than a decade. He does not deny that the Lobby exists; that Mearsheimer and Walt present relevant facts that cannot be denied; or that the Lobby is dishonest and will aggressively attack or discredit their detractors.

      Chomsky does not oppose BDS. He was an early adopter. He simply says that it should be targeted properly at the state and corporate interests responsible for the policies in Israel, the US, and elsewhere - and that unless and until it takes on the US government role in protecting Israel, it won't be effective. He also calls for opposition to similar government and state policies elsewhere in the world as a matter of consistency.

      Chomsky does not agree with blanket boycotts directed against supporters of Palestine in Israeli academia. If that upset's you, please remember that Barghouti carved-out exemptions for himself and others to avoid the effects of the academic boycott and that Barghouti does target US and other industrial supporters of Israel like Motorola, HP, and Caterpillar. Several of the groups that I support, like US Campaign to End the Occupation, call for an end to arms sales and military aid to Israel. So no one thinks the US government can be ignored.

      Here for example is Chomsky's commentary on the initial Israel Lobby article by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt:

      M-W deserve credit for taking a position that is sure to elicit tantrums and fanatical lies and denunciations, but it's worth noting that there is nothing unusual about that. . . . Naturally, it is of extraordinary importance to the herd to protect that self-image, much of it based on deceit and fabrication. Therefore, any attempt even to bring up plain (undisputed, surely relevant) facts is either ignored (M-W can't be ignored), or sets off most impressive tantrums, slanders, fabrications and deceit, and the other standard reactions.

      But recognizing that M-W took a courageous stand, which merits praise, we still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion. I've reviewed elsewhere what the record (historical and documentary) seems to me to show about the main sources of US ME policy, in books and articles for the past 40 years, and can't try to repeat here. M-W make as good a case as one can, I suppose, for the power of the Lobby, but I don't think it provides any reason to modify what has always seemed to me a more plausible interpretation. Notice incidentally that what is at stake is a rather subtle matter: weighing the impact of several factors which (all agree) interact in determining state policy: in particular, (A) strategic-economic interests of concentrations of domestic power in the tight state-corporate linkage, and (B) the Lobby.


      So he is actually saying that all agree that the Lobby is one of the factors that determines state policy.

    • Good grief, you are attempting to wrap militarism and empire in the constitution? Have you no shame?

      No you're trying to restate what I actually said in your usual hyperventilated nonsensical way. I said that there's nothing wrong with building weapons to defend this country within its own borders, but that our defense department functions more like a department of foreign wars. I'm betting that you're the only person here who doesn't grasp my intended meaning. It doesn't win friends or influence your enemies when you go charging after those windmills in your mind. Since you don't need me to argue against your own straw men. I'll be ignoring the rest of your rants.

    • I never heard anything about this.

      Yes, Colin Powell was put in charge of investigating Spc. 4 Tom Glen's letter to Gen. Creighton Abrams complaining about members of his unit who "for mere pleasure, fire indiscriminately into Vietnamese homes and without provocation or justification shoot at the people themselves." If Powell had conducted a proper investigation, the details of the My Lai massacre could have come to light much sooner, but he dismissed the allegations.

      Amazingly enough Powell's autobiography revealed that:

      I recall a phrase we used in the field, MAM, for military-age male. If a helo spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked remotely suspicious, a possible MAM, the pilot would circle and fire in front of him. If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile intent, and the next burst was not in front, but at him. Brutal? Maybe so. But an able battalion commander with whom I had served at Gelnhausen, Lieutenant Colonel Walter Pritchard, was killed by enemy sniper fire while observing MAMs from a helicopter. And Pritchard was only one of many. The kill-or-be-killed nature of combat tends to dull fine perceptions of right and wrong.

      -- Colin L. Powell, My American Journey, page 224

      That isn't a description of "combat". That's a description of how many of the people that he was sent there to protect from aggression were systematically murdered instead.

    • Here you go talking out of both sides of your mouth again. You claim that you “…consider the resort to war to be irrational and illegal.” Yet, you apparently feel that gargantuan military spending is just fine, that it was bad not to increase military spending by yet another $3 billion.

      The Constitution envisions a legitimate government undertaking to provide for our common defense. My complaint is that a legitimate department of government assigned with that responsibility functions instead as a department of foreign wars and occupations. The United States government still lists the Kellogg-Briand pact and the UN Charter as "Treaties In Force" (TIF).

      Those treaties are part of customary law that prohibits wars of aggression and require signatories to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

      The overwhelming majority of the international community of states have adopted a definition of the crime of aggression which outlaws preventive strikes, blockades, military occupation regimes, & similar aggresivve practices.

      None of those laws would prevent a state from using an F35 to defend its own airspace.

      Unlike Chalmers Johnson's fictitious report about Zinni violating the provisions of the foreign assistance act regarding a military coup government, we do know for certain that Israel has violated provisions of the US and UK arms export control acts by making unlicensed or offensive use of weapons that were sold for strictly limited, defensive, purposes. They have targeted the territory and populations of other states, or used the weapons in a manner that violates the purposes of the United Nations. e.g.

      For example, the government of Great Britain revoked five export licenses as a result of the illegal use of the weapons in Operation Cast Lead: See MPs call for review of arms exports after Israeli assault on Gaza

      That doesn't mean that Israeli use of F35s for legitimate defense of its own airspace would violate the law, rationality, or any of the purposes of the United Nations.

    • I think that neoconservatives (Likud Zionists) and Christian Zionists represent such a grave threat to Americans and the world that I will gladly support nearly any influential American who opposes them — and that includes Chas Freeman, Wes Clark, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Anthony Zinni, Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell, Jimmy Carter, Brent Scowcroft, etc. And with no apologies whatever.

      I think he was obviously trying to suggest that I hold views identical to Clark or Freeman on issues unrelated to Israel in order to score debating points.

      I obviously agree with Colin Powell's statement on the wrongfulness of building a wall that crosses into someone else's territory. I've cited and quoted it, e.g.

      At the same time I would never associate myself with Powell's views on the Strategic Hamlet Program, an effort to forceably transfer the population and destroy entire villages in Vietnam in order "to drain the swamp". It amounted to a form of collective punishment in many cases. His remarks justifying unprovoked summary executions of civilian "military-age-males" are simply despicable. Concerns over those sort of views raise legitimate suspicions of a deliberate cover-up in connection with his initial investigation of the My Lai massacre.

    • P.S. Which brings me back to my final question on my last comment. “I now associate you with Chas Freeman and Wesley Clark. Am I wrong?”

      I've never quoted or cited either man. So the basis of your association is probably imaginary, like my record of support for the empire.

      I'm familiar with the standard thumbnail sketches of Clark's military career and his Presidential bid. I was never a fan or supporter. I'd never heard of Freeman at all, until his failed appointment. I still wouldn't be able to pick him out of a line-up. I think the US should end its special relationships with oppressive regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere. My impression is that Freeman would not back any reforms that would jeopardize relationships with the Saudi and other "royals". He also applauded the killing of Bin Laden. I don't approve of any government policy of targeted assassinations. Bin Laden was nowhere near a battlefield, and after the Guantanamo debacle, I think the government had an obligation to presented its evidence against him and the other so-called masterminds in Court.

    • Lockheed Martin’s net earnings in 2010 were $2.9 billion, in 2011 they were $2.7billion. Your comment was yet another red herring to imply financial hardship which doesn’t exist.

      When Lockheed idles its own production lines, and it is not due to termination of the contract by the US government, it can be held liable for payment of liquidated damages to its own materials and other suppliers and subcontractors. It also can be held liable for late delivery or delivery of planes that are non-conforming to the specifications. In the 2011 annual report to its stockholders Lockheed reported potential exposure to approximately $23.2 billion in liquidated damages related to existing contractual commitments entered into as a result of contracts they had with their U.S. Government customers.

      It is intellectually dishonest to hold Israel responsible for the F-35 boondoggle and whatever consequences follow.

      LOL! I didn't say that Israel was the only party responsible for that situation, just that Lockheed's interests were sacrificed when Netanyahu turned down a $3 billion gift from Uncle Sugar in order to pursue the construction of illegal settlements for 90 days. You are going to appear intellectually challenged if you keep claiming that the interests of Lockheed, its investors, workers, and suppliers aren't affected by a $3 billion purchase order.

      ” Once again, intellectually dishonest and completely at odds with you’re your claim that you feel that the “…DoD functions as a “War Department” and that 80 percent of its budget has nothing to do with legitimate defense.”

      I think it's perfectly obvious that American taxpayers are paying for unnecessary wars and thousands of bases and operating locations overseas that have nothing to do with their domestic security or defense. Americans should not be paying for AWACS crews, planes, spare parts, and support equipment and placing them at the disposal of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for 8 years at a stretch, when the Saudis have volunteered to buy a full squadron of their planes from the Boeing Military Airplane Company and handle their domestic defense needs all by themselves.

      It's intellectually dishonest to claim that the Saudis are beholden to the IMF or World Bank, or that we should look past the obvious public opposition of AIPAC and the Zionist State to explain why that happened. It's just preposterous to claim that turning-down the largest military equipment sale in history, in order to conclude a much more modest deal, was all part of a sinister Capitalist/Military Industrial Complex plan to create wealth. To insist that the Zionist agenda has always played second fiddle to capitalism is just not historically accurate.

      The MIC is awash in money and you are pissing and moaning about “…enormous amounts of money in lost sales and operational costs.”

      Surely, those operational costs are still part of the federal deficit. Boeing is so awash in revenues that it's closing its sprawling manufacturing facilities in Wichita after 80 years. It's permanently laying off 2,100 highly skilled employees due to government defense budget cutbacks, future market prospects, and lack of sufficient work to sustain the defense engineering, maintenance, modifications, and upgrades departments.

      Unless you can demonstrate how this applies to me, I will assume that this is another dishonest attempt at bogus labeling.

      I'm still waiting for an actual example of a violation of the Congressional prohibition on foreign assistance funding to coup regimes committed by General Zinni in connection with the Musharraf government.

    • How? By asking for some examples of Wall Street and/or MIC subservience to Israel?

      I was giving an example of the Israelis throwing Wall Street and the defense industry interests under the bus. I don't need to hear hyperbolic sermons about Armageddon. I've signed so many petitions to stop arms sales to Israel for various groups that I've lost count. We aren't discussing that aspect of the issue.

      Your latest diversion? “Israel’s military aid is disbursed from the U.S. Treasury to an interest bearing account in the Federal Reserve Bank.” So what happened to the immediate availability and production lines?

      The government acts as Israel's purchasing agent and it's the Treasury that puts money in their foreign assistance account at the Federal Reserve. The Congress has already ok'd spending authority of up to $15 billion back in 2008, which allows the US/Israel to exercise purchase options with Lockheed on up to 75 F-35s. If Israel wants to sell drones to China, there's a guy in the White House who can take those options off the table by withholding a statutory waiver or certification. FYI, the Israelis re-introduced their demand to access system software and etc. to integrate their own components. They finally got DoD and Lockheed to agree. See U.S., Lockheed reach deal on Israeli F-35s

      Here is where you and I fundamentally differ. In my view, Wall Street and the MIC have thrown the 99% under the bus.

      I don't disagree with that, I think the DoD functions as a "War Department" and that 80 percent of its budget has nothing to do with legitimate defense.

      You fail to mention that Lockheed Martin had net sales of $45.7 billion in 2010, $46.5 billion in 2011, and estimates $45 to 46 billion in 2012, hardly being thrown under a bus.

      Sales are not net profit. The amounts you mentioned probably wouldn't help Lockheed get over its trillion dollar F-35 headache. The Dutch, Canada, Italy, the UK, and other partners have cut back production orders. The relevant point is that there were not enough F-35 orders in the pipeline at the time. So, they needed to shutdown that part of the manufacturing business and lay-off workers due to delays in the scheduled rollouts. The United Kingdom and the Netherlands just got their first planes under the program:
      *Lockheed Martin Begins F-35 International Rollout
      *First F-35 For The Netherlands Rolls Out Of F-35 Production Facility

      There are many other examples where Israel has cost the defense sector enormous amounts of money in lost sales and operational costs. The Saudis wanted to purchase enough AWACS, F-15, and Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (STARS) to be totally self-sufficient. But the US Air Force had to augment them with our own planes and personnel, because Israel and AIPAC put a stop to sales of the systems, demanded that only stripped-down Strike Eagles be sold, or kept the number of radar systems well below what was necessary.

      So the US taxpayers picked-up the tab for defending the Saudis and deploying and rotating personnel and planes out of Saudi Arabia on 179 day temporary duty (TDY) cycles for 8 years and for establishing field maintenance facilities there. AIPAC targeted key members of Congress who had supported the sales during subsequent election campaigns.

      Now, however, I see that your military roots and service to empire run strong and deep, something you take pride in.

      I've mentioned my own personal experiences in a very few cases where I actually have some first hand knowledge about the decision making process or the prohibitions contained in the foreign assistance statutes. The readers here know perfectly well that I consider the resort to war to be irrational and illegal. I've commented about the fact that I think the US has been guilty of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in many instances. But that doesn't mean I accept crimes that are invented out of thin air and conspiracy theories.

    • This is the type of arrogant statement usually made by no-nothing businessmen who are defending economic ideological indoctrination.

      Actually you are the one who is defending an ideological indoctrination. You keep insisting that we accept your thesis, even in situations where it doesn't apply and fails to make accurate predictions. Zionists like Netanyahu, Shamir, and Sharon couldn't care less about their friends on Wall Street or in the military industrial sector when it comes down to a choice between their goal of redeeming and Judaizing all of Eretz Israel. Eric Cantor made it perfectly clear that funding for Israel is utterly sacrosanct. At one and the same time he also made it clear that he could less about making payments on the debt to Wall Street bondholders or protecting our own government's credit rating.

      America, and it's Congress is the center of capitalist power and it is a thing that Zionists can easily move, go argue. In fact, Israel has repeatedly thrown its friends in the US intelligence and military industrial complex under the bus by transferring our weapons and satellite technology to the Soviet Union and China and competing against US corporations that export arms to other nations with it's own products that are bootstrapped off foreign aid or US R&D.

      As for future sales of the F-35, maybe if the plane wasn’t an overpriced boondoggle, there wouldn’t be a problem.

      The price per unit of any item depends on the volume of sales. The problem with the F35 is that roll-out has been delayed. From a performance and armaments standpoint, it's less capable than some of the non-stealth weapons systems it was designed to replace. That trade-off was only acceptable because it was intended to be a low cost replacement. I think the government bought the wrong plane from the wrong supplier in the first place, and then made a bad situation worse (as usual) by inflicting many of it's own cost increases, delays, and budgetary problems. For example, in 2005 the government suspended Israel from participating in the program and imposed other restrictions on procurement and cooperation because of Israel's plans to upgrade Chinese Harpy Killer drone aircraft. Israel eventually caved-in, but it came back with demands and proposals about integrating its own technology that led to more delays, engineering feasibility studies, and fruitless negotiations.

      Historically speaking, the Congress and DoD have used major procurement programs to assist domestic corporations as part of a national strategic plan to avoid reliance on foreign suppliers. Many of these firms simply don't have a viable commercial business. Boeing has been forced to subcontract or merge with less successful companies just to get defense business, precisely because it had a viable commercial airplane manufacturing business. The companies involved don't pay a very heavy price for these debacles, they pass their cost through to the taxpayers and the early adopters.

      Let me respond to this.
      No you're just trying to score points with rhetorical questions and insults. Israel's military aid is disbursed from the U.S. Treasury to an interest bearing account in the Federal Reserve Bank. My "former friends in the military" have no say in the matter.

    • I fail to see how this even remotely demonstrates serious conflict with either Wall Street or the MIC in which either one suffers serious consequences as a result of support for Israel.

      Someone will be happy to explain it for you in any college level Introduction to Economics course. For example, the folks at Lockheed Martin, who manufacture the F35 Joint Strike Fighter, announced in July of 2011 that they would be laying-off 1500 workers from their airplane-making business. They said they needed to cut costs due to the prospect of limited defense spending. If Netanyahu had accepted the free aircraft that were offered in November of 2010, the moratorium would have expired in February of 2011, and those 1500 people could have been kept busy producing the planes - even after the construction in the illegal settlements had resumed. See Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, maker of F-35 fighter jet, to eliminate 1,500 jobs

      Israel originally requested 24 Lockheed/Boeing F-22s, but the US refused to sell the IAF those planes. It insisted that Israel adopt the new F-35 instead.

      Lockheed Martin and the US government currently estimate that the F35 will cost a trillion dollars over its lifetime. The US and Lockheed hope to recoup much of the 400 billion invested so far through high volume foreign military sales to 8 other countries. Successful Israeli and US armed forces early adoption of the F35 were essential to bootstrap those high volume sales to others.

      Israel has ordered 20 aircraft, with an option for more. All of Israel's aircraft will be paid for by the US taxpayer in any event. Israel is partnering as one of the suppliers, so Israeli firms are expected to make a 4 billion dollar windfall from the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. The fact that the US government can't effectively double the Israeli fleet size, even when it's giving the F-35 away for free in exchange for a 90 day settlement freeze, worsened Lockheed's position at a time when other nations were already thinking about terminating their contracts to purchase the planes.

      Israel obviously hasn't run out of room or demand for Jewish communal settlements inside the Green Line, since 400,000 people took to the streets a few months later over that very same issue.

      So yes, Netanyahu placed a premium value on a handful of new housing starts in the occupied Palestinian territories, during one quarter, from December 2010 to February 2011. Those housing units were more important than future sales of Lockheed Martin and its Israeli suppliers products, their corporate stock prices, and the job security of the effected aerospace workers.

    • and hostage, those jets were in addition to 20 they had ordered already, and paid for (whatever that means) – those additional 20 wouldnt have come on line for years, after barry is out, so the israelis did the smart thing (if you’re them)

      That's flim-flam. I spent years of my adult life serving as a USAF MAJCOM functional area manager. I worked with DoD Program Element managers to ensure that funding for weapons systems and the necessary support equipment, supplies, training schools, and personnel needed to make a combat capability "come on line" was included on a phased basis in the 5 year plans demanded by the Congress. Those 20 additional aircraft would have immediately provided billions of additional dollars and jobs in the US aerospace sector.

      P.S. "israelis did the smart thing (if you’re them)" means they threw their Wall Street friends and their capitalist friends in military industrial sector under the bus.

    • The problem with the Marxist and Chomskyan approach to analyzing history, power elites, social forces and conflicts, etc. is that it vastly oversimplifies reality.

      I've pointed out on several occasions that both sides here are guilty of producing a caricature of Chomsky's position. He has plainly stated that the Israel lobby is part of the equation and that it accounts for US policy on the settlements. But he is also correct in pointing out that the Lobby alone, can't account for US policies in the Middle East and the rest of the world. If that were true, the US would have gone to war with Iran decades ago when the Israel Lobby first started shreying about that particular agenda item.

      BDS and Israel's unpopular settlement policies are already costing Israel's businesses partners money. If there's an economic decline, or the settlements are removed as part of a peace deal, who's going to bailout the bond or mortgage holders on the private and commercial loans made to construct all of those communities on the wrong side of the Green Line? I believe they aren't going anywhere anytime soon, but the majority of the risk takers holding that paper are ardent Zionists, not smart capitalists backed by US loan guarantees.

    • Theo- I didn’t write the law. Congress wrote the law or the Supreme Court interpreted the law.

      Yonah, Hersh Lauterpacht's son published a book of his late father's advisory opinions and law review articles. They included two opinions written for the Jewish Agency for Palestine advising it to file test cases in the courts or to demand binding arbitration. Another Jewish agency legal advisor, Jacob Robinson, also published books in which he advised that similar tactics be adopted.

      I think that we can safely conclude that Zionists bankrolled test cases, like R. v. Ketter, in which Mr I.D. Ketter (aka Kletter) unsuccessfully argued that Palestine had been transferred to the British Empire and that he, a citizen of Palestine, could not be deported from England as an alien.

      Several years later, in Kletter v Dulles, he argued against the Bancroft treaties and the US State Department practice of revoking US citizenship in cases where individuals voluntarily became naturalized citizens of a foreign state, like Palestine. See Kletter v Dulles

      When the US Supreme Court finally overturned the treaties and statutes on dual citizenship, it was another case involving a Zionist: Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)

      Oddly enough the Court ruled that the Constitution doesn't mention the right of the government to revoke citizenship once it has been granted. The court also noted that the 14th Amendment prohibits the state governments from doing that. But the Supreme Court has subsequently allowed the federal government to strip citizenship from US citizens born overseas to service members and US expatriots on the grounds of failure to fulfill residency requirements. So Zionists with dual citizenship may actually have better guarantees than other nominal US citizens.

      Whenever there's a case involving an interest of the State of Israel, you can be sure that one or more of its proxies or the auxiliaries of its parastatal organs will furnish counsel or file an amicus brief. For example, in Samantar v. Yousuf, the applicability of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FISA) to acts of former government officials accused of torture or crimes against humanity was being decided. Although no Israelis were involved in the case, and FISA does not apply to non-profit organizations, the members of the Israel Lobby became heavily involved. Amicus briefs were filed by: The American Jewish Congress, the Zionist Organization of America, the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Agudath Israel of America, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, and the Anti-Defamation League.

      In M.B.Z. v. Clinton, which involved recognition of Jerusalem as a city in Israel, there were amicus briefs filed by the Anti-Defamation League et al., the Zionist Organization of America, the Lawfare Project, and the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists.

      In the case of the recent example of legislation that requires UNRWA to provide a break-out of refugees vs their descendants, we know for certain that the legislation was actually drafted by a member of the Israeli Knesset and introduced to our legislators by the AIPAC lobbyists.

    • Hostage do you have more examples? . . . I hope you don’t mind me answering that question.

      Not at all.

      They don't need to be convinced with bribes, the situation must only worsen in regard to Israel and they will be kicked out with one way ticket (at best).

      That's been the Zionist party line for decades. The memo recording the State Department's conversation with Teddy Kolleck about Iran establishes that and the fact that the government of Israel was responsible for the earlier mass exoduses, like the one from Iraq. We know from other sources that they did that by worsening the conditions and recruiting Sayanim, like Eli Cohen or Naeim Giladi, to assist in black flag operations.

      In the Egyptian case, Livia Rokach writes that Sharett's diary confirmed that a major war against Egypt aimed at the territorial conquest of Gaza and the Sinai was on the Israeli leadership's agenda at least as early as the autumn of 1953, almost a year before Nasser ousted Neguib. She also explained that the Operation Susannah spy ring originally was setup to serve as a fifth column during the next war and that they had been sent a coded cable asking them to relay information on targets in the Suez Canal zone:

      ONE: Start immediate action to prevent or postpone Anglo-Egyptian Agreement. Objectives are: one, cultural and information centers; two, economic institutions; three, cars of British representatives and other Britons; four, whichever target whose sabotage could bring about a worsening of diplomatic relations. TWO. Inform us on possibilities of action in Canal Zone. THREE. Listen to us every day at 7 o'clock on wavelength G.

      The US government realized that Israel's words didn't match its deeds and that the talk about the inevitability of a conflict with Egypt was a self-fulfilling prophecy. The actions of the Israeli government were guaranteeing it would come to pass

      In commenting to Herzog re foregoing, I stressed the following:
      1. Whether Nasser in time loses interest in arms and arrives at
      "futility" conclusion depends in large part on Israel behavior
      2. In my first few months in Israel relations with Egypt were
      relatively tranquil and USG through Russell (Embassy telegram 212 August 30, 1954 2) had stressed to Sharett need for gradual and
      careful work, leading towards peaceful settlement.
      3. Instead Israel had taken two measures which worked in
      opposite direction. Firstly Bat Galim test case was entirely unnecessary. It would be three or four years before any economic need send Israel flagships through Suez. In interim concentration should have been through diplomatic channels on clearing up problem getting Middle East oil through Suez in foreign bottoms.
      4. Secondly, Israel defense force in summer 1954 for no good
      purpose had activated sabotage group in Egypt. Their activities had been very amateurish; agents had been apprehended; and once members Muslim Brotherhood had been executed by RCC it was inevitable that some of Jews would meet same fate.
      5. Hanging Jewish spies and Bat Galim case (coupled with IDF revenge complex) had so inflamed Israel public opinion that Gaza incident followed shortly. This in turn had concentrated concern Nasser and RCC on Israel threat and was largely, although not totally, responsible for Egyptian efforts obtain arms superiority.
      6. It was ironical but of importance in determining future policy that IDF in efforts improve Israel's security had stirred Egypt out of its military lethargy, thus creating additional insecurity for Israel.

      Then as in the case of Iran, Israel was waging a war of words and using Israeli owned vessels, Mossad, local Jews, and members of the opposition to carry-out sabotage, espionage, and assassination missions in the run-up to a general war with no regard for the consequences its own actions for other Jews.

      The US seized an Italian cruise liner in the Panama canal during WWII and interned the passengers and crew for the duration of the conflict. A few years later it insisted that the Egyptians should release the Bat Galim and allow Israeli flagged ships passage, although everyone knew that Israel was operating spying rings and bombing targets in Egypt and deliberately testing the Egyptians. It's doubtful that the US or Canada would agree to a similar deal that would allow a Taliban-backed regime to send armed ships through the Saint Lawrence Seaway.

    • “I asked MRW for just one example of Israel and the lobby throwing Wall Street under the bus to impose their Zionist game plan.

      Okay, here's one. When Obama offered the Zionists 20 free F-35s in exchange for a 90 day extension on the partial settlement construction freeze, they threw Wall Street and the US aerospace industry under the bus and went full steam ahead on settlement construction.

      The Shamir government and AIPAC did the same thing on the $10 billion in loan guarantees for housing construction. They were asked to either wait until after the peace conference with the Arab states for a no strings attached deal or to agree not to use the money for settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Once again they made the conscious decision to pursue unrestricted construction without US government guarantees and exposed their investment partners to higher risks and the possibility of haircuts.

    • I regard historic Palestine as including Israel.

      Fair enough, but customary international law distinguishes between involuntary transfers within a state and deportation across national boundaries - especially in the case of newly formed states like Jordan and Israel.

      See for example the case of the former Yugoslavia and the new Serbian and Croatian states: In "The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic - Case No. IT-02-54-T (Rule 98 bis test - Deportation, forcible transfer and cross border transfer – Definition of a State)"

    • Jews don’t refuse to live in Israel

      I know plenty, including myself, who refuse to even consider the prospect - not even at gunpoint.

      Carol Fink provides a more realistic description of the Zionist project:

      The question of Palestine loomed large behind the issue of minority rights in Eastern Europe. The Zionist movement, spurred by the Balfour declaration and a nationalist ideology that merged biblical texts with contemporary civic, material, and personal ideals, championed an at least partial solution to “the Jewish problem” through voluntary emigration to the Mid­dle East. The object of the Zionists’ longing, however, was a small, poor, sparsely settled region of coastal plain, northern swampland, and southern desert, 150 miles long and 80 miles wide, which in 1919 contained some 700,000 inhabitants: 568,000 Muslim Arabs, 74,000 Christian Arabs, and 58,000 Jews.

      Throughout the Jewish world, a vocal, ardent, and influential minority upheld the Zionist doctrine. Like the Back to Africa programs of the nineteenth century, Zionism postulated a rightful, if distant, claim to a homeland against which all others, however comfortable and long established, were impermanent and insecure. Few of the leading western Zionists, however, intended to migrate. Prominent Jewish leaders, such as Louis Brandeis in America and Herbert Samuel in Great Britain, had built a strong political program and redemptive project from the search for a refuge for the endan­gered masses of Eastern Europe. Their opponents raised the dangerous question of dual loyalty and chided the western Zionists’ efforts to control lands they were unwilling to inhabit.

      -- See Carole Fink, Defending the Rights of Others: The Great Powers, the Jews, And International Minority Protection, 1878-1938, Cambridge University Press, 2006, page 161

    • I don’t think any Jews were ethnically cleansed from historical Palestine.

      General Assembly Resolution 302 (IV), which established UNRWA, referred to “Palestine refugees” [Jews, Arabs, & others], not “Palestinian refugees.”
      The UNRWA and its predecessor registered, fed, and sheltered at least 17,000 Jewish refugees from Palestine in its camps inside Israel.

    • If Jews had it so good in Arab countries, why didn’t they all stay?

      Thanks to the 30-year declassification rule, it's a matter of public record that the government of Israel instigated deliberate exodus from the Arab and Muslim states as part of its state building program. 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

    • Gosh, I’m touched! We’ve had atheist Jews, and now we have a post-modernist Jew, too! Yes, Terrylevine, everything is relative.

      Clarification: I'm a "born again atheist Jew". I was loosing my faith in atheism, but regained it when I started reading the thoughts of the Kahanists in the Arutz Sheva Op-Eds;-)

    • P.S. About half of the non-local Muslim and Christians registered in the Jerusalem kaza were reportedly born outside Palestine, i.e. 53 and 60 per 100 born outside Jerusalem respectively. But almost all of the non-local Sephardim and Ashkenazim were born outside of Palestine, 97 and 92 per 100 born outside Jerusalem respectively. So most of the immigrants were Jews.

      In the chapter from the Kushner book Schmelz wrote:

      This writer did some research long ago on the demography of the Jews in Jerusalem city in the mid-19th century. That research centered on the utilization of the primary material of two of the censuses of Jerusalem’s Jews undertaken on the initiative of Moses Montefiore, namely those in 1839 and 1866. The original census records have been preserved, and photocopies thereof were statistically processed and analyzed. The salient finding was the enormous mortality among the Jews of Jerusalem at that time, which caused a marked deficit in their natural rate of increase notwithstanding high nuptiality and, apparently, great fertility. Under these circumstances, the maintenance and gradual increase of the numbers of Jews in Jerusalem were entirely due to migratory reinforcements, i.e. to ‘aliya. [immigration]

      See U.O. Schmelz Demographic Research of the Jerusalem
      and Hebron Regions Towards the End of the Ottoman Period, in David Kushner, Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period: Political, Social, and Economic Transformation, BRILL, 1986, page 363.

    • I think the question is fair. I have asked it before and not gotten good answers. Was there a Palestinian identity different from Jordanian, Lebanese and Syrian (subjects of the Turkish empire all) in 1920? There clearly is one now. But was there one then?

      Of course there was a Palestinian national identity in 1920. You can establish that from a number of independent Zionist, British, and Ottoman sources. Here are some comments with background material on that:

      *The 19th century British Foreign Office Confidential Prints FO 424 series and early 20th century Arab Bureau Papers FO 882 series relate that the origins of the Husayni (aka al-Husseini), Khalidi, Nashashibi, 'Abd al-Hadi, Tuqan families, and the major clans and tribes - including the Beersheba Bedouin - pre-date the first Zionist Aliya and that all of the groups had been settled there for centuries. Most of the inhabitants today can trace their ancestry to one or more of the families named in the 19th century British consular reports.

      From this article, many Palestinians today had great grandparents who were born outside of current day Palestine: link to

      In fact the article is based upon sheer conjecture and doesn't cite a single specific example or source which actually supports Gottheil's claims. According to the Middle East Forum's own mission statement it's a political advocacy site affiliated with founder Daniel Pipes' other organizations, like Campus Watch. If you're reading this information, you need to check the actual content of the cited sources. If not, your family and friends may need to stage an intervention and deprogram you later on.

      The first source that the Gottheil deliberately distorted is the chapter by U.O. Schmelz in Gad G. Gilbar, "Ottoman Palestine, 1800-1914– Studies in Economic and Social History", Brill Archive, 1990. The only census data Schmelz studied were those for two kazas, Hebron and Jerusalem. His editor Gilbar summarized Schmelz' analysis of the Ottoman registration data for the 1905 populations of Jerusalem and Hebron as follows:

      U.O. Schmelz’s paper considers the demographic characteristics of the regions of Jerusalem and Hebron at the end of the Ottoman period on the basis of data of the Ottoman census of 1905. He reaches several important conclusions — for example, on the composition of the immigration into Jerusalem at the beginning of the twentieth century. Regarding the immigration of Muslim population into the city, it is not clear if this was merely internal migration or if the Muslim immigrants included a significant proportion of newcomers from outside Palestine.

      See page 1 "Introduction"

      In another article published as a chapter on his study of the Ottoman census of Jerusalem and Hebron, Schmelz wrote:

      There is no sufficiently clear picture of the demography of Palestine in the 19th century and up to World War I. This is due to the dearth of sources and the low quality of most of the available ones, and to the so far prevailing paucity of interest in this topic by researchers with demographic training.

      -- See "Demographic Research of the Jerusalem and Hebron Regions Towards the End of the Ottoman Period" in David Kushner, Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period: Political, Social, and Economic Transformation , BRILL, 1986

      The Middle East Forum (MEF) article practically ignores those and other disclaimers about the reliability of the data. The population had every motive to avoid the census or to list non-Ottoman origins. Gottheil does conceal the most significant statistical findings made by Schmelz, because they plainly state that the overwhelming majority of the population of both kazas were comprised of local native born Palestinians or Palestinian migrants from other kazas. The author only reports on the possible origins of a fraction of the population of Jerusalem without calling attention to that fact. In the case of Hebron, there were practically no foreign immigrants recorded at all.

      Compare Schmelz summary to the deceptive summary provided by the MEF author:

      :(Schmelz) Place of birth
      More than 90 percent of the population in the city of Hebron, in the two village groups and in the Christian townlets had been born in the locality where they were residing and were enumerated in 1905 (see Table 1.8). In the other population groups the proportion of those born locally decreased in the following order: Ottoman Christians in the city of Jerusalem (84 percent), Muslims in the city of Jerusalem (78 percent) and Ottoman Jews in the city of Jerusalem. Among the latter, the percentage of locally born persons was higher for Ashkenazim (66 percent) than for Sephardim (54 percent). . . .When not born in their residential locality, the majority of Muslims in the city of Hebron and in the villages came from within the two kazas studied. In the city of Jerusalem, by contrast, most of the persons born elsewhere came from outside these kazas and at least half came from outside Palestine altogether (see Table 1.9).
      (Gottheil) Demographer U.O. Schmelz's analysis of the Ottoman registration data for 1905 populations of Jerusalem and Hebron kazas (Ottoman districts), by place of birth, showed that of those Arab Palestinians born outside their localities of residence, approximately half represented intra-Palestine movement—from areas of low-level economic activity to areas of higher-level activity—while the other half represented Arab immigration into Palestine itself, 43 percent originating in Asia, 39 percent in Africa, and 20 percent in Turkey.

      *Like U.O. Schmelz, Roberto Bachi also said that there were no reliable sources of information and did not pursue the subject of immigration, so Gottheil steps in and makes argumentative use of Bachi's findings for other countries.

      *The Gottheil article ignores the subject of the Jewish Agency Hebrew Labor policy that was in effect during the mandate era and attempts to draw some nonsensical inferences from recent UNRWA statistics on Palestinian migration to states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, & etc. Lebanon would provide a better comparison. Until very recently, Palestinians couldn't obtain work permits in Lebanon, so migration to that country has been practically nil.

    • Of course, "wrought havoc" is quite correct as well. It is what I would usually say.

      When you stop to think of it, the English language is pretty overwrought;-)

    • As for all your historical regurgitations, you neglected the mention the part about the 2/3 of Palestine that was stolen from the Palestinian people and renamed Jordan, where 70% of the population is Palestinian.

      All of the territory east of the line from Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Allepo was included in the Arab territory that Cairo High Commissioner McMahon pledged to the Sharif of Mecca. The Jordan river was the boundary between the Sanjak of Jerusalem and the Vilayet of Syria (aka Damascus).

      We've pointed out time and again that the territory of Transjordan was not included in the Palestine mandate that the San Remo Conference awarded to Great Britain in April 1920. It was part of the "Arab State" mentioned in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, and the "Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919". Transjordan was under the Emir Faisal's Syrian OETA. The memo is available in the FRUS and in J. C. Hurewitz collection.

      After the San Remo Conference, the French overthrew Faisal's government in August 1920. It was then that the British considered adding the territory to the Palestine mandate and excluding it from the provisions regarding the Jewish national home.

      FYI, half the seats in the lower house of the parliament of "Jordan" were reserved for Palestinian representatives from the West Bank and they usually constituted a majority of the remainder from the East Bank.

    • The tour guide at the museum asked us, “Why did God let the Holocaust happen?” One American on my trip dutifully responded, “If it weren’t for the Holocaust, there might never have been a state of Israel.”

      That's an example which promotes harming Jews in the name of an ideology. Judaism itself allows and excuses killing non-observant Jews for religious reasons. The Aish World Center occupies a prime piece of real estate directly opposite the Western Wall. They promote the theological belief that the Jewish victims of the Holocaust were just reincarnated souls of great sinners who entered this world in order to correct their mistakes from previous lives.

      If you complain that Aryan Nations Theology teaches the same anti-Semetic bullshit, these bigoted ass hats simply respond that everything they say is the word of God and that you mustn't act with such contempt towards a fellow Jew, even more so a leading Torah Sage.

      See also Rabbi Yosef: Secular IDF soldiers are killed because they aren't observant

    • I'm certain that if you recommend holding individual Israeli Knesset members, ministry officials, judges, and military commanders criminally responsible for their roles in the joint criminal settlement enterprise they'd redefine that as collective punishment and anti-Semitic persecution too. Zionists do not have any rules that would prevent them from having it both ways.

  • Netanyahu adopts Facebook strategy to claim sovereignty over Jerusalem for the Olympics
    • 3. The Palestinians have never had sovereignty of Jerusalem, so they could not “give it away”.

      That is where your argument falls apart. The problem is that there is a principle of international law that obligates states not to recognize any territory or qualification of statehood that was acquired in violation of the UN Charter. But the sovereign rights of non-Jewish Palestinian communities that were freed from the Ottoman Empire as a result of WWI had been formally recognized.

      The international community, and the British government in particular, provided a number of assurances and entered into agreements with the Arabs and other Muslim groups about the status of the Holy sites and Jerusalem. You can read about some of those here:

      In the International status of South West Africa case, Judge
      McNair explained

      Upon sovereignty a very few words will suffice. The Mandates System (and the "corresponding principles" of the International Trusteeship System) is a new institution-a new relationship between territory and its inhabitants on the one hand and the government which represents them internationally on the other-a new species of international government, which does not fit into the old conception of sovereignty and which is alien to it. The doctrine of sovereignty has no application to this new system. Sovereignty over a Mandated Territory is in abeyance; if and when the inhabitants of the Territory obtain recognition as an independent State, as has already happened in the case of some of the Mandates, sovereignty will revive and vest in the new State.

      The International Court of Justice noted that the "existing rights" of the Palestinian people had been placed under international guarantee a very long time ago. See paragraph 129 of the ICJ advisory opinion

      The Court noted that one of the most recent examples had been the Treaty of Berlin 1878. All of those "existing rights" of the non-Jewish communities were in-turn the subject of safeguarding clauses in the San Remo resolution and Article 13 of the Mandate, which among other things acknowledged the immunity of the Palestinians and the management of their Muslim Holy places. FYI, immunity is always an attribute of sovereignty. The ICJ noted that safeguards for the "existing rights" of Palestinians were once again the subject of a entire chapter in the UN partition plan. Those "existing rights" were placed under UN guarantee and reflected in the Statute of the Holy City of Jerusalem that was adopted by the Trustee Council and the General Assembly.

      Many states still treat Jerusalem as a Corpus Separatum pending a final settlement agreement. Others, including the US simply view it as a de jure part of the Mandated State of Palestine that has not yet become part of any other sovereignty. The majority of other states have recognized the new State of Palestine and the existing rights and status of Palestinians in East Jerusalem. Several factors prevent countries from recognizing West Jerusalem as Israel's capital: 1) the fact that it acquired the territory by force and annexed it in violation of the UN Charter; 2) the lack of any earlier declarations, agreements, or guarantees that provide Israel with sovereignty, immunity, or exclusive jurisdiction.

  • We need another name for the occupation
    • It seems to me that if an occupying power has been perpetrating a policy of “genocide” or “ethnic cleansing” for over 40 years, then the occupied population, the victims, should have decreased in numbers and should be a lot worse off.

      Then you aren't very familiar with the social indicators or population data for places like the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. They also experienced local population growth despite the loses experienced from genocide. e.g.

    • Certainly policies limit the growth of Palestinian populations by incentives of avoiding oppression

      Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
      (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    • Since the beginning of the occupation, in 1967, the Palestinian population has increased

      That's not relevant. The UN Secretary General, the Special Rapporteurs for food, housing, and human rights, international aid organizations, neighboring states, and the ICJ have all determined that Israel created walled-off enclaves that were denied access to adequate sources of food, water, and health care. See the findings of fact contained in paragraphs 132-134 of the ICJ Advisory Opinion.

      Unharvested crops died or were destroyed in the fields while a significant proportion of the children suffered stunted growth and permanent disabilities from malnutrition, which included premature death. That is by definition genoicide and/or apartheid ipso jure:

      Article II
      In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
      (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

      Article II
      For the purpose of the present Convention, the term "the crime of apartheid", which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:
      (b) Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;

      Ahmad Hajihosseini, Observer for the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), advised the UN Security Council that the form of apartheid Israel practised against Palestinians fulfilled all elements of the crime as defined under the 1976 apartheid Convention. In their final communique on 30 September after their annual coordination meeting in New York, the OIC Foreign Ministers had condemned the building of the expansion wall, which involved the confiscation of Palestinian land; the isolation of Palestinian villages, towns and cities; and the destruction of Palestinian property and livelihood. --

      Written Statement of Lebanon to the ICJ:
      “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.”

    • ‘Apartheid’ actually substantially understates the evil of Jewish policy in the West Bank.

      That particular regime combines all of the crimes that were conjoined in the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations: "eviction by armed attack or occupation and inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid, and the crime of genocide". It's no accident that those were the very same totalitarian policies and practices that were employed by the 2nd Reich and the Afrikaners against the Herero people of the German colony of Namibia and by the 3rd Reich against the peoples of Europe.

      The South African HSRC study highlighted a regime of "Occupation, Colonialism, and Apartheid", which are all illegal in their effects:

    • There is another name-it has been used for the last 100 years, in case you’ve missed it.
      It is called national conflict or civil war. Two nations are fighting for the same spot of land by all means available to them-one side is winning, another one is losing.

      You seem to be suffering from schizophrenia. When two nations are fighting, that is by definition an "international conflict", not a civil war. See the subsection of the Israeli Supreme Court ruling under the heading “The General Normative Framework, A. International Armed Conflict” and try to get your stories straight before you make even bigger fools out of yourselves than you already have.

    • Apartheid


      The occupation is no longer an occupation. It needs another name. I don't have a word or a phrase, but an accurate description of the policy now in force would be: "expulsion by attrition and gradually compelled transfer of population."

      The "Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity" provides that "No statutory limitation shall apply to the following crimes, irrespective of the date of their commission":

      Crimes against humanity whether committed in time of war or in time of peace as they are defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Nurnberg, of 8 August 1945 and confirmed by resolutions 3 (I) of 13 February 1946 and 95 (I) of 11 December 1946 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, eviction by armed attack or occupation and inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid, and the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, even if such acts do not constitute a violation of the domestic law of the country in which they were committed. --

      I would also add that after nearly 90 years of effort, the international community of states adopted a criminal statute in 2010 that made any occupation in violation of the UN Charter a constituent act of the crime of aggression and that the UN General Assembly has repeatedly affirmed that Israel's continued occupation of Arab territories captured in 1967 a) violates the UN Charter; and b) constitutes aggression. See
      *General Assembly Resolution ES-9/1 link to
      *General Assembly resolution 39/146 link to

  • In 'productive' day in J'lem, Clinton ducks question about settlements
    • Isn’t Hillary a self-identifying Presbyterian?

      I don't know. I've read that her folks were Methodists and that she has taught Sunday school classes in a Methodist Church. She and Bill attend Foundry Methodist Church when they are in D.C.

    • Clinton told General Tantawi of the SCAF to press on and honor the agreement to turn over power to the civilian government. She was able to waive the prohibition on providing foreign assistance to a military coup regime last year, but the author of the bill that permitted that waiver has said that he will place a hold on future funding if the military retains power.

  • Huffington Post features Israel lobby propaganda in slander against the Presbyterian Church
    • Huffington Post ran an article full of Israel lobby propaganda against divestment, including the suggestion that the Presbyterian Church is anti-Semitic.

      Nobody out here in the Bible Belt is gonna buy anything these Zionists have to say if they keep trying to suggest that Methodists and Presbyterians are antisemitic. That idea goes over like a lead balloon.

      Has anybody seen any discussion in the US MSM over the latest anti-Christian tirades coming out of the Knesset? One of them tore up a Christian Bible and many others complained that it's illegal to send one through the Israeli mail or to have one delivered to an Israeli Knesset member. Believe me, the Evangelicals out here will jump all the way to the end of their chains snarling and snapping over that sort of petty and bigoted bullshit if they ever get wind of it.
      Missionaries in the Knesset?
      Report: Israeli MK tears up Bible

  • What if an American politician came out for preserving a Christian majority?
    • but do you honestly think the passengers of the MM didn’t know exactly who was boarding them as they tried to run the Israeli blockade?

      We've been here before, you can't enforce a blockade against a foreign flagged vessel in international waters, five hours sailing time from the official published coordinates. The report says that two passengers had already been shot dead before the Israeli soldiers step foot on the ship. Under those circumstances the passengers would have had the right to defend themselves using necessary, even lethal force.

    • Israel uses proportional representation so the Arabs are represented in the Knesset and have been in every Knesset since the first.

      What a blowhard. The bulk of the Arab citizens were driven into exile first. The Jewish Agency and Vaad Leumi granted themselves all executive, legislative and judicial powers before any elections were ever held and they have refused to allow the Arab voters to return to their homes.

      The Jewish regime adopted discriminatory laws from the get-go that delegated essential state functions to parastal agencies, like the JNF and WZO, in which Arabs have no vote or say at all. The Israel Land Administration that controls national planning has a number of seats reserved for the representatives of the Jewish National Fund. No seats are reserved for other ethnic groups. The bulk of the JNF's lands were stolen from Palestinians, e.g. see With all due respect for the 'blue box'

      I've posted a list of some of the laws and military orders that discriminate against so-called Israeli Arabs or Palestinians before. Here it is again:
      “Equality” is not entrenched as a fundamental human right in any Basic Law. Discrimination is permitted without limitation against persons on the basis of “Nationality” (in lieu of race, citizenship, or religion). See Articles 8 & 10 of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (1992) as amended (1994) for complete details. The discriminatory statutes include, but are not limited to the following: Law of Return (1950); Nationality Law (1952); Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (2003) Temporary Order 5763 (2003) extended to present; Absentee Property Law (1950); Status Law of Israel (1952); Basic Law: Israel Lands (1960); Land Acquisition Law (1953) as amended (2010); Planning and Construction Law (1965); Law on Agricultural Settlement (1967); Israel Lands Authority Law (2009).

      In the Occupied Territories military orders have been used to establish an administrative regime. In the 2004 Wall case the International Court of Justice determined that the regime was illegal. Some of the relevant orders are:
      *Orders Nº 29 (1967) and Nº 378 (1970) establish procedures to detain and prosecute Palestinians;
      *Military Orders Nº 561 (1974), Nº 783 (1979), Nº 892 (1980), and Nº 981 (1982) establish an entirely separate legal system for Israeli settlers;
      *Military Orders Nº 107 (1967), Nº 50 (1967), Nº 101 (1967), and Amendment Orders Nº 1079 and 1423 impose a system of military censorship, and set severe limits on freedom of speech and public assemblies by Palestinians;
      *Military Orders Nº 58 (1967), Order Nº 59 (1967), Nº 291 (1968), Nº 1060 (1983) grant Israeli Military Authorities custody, control, and dispute resolution authority concerning state and private property, land, and water; and the right to confiscate private property without compensation.
      *Special Military Order Nº 224 (1967) restores the mandate era “Emergency Regulations” (1945); Military Order Nº 92 (1967) concerns provision and control of water; Military Order Nº 5 concerns closure of the West Bank; Military Order Nº 537 (1974) concerning powers of the Area Commander to set municipal boundaries; direct municipal services and planning; and the power to dismiss democratically-elected officials; Military Order Nº 297 establishes a pass system that restricts freedom of movement.

    • Yes, witness the Mavi Marmara where the principle weapons the soldiers carried were paintball guns

      If "witness" (vs. perpetrators) is the operative word, then here is what the Palmer Inquiry says that they reported:

      At 4.32 a.m., Israeli forces launched the attack without prior warning when several speedboats drew alongside the Mavi Marmara and IDF personnel commenced an attempt to board the vessel. The speedboats were shortly followed by combat helicopters. IDF personnel began firing on the Mavi Marmara from both the speedboats and helicopters before boarding had commenced. This included the use of live fire (including automatic and semi-automatic weapon fire) as well as stun and smoke grenades, paintball guns and rubber bullets. Two passengers were killed by shots from the helicopters before the first soldiers had boarded the vessel. The Captain immediately changed the vessel’s course to the open sea on a bearing of 270º, but Israeli naval frigates approached the vessel from the starboard bow and forced the convoy to turn back towards Israeli waters. Passengers on board the Mavi Marmara panicked and acted in self-defence to prevent the IDF personnel from boarding the vessel. Passengers threw plastic bottles, waste bins and chairs at IDF personnel attempting to board from the speedboats, and physically overpowered the first three soldiers to rappel onto the vessel from the helicopters but no guns or other weapons were used.

      The government of Israel did not challenge the details of the report from the government of Turkey "that the Mavi Marmara, when returned after being held in Ashdod for 66 days, had been scrubbed down thoroughly, blood stains completely washed off, bullet holes painted over, ship records, Captain’s log, computer hardware, ship documents seized, CCTV cameras smashed and all photographic footage withheld."

    • The only question is will Israel be Jewish with equal rights for its Arab citizens (no right of return), or will it be an Islamic majority state with no rights for Jews (if there is right of return).

      The Jewish Knesset members won't even admit that Christian Knesset members should have freedom to exercise their religion:
      Report: Israeli MK tears up Bible
      Missionaries in the Knesset?
      Christian MK calls for legal action against Ben-Ari

  • Ship to Gaza: Estelle arrives in Stockholm with a message
    • Thus, Israel has its own quantities of gas, and does not need to covet the fields off Gaza. One can only conclude that Israel continues to block the development of the gas fields as part of its blockade against the Gaza Strip.”

      Yes, but it's playing dog in the manger with a British exploration company that obtained a 60 percent share of any gas that it finds as part of its 25 year concession. The EU recognizes the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinians over the natural resources of the territory, so Israel is asking for trouble with the UK and the EU in the long run.

    • Hostage, can you explain what “retroactive operation of recognition involving acts of a state inside its own territory or territorial waters.” means?

      Surely. When Palestine applied for membership in the United Nations and UNESCO, it cited the bases in international law and its 1988 unilateral declaration of independence - its first act of state. The long standing state practice under customary international law holds that when a government is finally recognized as the government of a country, the recognition is retroactive in effect and validates all the actions and conduct of the government so recognized from the commencement of its existence.

      So despite the fact that no other countries actually recognized the United States of America on the 4th of July 1776, or that it did not exercise effective control over most its territory for many more years, international law still validates all of its subsequent actions and conduct as those of a sovereign state. Something similar has already happened in the case of Palestine, where about 130 countries have extended formal recognition on the bases of international law and its 1988 declaration.

      So Great Britain can, and probably will recognize the State of Palestine and the validity of its $4 billion contract with the British Gas company at a later date - even if the PA is eventually overthrown or dissolved by the Israelis. That's exactly what happened in the Tinoco Arbitration case. Great Britain only recognized the regime, after it was deposed, in order to pursue financial claims in an oil exploration concession and some Costa Rican notes held by its banks. The court of arbitration agreed, and the principle of retroactive recognition was applied to validate the acts of the defunct regime. Hersh Lauterpact outlined the basic facts of the case in the International Law Report:

      Tinoco overthrew the Gonzales Government of Costa Rica and established a new Government. He governed for two years when he was himself overthrown and the old Government restored to power. During the time the Tinoco Government was governing it granted certain concessions to search for oil to a British company.

      It also passed legislation issuing certain new currencies, and British banks, in the course of business, became holders of much of this currency. The old Government, when it was restored to power, passed acts nullifying the [oil] concessions granted by the Tinoco Government and nullifying the currency laws it had made. The United Kingdom Government argued, on behalf of its nationals, that the legislation passed by the restored Government nullifying the acts of the Tinoco Government was invalid and that the restored Costa Rica Government should recognize the concessions given to British companies and the validity of Tinoco’s currency held by British banks.

      The case was submitted to arbitration and was heard before Taft Chief Justice of the United States. The United Kingdom had always refused to recognize the Tinoco Government as either a de facto or a de jure Government, but despite this it presented its claim at the arbitration proceedings on the basis that the Tinoco Government had in fact and in law been a de facto and a de jure Government and therefore all its acts were valid and its successor had no right to repudiate them. Costa Rica objected to this argument on the ground that the United Kingdom, having consistently refused to recognize the Tinoco Government as either a de facto or a de jure Government, was now estopped from arguing that the Tinoco Government had in fact been a de jure and a de facto one.

      Taft C.J. rejected this argument of the Costa Rica Government . . . . He came to the conclusion that in fact the Tinoco Government had been a de facto Government during the period of its existence. At page 201 of the report of the case he is reported as saying:
      “ Such non-recognition for any reason, however, cannot outweigh the evidence disclosed by the record before me of the de facto character of the Tinoco Government.’’

      The retroactivity rule does not always apply to acts or concessions outside the territory or territorial waters where de jure or effective control would naturally be disputed.

    • P.S. Here is a link to a story on the Crawford legal opinion for the Trade Union Congress that also mentions bans on loans to companies doing business in the settlements.

    • The Israelis will steal that as they have everything else in Occupied Palestine,

      A British firm owns a 60 percent share in the gas, and I'd imagine the UK would seek sanctions against Israel through the EU if Israel interferes with that 25 year deal with the PA. The Foreign Office is already funding studies that establish the fact that Israel is violating human rights. Israel's trade agreement with the EU is conditioned on respect for human rights and progress on ending the occupation.

      Some one just engaged Prof James Crawford of Cambridge to write a 60 page opinion which explains that it would not violate any international law or the World Trade Agreement to ban imports of settlement products into the EU regardless of how they are labelled. So it looks like the UK may be poised to step-up the pressure another notch on settlement products. They led the charge on mislabeling:

      Here is the background on the gas deal: British Gas (BG Group) and its partner, the Athens based Consolidated Contractors International Company (CCC) owned by Lebanon’s Sabbagh and Koury families, were granted oil and gas exploration rights in a 25 year agreement signed in November 1999 with the Palestinian Authority.
      The rights to the offshore gas field are respectively British Gas (60 percent); Consolidated Contractors (CCC) (30 percent); and the Investment Fund of the Palestinian Authority (10 percent). (Haaretz, October 21, 2007).
      The PA-BG-CCC agreement includes field development and the construction of a gas pipeline.(Middle East Economic Digest, Jan 5, 2001).
      The BG licence covers the entire Gazan offshore marine area, which is contiguous to several Israeli offshore gas facilities. (See Map below). It should be noted that 60 percent of the gas reserves along the Gaza-Israel coastline belong to Palestine.
      The BG Group drilled two wells in 2000: Gaza Marine-1 and Gaza Marine-2. Reserves are estimated by British Gas to be of the order of 1.4 trillion cubic feet, valued at approximately 4 billion dollars. These are the figures made public by British Gas. The size of Palestine’s gas reserves could be much larger.

    • The decade-old discovery of undersea gas fields in the Levant Basin is a much bigger factor in Israeli policy than is suggested by the amount of attention it gets in human-rights-based political discussions.

      The story has been covered since day one on Iran's Press TV.

      The possibility of that wealth in the “wrong” hands is, from Israel’s position, far more threatening than anything either the PA or Hamas can now offer.

      Well the good news is that Arafat signed a $4 billion deal with British Gas and the British government invented the principle of retroactive operation of recognition involving acts of a state inside its own territory or territorial waters. That sort of thing usually happens while pursuing claims for enormous sums of money on behalf of banks and businesses in cases like the Tinoco Arbitration, US v Belmont, & etc.

    • Why would Israel assassinate its own puppet?

      Arafat could have filed a declaration with the International Criminal Court against the Israelis any time after July 2002, but it was Abbas that actually did so. Wikileaks revealed that the Israeli military considered the PA's criminal complaint in the Hague to be an act of war.
      *link to

      Arafat backed down on Palestine's bid for statehood when Netanyahu promised to annex most of the West Bank, including all of Area C and Area B. Abbas simply called his bluff and said Palestinians would demand equal rights including the right to vote in Israel if that happened and pressed-on with efforts through the UN.

      The Palestinians have joined UNESCO over US and Israeli objections, and has been seated among the non-member state delegations during the recent UN diplomatic conferences, despite the objections of Canada, the US and Israel.

      And of course he really proved that he was an Israeli puppet when Palestine got the Church of the Nativity declared a World Heritage site.

  • Judge orders Stand With Us-backed plaintiffs to pay $160,000 in Olympia Food Co-op BDS case
    • I love how blithely people here cite to fringe web sites to make their points.

      Of course you love it! You probably find it very refreshing reading, judging by the warmed-over Pam Gellar/Caroline Glick/JihadWatch/Elder of Ziyon/Bad Rachel cruft that you repost here all the time.

  • NY ads depicting Palestinian dispossession are termed anti-Semitic by 'Jewish community'
    • Really? I’m pretty sure no newbies reading this are going to be convinced that Jordan didn’t take the WB like plucking a mish mish for it’s own expansionism.

      It's a matter of public record that the newbies can verify that Israel seized a great deal of territory beyond the boundaries of the proposed Jewish state and transferred the bulk of the Palestinian Arab population into the territory of Transjordan. During the membership hearings on Israel's UN application, it was noted for the record that Jewish immigrants from Europe had taken their place and were living in their homes. On the other hand, the new joint Kingdom of Jordan didn't result in colonization of West Jordan by the inhabitants of East Jordan. Here is how the situation was summed-up:

      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. -- Representative Malik, Lebanon 45th Session of the Ad Hoc Committee hearings on Israel's membership application in the UN, A/AC.24/SR.45, 5 May 1949

      link to

      Or are going to be convinced that the Palestinians gave up their proto statehood with the proviso that they can have it back later, promise! Or are going to be convinced giving Jordan the WB was a declaration of Statehood. declaration of Statehood.

      Check the comment archives. I've already cited and quoted the State of Palestine annex from the Charter of the League of Arab States, the text of the resolutions of the Jericho Congress, the text of the 1950 Act of Union, and the historical written summary that Jordan provided to the ICJ which confirms that is exactly what happened. The act of declaring a head of state and forming a union are legal acts of state under customary international and they are cited as valid examples of modes by which the right of self-determination can be exercised in the Declaration on Friendly Relations Between States in Accordance with the Principles of International Law Contained in the Charter of the United Nations.

      In fact, I cited and quoted the summary of the loosing Legal Position of the State of Israel in the 2004 Wall case. It challenged the Jordanian position on the legality of the union and the de jure applicability of the Geneva Conventions in all of the territory subject to the Kingdom of Jordan's jurisdiction.

      The ICJ provided a legal analysis that settled the dispute over that material fact and ruled that the territory was indeed part of the jurisdiction of Jordan, and that the Geneva Conventions are applicable there on a de jure basis. FYI, the Court also noted that, for its own part, the government of Switzerland considered Palestine's undertaking to accede to the Geneva Conventions and Protocols in 1982 a valid legal undertaking. So the Court, the UN Security Council, and the General Assembly have all stated that they consider Palestine to be bound by the terms of the Geneva Conventions. See para 91 of the Wall advisory opinion. link to

      And what’s with all the ziobot business Citizen? I see nothing Zionist about claiming Palestine wasn’t a state.

      You don't have any legal standing to make a claim. But every time that question has been put to a Court, they've ruled that Palestine is a State. Newbies can read more about that here:

    • “By 1999, Crawford had accepted Prof Quigley’s view on the statehood of Palestine,” . . . . The 2nd ed from 2006 of The Creation of States in International Law still concludes that Palestine isn’t a state.

      I'll repeat what I said before, and spell it out for you one more time. The chapters in question are an essay written in 1999 that was simply reprinted in the collection of essays published in 2006:
      1) By 1999, Crawford had accepted Prof Quigley’s view on the statehood of Palestine, but still fell victim to doubts caused by hasbara reports which claimed the PLO was going to make another Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) and that Palestine could not unilaterally alter the status of the territory while the Oslo Accords remained in effect.
      - See Crawford, "Israel (1948–49) and Palestine (1998–99): Two Studies in the Creation of States" in Goodwin-Gill and Talmon (eds), Reality of International Law: Essays in Honour of Ian Brownlie, pages 95–124

      2) Note that the Oslo Accords lapsed on September 13, 2000 and the Palestinians did not issue another UDI.

      3) Crawford represented the State of Palestine in the Wall case were he presented oral arguments before the Court. Only States are permitted to participate as respondents or interested parties in cases before the Court in accordance with Article 34 of the ICJ Statute. In fact, Israel's supporters, including Australia, argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction because the case was a dispute between two states, and Israel had not consented to have the Court decide the matter. Crawford responded that the Court had provided an advisory opinion in the dispute between South Africa and Namibia, because the dispute touched on a multilateral dispute about obligations erga omnes - and this was another example of the same thing. 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

      4) I noted that the essay from the 1999 Goodwin Gil-Talmon book (cited above) was simply reprinted in the collection of essays in the 2nd Edition of "Creation of States in International Law", which was published in 2006.

      5) In “The Creation of States in International Law”, 2nd Edition, 2006, page 17, Crawford admitted that, some governments leave decisions on statehood to the Courts and the law, but that any form of recognition derived from executive branch certification is legally binding.

      6) So on page 435 of "Creation of States" (and page 111 of the earlier "Reality of International Law" 1999) he admitted that the 1988 Algiers Declaration of the State of Palestine had been widely recognized by the numerical majority of UN member states. That is a form of legally binding executive certification:

      Such thinking underlay the ‘declaration of independence’ made by the Palestinian National Council in 1988, on the basis of which the independence of Palestine was recognised by a numerical majority of United Nations Members. It underlies claims made now that the agreements between Israel and Palestine since 1993 have in effect acknowledged the international existence of Palestine, which could be nothing but a State.

      Since Palestine had already declared its statehood and the Oslo Accords did not mention statehood as a final status issue, applying for UN membership is not an attempt to change the status of the territory.

      7) The conclusion of the reprinted 1999 essay naturally contained anachronisms by 2006.

      FYI the UNESCO vote placed Palestine into a category of states that are automatically recognized as having the necessary legal competence to conclude treaties and conduct diplomatic relations in accordance with both the UN Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties and Diplomatic Relations and customary international law. For example the Associated State of the Cook Islands deposited an accession to the Rome Statute of the ICC, although it has never been recognized as an observer state by the General Assembly.

    • As far as I can glean, Hostage bizarrely upholds the Jericho resolutions as a declaration of Palestinian independence. I am aware of no other literature that supports this.

      Okay here is the literature the ICJ considered or cited when it reject the government of Israel's argument on Jordan's sovereignty over the West Bank:

      International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
      Article 1

      1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

      Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations:
      The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.,459d17822,459d17a82,3dda1f104,0.html

      From the Written Statement of Jordan to the ICJ:
      2.18 In 1948, during the Arab-Israeli hostilities, the only effective authority in relation to the West Bank was that of Jordan: in December 1949 the West Bank was placed under Jordanian rule, and it was formally incorporated into Jordan on 24 April 1950 . This was the result of the signing by King Abdallah of a resolution passed to him for signature by Jordan's National Assembly (including representatives of both East and West Banks), which supported the unity of the two Banks as one nation State called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, "without prejudicing the final settlement of Palestine's just case within the sphere of national aspiration, inter-Arab cooperation and international justice".

      2.19 The signing of this resolution was the culmination of a series of earlier requests made by the Palestinian Arabs through conferences attended by the elected Mayors of major West Bank towns and villages (Hebron, Ramallah, Al-Beereh, Jenin, Nablus, Tulkarm, Qalqilya and Anabta), as well as leading religious clerics (Muslims and Christians alike), and a multiplicity of notables, tribal leaders, activists, college presidents, the Chief Shariaa Judge, and the Mufti of Jerusalem Saed-Ideen Al-Alami. Following these conferences, King Abdallah consented to a proposed constitutional amendment to expand the membership of the Jordanian Parliament to include elected representatives from all the West Bank constituencies. Elections for the expanded Parliament were held on 11 April 1950 and a new Parliament was elected with half of its members elected from the West Bank.

      2.20 This provoked something of a crisis in relations between Jordan and other Arab States, but any risk of serious problems was averted when the
      Government of Jordan formally declared in 1950 that unity with the Palestinian territory was "without prejudice to the final settlement" of the
      Palestinian problem: this declaration was accepted by the Arab League.

      2.21 The boundaries of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan as it resulted from these events are illustrated in Sketch Map No. 4 following page 7. It was with those publicly known boundaries that Jordan became a Member of the United Nations in 1955, without any objection about Jordan's territorial extent being made by any State (including Israel, which was already at that time a Member State). Furthermore, after the unification of the West Bank within Jordan's territory, Jordan concluded with a considerable number of States bilateral and multilateral treaties whose application extended to the entirety of Jordan including all of the West Bank: none of the other parties to those treaties made any reservation to the effect that their applicability to the West Bank was excluded. The Security Council evidently shared that view when it adopted Resolution 228 (1966): the Council observed that, "the grave Israeli Military action which took place in the southern Hebron area [of the West Bank] on 13 November 1966... constituted a large scale and carefully planned military action on the territory of Jordan by the armed forces of Israel" (emphasis added).

      In the course of hearings held from 23 to 25 February 2004, the Court
      heard oral statements from Mr. James Crawford, S.C., Whewell Professor of
      International Law, University of Cambridge, Member of the Institute of International Law, Counsel and Advocate for Palestine. Here is an extract from his "Conclusions" chapter in "The Creation of States in International Law":

      "In the first place, the concept of “sovereignty” as a criterion for plenary competence has been rejected. Although that view gained a certain degree of acceptance among nineteenth-century writers and was accepted in the twentieth century in Soviet and in some western doctrine, the notion of “sovereignty” has been seen to be both unhelpful and misleading as a criterion. It is unhelpful since both the legal and the effective capacities, rights, immunities and so on of States may vary widely, within the limits established by the criteria for separate independence. It is misleading since it implies a necessary and overriding omnipotence which States do not possess in law or in fact. Rejection of “sovereignty” as a criterion involves rejection of the old notion of the “semi-sovereign” State. Those dependent, devolving or sui generis entities that qualify as States under the general criteria do so despite specific limitations as to capacity and the like;

      Here is an extract from Israel's losing position from the Secretary General's report to the International Court of Justice:
      Annex I

      Summary legal position of the Government of Israel . . .
      3. Despite having ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel has not incorporated it into its domestic legislation. Nor does it agree that the Convention is applicable to the occupied Palestinian territory, citing the lack of recognition of the territory as sovereign prior to its annexation by Jordan and Egypt and, therefore, not a territory of a High Contracting Party as required by the Convention.

    • historians like Crawford…do not regard Palestine as a state under the Ottomans

      Crawford is a lawyer. Historians and political scientists know perfectly well that the Ottoman "Governor of Jerusalem and Palestine" was the Sultan's agent in dealing with the 8 Western governments on regional issues like the Survey of Palestine, Jewish immigration, railroad concessions, archeological excavations, and the capitulations. The latter effectively turned Jerusalem and the neighboring Sanjaks into an international condominium known as "Palestine".

      Although the officials, like Rauof Pasha were the nominal heads of the Sanjak or Mutasarrifyya of Jerusalem, they frequently turned-up elsewhere exercising authority over government works in neighboring Sanjaks in their role as "the Governor of Palestine". Here is a report from the Palestine Exploration Fund about excavations in the Sanjak of Balka (Nablus) - part of the Vilayet of of Beirut - and the actions taken by there by the Governor of Palestine to secure the archeological discoveries:

      I Discovery on Mount Gerizim of a Marble Pedestal Onnamented With Bas Reliefs and Inscriptions

      About the middle of last year an important archaeological discovery was made in a celebrated locality of Palestine which had not previously supplied us with anything particularly interesting in the way of antiquities Some works undertaken by the Ottoman authorities for the construction of a building at Nablous the ancient Shechem at the foot of Mount Gerizim brought to light a considerable number of fragments of sculptured marble Among these was found a large pedestal of marble about a metre in height triangular or rather hexagonal in shape with three broad and three narrow sides covered with bassi relievi and Greek inscriptions M Paulus a talented sculptor resident in the Holy City and the Governor of Palestine His Excellency Raouf Pasha whose enlightened zeal cannot be too highly praised and who has taken steps to secure the preservation of this beautiful monument kindly sent me as soon as possible different photographs of it.

      -- Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly statement, The Society, 1884, pages 187-188

    • @Bing Bong,

      *You've attempted to show that Palestinians gave up their national movement by opting for a Jordanian one. But Transjordan was one of the two states laid down inside the boundaries of the British mandate for Palestine. So the new joint Jordanian nationality was still an entirely Palestinian one.

      *Using your logic, the Jews also gave up their own national movement when Weizmann and Sokolow claimed they had no interest in a state of their own and opted for autonomy and incorporation in Palestine or, wait for it, Greater Syria:

      Dr. Weizmann expressed the view that the most advantageous settlement of the Palestine question in his opinion would be the division of the country into Jewish and Arab cantons with wide powers of autonomy and the federation of Palestine and Trans-Jordan into one state under continued British supervision for some time to come. As Jewish cantons he would include Galilee (northern Palestine) and
      the coastal region of Palestine, and as Arab cantons the hill country and western Palestine, together with Trans-Jordan. The Negev or southern Palestine comprises 11,000,000 dunums of land inhabited by
      no more than 50,000 Bedouins. At least one-tenth of this region was cultivable and might serve as an eventual place of settlement of large numbers of people. He would leave this area, however, outside the cantonization plan for subsequent disposition.

      The hope was expressed by Dr. Weizmann that eventually such Jewish and Arab areas as might be set up in Palestine and Trans-Jordan could be merged in a larger federation of states, including Syria and Iraq, but he was afraid that the French might be an obstacle to this. The Jewish leader added that his proposed boundaries for cantonal settlement followed in general the lines of the partition proposals of the Royal Commission. He had succeeded in obtaining the approval of the partition proposals by the World Zionist Congress in 1937 as he felt that those proposals were something in hand which were worth accepting. Unfortunately, the partition scheme had had to be abandoned.

      Dr. Weizmann stated that he would be one of the first to admit that the Jews had made many mistakes in Palestine. Twenty years had not been enough in which to reach a durable basis of settlement. It would take many more years than that. Mr. Murray inquired what Dr. Weizmann’s reaction had been to the statement in Parliament in 1938 of Viscount Samuel that the Arab nationalist movement in Palestine was as genuine as the Egyptian nationalist movement, the Irish nationalist movement, or the Indian nationalist movement. Dr. Weizmann replied that he was in entire accord with Viscount Samuel as to this.

      Mr. Murray observed that he did not think that Dr. Weizmann’s views as to the advantages of the partition proposals of the Royal Commission or as to the significance of the Arab uprising of the past three years in Palestine were generally shared by American Zionists. Dr. Weizmann replied that with all due respect to American Zionists, he found them either too extreme in their views, on the one hand, or too lukewarm, on the other. By reason of their distance from the practical problems which the Jews had to face, American Zionists were insufficiently informed concerning the day-to-day development of those problems. As a result, American Zionists were either uncompromising in their outlook or completely disillusioned regarding the future.

      -- See Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers, 1940. The British Commonwealth, the Soviet Union, the Near East and Africa
      (1940), pages 837-838

      Five years later in 1945 he still didn't express the will for independence that you keep brining-up:

      *10. As regards the possible government of Palestine, Mr. Blevin recently had a talk with Dr. Weizmann, who appears now to be against partition and talked about a Swiss constitution with cantons which would be a bilingual state with opportunities for both races to be represented abroad, and which would provide common services within. His Majesty's Government would be willing for consideration to be given to this as well.

      -- See Foreign relations of the United States : diplomatic papers, 1945, The Near East and Africa, page 776

      *There is ample evidence that the Hashemites supported the establishment of a confederation of Arab states, such as the one mentioned in the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

      *There was nothing incompatible with the idea of a Palestinian state as a member of a Greater Syrian confederation. The Hashemites were more than willing to cede dependent, autonomous regions in Palestine to others. See for example the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement between "the Arab State" and "Palestine".

      In "War in Palestine, 1948: Strategy and Diplomacy", Israeli military historian David Tal noted that Great Britain hoped to create a pro-British Greater Syria (page 355). The original members of the League of Arab States essentially consisted of Egypt + the Greater Syrian confederation of states that had been liberated from the Ottoman Empire. Tal notes that Abdullah had already abandoned his plans for Greater Syria by 1948, and that he entered into negotiations with Musa Alami regarding an alliance to protect the Syrian flank once they were deployed in return for acquiescence to his control of the central adjacent region of the Palestinian Arab State (pages 21-23).

      *So the Syrians still had expansionist ambitions of their own in Palestine. Israel claimed that it was created by its own act of secession and was not in any sense a successor to the former government, its debts, or treaty obligations. It claimed the refugees had never been its citizens. The Syrians responded by pointing out that Israel could not have inherited the former government's territory either and claimed 10 Arab villages in the region it had occupied under the armistice agreements: Khan el Duweir in the northern sector; Baqqara, Ghannameh, Mansurat el Khayt, Yirda in the central sector; Samra, old and new Nuqeib, Kh. Tawafiq and al Hemma in the southern sector. There were two Jewish villages in the region, Mishmar Hayarden and Ein Gev. Israel eventually occupied the DMZs, but the Security Council adopted a Chapter VII resolution refusing to recognize Israeli sovereignty and directing Israel to stop the activities of the Palestine Land Development Company there.

      *Abdullah and the Palestinians did not challenge the Syrian claim. The PA still only claims a state within the 4 June 1967 borders, not within the 1949 armistice lines (which included the Syrian DMZs).

      *FYI, the ex-Mufti Hajj Amin Al-Husseni worked as the liaison official in Damascus between the Arab nationalist supporters of Faisal, serving on the Syrian committee preparing for the General Syrian Congress, and the Palestinian delegation who named Faisal their King. So the Mufti was a supporter of "Greater Syria" too. Palestinians didn't necessarily surrender their nationalists ideals by endorsing the Syrian platform:

      We opposed the pretensions of the Zionists to create a Jewish commonwealth in the southern part of Syria, known as Palestine and oppose Zionist migration to any part of our country for we do not acknowledge their title but consider them a grave peril to our people from the national, economical, and political points of view.

      See Article 7 of the Memorandum of the General Syrian Congress, July 2, 1919

      *You have cited Glen Robinson, "Building a Palestinian State: The Incomplete Revolution", page 10 which noted that Egypt and Israel prevented Palestinian notables from occupying decision making positions in their governments. But Robinson noted that King Abdullah was very forthcoming in appointing Palestinians to very high positions in government. The King dissolved the original parliament in preparation for the April 1950 national elections. The new Parliament was composed of a House of Notables (Majlis al-A'yan), or Senate, and the House of Deputies (Majlis al-Nuwwab). Half the seats in the House Deputies were reserved for representatives from the West Bank. The King appointed many senators from the West Bank. They adopted the Act of Union in April 1950. So it's nonsense to suggest they weren't integrated in government until much later. Here is a good overview of the Parliamentary history of the Hashemite Kingdoms. The text doesn't display in IE and has a lot of white space after the introduction in Mozilla. Its best viewed with Google Chrome or Apple Safari.

    • Is this going to include counter arguments and responses to, historians like Crawford…link to …who do not regard Palestine as a state under the Ottomans or during the mandate?

      Surely. Regarding Dr Crawford. His current views are in total agreement with the advertisements depicting Israel's illegal expropriation of Arab territories shown in the maps accompanying this article. He led the legal team that represented Palestine and presented oral arguments against Israel in the 2004 Wall case. He is currently leading the effort to ban Israeli settlement products in the EU. You didn't just step in it, you fell down in it.

      By 1999, Crawford had accepted Prof Quigley's view on the statehood of Palestine, but still fell victim to doubts caused by hasbara reports which claimed the PLO was going to make another Unilateral Declaration of Independence and that Palestine could not unilaterally alter the status of the territory while the Oslo Accords remained in effect. He thought that, if another declaration were required, that must mean the first one was ineffective. But we know that Palestine relied upon the original 1988 Declaration for its UN and UNESCO applications last year and that its participation in the lapsed Oslo Accords was without any prejudice to its existing position on statehood (which was not listed as a final status issue anyway). Even before the five year term of the Accords officially lapsed, Crawford warned that Israel could not drag its feet any longer:

      None the less this may not be the whole story. There may come a point where international law (like English equity) is justified in regarding as done that which ought to have been done, if the reason it has not been done is the serious default of one party, and if the consequence of its not being done is serious prejudice to another, innocent, party. The principle that a state cannot rely on its own wrongful conduct to avoid the consequences of its international obligations is capable of novel applications and circumstances can be imagined where the international community would be entitled to treat a new state as existing on a given territory, notwithstanding the facts.

      -- See Crawford, ‘Israel (1948–49) and Palestine (1998–99): Two Studies in the Creation of States’ in Goodwin-Gill and Talmon (eds), Reality of International Law, 95–124

      Of course the international community of states were way ahead of Crawford on the issue of equity. That's why the majority had recognized Palestine ten years earlier. Crawford's 1999 statement was the basis of his oral argument in the 2004 Wall case.

      FYI, In "The Creation of States in International Law", 2nd Edition, 2006, page 17, Crawford admitted that some governments leave decisions on statehood to the Courts and the law, but that any form of recognition derived from executive branch certification is legally binding. The chapter from Goodwin Gil-Talmon book was reprinted and included. On page 435 he admitted that the 1988 Algiers Declaration of the State of Palestine had been widely recognized by the numerical majority of UN member states. So objections raised by academics about the binding legal effects of recognition are really just that, academic. When the D.C. District Court agreed with the Secretary of State and ruled against Kletter saying that Palestine had been recognized by the Executive branch in a 1932 treaty of commerce, claims to the contrary were legally precluded. Crawford acknowledges that this is the reality under the applicable principles of ordinary law.

      § 204 of The Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States lists the following forms of Executive branch recognition: "Recognition of a state has been effected by express official declaration, by the conclusion of a bilateral agreement with the state, by the presentation of credentials by a United States representative to the authorities of the new state, and by receiving the credentials of a diplomatic represen­tative of that state." It also explains that, 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 recognition is implied.

      The Montevideo Convention is the law in these parts. It's a treaty in force between states, not law professors. There are no provisions dealing with dispute resolution regarding recognition. When Syria challenged premature US recognition of Israel and requested an advisory opinion the US ambassador said it was a political matter solely within the jurisdiction of the US:

      "I should regard it as highly improper for me to admit that any country on earth can question the sovereignty of the United States of America in the exercise of that high political act of recognition of the de facto status of a State. Moreover, I would not admit here, by implication or by direct answer, that there exists a tribunal of Justice or of any other kind, anywhere, that can pass judgment upon the legality or the validity of that act of my Country. There were certain powers and certain rights of a sovereign State which were not yielded by any of the members who signed the United Nations Charter and in particular this power to recognize the de facto authority of a provisional Government was not yielded. . . . I am certain that no nation on earth has any right to question that, or to lay down a proposition that a certain length of time of the exercise of de facto authority must elapse before that authority can be recognized.”

      See S/1466, 9 March 1950, Letter Dated 8 March 1950 From the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council Concerning “Legal Aspects of Problems of Representation in the United Nations”,

      The written statement of Jordan in the 2004 Wall case provided details about the Jericho Congress and examples of all of the various forms of Executive recognition by other states after the annexation of the West Bank had occurred - including the new entity's accession in 1951 to the Geneva Conventions, without any objections from the depositary or other High Contracting Parties. The Court performed a legal analysis and concluded that the West Bank was subject to the jurisdiction of Jordan and that its status had not changed under the terms of the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty.

      Back in 1990 Dr Crawford was responding to an article written Dr Francis Boyle. At the time, the PLO was still a government in exile. Like Dr Hersch Lauterpacht, Boyle has two earned PhDs, one as a Doctor of Laws and the other as a Doctor of Political Science. The late Dr. Lauterpacht has been recognized for making the most significant individual contributions to the development of international law in the 20th Century.

      Among other things, Dr. Crawford is Director of the Lauterpacht Research Center for International Law, at Cambridge. I've noted that Lauterpacht's International Law Reports and advisory opinions confirmed the status of Palestine as a "third independent state" or separate "mandated state" with the same character of a "regular state". He also held that a State becomes a person of international law solely and exclusively through recognition. See for example:
      *Case No. 34 Mandated States (Saikaly v. Saikaly) reported in John Fischer Williams and Hersh Lauterpacht (editors), “International Law Reports”, Volume 3, Cambridge University Press, page 48 under the heading States as International Persons
      *The reference to the decision by Law Lords Simon and Erleigh in Lauterpacht's advisory opinion for the Jewish Agency "States as Persons of International Law". He noted that the British government had reached the conclusion that Palestine was a “third independent State” for the purposes of the most favored nation clause in its own commerce treaties.

      Lauterpacht, Boyle, and the overwhelming majority of other academics believe that, while recognition of statehood has binding legal consequences, it is primarily undertaken as a political act of state. I've cited the opinions of Ruth Lapidoth, L.C. Green and others who advise that recognition of statehood is a political act, and every state has the right to decide for itself whether to recognize another entity as a state. See for example Judge Benq Broms essay on Recognition of States in UNESCO's volume on International Law:

      In fact Professor Brownlie who supervised Crawford's 1977 doctoral thesis states the position succinctly:

      "Recognition, as a public act of state, is an optional and political act and there is no legal duty in this regard. However, in a deeper sense, if an entity bears the marks of statehood, other states put themselves at risk legally, if they ignore the basic obligations of state relations."

      The primary arguments of Crawford's doctoral thesis were that 1) the creation of States is a matter in principle governed by international law and not left to the discretion of individual States; and 2) the criteria contained in the Montevideo Convention is seriously flawed. There's very little evidence that individuals states have adopted Crawford's view or that the signatories of Montevideo do not consider it a binding treaty still in force. It's somewhat ironic that Crawford got bogged down in a discussion with Boyle about the meaning of "provisionally independent nations" in Article 22 of the Treaty of Versailles and failed to even acknowledge the many Court decisions which recognized Palestine as a "state" did so in accordance with international conventional laws, i.e. Article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles; Article 245 of the Treaty of Sèvres, and Article 30, et seq. of the Treaty of Lausanne. Taken together with Article 60 of the Treaty of Neuilly; Article 74 (2) of the Treaty of Trianon; Article 90 of The Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Palestine is one of the truly rare examples of a state that actually was created in accordance with international law. It was not left up to the discretion of individual States.

      Needless to say, Crawford is not a historian. He is the Whewell Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge. He is currently working on a legal campaign to ban Israeli settlement products in the EU. He's written a 60 page advisory opinion about that. You can read more about it at Opinio Juris:

      A careful reading of the EJIL reveals that Crawford merely said that he believed Palestine was not considered an "independent" state. He did not mention the fact that the Courts had ruled that it was a mandated state or person of international law. He has written about that fact in his books and other articles. In fact, he devoted an entire chapter in his magnum opus, "The Creation of States in International Law", to a discussion about the establishment of the Mandates and Trusteeships and their international legal personalities. Crawford's published views have changed considerably since then anyway. Dr. Francis Boyle's article is available here in EJIL Vol 1 (1990) No. 1. It pointed out that the majority of UN member states had legally recognized Palestine:

      The Statute of the International Court of Justice permits the Court to solicit the written opinions from public international organizations. But it also stipulates that only states may participate as respondents or interested parties in cases before the Court. There is no requirement that the state be "independent".

      Crawford had to address arguments from Israel's supporters, including his own country of origin Australia. They argued that the case was inadmissible, because it was a dispute between two states and that Israel had not consented to have the dispute settled by the Court. Needless to say all of those countries implicitly recognized the statehood of Palestine. The same thing applies to Spain, France, Ireland, Austria, Finland and Greece who voted to admit Palestine as a full member of UNESCO. Crawford pointed out that South Africa did not consent to the Namibia request and that the cases involved a similar request for an advisory opinion from a UN organ. He also argued the Wall was an attempt by Israel to impose a unilateral settlement in relation to a multilateral conflict and to do so in violation of fundamental, erga omnes obligations, to respect the Palestinian people's right of self-determination. That right includes the right to determine their own political status as a state.

      Your illogical argument that Palestinians occupied themselves after the union is simply irrelevant. Crawford writes:

      Belligerent occupation
      Pending a final settlement of the conflict, belligerent occupation does not affect the continuity of the State. The governmental authorities may be driven into exile or silenced, and the exercise of the powers of the State thereby affected. But it is settled that the powers themselves continue to exist. This is strictly not an application of the ‘actual independence’ rule but an exception to it, based on the maxim ex factis ius non oritur pending a settlement of the conflict by a peace treaty or its equivalent.
      This issue was raised by the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of Alliance of 30 June 1930, 132 BFSP 280, intended to regulate relations after the termination of the Mandate. The treaty provided for ‘co-ordination’ of foreign policies (Art 1), mutual assistance in war (Art 4), and granted to the U.K. extensive facilities in time of war, including two permanent air bases (Art 5). The presence of British forces in Iraq was not to ‘constitute in any manner an occupation and will in no way prejudice the sovereign rights of Iraq.’ The treaty was to remain in force for 25 years and then to be renegotiated on
      a basis which still provided for ‘the continued maintenance and protection in all circumstances of the essential communications of His Britannic Majesty.’ (Art 11) . The Permanent Mandates Commission, while expressing reservations, concluded that ‘although certain of the provisions of the Treaty. . . were somewhat unusual in treaties of this kind, the obligations entered into by Iraq towards Great Britain did not explicitly infringe the independence of the new State.’ See Main, Iraq from Mandate to Independence, 104-12, 110. The Treaty of Alliance came into force upon Iraq’s admission to the League on 3 October 1932.

      Great Britain had a similar agreement with Transjordan that it extended to the West Bank. You can hardly argue that Palestine wasn't an independent state because it was "occupied", when the League recognized Iraq as an "independent" state under identical circumstances. See Crawford's Creation of States, page 73

      The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 201 Reporters note 3 says "The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist."

      Crawford's conclusions on "sovereignty" are consistent with Whiteman's conclusions on "independence":

      The criteria for statehood, and modern practice in the field, have been examined at length in this study and there is no point in repeating the conclusions reached in earlier chapters. Four specific problems, however, deserve brief mention. In the first place, the concept of "sovereignty" as a criterion for plenary competence has been rejected. Although that view gained a certain degree of acceptance among nineteenth-century writers and was accepted in the twentieth century in Soviet and in some western doctrine, the notion of "sovereignty" has been seen to be both unhelpful and misleading as a criterion. It is unhelpful since both the legal and the effective capacities, rights, immunities and so on of States may vary widely, within the limits established by the criteria for separate independence. It is misleading since it implies a necessary and overriding omnipotence which States do not possess in law or in fact. Rejection of "sovereignty" as a criterion involves rejection of the old notion of the "semi-sovereign" State. Those dependent, devolving or sui generis entities that qualify as States under the general criteria do so despite specific limitations as to capacity and the like; . . . Secondly, although the criteria for statehood provide a general, applicable standard, the application of that standard to particular situations where there are conflicting and controversial claims is often difficult. It is here in particular that recognition and, equally importantly, other State practice relating to or implying a judgement as to the status of the entity in question are important. . . . Thirdly, while statehood is a legal concept with a determinate, though flexible, content it is probably the only such concept in the field of legal personality.

      See Creation of States page 718

    • “proclaiming that all laws, regulations and orders that were applicable in the mandated State of Palestine will remain in full force and effect until they are specifically repealed or amended.” . . . Such as provisional statehood until they could stand alone? Don’t make me laugh

      Israel adopted an identical Transition Act. FYI, Israel employed Ottoman and Jordanian laws to re-designate portions of the West Bank as "state land" after the High Court of Justice decision in the Elon Moreh case. So I'm not trying to make you laugh.

      I'd rather make you read the State Department advisory opinion on recognition of new states in Palestine. You're quoting Article 22 of the Convent of the League of Nations, not the laws of Palestine. FYI the subjects of that Article were plural -"communities"- that had been provisionally recognized as nations. In the case of Palestine it addressed their ability to stand alone as a collective. The State Department's legal expert, Ernest Gross, noted that the Palestine mandate contained more than one non-Jewish community, including Transjordan, and that the Covenant did not originally envision that each of them would become independent states. Mr. Gross noted that the law of nations recognized the inherent right of the peoples of these communities to organize a state and operate a government.
      -- The memo is contained in the Foreign Relations of the United States 1948, volume 5, part 2, and starts on page 960. It is cited by Stefan Talmon, in “Recognition of Governments in International Law”, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998, page 36

      The lack of Palestinain national ambition meant it happened without much protest from the WB. For someone who appears put a lot of work into siding with a disenfranchised people you seem very keen to downplay the occupation of Palestine by Arab Jordan.

      You're spinning your wheels and engaging in mental gymnastics when you try to claim that Jordanian nationalism wasn't a Palestinian one. Jordanian nationalism wasn't "expansionist" either. Transjordan was part of the Palestinian mandate and the union didn't add any new territory to those inhabited by Arabs in either the East or West Banks during the previous mandate period. Conversely, the Zionists advised the UN that they had seized a great deal of territory that had been occupied by an Arab majority.

      FYI, in March of 1945 Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria founded the League of Arab States. Yemen joined as a member in May 1945. All of the signatories of the Charter accepted the "Annex on Palestine", which contained stipulations regarding the de jure existence and recognition of the State of Palestine. That annex has never been revised or rescinded.

      The franchise that you're mentioning in the comment above, is simply the right to be represented by officials, like those who adopted the resolutions of the Jericho Conference. Those resolutions specifically mentioned that the delegates were acting to preserve the possibility of "a future life of Independence". The franchise also refers to the right to vote for representatives, like the members of the Jordanian Parliament from Palestine. Those members could have voted against the union and attempted to preserved the status quo ante against Zionist militias who were trying to secure their outlying settlements. Instead, they helped draft and unanimously ratified an Act of Union, which stipulated that it was without prejudice to the final status of Palestine. The Digest, the FRUS, and the Hansard all mention that those elections did reflect the will of the two peoples.

      Was Palestine’s declaration of independence after the mandate which you claim are the resolutions at Jericho deciding upon “incorporation” with Transjordan also speaking for the people of Gaza which did not ‘incorporate’ into Transjordan, which in fact had its own puppet government ‘claiming’ statehood instead?

      The residents of Gaza didn't claim to be part of a different state or relinquish their claims to statehood. They simply resided in an unannexed portion of the territory of Palestine that never became part of any other sovereignty. The Egyptians adopted a transition act that retained the laws in effect during the Palestine mandate and never consulted the wishes of a constituent assembly before installing the All Palestine Government.

      Abdullah was named King of all of Arab Palestine. Egypt acting as a trustee, had evacuated its forces from Hebron and Bethlehem and turned those territories over to the King to administer. The Iraqis did exactly the same thing. There were plans to establish a corridor between Beersheba and Gaza and to eventually replace the Egyptian administration there with a Jordanian one.

      The State Department recognized the King's sovereignty in line with the principles underlying the Jericho resolutions.

      President Truman offered advice to the King as the legal representative of the Palestinians in the negotiations: "I desire to recall to Your Majesty that the policy of the United States Government as regards a final territorial settlement in Palestine and as stated in the General Assembly on Nov 30, 1948 by Dr. Philip Jessup, the American representative, is that Israel is entitled to the territory allotted to her by the General Assembly Resolution of November 29, 1947, but that if Israel desires additions, i.e., territory allotted to, the Arabs by the November 29 Resolution, it should offer territorial compensation. See the FRUS Volume VI 1949, pages 878-879.
      link to

      Jessup endorsed the mediator's recommendation for a union between the former Arab portions of the Mandate. At the time the US was only concerned with 1) the threat of territorial expansion from Revisionist Zionists and the All-Palestine Government in Gaza; 2) the failure to consult the wishes of the Palestinian people before setting up the regime in Gaza; 3) the involvement of the Mufti, a wartime enemy. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume V, Part 2, Pages 1447-1448

      After the Six Day War, Prime Minister Eshkol attempted to suggest that Jordan or Egypt were improperly occupying the territories they administered in Palestine. In response, President Johnson directed Ambassador Goldberg to reword the withdrawal clause of resolution 242 to stipulate that it only applied to the armed forces of Israel. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, Document 515

      “In order to legalize the annexation of the West Bank to Transjordan, King Abdullah called for a conference to be held on 1 December 1948 in Jericho. The meeting included Palestinian deputies appointed by the king to speak on his behalf and therefore ‘those who attended the conference could not be called the representatives of the people of Palestine by any standard of national electoral representation” (Tannous 1988: 665)

      No, the mayors of Nablus, Ramallah, Jerusalem, Hebron, Bethlehem, & etc. were the day-to-day Arab officials. Tannous is correct to the extent that the Congress was convened to keep everything legal, and of course it was.

      “the status of Arab Palestine could be recognized through the device of a federal union” . . . ‘Could’, indeed

      No, it was recognized through Israel's subsequent words and deeds. Israel signed an Armistice Agreement with the new joint kingdom of Jordan and accepted its legal competence to negotiate the details of a final settlement including borders. That's one of many examples of legally binding recognition. Only States are legally competent to establish international boundaries.

    • You have the patience of Job to put up with such ziobots in the interest of not letting them get away with their cheap attempts to poison newbies to the issues discussed here on MW.

      Yes, Phil has mentioned plans for a FAQ. There are quite a few of the typical non sequitur, unhistorical, and plainly irrelevant arguments presented here in Bing Bong's comments. Despite the fact that very few readers are going to wade through more than 600 comments to arrive at book-length reply, they should probably still be addressed. The reason these hasbarists post so much nonsense is that they hope it will go unanswered.

    • Are there comparable International Law dictionaries? Beck’s Law Dictionary: A Compendium of International Law Terms and Phrases?

      I don't really know from first hand experience. I've used Boczek's "International Law: A Dictionary" because its available in the local campus library, but it's really more of an alphabetized collection of essays. It cites Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law and Fox's Dictionary of International and Comparative Law.

      The Digest of International Law includes an entire chapter on States. It has subsections on each of the various types, including the mandates. The US government uses the bare definition from Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention without the usual additions that academics try to shoehorn-in regarding effective control, sovereignty, or independence. The cheapest, and by far the best resource, is the "Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States". The paperback version of the 3rd edition is about $30 and it contains definition of terms and extensive commentary in the Reporters Notes.

      Speaking logically, belligerents shouldn't be able to commit violent crimes against any indigenous civilian population by resorting to the flimsy alibi that they don't "effectively control" the territory they inhabit, or that they aren't "independent" or "sovereign". None of that is contained in the Montevideo criteria, which is the applicable law in these and many other parts of the world.

    • Are you a practicing appellate lawyer? You don’t have to answer. Just curious.

      No. I'm not a lawyer. All of my legal training was provided by the service schools as continuing professional education. In the aftermath of the My Lai massacres there was a much greater emphasis on incorporating reviews of the laws of armed conflict to operations planning, policy, and doctrines. I've mentioned that I served in MAJCOM staff positions for the Commanders who made or promulgated Air Force policy for the tactical and strategic air forces. We also were responsible for implementing the content and intent of Congressional statutory mandates in departmental regulations or directives. Our working groups always included the Judge Advocate General and the tasks required JAG coordination and approval.

      After I retired, I continued to study international law, political science, and history. I've been a regular commentator or contributor under various names or avatars at the European Journal of International Law, Opinio Juris, the ICC Prosecutor's Forum, the experts blog at Leiden Journal of International Law, and the PhD Studies in Human Rights blog. I've had in-depth discussions about the I-P conflict in the online forums or in offline emails with Profs M. Cherif Bassiouni, John Quigley, Michael Kerney (Al Haq), Jordan J. Paust, and Kevin Jon Heller.

      Here are some typical articles and or comments where I participated as Hostage:
      *link to

    • “King Abudullah and the government of Transjordan had repeatedly asked the Jewish Agency, the US Government, and the UN Security Council to recognize the country as an independent state.”

      Sorry to keep asking but can you elaborate on this? On the face of it, it doesn’t square with his expansionist aims and I’m genuinely interested how this is supposed to square up. And didn’t I read somewhere that Abdullah had the word Palestine removed from some (all?) official documents after annexation? If you have no real reason to back this up I’ll just assume it’s a lie.

      The application of Transjordan/Jordan for membership in the UN was rejected every year between 1946 and 1955. It was the subject of the very first case in the International Court of Justice. I don't see why anyone here is responsible for educating you about well known facts of history, just because you're ignorant and busy spamming a thread that has 600+ comments with off topic remarks and insults. Briefly:

      The Jewish Agency and their Zionist supporters were responsible for a campaign to torpedo recognition of Transjordan as an independent state and its application for membership in the United Nations. It was really no different than the on-going political campaign the Israelis and their supporters are waging today to prevent Palestine from becoming a member of the UN. I already gave you a link to an article in the Palestine Post where the Jewish Agency Spokesman invoked Article 80 of the UN Charter and the legal argument that the mandate was indivisible.

      At first the United States Congress, and Secretary of State Byrnes spoke out against any change in the status of Transjordan until the UN addressed the question of Palestine as a whole. The USSR and the Soviet bloc joined-in, after Golda Meir was dispatched to be the new Ambassador to the Soviets Union. I gave you a link to the verbatim minutes of the Security Council in which the President (Poland) objected on the grounds that Transjordan was part of a mandate that had not been legally terminated. Here are the details behind all that from the Foreign Relations of the United States:

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

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

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

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

      The Secretary of State did exactly what Senator Myers requested. See –Minutes of the 57th Session of the Security Council, S/PV.57 pages 100-101 (pdf file pgs 3-4 of 52) link to

      Transjordan had been recognized as a separate state by treaties since 1922. The UN application was the subject of an ICJ advisory opinion, Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter). Afterward the General Assembly adopted resolutions recognizing Transjordan/Jordan as a state and advising the Security Council that vetoes of the application were not based on the criteria contained in Article 4 of the UN Charter, e.g.
      *link to
      Argentina and other states reserved their position saying that membership applications were a procedural matter and not subject to any veto under the terms of the Charter.

      The United States and other countries suggested that the Security Council could make the necessary recommendation without taking a vote. At the time, the US promised that it would not veto any applications in the future that were supported by 7 or more votes.

      The bottom line is that in 1948 Truman recognized Israel in a matter of minutes, while he still had not recognized Transjordan's independence from Palestine. When the US wanted to know by what right Transjordan had sent armed forces to Palestine after the mandate was terminated, the Foreign Minister told the UN, US, and USSR that there was no need to answer stupid questions, because they had refused to recognize Transjordan as a state separate from Palestine on many occasions.

    • “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. The status of Palestine as a state for the purposes of international law…was, and still is….” . . . Just like Texas.

      No, the United States is a signatory of the Montevideo Convention. Article 2 stipulates that:

      The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law.


      The PCIJ decision in the Mavrommatis case ruled that Palestine was the successor state in the eyes of international law according to the protocols of the Treaty of Lausanne, not Great Britain. That meant Colonial Secretary Churchill did not have the necessary legal standing to cancel the existing Palestine concessions, only to administer them on behalf of Palestine.

      When the US signs a treaty, it becomes the state party in the eyes of international law, not Texas. When a LoN mandatory signed a treaty, the mandated state became the state party in the eyes of international law, not the LoN mandatory state. Prof Quigley, Boyle, and others noted that Palestine even signed treaties with Great Britain, which established that they were separate states for the purpose of international law.

      In 1932, the British Law Lords, the United States, Spain, and Italy each recognized Palestine as a separate foreign state in their treaties of commerce. At the same time, no countries recognized Texas as a state separate from the United States. You just keep spamming the thread with the same unsupported nonsense.

    • If this is an admission of my own ognirance then perhaps you can point me towards some literature that supports the point other than the Gale Encyclopedia of the Mideast & N. Africa

      Your ignorance on the subject is staggering and completely willful. The introduction of the Restatement (3rd) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States says "In the United States, the principal resources for research in international law and practice are the successive Digests of International Law - by Wharton (1866); Moore (1906), Hackworth (1940), and Whiteman (1963), and the State Department's Annual Digest of United States Practice in International Law, beginning in 1973."

      Whiteman cited the final binding decision of a League of Nations Arbital Court in the Ottoman Public Debt Case; the final decision in the Permanent Court of International Justice, Ser. A., No. 5, Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions case; and the final decision in the Supreme Court of Palestine, Heirs of Sultan Abdul Hamid case on questions of State Succession, Act of State, and the interpretation of the Treaty of Lausanne.

      Whiteman also cited a number of court decisions on the subject of the mandated states as persons of international law from Lauterpacht's Annual Digest and International Law Reports. All of the court decisions ruled that the mandated state of Palestine was an allied successor state and a person of international law pursuant to the terms of the relevant treaties, ordinances, & etc.

      Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. The status of Palestine as a state for the purposes of international law during the mandate era was, and still is, res judicata. Claims to the contrary were legally precluded by the court decisions cited in these Digests.

      The resolutions of the Jericho Conference and the subsequent ratification of the union by the elected representatives of the two peoples is cited as a typical case of the acquisition of sovereignty over territory through union and annexation. See Volume 2 of the US State Department's Digest of International Law, M. Whiteman (ed), 1963, pages 1163-1168.

    • No you’re defending a position you’ve reached ideologically with selections from the historical record.

      Sorry but we've all seen that the official Zionist spokespeople specialize in preaching contradictory ideological nonsense, like
      1) "Transjordan is an indivisible part or the Palestine mandate";
      2) "Jordan is Palestine", and
      3) "Jordan invaded and occupied Palestine".

      They've always enlisted legions of lay persons to recite whatever propaganda the higher-ups consider politically expedient at the particular moment.

      I'm usually interested in gleaning the salient facts about the mandated state of Palestine and its successors, although I'm a font of useless knowledge on the subject too. So far, you haven't produced any solid contradictory evidence from official documentary sources to support your position on Palestinian statehood. So it isn't just a matter of me or anyone else "selecting" sources.

      In my comments here, I'm usually quoting official sources, journal articles authored by experts, and standard encyclopedias - like the one published by Gale-MacMillian Reference. It explicitly stated that Arab Palestinian leaders from Jerusalem, Hebron, Bethlehem, Nablus, and Ramallah, as well as representatives of refugees from Israeli-occupied cities and towns, met in Congress at Jericho in 1948. It says that they provided the legal basis for the union of central Palestine (the West Bank and East Jerusalem) with Transjordan (East Bank), by proclaiming Abdullah the King of Palestine. That is the inescapable legal and political bottom line.

      And aren’t you going against the Mondoweiss party line somewhat when you wrongly claim that Jordan’s occupation and annexation were a pillar in the struggle of Palestinian independence?

      Perhaps you should just stick to presenting your case and resist attempts to restate my positions or the Mondoweiss party line. No one at Mondoweiss, other than a few Zionists, have ever asserted that the inhabitants of a territory can lose their rights to self-determination, their private property, or a state of their own due to any form of military occupation; as a result of forming and dissolving a political union with a neighboring state; or being placed under international trusteeship.

    • It is wrong, the 6 marker CMH is deemed “original CMH” within the study, it is not “very rare” and it is distributed between two haplogroups (J1 and J2).

      You've been inventing your own straw men on this topic and arguing with them from the outset.

      My original post did not actually use the terminology "extended CMH" or "extended Cohen Modal Haplotype" for the 6 marker test or say that it was "very rare".

      I called them "extended markers" to distinguish them from the original three marker test used by Hammer and Skorecki. In fact, I specifically labelled the 6 marker test "The 6 marker Cohen Modal Haplotype". Here is precisely what I said and why:

      For example, we know for certain that’s the case with one or more of the three patriarchal lines of Kohanim and that very few candidates possess all six of the extended markers, only about 45% of Ashkenazim and 56% of Sephardim. The 6 marker Cohen Modal Haplotype cannot “prove” Cohen ancestry. It can only somewhat strengthen a previously existing belief. See for example:
      *Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood
      Michael F. Hammer,1,2 Doron M. Behar,3 Tatiana M. Karafet,1 Fernando L. Mendez,2 Brian Hallmark,1 Tamar Erez,1 Lev A. Zhivotovsky,4 Saharon Rosset,5 and Karl Skorecki corresponding author3,6
      link to
      *Y-chromosomal Aaron link to

      The two sources that I provided discuss and cite tests on three; five/six; and 12/17 loci:

      *The original Michael F. Hammer, Karl Skorecki article "Y chromosomes of Jewish priests", Nature – Volume 385 –2 January 1997 (subscription required) identified six haplotypes in Ashkenazi and Sephardi Priests using only three markers:
      1) a Y-specific Alu insertion polymorphism, termed the "Y Alu polymorphism" (YAP);
      2) a Y chromosome GATA repeat at a second location, DYS19; and
      3) a non-Y chromosome CA repeat at location D1S191.

      Note the authors said that the YAP insertion dates back as far as 340,000 years ago. It predates the diversification of homo sapiens and appears in all human groups in varying frequencies. Hammer and Skorecki also reported no significant difference in the distribution of alleles for the non-Y-chromosomes at the D1S191 location.

      *M.G. Thomas, Karl Skorecki, et al., "Origins of Old Testament priests", Nature Volume 394, 9 July 1998 introduced an extended set of six Y chromosome single tandem repeat (6 Y-STR) markers, i.e. "The 6 marker Cohen Modal Haplotype". The majority of J2a Priests only have 4 out of the 6 markers. Here is what the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) has to say about that subject:

      A significant fraction of Jews belong to haplogroup J, but Jews represent a small minority of the European members of the haplogroup. The "Cohen Modal Haplotype" is a specific set of six Y-STR marker values that occurs in both J1 and J2, though at a much higher frequency in J1.

      You've just stated that:

      the study did not have good resolution within P58 and M410 (J2a) since we know Kohanim belonging to J2 do not actually possess the CMH.

      That is certainly true of the 3,674 individuals in the 2009 study. The authors explained that they also conducted an extensive search for different results and other markers by comparing the literature from other studies:

      We conducted an extended literature search for Cohanim haplotypes identified here, by comparing allelic scores at as many Y-STRs as possible . . . The search yielded zero out of 10,243 matching haplotypes in 66 populations for the extended CMH and its two closely related haplotypes.

    • “After the Jordanian “invasion” an administration was set up to maintain law and order and to neutralize as far as possible any local initiative which supported the establishment of an autonomous Palestine.” P11 The Palestinian Refugees in Jordan 1948-1957 Avi Plascov

      *Abdullah's political opponents in the Arab Higher Committee advised the UN Security Council that the Arabs of Palestine had requested assistance from governments outside of Palestine. So there was no "invasion".

      *Ben Gurion told the Palestine Conciliation Committee that the status of Arab Palestine could be recognized through the device of a federal union with Transjordan. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, page 927

      *Abdullah actually did establish an autonomous Palestinian state. It existed from December of 1948 until shortly before the Act of Union was adopted in 1950. FYI, you can't prevent the establishment of a Palestinian autonomous state by 1) arranging to have yourself proclaimed the King of Arab Palestine; 2) issuing a proclamation investing yourself with all the powers that were enjoyed by the King of England, his ministers and the High Commissioner of Palestine by the Palestine Order-in-Council, 1922; and 3) proclaiming that all laws, regulations and orders that were applicable in the mandated State of Palestine will remain in full force and effect until they are specifically repealed or amended.

      *Your comments misuse the term "Jordan" in an anachronistic and argumentative attempt to make it appear that Palestinians "occupied" or "annexed" themselves. Abdullah replaced his military governor with a civilian one in November of 1948. After the Arab Palestinian Congress and the Transjordanian Parliament had approved the joint kingdom in December, the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan ceased to exist, and was replaced by the new joint Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in mid-January of 1949. Israel subsequently signed an armistice agreement with the new joint entity. See Edmund Jan Osmanczyk, and Anthony Mango, "The Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements", Vol. 4, , Routledge, 3rd edition, 2004, printed page 2,354; and Footnote 24 of Yehuda Z. Blum, "The Missing Reversioner: Reflections on the Status of Judea and Samaria"

      *The Palestinians elected their own representatives to the Jordanian Parliament before the Act of Union was adopted. It was those lawmakers who adopted the Act which formally establish a unitary state in the East and West Banks. The Act permitted the application of a new system of municipal laws that would apply to the entire territory. Secretary of State Acheson stated at his April 26, 1950 press conference that “The elections which were held on the 11th were on the basis of the incorporation of Arab Palestine into the Hashemite Kingdom. Those elections have taken place and this action of the parliament will be to ratify that decision." That is quoted from the Digest of International Law article that I cited earlier. FYI Jewish and Arab Israeli Knesset members "annexed" territory the UN had designated for the new Arab state using the very same method.

      *In the common parlance of international law, an "autonomous state" is neither independent nor established on the basis of sovereign equality. See for example this Israeli-US discussion regarding the establishment of an autonomous state in the West Bank in order to prevent Palestinians living there from becoming citizens of Israel:

      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.

      The sentence previous to this explains why according to you “most Palestinian Arabs felt that Abdullah couldn’t annex the remainder of Palestine fast enough”, it’s because there was no will for an independent Palestinian State.

      The Jericho Congress and the Jordanian Act of Union both stressed the fact that the decision was being taken to preserve the option of a future independent state and that the steps were taken without prejudice to the final settlement of the Question of Palestine. The decision to incorporate with another existing state or to emerge in another status, at a later date, are both valid modes of exercising the right of self determination. In this particular case, the laws of the mandated state of Palestine remained in full force and effect for more than a year while the necessary steps were being taken.

    • I specifically said I was talking about the political elements and didn’t mention their legal standing. Why are you ignoring the political elements opposed to Jordanian annexation and only focussing on the hand picked Jordanian friendly delegates of Jericho?

      I'm ignoring the losers for the same reason that I don't discuss "the political elements" of President Dewey's defeat of Truman. The Palestinians who favored incorporation with Transjordan in a new successor state prevailed over their brethren. They ended-up governing a UN member state with a territory 20 times larger than that of Israel for the better part of the next two decades. That is the relevant political and legal reality.

      I'm the one who should be asking why you're making such hyperbolic arguments? I cited a comment made by Chaim Weizmann about the climate that resulted from Egyptian and Iraqi interference in domestic Palestinian political affairs. He noted that they had been encouraged to do that, despite their lack of any legal standing. The other citations that I provided also addressed the general political climate. David Ben Gurion, Avi Plascov, Avi Shlaim, Sandra Berliant Kadosh, and Issa Khalaf were not "Jordanian friendly delegates of Jericho".

      We're all familiar with the pilpul (bing bong) technique. When a Zionist loses the legal argument, he or she tries to politicize the issue, and vice versa.

      Here is how an expert does that. The fact that Abdullah wanted the top spot in regional government, and positioned himself to obtain it, is no different from the stories of his contemporaries. David Ben Gurion started out as a crooked union organizer like Jimmy Hoffa. He formed a band of Zionist thugs who extorted money for Palestine from wealthy Polish Jews, at gunpoint. It was also no accident of history that Truman and Kennedy rose to power with the assistance of corrupt political machines that used equally shady practices. That doesn't alter the fact that each these leaders ended up governing a State.

      Baja is part of natural California, in exactly the same sense that Palestine is part of natural Syria. The relevant fact is that the Jericho Congress resolved to make Abdullah the King of Arab Palestine, not natural Syria.

    • I’m not, I would think anyone can see my position denies that Jericho was a declaration of independence and therefore rather unconflateable with the actual 1988 declaration. Hostage is claiming they are both declarations but he isn’t conflating them either. (?)

      Why don't you just stick to presenting your own arguments and read-up on the laws of state succession? Palestine was a mandated state. Arab Palestine and Israel were successor states. Arab Palestine formed and then dissolved a union with Transjordan. States don't cease to exist simply because they are occupied or get a new governing regime. France provided one of the earliest examples of US foreign policy in that regard:

      When Louis XVI of France was deposed and beheaded in 1793, Alexander Hamilton argued that the supplanting of an admittedly tyrannous government by an equally tyrannous mob should go unrecognized and that the Treaty of Amity and Commerce with France should be considered suspended until a French government was formed. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson instead held that the French people had the inherent right to form their own government, and that the treaty should remain in full force regardless of change in the French government, because treaties, not governments, bind nations. President George Washington agreed with Jefferson and recognized the new French republic and subsequent governments, as did the British, although they were at war with France.

      -- U.S. policy in the recognition of states - Recognition

      In fact, it was Jefferson's formula that was recited by Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and the Editors of the Office of the Historian in their footnotes to the 1950 FRUS which said that the union was a reflection of the will of the people, freely expressed.

      Here are some more examples. If you check the list of UN member states, you'll find that the Russian Federation has been a member since 24-10-1945; Ukraine since 24-10-1945; Belarus since 24-10-1945; and Libya since 14-12-1955.

      Those are actually the successors to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Soviet Socialist State of Ukraine, the Soviet Socialist State of Byelorussia, and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The Russian Federation even inherited a permanent seat and veto in the Security Council without objection, because it agreed to assume all of the rights and treaty obligations of its predecessor as a continuator state.

      So, I'm not conflating anything. I'm just talking about what has actually happened according to the documentary historical record. In 1988 the PLO did not declare a new state, just the independence of an already existing one. Try reading this article by Prof. John Quigley:

    • the Arab League in 1950 and the PLO in 1967 think this.

      The State Department Digest covers the objections of the Arab League. They had no legal standing to object to the actions taken by the emancipated peoples inhabiting the territory of the former mandate. If that were the case, then Israel isn't a legal state either.

      Dr Chaim Weizmann wrote an article in his capacity as head of the Jewish Agency, "Palestine's Role in the Solution of the Jewish Problem, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jan., 1942), pp. 324-338 which pointed out the same fact:

      Arab states like 'Iraq and Egypt, which had no locus standi in Palestinian affairs, were first allowed, and later encouraged, to exercise a powerful influence, and the Arabs were lined up in a united front against the Jewish National Home.

      The PLO didn't exist in 1948. The rival faction was headed-up by the former Mufti, an exiled wartime enemy of the signatories of the Atlantic and UN Charters. By December of 1948 he had lost his credibility and base of political support in Palestine, because of his unrealistic predictions about a quick and easy Arab victory over the Jews. After the fall of Haifa, most Palestinian Arabs felt that Abdullah couldn't annex the remainder of Palestine fast enough. The UN Mediator, Count Bernadotte, wrote in his diary that "It would seem as though in existing circumstances most of the Palestinian Arabs would be quite content to be incorporated in Transjordan." See "To Jerusalem", Hodder and Stoughton, 1951, pages 112-13.

      The Arab Higher Committee (AHC) and the Mufti were not the formal or elected representatives of the people of Palestine after WWII. they were a creation of the Arab League. Avi Shlaim noted that when the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was reestablished in 1946 after a nine-year hiatus, it was not by the various Palestinian political parties themselves, as had been the case when it was founded in 1936, but by a decision of the Arab League of States. See page 1 of Avi Shlaim, The Rise and Fall of the All-Palestine Government in Gaza, Journal of Palestine Studies. 20: 37–53. (2001)

      Remarkably enough, in February of 1948 the Council of the Arab League decided not to recognize the Arab Higher Committee or the Mufti as the representatives of the Palestinian people. Thereafter, all of the Leagues’ affairs were handled through its own Palestine Council, not through the Mufti or the AHC. See Politics in Palestine: Arab factionalism and social disintegration, 1939-1948, By Issa Khalaf, University of New York Press, 1991, ISBN 0-7914-0708-X, page 290.

      The Head of the Jericho Congress stated that the government in Gaza was a puppet government that didn't represent 90 percent of the Palestinians. He said that the Congress wanted to pursue a peaceful settlement and that 750,000 Palestinian Arabs, who could no longer bear their sufferings, had decided to name Abdullah King of Palestine despite the hostility of the other Arab governments. See Hebron Mayor Challenges Egyptians to Tell Truth, Palestine Post, December 14th, 1948.

      The members of the Jericho Congress also said that the Gaza government only represented the views of its 80-odd members. See Sandra Berliant Kadosh, United States Policy toward the West Bank in 1948, Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3/4 (Summer - Autumn, 1984), pp. 231-252

      No one claims that George Washington was unfit because he was a political opportunist who managed to outwit his opponents and become the Chairman of the Continental Congress, the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, and President of the United States. Avi Plascov similarly observed that Abdullah enjoyed a great deal of support that included grassroots propaganda organizations formed by the locals themselves:

      There were votes of thanks to the "redeeming" King on the radio, which also reported on the many delegations of both refugees and non-refugees, who came to the King to pay their respects and express support.

      The Hashimite Propaganda Association, headed by Ali Khalaf and composed of local mayors and notables from the Ramallah area, also came to see Abdullah. They called him “Saviour of Palestine” and trusted that he would solve the Palestinian Problem by peace or war, and regard the inhabitants of Jordan and Palestine as one nation to be led by one leader. A similar declaration came from Abd al-Karim al-Alami, “the Ramleh Lydda representative'’. The Jaffa refugees in Ramallah also told the military Governor there that they gave the King full authority to represent them.

      Delegates from Jerusalem, Ramallah, Dayr Ghassanah, Amwas, Hebron, Bethlehem and Bayt Jala followed suit. Most of these statements, like many others which followed, were organized and encouraged by the new administration. Furthermore, some of the representatives were self-appointed and concerned only to represent themselves, even if they also honestly supported the King. Many people were indifferent or did not make up their minds, not wanting "to commit themselves"; but they were left with little choice. Nonetheless, contrary to the widely-held belief outside Jordan, these various representatives did reflect the feelings of a large segment of the population.

      --See "The Palestinian Refugees In Jordan 1948–1957. Routledge (1981). page 12.

      The JCPA’s own published minutes from the “Major Knesset Debates-series” illustrates that the Israeli government, headed by David Ben Gurion, refused demands from the opposition that it publicly declare the Jordanian annexation illegal. The opposition parties had called for an “unprecedented” session to debate the ratification of the union and incorporation of the West Bank into Jordan. They did that because the government of Israel’s public statements had not claimed the annexation was illegal. See the Minutes of the 135th Sitting of the First Knesset, 3 May 1950, in Netanel Lorach (ed), “Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981″ Volume 2, JCPA/University Press, 1993, starting on page 571. The government of Israel never advanced any such claims, until after it seized the territory in the Six Day War. link to

      So despite all the propaganda from Israel about the "disputed status" of the territory, it's never had a leg to stand on on that particular score. That's why it saves all the brave talk for the Op-Eds and even avoids using these quirky sounding pseudo-legal arguments in its own court cases.

    • I don’t think I need to explain to these states that their recognition you are talking about is in the main after the 1988 declaration and not the results of the Jericho Conference that Hostage believes to be a previous declaration of Independent Statehood.

      As a matter of fact, the 1950 Act of Union between the two states was enacted by the legally elected representatives of the two peoples after a national plebiscite was conducted. The Act ratified the steps taken by the Jericho Congress, the Parliament of Transjordan, and the King. It also expressly stated that The Union was without prejudice to the final settlement of the question of Palestine. Long before the 1988 Algiers Declaration the UN was referring to the PLO and Palestine as a state for the purposes of participation in UN organs like the Economic and Social Council. When relations between the PLO and the King of Jordan soured, the two sides went through all of the customary steps to formally dissolve a political union between states. The King immediately extended recognition to the successor. Many of the countries that had recognized Jordan simply elected to maintain their existing friendly relations with the continuator and successor states. There was nothing unusual at all about that. It was a typical case of state succession. Many scholars, including some like Francis Boyle who helped draft the 1988 Declaration, pointed out that it was the declaration of an already existing state, not a new one. See for example John Quigley, The Palestine Declaration To The International Criminal Court: The Statehood Issue

      FYI, the international community of states got off the treadmill of debating the virtues of constitutive versus declarative theories of sovereignty at the end of the colonial era. The so-called "Mother countries" or metropoles controlled the existence of other peoples by denying their existence and withholding recognition. The constitutive view was summed-up by Hersh Lauterpact “A State is, and becomes an International Person through recognition only and exclusively.” The former colonies, including the United States, listed the qualifications for a person of international law in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention. They deliberately omitted any reference there to the terms "independent" or "sovereign". They summed-up their declarative position in Article III:

      "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law."

      Article 11 also prohibits the recognition of any foreign military occupation.

      Although the US still lists the Montevideo Convention as a treaty in force, it effectively adopted the constitutive position when it voted with Israel as the lone objectors to the UN resolution that acknowledged the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine. The two countries have used blackmail, power politics, and threats or actual force to control the destiny of the Palestinian people ever since. The collaborative role played by US officials in arming Israel, denying the Palestinians their right of self-determination and a nationality is described in Article III of The Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.

      Peoples no longer obtain their sovereignty by virtue of the old colonial method of begging for recognition from "the great powers". But recognition by other states like Russia, China, and India is still dispositive. So even if we were still living in the colonial era, Palestine would easily satisfy the constitutive criteria for a person of international law, because the majority of other states have now recognized it and the 1967 borders.

      Most of the material that you post here is based on a completely archaic notion of "sovereignty" that the "civilized" nations discarded and outlawed a long time ago. The political revolutions of the 18th Century established the principle that "sovereignty" ultimately resides in the inhabitants of a territory. By the mid-20th century international law recognized an inherent right of people to organize a state and operate their own governments in whatever territory they lawfully inhabit without any foreign interference or coercion. Zionist attempts to portray Arabs as foreigners in Arabia look just as silly today as they did in 1946, when a Russian spokesman for the Jewish Agency complained that article 5 of the mandate prohibited the British from turning over Transjordan to a foreign Hashemite power. Here's a hint: Palestine was part of Arabia. HaShem is buried in Gaza. His descendants, like King Abdullah and the Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, were indigenous. They acquired their local nationalities because they were Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory before the new borders were laid down. See Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

      Entire volumes have been devoted to the old notions of conquest and the colonial era assertion that sovereignty depended upon "recognition" by one or more of the "great powers". That philosophy was thinly disguised racism. Ralph Wilde wrote that: “the ”racialized” concept of a “standard of civilization” was deployed to determine that certain peoples in the world were “uncivilized”, lacking organized societies, a position reflected and constituted in the notion that their “sovereignty” was either completely lacking, or at least of an inferior character when compared to that of “civilized” peoples.” link to See also Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty: organized hypocrisy, Princeton University Press, 1999.

      Both the Nazis and Israelis excused their invasions and occupation of other territories on the ground that the inhabitants "sovereignty" had not been widely recognized. By the mid-20th century, that sort of thing had been recognized as a crime against peace or a form of illegal aggression.

      That's why decades before the 2004 ICJ advisory opinion confirmed it, legal experts rejected the notion that Israel had a superior claim to the occupied Arab territories that it had captured in 1967. They explained that the Palestinians, based on the principles of self-determination and the UN Charter, appeared to hold better title to the territory. See for example David John Ball, Toss The Travaux? Application Of The Fourth Geneva Convention To The Middle East Conflict—A Modern (Re)Assessment

      The UN Charter enshrined the principle of self-determination of peoples in international conventional law. The Charter in-turn was universally ratified and is recognized as customary law binding on non-signatories. The principles contained in it were codified by the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The rules there, and in any classic work on international law, say that when the heads of clans, tribes, and public officials for a territory meet in Congress and name a King of Arab Palestine for themselves, there can be no doubt that the thing they are all governing is called a state. King Abdullah governed Arab Palestine according to the laws in effect there between 1948 and 1950, when the Act of Union applied new "Jordanian" municipal laws.

      Judge Roslyn Cohen Higgins summed-up the case for the Palestinians:

      This is not difficult – from Security Council resolution 242 (1967) through to Security Council resolution 1515 (2003), the key underlying requirements have remained the same – that Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State.

      -- link to

    • An independent state that wasn’t to be eventually annexed by Transjordan? Why did Transjordan support the Peel Plan where partitioned land came under their control if it was so concerned about the formulation of an individual sovereign Palestinian State?

      Because Transjordan was dependent on foreign revenues for essential public services and the Peel Plan made good economic sense, while offering the Arabs emancipation.

      FYI every political union is the result of parties looking after their own self interests. The union between Egypt and Syria wasn't illegal simply because the parties had ulterior political or economic motives. The Peel plan also would have terminated the original mandate without giving the Jews the lion's share of the territory. BTW, that's why the Jewish Agency and Zionist Congress never accepted the particulars of the plan.

      You can cut an paste all the hasbara you'd like, but I've shown you documentary evidence which illustrates that the US recognized the union and Jordanian sovereignty over the Territory. The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 201 reflects customary international law. It says "The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist." So statements by Palestinians about the on-going occupation do not alter it's legal status as an independent state any more than Israeli hubris make it more than an occupying power. The Palestinians can discuss the institutions of their future state all they want, because they've already declared the existence of the existing one. See Abbas: Palestinian state an existing fact,7340,L-3803622,00.html

      The problem is you have to take the line that Palestinians self determinedly exercised its sovereign right of state and decided to join with Jordan because if not the argument that it was a state, able to do so, and remained a state while a part of this united kingdom falls apart.

      I have no problem taking that line, because it's part of the official documentary record of major foreign policy decisions contained in the Foreign Relations of the United Stares, the US Government Digest of International Law, the UK Hansard, the International Law Report, and the verbatim minutes of the General Assembly and Security Council. That's why Dr Alan Baker only uses these arguments in the Op Eds. He knows they'll never even get off the ground in the World Court.

      The UN sent the Capp mission to all the countries in the region, including "Arab Palestine". Great Britain, the United States, and France each recognized the union between "Arab Palestine" and Transjordan. They accepted "Jordanian sovereignty" over the new territory and issued a declaration that guaranteed the Armistice Borders after Israel failed to return any territory at the Lausanne Conference.

      The 1950 annexation was completely irrelevant, since Abdullah had already been declared the sovereign of Arab Palestine when he was named its King by the Jericho Congress in December of 1948. He issued a proclamation which retained the laws in effect during the mandate and assumed all of the powers reserved for the King, Privy Council, and High Commissioner. So Arab Palestine had a head of state and its own laws that were not those of Transjordan. Assassinations have no relevance to statehood under international law. Lincoln was assassinated. Go argue that he wasn't the head of a state.

      The new state was eventually admitted to the United Nations and it's credentials to represent the entire population of the West Bank were never questioned. It exchanged ambassadors and signed treaties with many other countries that contained no reservations whatever regarding the West Bank. When Israel attacked Samu in the Hebron area in November 1966, the entire Security Council condemned it as a premeditated attack on the territory of Jordan.

      You can read more examples of states or organizations that recognized Jordan here:

    • 2 opposing governments indeed. “A schism?” 2 seperate governments.

      Can you name any country that recognizes two Palestinian states today? Israel and the US refuse to recognize even one. So I guess I'm missing the point here. The Organization of Islamic Conference states recognize Hamas and Fatah as a different PA factions that are the de facto governments of the districts of the State of Palestine. They and the Russian Federation have urged the international community to negotiate with the Hamas de facto government, but they nonetheless only recognize and maintain embassies with the State of Palestine.

      Than you must also realize that they did so AFTER Fatah laundhed an Israli backed coup to overthrow Hamas after the elections.

      The record shows that the US and Israel tried, but repeatedly failed to get Abbas to dissolve the Hamas-majority PLC. The fact that Hamas won the elections to the PLC didn't make Ismail Haniyeh the Commander-in-Chief. Abbas won the Presidential elections in 2005 with 60 percent of the vote. The Hamas militias launched a coup in 2007 against the legitimate Presidential Security Force that had always been controlled by President Arafat and in-turn, by Abbas.

      The Vanity Fair article made it appear that Fatah had inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of Gaza through a pre-emptive coup. But it really looks more to me like the US and Israel intentionally provoked Hamas, knowing that would be the result. The bottom line is that the Quartet proposal to transfer control of the military from the President to an empowered Prime Minister was designed to force Arafat out of power and it was never implemented. So I think Hamas made the first move. Even if they held the moral high ground, it was still a coup.

    • You do realize you just shot yourself in the foot. If anything, it all contradicts your previous claims according to which the 6 marker CMH is rare.

      I never even used the term rare, although you keep saying that I did.

      I said that there were three patriarchal lines of priests (J-P58* J-M410, J-M12) and that some of those lines didn't provide very many candidates:

      For example, we know for certain that’s the case with one or more of the three patriarchal lines of Kohanim and that very few candidates possess all six of the extended markers, only about 45% of Ashkenazim and 56% of Sephardim.

      The same thing applies to the 12 extended CMH markers. 64.8 percent of the Priests with those chromosomes came from the J-P58* patriarchal line. They represented only 29.85% of Priestly Y chromosomes in the entire survey:

      An extended Cohen Modal Haplotype accounts for 64.6% of chromosomes with the J-P58* background, and 29.8% (95% CI = 23–36%) of Cohanim Y chromosomes surveyed here.

      My understanding of the genetics is this:

      *The ancients made-up some rules that they attributed to God.
      *The rules provided them with an excuse to subjugate or kill members of competing groups to acquire their territory and resources.
      *The rules prohibited intermarriage with outsiders in order to keep inheritance of the accumulated wealth within the tribe of cousins and other kinsmen.
      *The rules established a cult of hereditary priests who collected a part of their subsistence from all of the other members of the group.
      *Death was one of the punishments for breaking the rules.
      *Owing to the occasional destruction of temples at places like Shiloh, Samaria, and Jerusalem, prophecies concerning the reconstitution of the cult were promulgated.
      *The scriptures continued to provide a basis for the self-identified group of priests to take some degree of pride and recognition in their pedigree, even after the destruction of the Temples.
      *The Priests and Levites always were, and still are, an essentially self-selected genetic sub-population. DNA testing only tends to confirm an individual's prior beliefs.
      *The DNA evidence of several founding lineages suggests that the priesthood was established by an ethnic or tribal group, rather than any single individual, e.g. the Hammer-Behar metapopulation model. The founders of the J-P58* and J-M410 patriarchal lines were already distant relatives before the foundation of the Jewish people occurred:

      The presence of several founding lineages among the Cohanim of this survey—both shared between or specific to the Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi communities, as well as highly variable frequencies of these lineages among sub-populations within Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi communities (data not shown), may lend support to a metapopulation model. Mutation alone does not provide an explanation for the multiplicity of Cohanim haplogroups, because the ages of most of these haplogroups predate the foundation of the Jewish people(Cruciani et al. 2006; Karafet et al. 2008; Semino et al. 2004)

      -- See Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood

    • You think the USA didn’t have its own problems with antisemitism? LMFAO

      No, but it was far and away better than the alternatives offered in Ottoman Palestine. The fundamental Herzlean propaganda claim that Jews can't lead normal lives among gentiles was simply never true of the United States. Jews were citizens, and the laws here were not tailored to bar them from holding public office, or joining a profession. There were huge waves of poor Jewish immigrants arriving here and elsewhere in the new world, but there were never pogroms and constant persecution like they had encountered elsewhere. If there had been instances of persecution, you can be sure the Jewish and Zionists publication societies elsewhere would have announced them by now and integrated them into their standard, scripted hasbara.

      Anyway, we might have those laws now, but we sure as hell didn’t in the late 19th century, when Zionism was conceptualized.

      That's actually incorrect. The laws against non-recognition of territory acquired by force, the laws against war crimes, and the laws regarding minority rights were all products of the 19th century. The only remedies were crude ones that were limited to shunning the violator states or going to war with them. There were no fine grained remedies that could be used to punish only the guilty parties, because there were no international courts with general or compulsory jurisdiction to enforce the laws. National courts avoided the principal of universality of criminal jurisdiction in order to protect their own citizens from the reciprocal jurisdiction of other states they viewed as less civilized. That's still the only major obstacle, unless you happen to be a former Nazi. But the international community of states have gradually recognized a handful of the most serious crimes and they have established a criminal court of last resort in hopes of eventually bringing absolute impunity to an end.

      FYI, Jewish and Muslim political activists actually introduced the use of minority rights clauses in international treaties that created new states by the mid-19th century. You can read about that here and in many other comments about international minority protection plans and treaties in my comment archive:

      The provisions made the issue a matter of international law, rather than a domestic political issue.

      Let’s also mention how all but one of the countries (Dominican Republic) present at the Evian les Baines conference in 1938 flatly REFUSED to accept Jewish immigration.

      The attraction of Zionists to the likes of Geert Wilders is no accident or anything new. Herzl, Jabotinsky, Arlosoroff, and the Stern gang provide similar examples where Zionists partnered with, or attempted to capitalize on, other racists movements. The list includes quite a few virulently anti-Semitic ones, like the Nazis. The Jewish Agency for Palestine were Hitler's business partners. The Zionists of Palestine actually lost money when wealthy German Jews opted to go to other countries and took actions to prevent that from happening. The Zionist Executive met and decided to oppose efforts by other countries to take in Jewish refugees or raise money for their relief. They worked feverishly behind the scenes with their organs in other countries to assure that the Evian Conference would decide to do nothing at all about the problem. The minutes of those meetings and the details of their correspondence have been published far and wide in the Israeli media, but little attention has been paid to the question anywhere else in the world. You can read more about that here:

      It’s a fact that Jews from the Former Soviet Union (FSU) preferred resettlement in Germany by such a wide margin that the State of Israel and the Jewish Agency for Israel aggressively lobbied the German government to alter its immigration laws to make Jews less welcome or prevent them from being admitted at all. link to One side effect of that policy was that a few hundred thousand secular people of mixed Jewish descent, like the ones in these DNA studies, were stuck in a country that calls them "Russians" and actively discriminates against them. For example, many small Jewish communal settlements, like Foreign Minister Lieberman's, have barred Russian-Israeli families from buying housing
      link to To continue arguing that Palestine was their only option to avoid discrimination is simply ludicrous.

      Zionism, like it or not, was our only real hope for turning our backs on it all.

      Palestine was not Judah Magnas "only hope", or anyone else's for that matter. In fact, the majority of persecuted Jews opted to go elsewhere. European Jewish intellectuals from Einstein to Arendt warned that an attempt to create an ethnic Jewish state in Palestine would be a disaster for Jews and Judaism. A member of the original Jewish Palestine Commission, Sylvain Levi of France, summed-up the looming disaster:

      In the third place, the masses of people who might wish to return to Palestine, would largely be drawn from those countries where they had been persecuted and ill-treated, and the mentality which such a regime was likely to engender could be easily realised. Those people would carry with them into Palestine highly explosive passions, conducive to very serious trouble . . . For many years the Jews had, in the countries inhabited by them, claimed equality of rights, but those claims had not yet everywhere been admitted. Under the circumstances, it seemed to him shocking that the Jews, as soon as their rights of equality were about to be recognised in all countries of the world, should already seek to obtain exceptional privileges for themselves in Palestine.

      PCA plots are not in their infancy. Why don’t you go take a look at the current developments within the genetic sector? . . . I’m beginning to think that you know nothing at all about genetics.

      PCA is a valuable tool for medical research on modern people, but it can't be used to determine the course of ancient events and the things that some of these researchers have claimed that it can. I've already cited experts from the fields of anthropology, and population genetics, like Jonathan Marks and David Goldstein who say that it is not capable of providing accurate or detailed historical timelines, or gleaning the details of an individual's ancient origins from a few reference laboratory cell lines. They say that thinking is flawed on every level. Those same criticisms have been leveled against the methodology in peer-reviewed journals since the day the idea was first introduced.

      The use of Principal Components Analysis (PCA) calculations is not new in other fields of statistics, but it's use in genetics is only a few decades old. There are nearly 7 billion people on the planet, but only a few thousand of them have ever been sampled or assayed on a genome-wide basis. The authors of these studies didn't even have the computational resources to compare all of samples against a fraction of the existing, very limited, Human Genome Diversity Project data set.

      What the hell are you talking about? We do not even possess evidence that Abraham even existed. Besides, Homo sapiens is ~175,000 years old, nowhere even close to 400,000.

      LOL! You could write a narrative and say that all of this evidence points to the fact that "the Jews" and all of these other populations were actually descended from the Hittites of south central Turkey. But the author's didn't do that. Romanian Jews were offered free land to establish large colonies in that area by the Ottoman government, but they weren't interested in any territory beside Palestine. You'd never know that Abraham's existence or original homeland was ever in question from reading journal articles like "Abraham's Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry" or ones that label non-Cohanim non-Levite Jewish subjects as "Israel". I gave you link to a Discovery news article which said that Avi Gopher and the Tel Aviv University's Institute of Archaeology had found homo sapien remains in Israel that are 400,000 years old. It said:

      Israeli archaeologists have discovered human remains dating from 400,000 years ago, challenging conventional wisdom that Homo sapiens originated in Africa . . .That calls into question the widely held view that Africa was the birthplace of modern man, said Gopher, who headed the dig at Qesem Cave.

      "It is accepted at the moment that the earliest Homo sapiens that we know is in east Africa and is 200,000 years old -- or a little less. We don't know of anywhere else where anyone claims to have an earlier Homo sapiens," he said.

      Here is that link again --->

      So the Genographic Project on Human Migration, sponsored by IBM and the National Geographic Society, and all of the similar projects which blindly assume that human migration began in Africa 60,000 years ago could be completely mistaken.

      Oh, but we do know who the Jews are descended from, or partially at least.

      As the old saying goes that a quarter will buy you a cup of coffee. If Israel won't even accept that a person is a Jew for the purposes of the Law of Return - based upon these same personal interviews and DNA testing techniques - why should the Palestinians or anyone else suspend their disbelief and assign any great significance to them?

      So unless you’re about to claim that Cypriots and Palestinians are Khazars, there’s no way you can even doubt the sincerity of the results: Ashkenazi Jews ARE Middle Eastern.

      I've pointed out that "Levant" and "Middle East" are imprecise terms. Behar does use the latter term to include Central Asia. That's where all of the biblical action took place in the 10 generations from Mt. Ararat to Abraham. If you're arguing that people with an ancestral contribution from that gene pool ended up the Europe, Cyprus, and Palestine that's fine. But there's no support for the idea that they all migrated to Europe through Palestine or that the admixture and divergence actually took place there. See Where Is Abraham’s Ur?, By Cyrus H. Gordon

      The Ashkenazi samples weren't included in the divergence tests in one of the key studies. Our own legends say that Jacob's twin brother Esau had a grandson who left the Levant with these same gene lines after only four generations to establish his own Kingdom in Rome. They also say that all of Esau's descendants who remained in their portion of the Levant were forced to convert to Judaism. Many Jewish achievements, like Herod's temple, were actually attributable to them. The Jews were vassals to Herod and the Romans, but there were an estimated 6 million converts of every ethnicity in the Roman Empire who were part of "the Jews", including members of the Anatolian population group.

    • So the people of the State of Palestine, without elections or a government to speak for them immediately expressed their new found sovereignty since the end of the Mandate and the end of the Israeli War of Independence (although in territory under Jordanian control after this war), and decided to form a union with Transjordan as announced by King Abdullah, . . . Really?

      Sure. The delegates that attended the Congress were the elected or appointed representatives of the people. They cast votes on all of the resolutions that were adopted. There were over thousand people in attendance including the mayors and municipal officials of Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah, Jerusalem, and Nablus. The heads of the principle clans and tribes in the area also participated.

      FYI, King Abudullah and the government of Transjordan had repeatedly asked the Jewish Agency, the US Government, and the UN Security Council to recognize the country as an independent state. On each occasion they were rebuffed and told that Transjordan was an integral part of the Palestine mandate and that "Transjordan's political fate could only be decided as part of a final settlement of the Question of Palestine." We all know what that means. Zionists are still trying make an issue out all this because Transjordan wouldn't climb on board the "final settlement" hamster wheel.

      To make matters worse, in November of 1947, the Jewish Agency and the President of the United States proposed that the UN Ad Hoc Committee modify the UNSCOP plan and grant the entire Negev and the Port of Aqaba in Transjordan to the proposed Jewish State. Chaim Weizmann had personally lobbied President Truman at the last moment. That particular measure was only defeated because the US Ambassador was confused by Truman's telephone instructions and abstained from the final vote. In the end the UN actually did cave-in and hand over the remainder of the Negev to Israel.

      By the time the Jericho Congress was convened, Abdullah had deployed about 5,000 Arab Legionaries in the West Bank and he was hosting hundreds of thousands of Palestine refugees on his own territory. Many of them had been made homeless by 80,000 or so Jewish militia members who were busy dynamiting, demolishing, or plowing-under more than 400 Arab villages in Palestine. So Transjordan was actually the victim of a much larger "occupation" and population transfer, that amounted to overt Israeli aggression.

      It was nonsense to tell the Transjordanians that they and the Palestinians were indivisible, and then flood their country with refugees, only to turn around and complain because the victims stepped-in and played a role in establishing their own Arab successor state.

      When the UN Security Council inquired about the basis for Transjordan's military involvement in Palestine, the Foreign Minister simply drew attention to the fact that the UN had refused to recognize its independence from Palestine in the first place:

      I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the government of the United States of America, the author of the proposition of addressing the questions about which you informed me, has not yet recognized the government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, despite the fact that for two years it has been in a position to meet all the required conditions for such recognition; yet the government of the United States of America recognized the so-called Jewish government within a few hours, although the factors for this recognition were lacking.

      I also would like to point out that the Security Council refused more than once to recommend to the General Assembly the admission of the Transjordan government to the United Nations.

      Therefore, my government does not feel that there is room for reply to the questions addressed to it.


      The only essential function of a constituent assembly is to designate the "duly constituted authorities" of the territory they inhabit. Israel had advised the UN that it had seized depopulated territory outside the state of Israel, which for the most part, had contained Arab majorities. It justified the invasion and seizures on the ground of protecting "Jewish settlements outside the area of the State where, owing to the absence of any duly constituted authority and the failure to implement the guarantees and safeguards provided for under the General Assembly Plan, life and property were in imminent danger."

      A Legal Advisor to the US State Department authored an opinion which noted that Transjordan and Arab Palestine were the actual "non-Jewish communities" that had come under mandate as a result of the WWI and that:

      “The law of nations recognizes an inherent right of people lacking the agencies and institutions of social and political control to organize a state and operate a government.”

      The memo is contained in the Foreign Relations of the United States 1948, volume 5, part 2, and starts on page 960.

      The resolutions of the Jericho Congress accomplished all the necessary tasks. One of them explained that the parties were acting to save the remainder of their territory, while preserving the opportunity of a future life of independence through the establishment of the joint kingdom. The Arab Legion had permanent garrisons in Gaza and Rafah during the mandate, so it had already been used to help maintain law and order there. Abdullah's government had been duly sanctioned and recognized by the League of Nations as one of the competent authorities under the terms of the mandate itself. So there was no more excuse for Israel to seize territory on the ground of an absence of "duly constituted authority".

      That compares very favorably to Israel's elections. It had driven the bulk of the Arab voters into permanent exile in the first place. It held the remainder under martial law for two decades, while using threats and blackmail to control their small remaining block of votes. See John Quigley Apartheid Outside Africa: The Case of Israel", 2 Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, Volume 1, pp 221-252

    • The quote refers to the ORIGINAL (6 marker) COHEN MODAL HAPLOTYPE, not the Extended CMH/”new magic formula”.
      So again, you’re wrong.

      No the 29.8% figure that I quoted is derived using the new extended CMH test, not the old 6 marker test originally used to extend the 5 Y-STRs used by Thomas. In the very next sentence the authors mention that their new tests confirm the existence of two separate priestly lines that were first discovered using the older 6 marker test:

      In conclusion, we demonstrate that 46.1% (95% CI = 39–53%) of Cohanim carry Y chromosomes belonging to a single paternal lineage (J-P58*) that likely originated in the Near East well before the dispersal of Jewish groups in the Diaspora. Support for a Near Eastern origin of this lineage comes from its high frequency in our sample of Bedouins, Yemenis (67%), and Jordanians (55%) and its precipitous drop in frequency as one moves away from Saudi Arabia and the Near East (Fig. 4). Moreover, there is a striking contrast between the relatively high frequency of J-58* in Jewish populations (~20%) and Cohanim (~46%) and its vanishingly low frequency in our sample of non-Jewish populations that hosted Jewish diaspora communities outside of the Near East. An extended Cohen Modal Haplotype accounts for 64.6% of chromosomes with the J-P58* background, and 29.8% (95% CI = 23–36%) of Cohanim Y chromosomes surveyed here. These results also confirm that lineages characterized by the 6 Y-STRs used to define the original CMH are associated with two divergent sub-clades within haplogroup J and, thus, cannot be assumed to represent a single recently expanding paternal lineage.

      The authors were making their concluding remarks about the foregoing tests involving the extended CMH based on 12 Y chromosome short tandem repeats (12 Y-STR) and calculations of the divergence times of the 3 priestly cell lines using 17 Y-STR tests. Here are some relevant extracts:

      While Cohanim from diverse backgrounds carry a total of 21 Y chromosome haplogroups, 5 haplogroups account for 79.5% of Cohanim Y chromosomes. The most frequent Cohanim lineage (46.1%) is marked by the recently reported P58 T->C mutation, which is prevalent in the Near East. Based on genotypes at 12 Y-STRs, we identify an extended CMH on the J-P58* background that predominates in both Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim and is remarkably absent in non-Jews. The estimated divergence time of this lineage based on 17 STRs is 3,190 ± 1,090 years.
      To further elucidate the paternal ancestry of Jewish priests, we genotype 75 binary markers and 22 Y-STRs in a sample of 122 Ashkenazi and 93 non-Ashkenazi Cohanim, and compare patterns of Y chromosome variation with similar data from 3,459 Jewish and non-Jewish men from the Near East, Europe, Central Asia, and India. We define a 12-locus “extended CMH” and then determine the phylogenetic position and geographic distribution of this lineage.
      We also performed calculations based on a subset of the 17 Y-STRs used in the above analysis.

      In addition, we used the same five Y-STRs as in the original CMH paper by Thomas et al. (1998): DYS19, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, and DYS393.
      Similar age estimates are returned for our set of 17 Y-STRs and Zhivotovsky et al.’s (2004) set of 9 Y-STRs in our sample of all 99 Cohanim, as well as in our sample of 63 Ashkenazi Cohanim (Table 1).
      When we genotype the 6 Y-STRs that defined the original CMH (DYS19, DYS388, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393) (Thomas et al. 1998) in our sample of 99 Cohanim with J-P58* chromosomes, we find that 87 carry a haplotype that is identical to the original modal haplotype and 10 carry haplotypes that are one-step removed from the original CMH (i.e., only 2 individuals were 2 or more steps removed). A total of 43 of the 99 chromosomes still match completely when we increase the number of Y-STRs to 12 (DYS19, DYS385a, DYS385b, DYS388, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS426, and DYS439) (Table S4). We call this 12-locus modal haplotype the extended CMH.
      We note that estimates of the age of the J-P58* lineage are lower when using the five Y-STRs that were employed in the original CMH study of Thomas et al. (1998) (Table 1)

    • Which authority of the extant State of Palestine agreed to the illegal expansionist annexation by Jordan… sorry…..the ‘joint kingdom’ at the Jericho conference? Was it the provisional government of the State of Palestine?

      The short answer is the two peoples. It may surprise you, but the overwhelming majority of Palestinians did not want David Ben Gurion to be their first Prime Minister and he couldn't have gotten enough signatures to place his name on the ballot anyway.

      The United States recognized the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan had come about as the result of the free will of the two peoples. It also recognized the sovereignty of the new entity, Jordan, over the newly combined territory. See "Memorandum of Conversation, between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs, US State department and Mr. Abdel Monem Rifai, Counselor, Jordan Legation in Washington, June 5, 1950" in Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), Page 921

      FYI, The people of the 13 American Colonies did not hold a federal election or decide on a federal system of government until years after their so-called "Continental Congress" had assembled and declared their independence. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. The Israelis did something like the "illegal" thing you've suggested when the Jewish Agency and Va'ad Leumi announced that they were the provisional government with all executive, legislative, and judicial powers over 500,000 Arab citizens. They promptly seized a lot of Arab territory beyond that which the UN plan had envisioned for their state.

      The government of "Jordan" was composed of Arab Palestinians from the West Bank and Arab Palestinians from Transjordan. There was nothing illegal or expansionist about the union between the two peoples. In fact, it's cited as a typical case of the acquisition of sovereignty over territory by union and annexation. See Volume 2 of the US State Department's Digest of International Law, M. Whiteman (ed), 1963, pages 1163-1168

      The UN plan for the future government of Palestine contained in resolution 181(II) called on each of the newly emancipated states to take steps to implement the plan. One of those steps required each state to convene a constituent assembly and decide on its own form of government.

      In 1932 the Council of the League of Nations set down the conditions for terminating a mandate regime. Among other things, it stipulated that all of the territories under a mandate should be emancipated at the same time.
      *See Luther Harris Evans, "The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758, American Society of International Law,

      When Transjordan applied for UN membership in 1946, the representatives of the Jewish Agency invoked Article 80 of the UN Charter and lobbied against any change in the international status of Transjordan. They pointed out that Transjordan was an indivisible part of the mandate. The President of the UN Security Council agreed and advised that it was part of a joint mandate that had not yet been legally terminated. He and the other members of the Council voted against membership until the United Nations had addressed the status of Palestine "as a whole". So it's pretty hypocritical for Zionist to act like "Jordan" was expansionist or an occupying power.
      *See Mandate is Indivisible: Jewish Agency Objections to Severance of [Trans-Jordan] T-J, Palestine Post, Apr 9, 1946, Page 3
      *See Minutes of the 57th Session of the Security Council, S/PV.57 pages 100-101 (pdf file pgs 3-4 of 52)

      The codification of the customary right of self-determination is contained in the Declaration On Principles Of International Law Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations. It explains that establishing a sovereign independent state, free association or integration with another existing State, or the emergence into any other political status chosen by a people constitute valid modes of implementing the right of self-determination.

      So when the joint mandate was terminated by the United Nations and Great Britain it was not illegal for the Arab Palestine, Transjordan, or Israel to convene their own constituent assemblies - and all of them eventually did so.

      Here is an extract from the Jericho Congress (1948) entry in the Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa, 2004, The Gale Group, Inc:

      Held in Jericho on 1 December 1948, the Jericho Congress was convened in response to the establishment of the State of Israel and the corresponding loss to the Arabs of most of Palestine. This provided the legal basis for the union of central Palestine (the West Bank and East Jerusalem) with Transjordan (East Bank). The conference was presided over by Shaykh Muhammad Ali Jaʿbari, mayor of Hebron, and included leaders from Jerusalem, Hebron, Bethlehem, Nablus, and Ramallah, as well as representatives of refugees from Israeli-occupied cities and towns. It was attended by 1,000 delegates, including mayors, tribal chiefs, mukhtars, and military governors from all over Palestine. The conferees voted unanimously to request unity with Jordan; [and] proclaimed Abdullah I ibn Hussein to be king of all Palestine"

      King Abdullah had received hundreds of requests from Palestinian notables to protect their territory from Jewish militias after the British withdrawal. Historian Eugene Rogan says that petitions, from nearly every town and village in Palestine, are preserved in "The Hashemite Documents: The Papers of Abdullah bin al-Husayn, volume V: Palestine 1948 (Amman 1995)". See Chapter 5, Jordan and 1948, in "The war for Palestine: rewriting the history of 1948", By Eugene L. Rogan, and Avi Shlaim, Cambridge University Press, 2001

    • Calling someone a Ziobot (and various other names, if I recall correctly) simply for disagreeing with you isn’t exactly what I’d call adult behavior.

      Unless the 1) The Daily Jewish Forward has written an article about your new book which claims that genetics have proven that Jews are a race and that there is a biological basis to Jewishness; or 2) you've published the results of a study done by Yeshiva University Einstein College of Medicine that was funded by grants from the State of Israel funneled through a Jerusalem-based parastatal agency and one of it's largest universities + a long list of private contributors and foundations connected to "The Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces," then I haven't called you anything. You were not the subject of the comment.

      Thus, we do not mean ‘Diaspora’ to imply a shared origin of Jewish communities in an ancient Middle Eastern or Levant source population, as this is one of the questions that we wished to address in the current study.

      What the….where on earth did you find this? Are you trying to distort the data again?

      That is a verbatim quote from the Supplementary Note. I provided a link to the file directly below the quote.

      Why is it so hard to deal with facts and reality?

      We've already been over the fact that the authors of many studies use circular logic. I was pointing out that Behar said that it begs the central question to assume from the outset that all of these groups are of Middle Eastern origin. I've already explained that PCA calculations are NOT facts or reality.

      They are pruned data sets that point in the direction of an "ancestral Levantine contribution" but they don't indicate how the admixture occurred or where. When the researchers use the most points of comparison (larger kernel size), their PC calculations for Askenazi Jews indicated a larger ancestral contribution comes from non-Levantine sources. A European proselyte community, in situ, doesn't necessarily become one of "Levantine origin" simply because there are ancestral Levantine contributions of <50% from Jews living in the Diaspora.

      So no, it is not “very few candidates” that “possess all six of the extended markers”!

      It's no where near 100 percent. I provided the percentages from the 1998 Thomas et al study in the same sentence: "only about 45% of Ashkenazim and 56% of Sephardim". I supplied the article on the separate priestly lines too. The authors, Hammer and Behar say that it demonstrates that only 46.1% of Cohanim carry Y chromosomes belonging to the paternal lineage J-P58*. They propose to use a set of extended markers that do not exist in any of the non-Jews surveyed, or in the tens of thousands of reference data sets. It's extremely unlikely that all of the sons of Aaron have remained within the fold of the Jewish community for that many thousands of years. But here are the percentages they found using the new magic formula:

      The original CMH is present at moderate frequencies (5–8%) in the other Jewish castes (i.e., Levites and Israelites), among non-Jewish Yemenites (13%) and Jordanians (~7%), and as singletons in a number of other non-Jewish populations (Druze, Egyptians, Palestinians, Syrians, Turks, Iranians, Italians, Romanians, and Uzbeks). In contrast, the extended CMH and its two related haplotypes are observed only among Cohanim (29.8%) and Israelites (1.5%) (i.e., it is completely absent from the Levites and non-Jews surveyed here).

      So it appears they are suggesting that one in three Cohanim are genuine candidates.

    • Yeah…”home”, living as minorities in lands that were not really our own*, in shtetls with limited human rights, and subjected to frequent pogroms and all manner of persecution and discrimination, culminating in one of the worst genocides in human history.

      Judah Magnes was born in San Francisco and raised in Oakland. He was in no need of a homeland in Palestine. When he got there, his genome did not suddenly make him a native or entitle him and his buddies to takeover the chore of city planning in Jerusalem.

      Genocide is still genocide. An estimated 262 million people were killed by their own governments during the 20th Century.

      Thanks to that horrible record, the international community of states adopted laws and established international criminal tribunals to help put an end to that sort of thing. But Israel and the US are opposed to enforcing international laws against aggression, colonialism, and racial segregation.

      My point as well, though the term “pseudo-science” is displaced and just sounds funny in his mouth. The distinction has to be made between admixture based on actual reference populations and that based on archeogenetic evidence.

      No the Primary Component calculations employed by Cavalli-Sforza and others are still in their infancy. But they do seem to be "flawed on every level". PCA can't provide a reliable historical/geographical timeline of admixtures - even in so-called reference populations. The researchers don't even mention a confidence level for the results of their calculations.

      Are you trying to imply that we’re “fake” Jews?

      I view "Jews" as a label for a social boundary. Before the Hasmonean era people who were supposedly descendants of Lot and Esau were not considered Jews, despite their genetic qualifications - then suddenly they were. Many historical accounts say that most of them stopped being Jews again when they subsequently converted to Christianity or Islam. For what its worth, there are still Zionists studying in Yeshiva's today who take it as an article of faith that the kingdom of Rome was built by Zepho, son of Eliphaz, son of Esau by Adah, the daughter of Elon the Hittite.

      None the less, your point is that “Jews are not native to the Land of Israel”… Something you cannot prove, of course, since in your distorted logic, Turk-Kipçak speaking Hazarlar (Khazar) came from the Levant.

      Abraham was not a native of Canaan. According to some estimates, by the time he migrated and settled there other homo sapiens had been lying around the place for nearly 400,000 years. If he was exercising a right of return, it wasn't included in any surviving copies of the Covenant.

      There are millions of Jews that don't speak Hebrew as a first language, if at all. Dr. Norman Golb is a Professor of Jewish History and Civilization at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. He published a translation and analysis of 10th century Khazarian documents which established that they communicated in Hebrew too. My "point" was NOT that the Khazars originated in the Levant, but rather that there are traditions to that effect; and that the Children of Abraham study contains an assertion about the Khazars which did not disprove that thesis using a test of the observed data, i.e. the null hypothesis originally described by English geneticist and statistician Sir Ronald Fisher in "The Design of Experiments", Oliver and Boyd, 1935. In my twisted logic that only means we don't yet know whether or not the bulk of the Ashkenazi are descended from the Khazars.

      I also was pointing out that our researcher was looking for evidence of the splintering of the population of Judah, but was ignoring the tradition of a much larger separation involving the nearly indistinguishable population of Israel. In this particular case, the researchers ignored evidence from Iraqi and Iranian groups of more than one population base separation event (Israel and Judah?) and didn't even invite Ethiopians or Indians to participate. He claims that Jews are an identifiable "structure" of any population group, and even a race. If he really is looking for "the events of the Jewish diaspora in the genomes of Jewish people,” then he's overlooking some obvious opportunities and making unwarranted assumptions about the structure of the population of Central Asia in the Middle Ages.

    • Doesn’t provisional government, pre independence also imply provisional State to you?

      No, recognition of governments is separate from recognition of statehood under international law. The thing that a provisional government "governs" is a State.

      So Palestine is a State before this obligation is fulfilled?

      Yes the existence of a state does not depend upon its recognition by others. Here is an extract of the Montevideo Convention, which is a treaty in force between the United States and several other countries. Articles 2 and 3 should answer your question:

      Article 1

      The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
      a. a permanent population;
      b. a defined territory;
      c. government; and
      d. capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

      Article 2
      The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law.
      Article 3
      The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.
      Article 4
      States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

      Where was the Palestinian declaration pre 1988?

      The Arab Palestinian Congress held at Jericho adopted resolutions naming Abdullah King of Arab Palestine and calling for the establishment of a joint Kingdom with Transjordan. Palestinians were represented in the new government of Jordan until they seceded in 1988. FYI Israel recognized the legal competence of the government of Jordan to negotiate international boundaries in Article VI(11) of the armistice agreement. Only sovereign states can conclude international boundary agreements.

      See Hamas moves to join Palestine Liberation Organization.

      The PLO Executive and Central Committees act as the government under the terms of the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine. They can form and establish a system of municipal government however they see fit. That's a matter that falls within the domestic jurisdiction of each state. Americans love layers of government so much that many of us live under the jurisdiction of both county and municipal governments in addition to the state and federal ones.

      Unless the ‘State of Palestine’ can now (after Hamas started their provisional government in Gaza) entertain the two somehow.

      The states of West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio were all carved out of the territory of the Commonwealth of Virginia. It was one of the original 13 colonies. No one cares if Richmond and Charleston ever reach a deal to setup a unity government again.

    • It would have to secede (and do whatever, declare, be recognised etc) before it could fulfil the definition of a State.

      It already fulfils one or more of the legal definitions of a state. There are more than one kind, and they exist in a legal hierarchy. Texas is not recognized or treated as a person of international law by other countries, because it voluntarily accepted a relinquishment of its own sovereignty under the terms of its Constitution:

      SECTION 1. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States; and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government unimpaired to all the States.


    • And what are you arguing for anyway?

      1. That Jews are part of the humans race, not a Jewish race.
      2. That genes do not make a Jew the rightful inheritor of the Land of Israel.
      3. That "Jewries in the diaspora" are not part of "the people" of the State of Israel.
      4. That there are Jewish communities, like the Mountain Jews and the Bukhara Jewish community, with oral traditions of ancestry attributed to the 8th century BCE exile of the Northern Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians. They were located on either flank of the Kingdom of the Khazars.
      5. That Jewish traditions passed along by Benjamin of Tuleda and Saadia Gaon advised that the Place of Israel's exile, the Gozan river was the river Balkh, aka the Amu Darya transboundary river in the region of the Aral Sea Basin occupied by the Khazars and the Bukhara Jewish community.
      6. Contrary to claims by Behar et al, in the link below, the Bukhara community were not isolated for 2,000 years. They were practically surrounded by Karaites. The latter migrated from this same region all the way to Egypt in the 9th -12th Century. Karaite Jewish traders from Byzantium continued to travel to the area.
      7. There are more than just the one theory about the origins and demographics of the Khazars.

    • Basically, Jews are what they claim to be, that is… Jews, an eastern Mediterranean/Middle Eastern population. . . . . Uni-parental markers also furnish a very interesting clue regarding the proportion of West Asian ancestry: It is tremendous.

      You do realize that Children of Abraham study constructed a cherry picked set of Jewish clusters that did not include Ethiopian or Indian Jewish communities or outliers like the Lemba? All of those groups have their own Jewish traditions too. They're much more similar to their host countries. The Ethiopian and Indian community members that do get permission to move to Israel have to adopt orthodoxy. FYI, Behar et al didn't even PCA plot them with the other groups.

      All in all, all the scientific and logical facts go against what you say

      I don't think there's any scientific support for Harry Ostrer's claim that Jews are a race.

      If they are, then it seems odd that authors of "The Children of Abraham" study didn't include a couple of our Ethiopian and Indian brethren in their all singing, all dancing extravaganza.

    • Further….

      “The bottom line is that actual hands-on testing of DNA samples has led to startling revelations that destroy some of the most cherished myths of the Zionists and their religious apparatchiks. You really can’t rely on uniformitarianism, legends, and genetic simulation software to describe Jews, Khazars, or anyone else. So naturally the Ziobots are going to subject the rest of us to the torture of wading through a bunch of pseudo-scientific hasbara.”


      “Our calculations
      will have overestimated the level of admixture if the true Jewish
      ancestor is genetically closer to Europeans than Middle Easterners


      You just don't get it. That actually proves the point that I was making. If a geneticist can't conduct tests or observations on some actual ancient DNA, then they are really just engaging in guesswork and pseudo-science when they talk about the "origins" of a modern-day individual.

      The fact that standard PCA techniques require the individual or the researcher to have some detailed knowledge about their ancestry in order to differentiate between members of overlapping groups of so-called Jews and Gentiles with the same "Principal Components" is very telling.

      And what the hell do you mean by “blood and soil”? All Zionism is really about is the inalienable right of the Jewish people to self-determination.

      No, in reality the government, the Knesset, and Courts of Israel have the final decision on what Zionism and the Zionist state are all about - and its an old fashioned blood and soil political movement. They've adopted a plethora of laws, including one which makes any non-Jewish political parties illegal associations unless they recognize the territorial integrity and existence of the Jewish State. See Kretzmer, David. 1990. The Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel, Boulder: Westview, page 24. Here is part of what that entails:
      *Israeli Supreme Court President Shimon Agranat ruled that:

      “the wish of a handful of Jews to break away from the nation and create a new concept of an Israeli nation was not a legitimate aspiration. . . . There is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people. . . . The Jewish people is composed not only of those residing in Israel but also of Diaspora Jewries.”– HCJ 630/70 Tamarin v. State of Israel [1970] IsrSC 26(1) 197

      *Deputy President of the Supreme Court Elon ruled that Arab citizens merely have an equal right to recognize that Israel is the state of the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people:

      The principle that the State of Israel is the state of the Jewish people is Israel’s foundation and mission [yessoda vi-yeuda], and the principle of the equality of rights and obligations of all citizens of the State of Israel is of the State’s essence and character [mahuta ve-ofya]. The latter principle comes only to add to the former, not to modify it; there is nothing in the principle of the equality of civil rights and obligations to modify the principle that the State of Israel is the state of the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people. (Ben-Shalom v. CEC 1988, 272)

      It may also come as a shock to you to learn that the early Zionists argued in favor of respecting the rights of the non-Jewish populations already present in Israel/Palestine.

      It might surprise you, that as an Anti-Zionist, I've already stated my position about the early liberal Zionists, e.g.

      If they'd respected the rights of anyone else, they'd have stayed home and minded their own business. The right of self-determination doesn't imply the right to commit wrongful acts against others.

    • So indeed, we should be talking about Eastern Mediterranean populations, not "Southern Europeans" (since it makes little to no sense, gene-wise).

      The Behar team did split-up the Old World data set, but everyone was comparing Jewish groups to host populations that are not in the Levant. Ashkenazi Jews have already evolved susceptibility to a number of genetic maladies "in situ", since they left the Mediterranean. There are even detectable differences between groups here in the US. So it would make more sense to stop pounding square pegs in 2000 year old round holes and create more, not less, data sets.

      The Jewish data set was analyzed against a highly selected one from the Human Genome Data Project. In the Children of Abraham study, the original HGDP data set had 1043 unrelated individuals from 52 world-wide populations. Extreme outliers identified by three independent preliminary PCA runs on a set of small randomly selected genome sites was removed. Then to reduce the size of the data set further, members of related population groups were combined, until only 16 world-wide population groups and 418 people were used for comparisons to the Jewish population groups. They also used PopRes data sets and the same pruning procedure to reduce from 6000 individuals to 383 individuals. They claimed that the results were still the same when other combinations were tested - and PCA tends to find whatever you're targeting for or simulating anyway.

      The studies that you mentioned did not find any long segments of shared DNA between the Ashkenazi and other Jewish groups. The connections were based upon PCA analysis:

      "In this study, Jewish populations from the major Jewish Diaspora groups—Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi—formed a distinctive population cluster by PCA analysis"

      10 percent of the population of the Roman Empire were Jews and proselytes that you claim were certain to produce offspring together anyway. Leaving aside the Jews of Roman Gaul, Britain, & etc. for the moment, we can assume that some of the descendants still live in Italy. So where did they all go and what happened to them? At least some, would have lost their religious affiliations along the way.

      The modern-day descendants would be interviewed and asked to self-identify their ancestry. In the studies in question, they seem to have answered "Italian Jew", "Italian", and "Tuscan" - and those all overlie one another on the PCA plots.

      The idea of using Principal Components Analysis (PCA), a classical method of representing deviations in statistical data in a linear form, for comparisons of population groups was first introduced by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza. It can be used on large data sets without any modelling, although the studies in question used a number of proprietary software modeling and simulation packages.

      Cavalli-Sforza was interested about the evidence for Mendelian susceptibility in Ashkenazi Jews to a number of genetic ailments. See Cavalli-Sforza LL, Carmelli D (1979) The Ashkenazi gene pool: Interpretations. Genetic Diseases Among Ashkenazi Jews, eds Goodman R, Motulsky A (Raven Press, New York), pp 93–101.

      Unfortunately PCA doesn't work worth a damn on populations with high degrees of genetic admixture, although a number of work-arounds have been proposed:

      *Traditional methods to ascertain ancestral informative markers usually require the prior knowledge of individual ancestry and have difficulty for admixed populations.

      *Existing methods to ascertain small sets of markers for the identification of human population structure require prior knowledge of individual ancestry. Based on Principal Components Analysis (PCA), and recent results in theoretical computer science . . .

      Luigi Cavalli-Sforza was also the founder of "The Human Genome Diversity Project" (HGDP) which provided the data sets for the Gentiles that were used in all of these studies. The Emory/Johns Hopkins project combined the Druze and Palestinians for comparison with the Ashkenazi.

      The concept is still controversial

      In 1991 Cavalli-Sforza and a group of colleagues proposed a comprehensive study of human genetic differences, which they called the Human Genome Diversity Project. The study would involve gathering cells from several thousand people around the world, "immortalizing" the cells by converting them into laboratory cell lines, and using the cells' DNA to reconstruct human evolution and history. For Cavalli-Sforza, the Human Genome Diversity Project was to be the culmination of a lifetime of work.

      The proposal loosed a flood of controversy. Aboriginal groups in the United States, New Guinea, and other countries accused the HGDP of stealing their genes, destroying their culture, and even contributing to genocide. Academic critics claimed that the project could encourage racist thinking, by oversimplifying issues of great complexity. "The idea of studying human genetic diversity is a good one," says one outspoken critic, Jonathan Marks, an anthropologist at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. "But the way that Cavalli-Sforza has conceptualized it has problems at all levels."

    • You’re wrong to say that “Texas fulfills the definition of a state too.”

      No I'm not. The only things that keep Texas from acting in the same capacity as any other State are its obligations under the U.S. Constitution. The ICJ Kosovo decision indicates that there is no prohibition in international law against an act of secession. So it could declare it's independence or try to join the UN or specialized agencies on the basis of "sovereign equality", just like Palestine.

      Israel and the United States were both recognized as a "peace loving states", if only for the purposes of Article 4 of the UN Charter. When Israel applied for membership, many members objected that it did not satisfy the traditional requirements of a State. During the 383rd meeting of the Security Council, U.S. Ambassador Jessup said: 'we already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State. We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one's own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership.... ...The reason for which I mention the qualification of this aspect of the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term "State", as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law." see page 12 of S/PV.383, 2 December 1948

      Jessup was subsequently chosen to serve as a Justice in the ICJ. So it depends entirely upon the particular situation. Texas undoubtedly meets the definition of a "State" for the purposes of the Supremacy and other clauses of the U.S. Constitution, including the 1oth, 11th, and 14th Amendments.

Showing comments 2600 - 2501